Quote:Original post by Wai

The most clear configuration:

The switch has two labels, one "On" and one "Off". The lever always point to either one of the labels. When the lever points toward "Off", it means that the machine is off, and flipping the lever to the "On" position will turn on the machine.

In this configuration, if the lever is so long that it covers one of the labels, the visible label is always on the opposite side of the lever. Therefore, the visible label always show the effect of the switch when the lever is flipped.

In summary:
o When you see "On" and you flip the lever, it turns the machine ON
o When you see "Off" and you flip the lever, it turns the machine OFF


Another common configuration:

This switch also has two labels, but one of the label is always hidden by the cover of the lever. As a result, when the lever is pointing down, you can only see the word "Off" above its base. When the lever is pointing up, you can only see the word "On" below its base.

These switches are designed to tell you the state of the machine. When you see "Off", it means that the machine is currently off, and vice versa.

In summary:
o When you see "On" and you flip the lever, it turns the machine OFF
o When you see "Off" and you flip the lever, it turns the machine ON

I think this second configuration is messed up because the label, which corresponds to the state of the machine is always opposite to the direction of the lever.

This is really a mode-of-thinking problem, as you've outlined it in the situations where the lever is long enough to cover a label. The question is whether you're focusing on the lever itself or the machine that it affects.

The first configuration you list describes the effect of flipping the lever; the information conveyed by the label pertains to the lever and its operation.

The second configuration describes the state of the machine; the information conveyed by the label describes the machine itself and not the function of the lever.

Quote:Original post by Wai

Another common configuration:

This switch also has two labels, but one of the label is always hidden by the cover of the lever. As a result, when the lever is pointing down, you can only see the word "Off" above its base. When the lever is pointing up, you can only see the word "On" below its base.

These switches are designed to tell you the state of the machine. When you see "Off", it means that the machine is currently off, and vice versa.

In summary:
o When you see "On" and you flip the lever, it turns the machine OFF
o When you see "Off" and you flip the lever, it turns the machine ON

I think this second configuration is messed up because the label, which corresponds to the state of the machine is always opposite to the direction of the lever.

I'm an manufacturing engineer that programs PLCs for proprietary equipment. This second configuration is the norm, especialy anything related to electrical engineering. "messed up" or not, its the same principal behind the LEDs on your computer, monitor, modem, router, harddrive, game console, etc. informing you that the device is turned "on".

Re: MSW

I guess the exception is emergency stop buttons, where the label says "stop" and it corresponds to the function of the button instead of status of the machine.

----
Another example:

Say you have a long lever that can be turned to open or close a hatch. If turning it to the 3o'clock position will open the hatch, do you put the label "Open" at 3 o'clock or at 9o'clock? On the emergency door of an airplane, the label would be put at 3o'clock, corresponding to where the lever needs to go open the door. This kind of configuration shows the current state, the possible states, and the action needed to get to a different state.

Quote:Original post by Wai
Re: MSW

I guess the exception is emergency stop buttons, where the label says "stop" and it corresponds to the function of the button instead of status of the machine.

Depends on the machine. Industrial injection molding, C&C machines and whatnot. The "stop" button typicaly halts the active process, which isn't the same as turning the machine "off".
And for some of the smaller scale machines we build for assembly lines. The emergency "stop" button is a push/pull switch that acts like a breaker for the whole machine...So to turn the machine "on" at the start of a shift, you pull the big red button marked 'emergency stop' which in turn lights up red indicating the machine has power.

What does this have to do with game design anyway?

Human-Computer Interface design. This is very much related to game design for information display.

Personally I prefer switches that are labeled On and Off, visible at all times, and the switch points to which state the system is currently in.

This offers the lowest level of confusion, as all states are shown, and a big arrow pointing to the current one is fairly easy to understand.

If you see a switch and only one label you have to ask yourself "Is that label the function it is currently in, or is it the function that happens when I press it?"


On the note of real world equipment, emergency buttons are generally designed to be pressed as easily as possible. "Something goes wrong? Slap the big red button labeled 'Emergency'!"

Yes, obviously. We have dozens of way to turn on machines anymore. From the near "universal" circle with a vertical slash "power" icon on touch-on/touch-off switches on electronics. To the good old throw switch...It's the OPs focus with such throw switch types that makes me curious - as if this intrests relates to something specific like a game puzzle design.

I was wondering whether people have an intuitive preference thinking in terms of the actions, or the state.

I ran into that problem a few times when I have modes that the player could activate or deactivate. It usually happens when I try to make the interface more elegant.

In one game, to pause the game, the player could click on the icon with two vertical bars. Once that is clicked, the game is paused, and the icon changes into a triangle. When it is clicked again the game resumes. So the icon of the button shows its action instead of the state of the game.

However, somehow that arrangement looks weird because when the game is running, the player sees an icon that means pause. If I don't show the icon, the player wouldn't know that they could pause the game. Is there a better arrangement?

The worst example I can think of is a push-button toggle with the word "on" printed on it. Does pushing the button turn it on, or is it currently on? It's a poor setup.

I hate the red LED also. I know it is meant to tell me that the unit is plugged in, but some of them don't even label "standby", it is just next to the power button.

----

Quote:as if this intrests relates to something specific like a game puzzle design.

One thing I don't quite know how to express in the last few posts is how puzzle games tend to require more thinking in terms of the state than the action. To have a narrow example, imagine a simplistic RPG where the player kills monsters.

To the player, all monsters have only two states: either alive or dead. The player always want the monster dead, and himself alive. All of the player's decisions are done to maintain this configuration (i.e. Monster->Dead. Self->Alive).

When a game start to get more puzzle elements, the goal of the game tends to expand in a particular way. The goal requires the player to imagine more configuration. For example, maybe a monster is require to stay alive to keep an even stronger monster from coming out. Then, the game introduces a situation where the player doesn't want all monsters to die.

According to this, if you want to add more puzzle to a game, you could identify the configuration of state where the player assumes to make decisions on the actions, then add rules/behaviors so that there are more desirable configurations.

How else might one add puzzles (i.e. more thinking) to an RPG?
a) Add minigame or side quests that have nothing to do with the monster-hunting sessions
b) Add elemental bonuses to actions, so that an action is more potent to certain monster.
c) Limit the number of skills a player character can have, so the player needs to team up with others and figure out what combinations work well.
d) Add status effects and required supplies for actions, such as requiring arrows, bullets, or make weapons take damages and require repairing.

Is there a meaningful distinction?

When you look at a switch, do you think more in terms of what you want to do, than in terms of what it is currently doing? Do you prefer games where the desired state is obvious, and you choose your actions; or where the goal is defined, but the desired state is not, and you have to figure out how things ought to be before you can decide the actions?