Checklist for feedback on tutorials

[cigma]

1) Comprehensibility:
Overall, do you think the tutorial is easy to understand?

Yes / No / Comments...

2) Introduction:
At the beginning of the tutorial, is there a brief overview given introducing the theme, characterizing the game mechanics and explaining the victory condition(s)?

Yes / No / Comments…

3) Steps:
Do the individual steps of the explanation have a good size? Is the order of the steps helpful for understanding (e. g. first the general, then the special)?

Yes / No / Comments…

4) Actions:
Are all the possible actions shown? Do you have the option to perform them yourself? Is everything necessary explained that happens following your action (e. g. BGA scores you points)?

Yes / No / Comments…

5) Optics / Interface / Visability:
Are all game materials and game specific parts of the interface sufficiently explained (e. g. game zones, player boards, icons)? Is it always understandable which parts are currently being discussed (possibly marked by using icons, borders, arrows)?

Yes / No / Comments…

6) Rules:
If you didn‘t know the game beforehand: Have all your questions about the (basic) gameplay being answered?
If you already knew the game: Are all the important rules explained (including reference to tooltips and gamehelp, if applicable)? Are the rules explained correctly?
Are all keywords mentioned and (if necessary) explained?

Yes / No / Comments…

7) Feedback:
Do you want to give any additional feedback to the tutorial maker?

Comments...

[cigma]

I would like to present you a checklist for feedback on tutorials (see opening post above). It should be easy to understand and to use, but also deep enough to give the tutorial makers specific clues how to improve their tutorial, if necessary. But of course tutorial makers can also use it to check their tutorials themselves, if they like.

Now I ask you for your comments on this, especially if you think these are the most helpful questions (or is something important missing?) and if my choice of words is correct and easy to understand. Please feel free to add your ideas and correct my wording!

I also have questions on your opinion on two details. In the first question of the checklist, should the voting be simply Yes or No, or do you think it should be a ranking like the 1 – 5 stars already used? And I need your help to find an adequate title (only one word if possible) for the checklist question 5.

I will edit the checklist above according to our discussion, so it will always be the most actual version.

I also opened a suggestion report to make this an official online form provided by BGA (like the suggestion report form itself), directly adressed to the tutorial maker. You can vote for it here: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=63234

But naturally you don‘t have to wait until it is official in order to use it

[3p1cFr3nzy]

For now myself or someone else can create a Google form to get feedback on different tutorials using this checklist - I don't mind doing this myself. Otherwise I don't mind waiting for bga to release this form up to you guys to be honest.

[djpakamm]

This is a more thorough system and could be the process for Alpha tutorials (instead of rating, you get this form). I think it's a bit much for the casual player that approaches it from Beta/Live status. I think this could be the benchmark for a tutorial going into Beta status: if 3-5 people have took the time to submit the form, then it should be ready for testing.

Maybe each question could be set up with answers: Agree - Neutral - Disagree. So those that don't feel strongly either way can be differentiated. Neutral or disagree would hopefully require specifics in text.

I wonder how this could be implemented. It seems Google Forms can be auto-generated? Link to the results could be accessible to the tutorial maker.

[cigma]

3p1cFr3nzy and djpakamm, thank you for your feedback!

You both discussed how the checklist could be implemented. I'm not familiar with this, so I won't go into it any further. But thanks for your ideas!

I think it's a bit much for the casual player that approaches it from Beta/Live status.

You raise an important point here! I think no one should be deterred of giving feedback by the checklist. We need more feedback, not less. My proposal is therefore to make it voluntary, even for alpha games.

I could imagine the following: After giving a rating of less than 5 stars (in alpha or beta), the watcher could be asked: Are you willing to answer a few questions to improve the tutorial? And if they say yes, then present the checklist. The question about comprehensibility (now number 1) would then of course be removed from the checklist.

Maybe each question could be set up with answers: Agree - Neutral - Disagree. So those that don't feel strongly either way can be differentiated.

I am not sure about an answer of Neutral. All questions in the checklist can be answered by Yes or No. So what does Neutral really mean? I fear this would weaken the significance of the checklist.

Neutral or disagree would hopefully require specifics in text.

I think the acceptance of the checklist will be higher, if comments are not mandatory. And I also think an answer of No to any question of the cheklist can be helpful, even it is not commented, because it shows which part of the tutorial could be improved.

These are just my two cents and I am looking forward to the future discussion.

[cigma]

6) Rules:
If you didn‘t know the game beforehand: Have all your questions about the (basic) gameplay being answered?
If you already knew the game: Are all the important rules explained (including reference to tooltips and gamehelp, if applicable)? Are the rules explained correctly?

I added to the checklist in my first post:
Are all keywords mentioned and (if necessary) explained?