Hello @MS-PY,
Currently, the user can enter Substrate address or EVM address. Both work.
Maybe it is not clear to the user and we should explicitly display this information and replace “Destination Address” with “Destination Address (Substrate or EVM)”.
From my point of view, there is no need to add an additional button to restrict the address format.
But good catch, I think we can improve the user experience here!
Agreed @GuiGou. I think aswell we already have the feature, but the user experience needs to be improved. Remember the first time I have used this feature I also needed some time to understand it.
Good point, GuiGou, definitely an interesting point of improvement and as you mention, maybe it is not necessary to incorporate a new button, but changing the titles could work, highlighting colors depending if it is EVM or Substrate, I don’t know, at design level some things can be implemented :).
As a confirmation, now when we enter an address, an icon is displayed, and we can confirm whether it is Native or EVM by looking at this icon.
Many users may not be aware of this specification.
So it may be a good way to make the destination address explicitly EVM or Native (I think Native is better than Substrate for notation).
As you mention, @you425, the icon that indicates the network is shown, however it sometimes goes unnoticed, an explicit way of indicating that you will interact with these networks would be to show the names, colors that stand out or different UX techniques.
I would like to know what you think and what would be some possible solutions .
Sometimes users will make mistakes when copying wallet addresses when they do quick operations. My idea is to reduce this confusion and make users more careful when they want to enter what kind of public address.
Yes, of course I understand your intention and I think you are right.
However, there may be some new people who will be confused by the button.
I think it is a good idea to have a button if the assumption is that when people touch Astar, they will correctly understand the account and whether it is Native or EVM.
Without the button, for better or worse, the transaction becomes abstract and does not need to be strictly understood.
In this case, the only possible problem I can think of when sending without understanding the EVM and Native accounts is when sending from EVM to Native.
Native → EVM: Received with no problem (may cause problems if the destination is an exchange)
Native → Native: Received with no problem
EVM → EVM: Received with no problem
EVM → Native: Reach Native’s EVM Deposit
In other words, the only accident that occurs other than EVM->Native is when the destination is wrong, and this has nothing to do with whether it is EVM or Native.
That being said, it might be better to issue a cautionary statement when sending EVM->Native or Native->EVM rather than choosing EVM or Native.
Hello! I’m always in favor to semplify the User experience in the astar portal…but I’m not very sure that this solutions will make more easy to understand the process.
we could simply make a change in layout by better layouting the elements on the screen… I’ll send you a hypothetical solution, let me know what you think.
a) The portal display the 2 form to insert sub wallet or Evm wallet
Excellent, verifications are never too much, in fact the more verifications the more security for the users, they often ask many questions about how to send ASTR; this is a great step.
However, as a minor detail, I think it would be better to use “Native” rather than “Substrate”.
This is because polkadot.js.extension has “Substrate” in the display address selection. This is essentially the same as Astar Native, but it is different in notation and can be misleading.
Also, it is necessary to unify the name “Astar Native” on the Portal as it is also shown as “Astar Native”.
This is a suggestion that if the Portal development team can consider it then it can be implemented.
Hi @Gaius_sama, How do you find this article and suggestion?
.
