Ways to improve the "Vote" section of the application

Programmatically, the “vote” functionality of the Nu application is very robust and powerful – the UI, however, leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to the user experience.

Let’s discuss ways that we can improve the visual presentation of the information, and make it a section that a person can immediately understand what is going on in the Nu network when it comes to custodial proposals, motions, and parking rate votes.

Now I’m too attracted by Discourse and can’t focus on the topic :wink: Wait for my reply, coming soon!

I think the vote section isn’t terrible, but the mechanisms within each voting button need a lot of work. for instance, this is what I posted in the QA Chat a few days ago regarding the park rate votes.

"Is there a better way to add park rates to set? Say I have park rates set for 22.8 days, 1.5 months and 3 months. I want to remove my vote for the 1.5 month park rate, so i delete it. Keeping the other two intact. I change my mind and would like to re-add the 1.5 month rate. My only options are “add shorter interval” or “add longer interval”. When click add shorter interval it will create a new park rate value below the lowest duration. If I want to re-add a rate of 1.5 months I have to delete all values below 3 months and start over. When we have numerous rates this will be very inconvenient to changes rates.
Coin Game

Aug-22 10:05 PM
I think having a drop down box to select which rates to add would be more efficient. Or maybe in the rate selection menu just have them all listed in a scroll box with the value set to zero by default. you can quickly adjust the specific rate you would like to set without having to click extra buttons."

I think the park rate vote system is the best of the three mechanisms. But what they all lack is some feedback mechanism to the user. When you vote for a motion you want to have confirmed that you vote is taken by the network. Preferably immediately or with a timer waiting for a block confirmation. The block confirmation can be a counter so you will have visual feedback on the minting and how many votes/block you cast during the process. Nice to have would be feedback on the actual vote count, but I understand that will be an external site.

Same for a custodian vote. The custiodan vote also has a not very intuitive way of entering information for the address. The default space for address is very narrow and for amount very wide (would turn that around). It would also be good to provide some idea of what to enter in address in greyish default text, e.g. Enter published motion hash.

Given the relative complexity (new and unknown for many) it would also make sense to provide some in-client help or a link to a website with client help information (wiki or something). This can be added under help in the top menu. Also always wondered why the abouts are under help and that help guides you to the command line which is for most users even harder to get, but that is not Nu specific.

For the park rate votes you can also think of some visual feedback e.g. with colors or indicator whether the interest is rising or lowering (e.g. read previous 10 blocks)

I think the client should focus more on user interaction and ease of use, current state from user perspective nd immediate feedback while an external site would provide status, trends, vote counts, proposals etc. Ideally they will be married up somehow (linking to each other or all in same dashboard) but that is a bit further away I suspect.

I just had an idea, after submitting this proposal

Voting for rates can come in two modes: basic and avanced.

Basic Mode:

Vote for one single APR across all periods . It requires the user to set the minimum and the maximum duration (with default values).
This allows everybody to vote for a fair compensation linearly proportional to the length of parking by simply entering one value instead of N.

Advanced Mode:

Vote for an overall APR and be able to change period-specific rates by hand.
This can be useful is for some reason a shareholder does’t like linearity.