BBO Web-client Thread 8

[fred]

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.

A screenshot would be helpful.

 

I think the explanations are supposed to appear below the bid in question. If I am right about that, I don't think it can cover up prior bids.

 

If you move your mouse over an explanation of an opponent's bid and then move it away, the explanation will disappear.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

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.

Mouseover is what you are supposed to do. You won't see anything happen unless the bid in question has a yellow background.

 

I was unable to replicate this problem. If you see it happen again please let me know. If you see it work properly it would also be helpful if you let me know.

 

Thanks,

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

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.

I think this is fixed now in the test version, but you will probably have to clear your browser cache before trying again in order to pick up the new version.

 

Please let me know if you see it happen again (and if you do a screenshot would be helpful).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

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 have tried the web client on several occasions now (several different versions including the latest test version). I don't want to be the party pooper who is down on everything, but I will definitely not be leaving the windows client until forced. Other than the difficulties in becoming acclimated and learning my way around, the main reason is the card graphics. It's hard for me to put my finger on, but the cards have the appearance of being too tall and skinny, and the font not bold enough. Even though the comparison above shows that the cards are actually showing larger than in the windows client I still find them more difficult to look at. If that is just another matter of familiarity then maybe I should be more patient, but I don't think it is.

 

I prefer your work to that of the very good graphic artist. ;)

[pdmunro]

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.

My details: Compaq CRT screen (16" diag = 13" x 9.5"; 1024 x 768 pixels, True Color, 32 bit).

 

Fred, the cards you designed look more like the usual playing cards that one plays with each day. In particular, the use of stark red/black colors and pictures on the court cards. Surely those design features were developed by playing card companies in order to assist immediate visual recognition.

 

An interesting quote from the book "Championship Bridge with Charles Goren" (page 11, Doubleday, NY, 1964):

 

"Visualize, if you will, a friendly bridge game: four people are seated at different sides of a table, they all hold up small pasteboard cards, and then one lays down a hand called a dummy. Now add the technical problems involved in transmitting this action to a 17-inch screen (in various shades of gray!). Each of the viewers wants to see the dummy, and the whole point of the program hinges on seeing plainly every card that is played. Working in the studio revealed the need for a specially designed playing surface and playing cards visually better than those normally used. Here's where the U. S. Playing Card Company proved itself invaluable in investigating and creating a card just for us, the "Jumbo 88." I really don't know what we would have done without this specially processed card which has much larger pips printed on non-glare paper. Its importance was to be proven on our very first test film. We wanted to be able to look into each player's hand, to watch him in the process of selecting the card and follow his individual strategy. If our researchers revealed that no one had previously been able to do a proper job, what made us think that we could surmount the obstacles involved?"

 

I added the bracket: (in various shades of gray!)

[TimG]

Mouseover is what you are supposed to do. You won't see anything happen unless the bid in question has a yellow background.

Mouseover works, though it is not always immediate; I suspect operator error.

 

Thanks.

[paulg]

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

I am on a 12" screen running at 1280x800, but it was the same on a 15" running at 1024x768.

 

I don't use the 'fancy' deck on the Windows client, just the 'Windows Big' deck.

 

This is what I see:

 

Win:

http://www.todheugh.plus.com/paul/win.jpg

 

Web (test version):

http://www.todheugh.plus.com/paul/web.jpg

 

The cards appear more 'solid' on the Windows client, the lettering being thicker.

 

There is a lot more white space on the cards in the web client, but I think it is the thinner lettering that makes it more difficult for me.

 

It is the visualisation of the entire hand that is my problem. I just struggle to take it in on the web client.

 

I'm sure that familiarity is a major part of this, as I have been using BBO for a long time.

 

Interestingly, the screen shots in this post look 'better' than what I actually see :)

 

Paul

[HeavyDluxe]

One other little, minor thing I noticed:

 

When you're defending a hand and declarer makes a claim, the software exposes declarer's cards so you can validate the claim. I was kibitzing a particular player (kibitz south, for example) who was on defense. When declarer made a claim, their cards remained 'face down'.

 

It would be helpful to be able to see the table behave as if we were playing while watching a particular player.

 

Again, small potatoes... :lol:

[Dwingo]

Maybe Fred can experiment with

 

1) Black borders throughtout (like in the Windws version ) instead of Red and Black mixed

 

2) Make the black borders thinner

 

3) Shorten the height of the cards a bit and broaden it a bit.

[karlson]

I agree with cardsharp, Jdonn, pdmunro, and the others (I've brought up this issue before too). The card graphics are the main reason I avoid the web client.

 

If I had to guess, I think it's the large proportion of whitespace on the new cards.

[jdonn]

I have thought about what I dislike about the card graphics more and read the other posts. To be more specific than before, and mostly agreeing with the others.

 

General Problems

- I prefer the bold font in the windows client to the too-tall and too-thin font in the web client.

 

- There is too much white space in the web client cards, which indeed might be the biggest problem.

 

- I find the red borders on the hearts and diamonds in the web client unrealistic and distracting, it makes those cards look radioactive as though they are glowing.

 

- I have a slight fear that the relative smallness of the suit symbols compared to the denominations on the cards will cause me to think my clubs are spades or vice versa at some point, especially if I have a void in one of those suits. In the windows client this doesn't happen because the suit symbols are relatively large, and the clovers on the clubs have plenty of space between them.

 

- I prefer the brighter shade of red on the windows client to the slightly duller shade on the web client. It's as though I am in a more well-lit room.

 

Specific Problems

- I dislike the 10s on the web client. They have clearly tried to cram them in so they aren't partially covered by the next card as they are in the windows client, but that makes them look too different from the other cards. Having them slightly covered was not an issue at all and it looked better for all cards to use the same font size and style. It looks like the 1s in the 10s were initially forgotten, then tried to be squeezed into the available space later.

 

- On a similar note, something is weird about the J (jacks) in the web client. I think again they are trying too hard to squeeze it all in. It also creates the optical illusion of making the J look higher than the 10 or 9 or whatever spot card is directly to the right of the jack. I much prefer the wide loop on the Js in the windows client.

 

- There is an inconsistency between whether the picture (on honor cards) or the suit symbols (on spot cards) are covered by the card to the right. In some cases you can barely make out the left edge (jack of spades, 5 of clubs in cardsharp's post) and in some cases you can't (jack of clubs, 5 of spades).

 

Regarding your points above, 1) I think you in fact did a far better job, and 2) I can't think of a single thing I prefer about the cards in the web client, I'm not sure what your reasons are. Is it that they look "newer" somehow?

 

All in all, like karlson it is the card graphics keeping me from making the switch.

[TimG]

Overall, I like the look of the web version cards better than the windows version. To me, the new version is less cluttered -- I guess I like the white space, it makes things look less crammed. (My resolution is set to 1600x1200 on a 21 inch monitor which may influence my opinions -- I generally make the playing area smaller than BBO default.)

 

My preference would be for all cards to be outlined in black, but I think this is just a matter of getting used to the new way. The inconsistency with whether a portion of the suit symbol (or honor picture) is visible or completely covered by the adjacent card ought to be fixed, but I find it less distracting than the always partially hidden '10' in the windows version.

 

I think I'd like to see a four-color deck always arranged with spades on the left followed by hearts, diamonds and clubs (not to be re-arranged with trumps on the left). But, I'm sure that if this option were offered I would be slow to change because it would take time to get used to, there's an incredible inertia associated with what we are used to.

[fred]

I can't think of a single thing I prefer about the cards in the web client, I'm not sure what your reasons are. Is it that they look "newer" somehow?

To me the advantages of the web-client's cards are:

 

- more aesthetically pleasing to look at

- clearer/crisper symbols in top-left and bottom-right

- the pictures in the center of the honor cards are really cute

- aspect ratio is closer to that of real cards

- I didn't like the thick red/black borders at first, but now I prefer them

- I find the darker red to be easier on the eyes

- I like the fact that the table in the web-client is scalable and that the cards look nice (to me) no matter what size of table the user selects

 

It should be noted:

 

- needless to say, such opinions are highly subjective

- like timg, I have a very big monitor set to a very high screen resolution (though I do test the web-client on a variety of monitor sizes and screen resolutions)

- for now I still have good eyesight (I say "for now" because it is slowing getting worse)

- I have used the web-client almost exclusively for the past couple of years. Now, whenever I use the Windows client, the main impression I get is "how ugly" :lol:

 

Recent posts suggest there are plenty of people who disagree with my overall impression of the relative merits of the cards in both client programs. Given that it is an important goal for us to "sell" the web-client to our existing members and how obviously important cards are to bridge, this is a problem.

 

It is too late to do anything about this for the upcoming new version (which I hope will be officially released by Monday at the latest). Hopefully some people will still appreciate the improvments in this area that appear in the new version.

 

But it does sound like we need to do some additional work here. Maybe, as our next move, it would be smart for me to have our artist (who really is brilliant) read the comments in this thread. The nature of the Flash software is such that I am not capable of tweaking the existing cards myself - any changes we make will have to be made by our artist. I would be capable of starting from scratch and designing my own cards, but I would very much prefer not to go down this path.

 

Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts on this important matter. If any of you who don't like the web-client cards are willing to continue using this program for a while to see if you get used to them, I would very much appreciate knowing if this changes your impression. Of course I understand why one might not be eager to try such an experiment.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

Is it possible to have multiple card face options? I assume they'd all have to have the same aspect ratio. Even setting aside that people often prefer what they are used to rather than what is new and improved, you're never going to be able to find a card face that is everyone's first choice.

[fred]

Is it possible to have multiple card face options? 

Yes. It woud probably be a lot of work, but this might be the best way to solve this problem.

 

I assume they'd all have to have the same aspect ratio. 

 

Not necessarily, but it would be complicate matters to use a different aspect ratio.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Fred, what about what I listed under "Specific problems"? We all seem to be debating the stuff I listed under "General problems" but I might have more accurately called that "preferences" since they are subjective matters. I think what I listed about the 10s, the jacks, and the partial covering of the pictures are in fact clear errors that I imagine few would disagree with (although they aren't nearly as major of issues either).

 

Otherwise I could imagine differences of opinion on everything you pointed out except the red borders, to me that clearly looks fake as though the cards are glowing like I said, and is something a person would really have to force themselves to like. I made a point of not mentioning aspects I thought I would get used to even if I don't prefer them now (sharp corners on cards, solid green background, blue rather than yellow diagram backgrounds) but I just don't think this is one of them.

 

I actually wouldn't mind trying the web version experimentally for a while to see what I get used to, except I already have and I didn't get used to anything. I could try it for longer I suppose.

 

Finally, I don't mean to disparage your artist. It's clear to me he is talented, I guess my impression is just that it looks like he has never played bridge before and is trying to design a computer game rather than something friendly for bridge players.

[Ant590]

I think the tabs are great, but I think it is counter-intuitive to have to re-click a tab to hide them. I'd have a third "hide" tab that does that, that becomes "show" when the sidebar is minimised.

[fred]

Fred, what about what I listed under "Specific problems"? We all seem to be debating the stuff I listed under "General problems" but I might have more accurately called that "preferences" since they are subjective matters. I think what I listed about the 10s, the jacks, and the partial covering of the pictures are in fact clear errors that I imagine few would disagree with (although they aren't nearly as major of issues either).

The card rank symbols in the upper-left and lower-right were created using a font (ie they were not drawn pixel by pixel) that our artist decided was an attractive font for this purpose. It is possible that the artist intentionally moved the 1 and the 0 of the 10 closer together than what would be normal with this font, but I am quite sure the J symbol for Jacks is unaltered (which is not to say that I am claiming it is wonderful - just that it appears as it is "supposed to").

 

As for a few pixels of the stuff in the middle of the cards sometimes appearing, I happen to agree with you - I don't like this much either, but note that someone earlier in this thread expressed that they would like to see more of this.

 

In any case, this is not intentional. My goals here were:

 

1) To make the space between the cards as wide as possible

2) To minimize the number of pixels from the middle that overlap

3) For the cards not to overlap any other elements of interface

4) For the cards to be as big as possible

5) For 1 through 4 above to be maintained regardless of the size and aspect ratio that the user selects for the table

 

Goals 1 through 4 obviously compete with one another. Goal 5 greatly complicates matters. The reasons for this are largely technical, but relate to the fact that pixels are discreet entities while scaling an image nicely is not a discreet process.

 

Bottom line: addressing this issue is a lot more complicated than it may seem :D

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[paulg]

I will try using the web client some more.

 

It is a lot better (for me) if I uncheck the BIG CARDS option.

[woefuwabit]

I've read below that it is intended that the web client will be accessible to browsers without flash (e.g. iPhone). Can I assume that means the web client will be ported from Flash to Ajax? Just asking to help me make a decision for my upcoming mobile phone upgrade...

[uday]

While there is a vugraph viewer that is accessible to browsers w/o Flash, thats all we have. We don't have any immediate plans to change this situation. Not all mobiles can run the non-flash vugraph viewer. I know the iphone can, and that the g1 probably can.

 

Uday

[woefuwabit]

I have a Nokia N81, series 60. It's able to run the vugraph viewer, however it's not able to display the suit symbols, which I believe are unicode characters that are not supported by the mobile's font.

[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

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

Just a suggestion:

 

BBO TV and vugraph mobile works through the firewall so perhaps one way is to make web bbo use the same ports/protocols

[zheddh]

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

I see you have released the new version. Curious if you have been successful in getting the web client to use the proxy server?

[uday]

the mobile version of BBO uses http to communicate, so it works fine behind most firewalls.

 

the web version of BBO uses a direct connection on port 3336, and it won't work if it is behind a firewall that prohibits the connection.

 

We do now listen on port 80 but I have not gotten around to creating a new startup web page. Most likely what it will be is a url like http://blah...?port=80 , unless i can come up with a decent-looking way to allow you to select the port from www.bridgebase.com

 

Anyway, I dont know when we'll extend the page to accept a port. it isn't a big change but there are other things going on, so my guess would be sometime over the next few days.

 

 

U