Accepted Is the White Scroll Prompt Needlessly Confusing?

I think your solution would better articulate the series of actions being taken. However, I think there is also a big issue in the poorly designed user interface not being consistent with the user experience in the rest of the game. In the rest of the game, the button next to the yes/confirm button is the no/cancel/back button. In the case of the White Scroll prompt, there are two buttons which trigger a forward action (1. use scroll, use white scroll, 2. use scroll, don't use white scroll) and a third which returns the prompt backwards (don't use scroll, don't use white scroll).

The poor design is that the forward action is in the spot where a backwards/cancel button would usually be, and a single-word response does not clearly implicate the actions that will be taken.

Here's an example of NPC UI that has more than one set of responses and actions.


Now here's an example of a follow up prompt that has the same UI design as the White Scroll prompt.



However, this one is designed so that clicking "No" basically terminates all forward progress/action, resulting in no unintended consequences. I think it's safe to say an overwhelming majority of NPC interactions in this game are similar to this, where the NO response will yield no forward progress.

The White Scroll prompt has two forward action responses, but it's designed like the one above.

 

I think these implementations don't really take into consideration the perspective of an end user.

While it might seem like a non-factor when play-testing from a developer's standpoint where there are virtually zero consequences to messing up, from the perspective of a player, it is a much larger ordeal. I bring this topic up because when I was scrolling, I almost made the same mental error in responding "No" as a means to terminate forward progress when I meant "Cancel". This is because I had the white scroll prompt up for awhile and had dissociated the previous action of scrolling from the action of using the white scroll itself. Sure, the action of having previously placed the scroll on the item has occurred by this point, but if I were to strictly answer the white scroll prompt, "No" would be an appropriate answer for two different results (1. No, I don't want to use a white scroll and wish to continue scrolling, 2. No, I don't want to use a white scroll and do not wish to continue scrolling). A Yes/No question with three different answers is terrible design.

The prompt itself only asks if you want to use the white scroll or not while disassociating from the previous action of having used the scroll. In all other UI interactions in the game, the "No" response terminates forward progress resulting in no consequences, so even if there are three buttons (End Chat, Yes, No) there are still technically only two actions. In the case of white scroll usage, the "No" response still proceeds forward with an action for a total of three end results. This is the main problem.

 

Whoops I meant to quote only the first paragraph of your response.

As for the three options suggestion, I feel like that further complicates the matter by offering an even broader range of experiences, which complicates peer to peer interactions. What happens if someone on one version gives inapplicable/erroneous information to someone else on a different version? Which setting is defaulted is also important, as Akash mentioned above.

Personally, I think if you’re scrolling something without a white scroll in your inventory or if you unintentionally burn a white scroll because you carelessly scrolled without safely storing it, that’s 100% on you. IMO, making a mental mistake due to UI/UX inconsistencies seems a bit more to blame on bad design.

A lot has been done over the past year to lower the quality of life on white scrolling. In the past, players could hold their white scrolls on mules and trade back for when they needed to use them. Now, players are faced with the dilemma of generating white scrolls and eating the cost of ws conversion tax if they have a high roll, or going through the npc one by one which increases the probability of making a mistake.

 

I agree that the buttons leading to action can be better worded to clearly indicate your choices. That would be much cleaner design and re-associate the action of scrolling with the white scroll usage.

In every other interaction in this game -- and even in interactions with UI outside of the game -- the "No" button is universally understood as a full stop. There are some shitty cases where "No" as a means to proceed forward often takes advantage of the user into performing undesired actions - like downloading bloatware or buying additional items. In the user's experience, clicking "No" usually means halting progress, so they instead click "Yes" and might agree to things they normally wouldn't.

In the case of the current white scroll prompt, "No" being a forward action might not translate well to many people who have been trained to believe "No" means stopping.

 

Bumping every time a high ticket item dies to ws prompt misinterpretation.