The xGov beta version, a.k.a. the new xGov platform, will launch on testnet soon. Use this thread for technical and UI feedback and bug reports
Hi, Wanted to drop my feedback for the UI/UX - This will be specific to the mobile view of the site. The UI/design feedback is personal preference and should of course be taken as that. Some of the UX feedback is based on personal experience and experience of building and then fixing UI on CompX.
UI:
Proposal Borders
Personally Iâm not a fan of the borders. I appreciate that itâs there to give the proposals depth and make them look more interesting but I donât feel it matches the design of the rest of the site of the algorand.co main site.
Filter button
I didnât know what this was when I first pressed it - I thought it was to collapse the proposals view. I think a more standard looking funnel, or the word âfilterâ would be easier to understand
Footer size
I feel like the footer takes up far too much real estate, especially on mobile.
Discussion links
Think it would be helpful to have the external link icon on the view the discussion button as itâs not immediately obvious it opens in the forum
Proposal in voting display
I like a lot of this however I would add that itâs not immediately clear what each icon, number or symbol means. Perhaps we could have some hover over / long press tooltips to guide users?
UX
Loading States
Donât have a screenshot for this one but I observed when signing up as a proposer and as an xGov, on signing the transaction I was taken back to the signup screen - this was a little confusing and some user may feel that it didnât work or go through. It did switch back to the profile in about 3-4 seconds with the updated state. This could defiantly use a loading state to show the process is still being confirmed.
Again, on loading - initial loading of the app shows no loading state for proposals. A skeletal loader or some other indication would be good to inform users that there is data and itâs on its way. The caching on the site is really good though so after first load, that is never really seen again unless another browser is used.
Love whatâs on the site, canât wait to use it as a voter and proposer and hopefully a council member. Great work all.
4 Likes
Environment:
Windows 10
Google Chrome
Voters and evaluators will need to read through multiple proposals, but the animation of the header when pressing the back button or returning to the top page feels unnecessarily long. While this may be intended to cover loading times, it results in poor UX.
The display of the xGov proposer status âProposerâ before KYC approval is unclear. I recommend displaying an announcement such as âKYC process in progressâ in the area where the âCreate Proposalâ button would normally appear.
Currently, the Voting Address can be changed, but only one address can be set per account at any given time. With the current design, those operating nodes with multiple addresses need to create multiple accounts. Would it be possible to add a feature that allows a single account to hold multiple voting addresses?
Using the filter function results in no proposals being displayed.
Is it impossible to apply the filter function to multiple conditions within the same category? For example, displaying proposals that are both in the âDiscussionâ and âVotingâ states.
Will NFD not be integrated?
The guidelines within âGet Startedâ are very clear and helpful. Because of this, during the initial phases, there will be demand to return to these guidelines if a user navigates away from them. Would it be possible to add a button next to âDocsâ in the top header so that it can be accessed from any page?
Where will the xGov Councilâs reviews of proposals be displayed? Or will they not be shown on the site, requiring the xGov Council to conduct reviews on forums related to the proposals instead?
1 Like
It costs money to create an account to participate in xGov voting, but while the manual states it should be 50 ALGO, it appears that 100 ALGO is being spent on the testnet. Also, regarding the fact that voters have to pay a fee, is it really necessary for this to be as high as 50 ALGO? Could it not be reduced to a single-digit amount? As it currently stands, this requirement is likely to significantly reduce the number of people willing to become xGov voters.
2 Likes
Yes, I agree, there have to be some sort of button to return to get started manuals and agreements. When I passed this window, I realized that I wanted to check some info once again, but there is no way to do so.
1 Like
Thanks @Xxiled @aper_nft and @klostermedia for your feedback. Iâm relaying your comments to our engineering team at our weekly today.
3 Likes
It will likely be 10 Algo as we launch on mainnet. And this is a one-time fee to create the xGov account. Once that is done, there is no cost to vote.
2 Likes
Iâm relieved to hear that the cost will be significantly lower compared to the current testnet. Personally, I have no issue with 10 ALGO, but the lower, the better. Governance works best when as many people as possible can participate. Itâs understandable that some may choose not to take part due to the time required to read and review proposals. However, I hope the cost doesnât become an additional reason for someone to decide against becoming a governor. Of course, I understand that certain fees, such as gas costs, are necessaryâbut itâs best to avoid charging more than whatâs truly needed.
3 Likes