BBO Web-client Thread 8

[fred]

We have made a new version of the web-client available to Forums readers in the hope that we will get some helpful feedback before we officially release the next version to the general BBO membership.

 

Please let us know what you think by posting feedback in this thread!

 

You can find out how to access this version of the web-client and read about the changes that were introduced in it through:

 

Link to thread announcing new version

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[HeavyDluxe]

First shot looking at this from the office...

 

We are interested in knowing: Is this relatively intuitive?

 

I certainly think so. The navigation makes total sense and seems obvious. My eyes went right to the sidebar buttons as soon as I logged in.

 

Do you think we have to try to make it more obvious (perhaps by making the new "results" button below the table stand out more)?

 

Perhaps it could be highlighted. A different color, perhaps? Bolded text? You could format the sidebar button to match.

 

My other initial thought was that, while I'm not running at the problem resolution, the two side buttons for RESULTS and WHO'S ONLINE could be a *little* thicker to call more attention to them.

 

Is the way I explained how to show/hide the results area sufficient? This last question is important because we will want to try to explain this to all web-client users (in the lobby news for example) in a concise and clear way.

 

I thought your explanation was very clear and sufficient. OFMMV.

 

As always, thanks for the use of this wonderful site...

[Trinidad]

I would place the "results" toggle button under the "my results" tab as a tab with a name like "full screen". That would make it more intuitive to me.

 

I agree with HeavyDluxe that the tabs work very well. They are immediately visible and invite a user to try them out.

 

Rik

[uday]

Found a glitch in beta that manifests (maybe) when you see popups that ask you questions. Example: "Blah wants to sit at your MoneyBridge table. Allow?"

 

Just FYI, I'm sure we'll get rid of it in a cpl hrs.

 

edit: fixed as of 7PM EST on Sep 23. if you've already tried the beta, suggest you clear browser cache before trying it again.

[raist]

I hope that this new version will either:

 

1)inherit the browser's proxy settings instead of making a direct connection all the time

 

OR

 

2) use port 80 or 443 instead of port 3336 like it currently does

 

 

one of the big things about web bbo was that it would bypass firewalls but it's not doing so. users who are behind corporate or university firewalls which only open ports 80 and 443 are still unable to use web bbo

[karlson]

On the windows client, when you finished a team match (or tournament, I think), you were placed in some kind of "tournament room" where you could chat to the whole tournament, look at the results, etc. This was a nice functionality, and it would be nice to have some equivalent in the web client.

[HeavyDluxe]

I've played with the new client on and off for a couple days. Personally, I really like the new navigation and I think it works well.

 

The other night, I had my wife (a non-BBOer) look at it. Her only suggestion was to have arrows on the ONLINE and RESULTS tabs. It would point 'in' to the playing area when closed - indicating that if you click it, something will pop that direction. If one of the tabs is expanded, the arrow would shift and point to the margin of the screen - showing that the thing will hide if you click it again.

 

Otherwise, I really, really like it.

[fred]

I hope that this new version will either:

 

1)inherit the browser's proxy settings instead of making a direct connection all the time

 

OR

 

2) use port 80 or 443 instead of port 3336 like it currently does

 

 

one of the big things about web bbo was that it would bypass firewalls but it's not doing so. users who are behind corporate or university firewalls which only open ports 80 and 443 are still unable to use web bbo

Thanks for mentioning this and sorry we haven't dealt with it.

 

We are trying to work out something now. I will make another post if/when we are successful. It may not happen for another week or so.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

I've noticed that the diagram that shows dealer and vulnerability is partially covered by North's hand diagram in this version.

[fred]

I've noticed that the diagram that shows dealer and vulnerability is partially covered by North's hand diagram in this version.

I believe you, but it probably depends on the type of table in question and the dimensions of the table surface.

 

If you can send a screenshot to fred@bridgebase.com, I would appreciate it.

 

Thanks,

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

I'm having trouble reproducing it right now, if it happens again I'll send you email.

 

But when I logged in to try it, another weird thing happened. I clicked on BBO Now, then Interesting Tables. Instead of popping up the list of tables, it popped up a window with two buttons, Interesting Tables and Vugraph (the same choices that were in the menu). I clicked the Interesting Tables button and the table list popped up. I selected a table to go to, but when I then clicked its "Close" button, the empty "BBO Now" window stayed on the screen. The only thing in it was the X at the upper-right corner, but clicking on it didn't do anything.

 

I'm was using Safari 4.0.3 on OS X Leopard, with the latest Flash, when this happened.

[fred]

I'm having trouble reproducing it right now, if it happens again I'll send you email.

 

But when I logged in to try it, another weird thing happened. I clicked on BBO Now, then Interesting Tables. Instead of popping up the list of tables, it popped up a window with two buttons, Interesting Tables and Vugraph (the same choices that were in the menu). I clicked the Interesting Tables button and the table list popped up. I selected a table to go to, but when I then clicked its "Close" button, the empty "BBO Now" window stayed on the screen. The only thing in it was the X at the upper-right corner, but clicking on it didn't do anything.

 

I'm was using Safari 4.0.3 on OS X Leopard, with the latest Flash, when this happened.

Thanks. Working on the weird thing(s)...

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[HeavyDluxe]

This is probably by design, but I'll throw it out just in case...

 

When the WHO's/RESULTS sidebar is minimized, the effect of the BIG CARDS check box becomes almost nothing. Toggling the check box moves the bidding window to the upper-right of the screen and blows up a little of the text. However, the cards are mostly unaffected.

 

FF3.5.3 on a Mac running 10.6

[mike777]

I did not see Lobby chat?

 

How do I find teamgames or those looking to start bbo teamgames?

[mike777]

The cards just seem clearer/easier to read on my old version 5.2.6

 

On this new version table feels cramped.

 

 

Bottom line, if there is a reason to switch, other than I can play with a cell phone, I dont get it.

[zheddh]

one of the big things about web bbo was that it would bypass firewalls but it's not doing so. users who are behind corporate or university firewalls which only open ports 80 and 443 are still unable to use web bbo

Thanks for mentioning this and sorry we haven't dealt with it.

 

We are trying to work out something now. I will make another post if/when we are successful. It may not happen for another week or so.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Yes, this would be an awesome. Thanks for working on it.

[pdmunro]

********** "Results" *****************

I didn't read the instructions and, consequently, I didn't find it intiuitive as to how to find movies of the played hands. I searched the screen a few times but didn't think to click the "Results" button. For some reason, I didn't even notice it. Probaly it's because, I use the desktop version routinely and I was looking for the "Movie" button. Having read the instructions and tried clicking "Results", it is fine now. Perhaps, it would help to make it intuitive if the "Results" button flashed at the end of a hand for, say, 10 secs.

 

********** Size of cards ******************

Among the reasons, that I prefer the desktop, is that I find the cards easier/clearer to read. I have attached a few images and comments.

 

1) Comparing new web-client with the desktop version:

http://www.keepcount.net/images/color_contrast.PNG

To me,

a) the desktop image has clear red/black cards; web-client has maroon/black cards which don't contrast as well; and

b) the desktop court cards have a hint of an image that assists the eye.

 

A couple of less important differences that are probably just "familiarity differences":

c) all desktop cards have a black border - I don't find that the maroon border of the web-client assists my eye; and

d) I don't know what dimensions letters and numbers should ideally have (Is it the "golden ratio") but I find the "taller" web client numbers not as easy to read at the squarer desktop numbers.

 

2) Have you considered having large face cards similar to these from Bridge Baron?

 

http://www.keepcount.net/images/bridge_baron.PNG

Large cards as set out by Bridge Baron.

 

Something like the images of the played cards might work fine as images for a players hand:

http://www.keepcount.net/images/large.PNG

 

Bridge Baron's large cards are a good size for making YouTube videos.

[paulg]

**********  Size of cards  ******************

Among the reasons that I prefer the desktop, is that I find the cards easier/clearer to read.  I have attached a few images and comments.

 

1) Comparing new web-client with the desktop version:

http://www.keepcount.net/images/color_contrast.PNG

 

A couple of less important differences that are probably just "familiarity differences":

c) all desktop cards have a black border - I don't find that the maroon border of the web-client assists my eye; and

d) I don't know what dimensions letters and numbers should ideally have (Is it the "golden ratio") but I find the "taller" web client numbers not as easy to read at the squarer desktop numbers. 

 

I find the web-client card pictures impossible to play with and have to use hand diagram mode. But I prefer, by a large margin, the card pictures on the windows client.

 

Again it seems like the ratio and amount of white space just makes them seem unclear.

[cherdanno]

The description of a bid can sometimes completely hide other bids (even possibly the most recent one).

[Sadie3]

cherdanno stated my observation. When an opponent queried my bid and I typed in a description, the description covered up all the prior bids and altho I knew it was my turn to bid, I could not see what the bids were and had to ask the table to tell me so I could bid. Perhaps a fading of the description or placing it elsewhere rather than over the bids in the bidding area would help. Or even being able to move it ourselves to another spot is a possibility.

 

I have noticed that when reviewing a movie and clicking on a bid for a description does the same thing. So, one either has to review all the bids first and then click on the alerted ones for descriptions after, or there is difficulty in reviewing the rest of the auction. I like the idea of having the description fade after several seconds.

 

The results screen is really nice especially with the average supplied at the bottom. Gives me a feel for how well I'm doing without me spending the time to mentally add up the individual scores.

 

I think it is a great product. Thanks BBO for all the work!

[1eyedjack]

Seems to me that most of the criticisms raised by AKQ are solved by using the diagram mode of hand display. Maybe I am missing something.

[TimG]

I played a robot race last night and was unable to get a description for any of GIB's bids. I tried mouse over, right clicking and left clicking, none seemed to work.

[pdmunro]

Seems to me that most of the criticisms raised by AKQ are solved by using the diagram mode of hand display.  Maybe I am missing something.

A couple of points:

 

1) I don't find the diagram mode gives me an immediate/intuitive/"sticks in my memory" count of the card. I cannot look at the diagram mode and intuitively see a 4531 hand. I think it's because the diagram mode is not "monospaced": the 10 takes up 2 character spaces, the Q is rather squat etc.

 

2) I tried making a YouTube video with the cards in diagram mode. The cards in the hand were fine, but the played cards were too small. Any videos you upload to YouTube lose a fair amount of resolution once YouTube converts them to Flash.

 

http://www.keepcount.net/images/hand_diagram.PNG

[barmar]

As a defender I clicked on the Claim button, planning to concede the remaining tricks. While I was doing this, declarer claimed. A message saying that declarer claimed the rest of the tricks popped up, but it was like the message you see when you're kibbitzing, with no Accept or Reject buttons.

[fred]

**********  Size of cards  ******************

Among the reasons that I prefer the desktop, is that I find the cards easier/clearer to read.  I have attached a few images and comments.

 

1) Comparing new web-client with the desktop version:

http://www.keepcount.net/images/color_contrast.PNG

 

A couple of less important differences that are probably just "familiarity differences":

c) all desktop cards have a black border - I don't find that the maroon border of the web-client assists my eye; and

d) I don't know what dimensions letters and numbers should ideally have (Is it the "golden ratio") but I find the "taller" web client numbers not as easy to read at the squarer desktop numbers. 

 

I find the web-client card pictures impossible to play with

Can you please try to articulate why? If card-size is an issue, please try the test version. Also, it would be helpful to know what screen resolution and approximate monitor size you are using.

 

I am really have trouble understanding what this is all about for 2 reasons:

 

1) The cards in the Windows client were designed by me (a not-very-artistic programmer) and the cards in the web-client were designed by a very good graphic artist. Probably I am not qualified to have an opinion as to which cards are "better" and probably I could not be objective in any case, but given who the people were who designed the respective cards, it is hard for me to imagine that I did a better job (let alone a much better job as some people seem to be suggesting).

 

2) Ignoring everything else, just look at the 2 pictures! To me it seems obvious that the cards in the web-client are much more attractive for several reasons.

 

I could understand the card-size issue, but it is not an issue anymore. What am I missing now? My only theory is that this is a really all about familiarity, but if some one can enlighten me as to a more substantial reason, I will see what I can do to address it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com