BBOTV - feedback

[Finch]

From my home PC (the one without the firewall), I installed Flash9 from the link provided, and it claimed it had installed correctly.

 

However none of the links work at all.

 

Edited: aha, but they did after I closed all the IE windows down and then started again. That seems to be necessary after installing Flash 9.

[Finch]

Not sure if someone mentioned this before, but I do hope you will have a "text" version of the cards (like the current BBO client), instead of just the pictures of the cards.

Right click on the green table top. A menu will appear that will allow you to switch to hand diagram mode.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

It seems to be slightly random whether I get the menu you describe, or the bog standard Flash menu (Zoom In... Zoom Out... Show All... Loop (ticked) etc). Sometimes when I right-click I get the BBO menu, sometimes I get that one. This applies on either the green table or the blue surround.

 

Also, right-clicking on the green chat window sometimes give me the 'standard' menu above, sometimes gives a menu saying Cut/Copy/Paste/Delete/Select All, and sometimes gives a menu with those options plus, at the top, Clear Chat/Bigger Font/Smaller Font

[chicken]

In a similar vein, right now some of the BBO users have created the "Vugraph project".  They record as many high profile Vugraphs as possible; then index and post the contents.  Using the Flash application, BBO is the only one who can create this type of record.  (For this matter, you can't save LIN files any more.  The only way to access a hand record is to go through my hands).  You might also run into trouble with Tournament Directors who want to use pregenerated hand records for tournaments.  Yada, yada, yada....

 

i didnt get hrothgars point precisely, but LIN by now has become a very important thing in the worldwide bridgecommunication surpassing pbn i think. (dealmasterpro for example has added lin options.) especially the teaching community on bbo has done a lot of work with creating files and movies for teaching reasons. it would be important to get these files working under the new environment.

[geller]

Presumably Fred has in mind the possibility of showing live TV of matches, with voice commentary rather than text. If so, that's great. But I hope you are giving some thought to the language issue.

 

For example, the World Cup of football (soccer) is broadcast in over a hundred languages, using the same TV picture. For, say, the finals of the Bermuda Bowl, or indeed even at the round-robin stages, it ought to be possible to have voice commentary for each table in multiple languages, with the user able to click on the flag for the language of his/her choice. Or, at a mnimum, it ought to be possble to have multiple streams of text commentary, with the user able to select the language of choice. I hope something along these lines is in the works down the road.

 

For example when Japan plays China in the Zone 6 championships there ought to be Chinese, Japanese, and English commentary for each table. This could help make bridge more of a spectator sport in each country.

 

-Bob

[Mike_P]

The new client looks good and I'm sure will be terrific in no time, given Fred's history of excellence.

 

However, I still don't get the point. If this is to increase the user base by making the client not system or OS dependent, and not requiring users to maintain/update their resident BBO software, than I'm all for it -- what's good for BBO is good for me. :)

 

But I don't mind the appearance or functionality of the current client, I run Win XP, and I am not overwhelmed running the occasional update.

 

What aspect of this new thing should excite me? :)

 

-- Mike

[helene_t]

But I don't mind the appearance or functionality of the current client, I run Win XP, and I  am not overwhelmed running the occasional update.

 

What aspect of this new thing should excite me?  :)

I suppose the new client will take advantage of a lot of general features of the flash player. For example, the current client has a "copy chat message" facility and it supports a number of non-Latin alphabets. That's fine but it means that Fred and Uday have to spend time on programming such features and that they are not guaranteed to conform with different desktop skins, interfaces etc. For example, if you receive a chat message in Hebrew or Tamil you would like to be able to copy it and paste it into a word processor.

 

Sometimes I have a funny board on BBO and I want to forward it to a friend who is not a BBO user. This means taking a screenshot and attaching it as a bitmap. Not very convenient. And to post a BBO board on this forum I have to use Cascade's linconverter. It's great that Cascade provided that solution but it would be easier to embed a bridge movie in the post directly (this will require an embed flash fragment option in Invision but such a feature will probably be added in the not so distant future).

[fred]

My popup-blocker does not allow flash applications to open browser windows, but i could relax that for the BBO site.

Are you sure about that?

 

Can you please try logging in to BBOTV and clicking the BBO Vugraph button near the top of the screen.

 

A window will appear that lists whatever vugraph matches are running. Please try clicking the Vugraph schedule button near the botton of this window.

 

In theory you should see new browser popup appear. What happens?

 

Thanks,

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Presumably Fred has in mind the possibility of showing live TV of matches, with voice commentary rather than text. If so, that's great. But I hope you are giving some thought to the language issue.

Don't read too much into the actual name BBOTV - it is just a name and one that is not unlikely to change.

 

I expect that voice will eventually become part of BBOTV (or whatever name we end up using), but there are a lot of other things we are going to want to do first.

 

If and when a BBO client that can run on a television set becomes available is a whole other issue. Sure that would be nice, but I don't think the technology is quite there yet (and the program is not there yet in any case).

 

What we are now calling BBOTV will certainly become a multilingual program, just like the existing BBO client. That development is actually on the radar screen - probably we will make some effort to support multiple languages before we make an official release.

 

One (minor) advantage of the BBOTV design over that of the existing BBO client is that everyone will be able to see chat messages appear properly in the language that the chat-sender was using. So if Bob sends a Japanese message to the table, everyone at the table will see proper Japanese characters (versus the garbage they now see when Bob sends Japanese to a person who is not Japanese).

 

Not that this will matter that much from a functional point of view (because most people who speak Japanese and care about being able to read Japanese chat would set their BBO language to Japanese), but the chat window will look nicer.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

The new client looks good and I'm sure will be terrific in no time, given Fred's history of excellence.

 

However, I still don't get the point. If this is to increase the user base by making the client not system or OS dependent, and not requiring users to maintain/update their resident BBO software, than I'm all for it -- what's good for BBO is good for me. :o

 

But I don't mind the appearance or functionality of the current client, I run Win XP, and I am not overwhelmed running the occasional update.

 

What aspect of this new thing should excite me? :)

 

-- Mike

You are correct - a big part of the point is to increase the user base. Making BBO usable for non-Windows people who, for whatever reason, do not have a Windows emulator will certainly help in this regard.

 

But my opinion is that we rate to have much larger increases in the user base for a different reason: that it will be a lot easier for people to get started.

 

The main point of the update issue is not to spare our members the burden of having to run the occasional update program. That is important, especially for those BBO members who have slow connections or poor computer skills, but the big advantage of the BBOTV design as far as updates go is that it will be a lot easier and safer for us to release new versions of the software.

 

One aspect of BBOTV that really excites me is something that I have so far been unwilling to discuss publicly. Probably you will find out what I am referring to within the next month or so.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Out of curiousity, I don't suppose that you had a chance to overhaul the chat system?

 

I still think that an IRC model chat system that allows users to dynamically create/join/quit/destroy chat channels would make life better in oh some many ways.

[helene_t]

But my opinion is that we rate to have much larger increases in the user base for a different reason: that it will be a lot easier for people to get started.

Agree. Having to download and install the client is a bariere. People may be afraid of viruses, or of programs that clutter their harddisk and registry and cause their computer to crash, and is impossible to unistall without reformating the harddisk. First-time users who just want to watch a single match on the vugraph may think that they will have to go through half an our of installation procedures and will not consider it worthwhile. Of course we know that it's not like that, but how can they tell? The net is full of downloadable crap.

[fred]

Out of curiousity, I don't suppose that you had a chance to overhaul the chat system?

 

I still think that an IRC model chat system that allows users to dynamically create/join/quit/destroy chat channels would make life better in oh some many ways.

The new client understands the notion of a "chat channel". What you see as the chat area in BBOTV is essentially a standalone component. In theory it would not be hard to make it so that multiple chat areas could exist, each representing chat from some subset of available channels.

 

However, I have always hated applications that pop up a new window every time you get a private chat from a new person. Unless a lot of people try to change my mind about this, I doubt there will ever be more than a very small number of chat areas (1?) in the new client.

 

Please don't try to change my mind about this now (or if you do please do not be insulted if I refuse to get involved in such a discussion in the near future).

 

To summarize, the basic architecture for implementing something along the lines that you suggest is present, but that does not mean that users will necessary be aware of what is happening behind the scenes. Implementing UI mechanisms that take advantage of this is not something we rate to do soon (and we may never do this).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

My popup-blocker does not allow flash applications to open browser windows, but i could relax that for the BBO site.

Are you sure about that?

 

Can you please try logging in to BBOTV and clicking the BBO Vugraph button near the top of the screen.

 

A window will appear that lists whatever vugraph matches are running. Please try clicking the Vugraph schedule button near the botton of this window.

 

In theory you should see new browser popup appear. What happens?

 

Thanks,

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Yes that is sure!

 

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.6 now, but i think it's no new feature.

 

I get the message that firefox blocked a popup window.

[fred]

There are also many people who simply do not understand concepts like "downloading", "installing", "web site", "application", "desktop icon".

 

And if one of these people is forced to configure their firewall, all bets are obviously off :o

 

There are also people who do not want to have to sign up for a user ID, especially if they perceive that doing so will reveal their identity or force them to provide personal information. Anon logins will make these people more comfortable.

 

You may not realize this, but if you are able to read and post to forums and if concepts like downloading software and dealing with firewalls do not make you nervous, your computer skills are likely strong enough to place you in the top 5% of BBO members in this regard.

 

You are like vugraph commentators who do not bother explaining "simple" bridge concepts like "Michaels" or "crossruff" because they assume that everyone out there is intimately familiar with these basic ideas. In the same way that it is hard for vugraph commentators to reduce the level of their bridge thinking to that of a typcial audience member, it is hard for people with reasonable computer skills to understand just how hopeless most people are with computers.

 

I know this as a result of many years of talking to such people on the phone and exchanging many 1000s of e-mails with such people.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

The new client understands the notion of a "chat channel". What you see as the chat area in BBOTV is essentially a standalone component. In theory it would not be hard to make it so that multiple chat areas could exist, each representing chat from some subset of available channels.

 

However, I have always hated applications that pop up a new window every time you get a private chat from a new person. Unless a lot of people try to change my mind about this, I doubt there will ever be more than a very small number of chat areas (1?) in the new client.

Hi Fred

 

I think that we're talking about slightly different things:

 

When I am mention different chat channels, I'm not particularly worried about whether or not they get displayed in the same chat area. Rather, I'm interested in functionality like the the following:

 

Lets assume that BBO is providing a Vugraph coverage for the Bermuda Bowl. The Italians are playing against the Brazilians in the finals. BBO is covering both the Open Table and the Closed Table.

 

I can see an argument that BBO might want to link provide different chat channels to each Vugraph table.

 

1. A Portugese language channel for the Brazilians

2. A French language channel for the French

3. An English language channel for the rest of the folks

 

(Furthermore, its entirely possible that some multi-lingual types might want to simultaneously subscribe to both the French language channel and the English language channel)

 

Each of these channels would be configured so that only a small number of official commentors could talk. And, while all this official coverage is going on, some group of spectators might want to create their own (temporary) channel where anyone could comment in a more free flowing atmosphere.

 

Normally, I've seen multiple chat channels in the same "area" with different color coding used to distinguish between channels.

[fred]

The new client understands the notion of a "chat channel". What you see as the chat area in BBOTV is essentially a standalone component. In theory it would not be hard to make it so that multiple chat areas could exist, each representing chat from some subset of available channels.

 

However, I have always hated applications that pop up a new window every time you get a private chat from a new person. Unless a lot of people try to change my mind about this, I doubt there will ever be more than a very small number of chat areas (1?) in the new client.

Hi Fred

 

I think that we're talking about slightly different things:

 

When I am mention different chat channels, I'm not particularly worried about whether or not they get displayed in the same chat area. Rather, I'm interested in functionality like the the following:

 

Lets assume that BBO is providing a Vugraph coverage for the Bermuda Bowl. The Italians are playing against the Brazilians in the finals. BBO is covering both the Open Table and the Closed Table.

 

I can see an argument that BBO might want to link provide different chat channels to each Vugraph table.

 

1. A Portugese language channel for the Brazilians

2. A French language channel for the French

3. An English language channel for the rest of the folks

 

(Furthermore, its entirely possible that some multi-lingual types might want to simultaneously subscribe to both the French language channel and the English language channel)

 

Each of these channels would be configured so that only a small number of official commentors could talk. And, while all this official coverage is going on, some group of spectators might want to create their own (temporary) channel where anyone could comment in a more free flowing atmosphere.

 

Normally, I've seen multiple chat channels in the same "area" with different color coding used to distinguish between channels.

I think we are on the same page.

 

Short answer is, I don't think it will be hard for us to do this and I recognize that this would provide value for some members. If and when it actually happens and the exact form it would take are other issues.

 

Please keep in mind that BBOTV will have to be able to walk before it can run. Right now we are working on some very basic elements like the ability to play, to chat, profiles, friends management...

 

Over time the program will no doubt get fancier, but the primary mission is to create something that contains the necessary basic elements and is easy to use.

 

For the record, Uday and I often discuss fancy functionality that we will likely support in the future and write our code in such a way as to prepare for this.

 

Discussions and suggestions regarding fancy stuff are interesting and welcome, but don't be surprised if my response is just like this one.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[julie5607]

Well, I know you don't want to be convinced, but count me in on the group that thinks a pop-up private chat window option would be a good feature. I am not saying all private chat should be presented in separate windows, but the capability to initiate a chat that way would be very beneficial.

 

The same user group that has issues with downloading and installing the current BBO client are very unlikely to have any sort of IM function they are capable of using. They also (this is from experience trying to help 80 year old ladies who I have turned on to BBO) find the current chat system almost impossible to use. Telling a LOL who has responded to my private "hi" to click on my blue name to respond is a losing battle. Getting them to a chat room is even more difficult. They would hopefully have less difficulty with a pop-up box that ONLY has a conversation with the person who is trying to help them.

 

Another base of users who would make good use of private pop-up chat boxes are the people on public computers who cannot download and install their own IM systems.

 

Additionally, we have all seen a "sorry private" message at the table after someone has made an obvious error in targetting a reply to someone. Some of those obvious errors are quite . . .ahem . . .telling. Private pop-up chat boxes would lesson that . . . er . . risk.

 

I know you have no desire for the BBO client to be primarally a chat vehicle, and I can second that. But since there are many legitimate reasons two bridge players might want to have a long private conversation, why not included functionality that will make it as easy as possible?

 

Julie

[chicken]

why not keep the concept of the chatrooms?

[ng:)]

Bidding box (top right) has only 4 basic rows. Might be better at least 5 as a default.

 

Gabor

[mink]

My observations:

 

Bidding list does not scroll automatically when the 4th row of bidding is used, but instead new bids appear below the old bids and you can see only the upper few pixels.

 

In the bidding list there are not the players names but only the compass directions.

 

I am currently watching a vugraph where even below the cards are no names but only compass directions.

 

I have to click on played cards rather than just hover over it in order to review tricks.

 

I see a lot of blue space at both sides of the table display. However, the buttons are above and below the display, causing it to be smaller than necessary.

 

There is yet no option to control the speed of the animated cards, or to switch off animation, which I would prefer.

 

 

My suggestions:

 

Currently I can see either the table view or navigation. I would prefer to be able to switch between these views. Of course this makes not much sense currently, but makes a lot of sense when most of the functionality has been added. If you think this might confuse some users, maybe make it available only if the "enable advanced user interface" option is checked.

 

I would also prefer that navigation, table view, hand browser (myhands) and chat area are all the same type of window like currently only the hand browser, but they all do not stay on top like the hand browser currently does. Maybe a title bar is not necessary, or at least it can be smaller.

 

When transferring data about some other player to the client, this should include the information for which tourneys that player is registered and for which tourneys he has entered the partnership desk. This would make it much easier to find a partner among one's friends.

 

 

Just curious:

 

I guess that unlike the windows client the flash client does not automatically receive a message when the state of any player changes. Right?

 

When I click on a card in the windows client and in the flash client, how many milliseconds elapse until the message departs from my computer to the internet. Is this time significantly different for the windows client and the flash client?

 

Will the flash client be more robust as far as connection problems are concerned? Will the reconnection time be shorter?

 

 

Looking forward to more functions of the flash client being activated.

 

Karl

[fred]

My observations:

 

Bidding list does not scroll automatically when the 4th row of bidding is used, but instead new bids appear below the old bids and you can see only the upper few pixels.

 

In the bidding list there are not the players names but only the compass directions.

 

I am currently watching a vugraph where even below the cards are no names but only compass directions.

 

I have to click on played cards rather than just hover over it in order to review tricks.

 

I see a lot of blue space at both sides of the table display. However, the buttons are above and below the display, causing it to be smaller than necessary.

 

There is yet no option to control the speed of the animated cards, or to switch off animation, which I would prefer.

 

 

My suggestions:

 

Currently I can see either the table view or navigation. I would prefer to be able to switch between these views. Of course this makes not much sense currently, but makes a lot of sense when most of the functionality has been added. If you think this might confuse some users, maybe make it available only if the "enable advanced user interface" option is checked.

 

I would also prefer that navigation, table view, hand browser (myhands) and chat area are all the same type of window like currently only the hand browser, but they all do not stay on top like the hand browser currently does. Maybe a title bar is not necessary, or at least it can be smaller.

 

When transferring data about some other player to the client, this should include the information for which tourneys that player is registered and for which tourneys he has entered the partnership desk. This would make it much easier to find a partner among one's friends.

 

 

Just curious:

 

I guess that unlike the windows client the flash client does not automatically receive a message when the state of any player changes. Right?

 

When I click on a card in the windows client and in the flash client, how many milliseconds elapse until the message departs from my computer to the internet. Is this time significantly different for the windows client and the flash client?

 

Will the flash client be more robust as far as connection problems are concerned? Will the reconnection time be shorter?

 

 

Looking forward to more functions of the flash client being activated.

 

Karl

In response to your "just curious" questions:

 

1) Correct. The Windows client is always aware of complete state of the system (who is logged in, where they are, what their profiles are, etc...). This is a problem because the more people there are on BBO, the more info has to be sent from our servers to each client.

 

For example, if you log in to BBO and there are already 10K other people online, your Windows client will receive something like 1MB of data during the login process. That is why people with dialup connections sometimes experience very slow logins.

 

Furthermore, the Windows client is constantly receiving information from the server. The more messages that are sent, the more likely that something will go wrong with one of these messages. When something goes wrong the connection will slow down and/or die.

 

The Flash client takes a different approach. It receives information on a need-to-know basis. The downside of this approach is the possibility of very slight delays when the user wants to know something and has to ask the server. Some of the upsides are:

 

- much faster logins

- much more reliable connections

- BBO will be much more scalable (ie we will be able to handle a lot more simultaneous users once significant % of people start using the Flash client)

 

2) Typically a very small number of milliseconds for either client and no significant difference between the two.

 

3) Yes. See answer to 1) above.

 

Some general comments about your comments:

 

In general we are trying to eliminate mouse-over to initiate action in the Flash client. Users will have to click in order to initiate some of the functions that were initiated by mouse-over in the Windows client.

 

The interface consists of a set of components. Some examples of components include: the bridge table, the chat area, the primitive navigational tool that currently does no more than take you to a table, the window that displays a list of vugraph tables. There are some other components that currently exist in various states that you have not seen yet (because we have not enabled them).

 

Each component has the ability to either reside in a popup window or within any "container". Currently the interface has 3 containers (one at the bottom where the chat component currently resides, one at the top left where the bridge table and navigation thing currently reside, and one at the top right which is not being utilized in the version of BBOTV that you have seen).

 

We can easily provide functionality for allow people to choose where they want any given component to reside (either in a specific container or in a popup window). Probably we will include such functionality eventually, but I am not sure when this will happen or how the interface for customizing the location of components will work.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

Can you add in the "Show Played Cards" option?

 

And if so, does the design of BBOTV solve the problem that the Windows client has with restoring this option after you've played hands?

[DrTodd13]

Out of curiosity, how much code sharing is there between the regular client and flash client? Basically, what percentage of the code is UI and what is non-UI?

[JanM]

Can you add in the "Show Played Cards" option?

 

And if so, does the design of BBOTV solve the problem that the Windows client has with restoring this option after you've played hands?

Another request for "show played cards" - Actually, since many people will be using the BBOTV option to kibitz, not to play, and surely some of them will be relatively unsophisticated, I'd vote for "show played cards" to be the default. :)

[fred]

Out of curiosity, how much code sharing is there between the regular client and flash client? Basically, what percentage of the code is UI and what is non-UI?

The answer to your first question is: none

 

The answer to your second question is: I don't know, but I would guess 50-50

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com