Talvieno wrote:I don't really like the "tiling of all hardpoints" on the left there, as an example - I think I'd prefer a list, with the hardpoints that need immediate attention at the top, and the ones that just need attention below that. Important and/or relevant info should be easier to access than unimportant info, and you shouldn't have to sift through unimportant/irrelevant information just to find the relevant/important information you're looking for.
Whose definition of "important/relevant" will determine how the default sort order changes?
I'm generally less in favor of system designs that think it's their business to dictate to me what I'm supposed to want (*cough*Apple*cough*) and more in favor of systems that let either let me decide or that make decisions unnecessary.
Showing all hardpoints in an invariant order means it's always simple/fast to find what you're looking for because it's always in (roughly) the same place.
If it's necessary to call attention to a particular node because its state is somehow different from the state of other similar nodes, there are other ways of doing it that don't change where you've learned to look for particular kinds of nodes. Color and animation, for example, are effective ways to represent "something is different about this item" state information.
UI design is always tricky because different people have different preferences for how to organize information. There is no one-size-fits-all interface design solution. The best that can normally be done is simplification and customization... and even those are subjective.
Makes for interesting discussions, though.