oscarb Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Web-client is annoying with the (on the far left) flashing spam messages, ie: you are the 1,000,000 visitor, etc. Anyone else feel the same way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 went back and tried again..It seems to me that the main differences between the Windows version and the new web version reflects, in many ways, a different point of view. The windows version seems much more people and the webversion much more computer oriented. The Window version seem much more to reflect the way people actually interact with 'real" life and the web version is a much more "industrial " in atmosphere..For example: I absolutely HATE not knowing who is in the kib box with me, just as I would hate being in a totally black room, unable to see anything, but knowing there were other people in the room.If (in the Windows version)someone is invisible they are invisible UNLESS they are in the same space as you are, again just as if they were actually in or out of the room. The Web client they are invisible all the time but if you try to message them all of a sudden there they are. Sort of. So what is the point of having an invisible option when anyone anywhere on BBO can find you? I did like being able to adjust the size of the screen. I really dislike the new Chat setup. It seems much less efficient in terms of the use of space than the Windows version and I find it much harder to read. Also there seems to be no "cancel" button so if you have second thoughts about something you wanted to send,(say the teacher just answered the question you were about to ask) or if the person logged off before you send the message, what are you supposed to do? Also it is slightly confusing to have some chat in the profile box and then have to chase the conversation down to the chat area. It's nice to have the chatline moveable so as to see better what you are typing ..can't do that in the webversion. The webversion chat area also seems to imply you had best say what you have to say and shut up. It's also reflected in that you cannot just go to "the club" You have to go to a table in the club. and if the tables are full you will be challenged.."there are no empty tables"..you will eventually be allowed to proceed if you jump through a couple more hoops =so show me the full tables =take me to this one but it is very robotic/cold/unfriendly way to treat people. I found getting around in general was cumbersome. Everything is so precise and specific and the set up is definitely discouraging of any sort of the delightful meandering available in the Windows version, with wonderful treats to be found in all the nooks and crannies. You cannot really go anywhere unless you know precisely where you want to go. Again, not at all the way most people are, in social situations. It's different in a business setup where everything is supposed to be maximally efficient, but I venture to guess that is not what most people are looking for in their leisure activities. It's unlikely to be in any way measurable, but I would really like to know how many of the chronic troublemakers are using the webclient and how many using the Windows version. I would hazard a guess that most of them are using the webversion. It is so much more impersonal..it'd be like some people would never dream of stealing from their neighbor's house but the chain store down the street is fair game. I know you have all worked really hard on this; it just seems sad that in my opinion, so much of what made BBO such a welcoming place seems to be difficult or impossible to translate into the web version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I really dislike the new Chat setup. It seems much less efficient in terms of the use of space than the Windows version and I find it much harder to read. Also there seems to be no "cancel" button so if you have second thoughts about something you wanted to send,(say the teacher just answered the question you were about to ask) or if the person logged off before you send the message, what are you supposed to do? Also it is slightly confusing to have some chat in the profile box and then have to chase the conversation down to the chat area. It's nice to have the chatline moveable so as to see better what you are typing ..can't do that in the webversion. The webversion chat area also seems to imply you had best say what you have to say and shut up. To cancel your message, just mark it with the mouse and press the Delete key, just as you would erase a sentence in a word processor or email editor. If you're having a private conversation with someone, you can click on the Private Chat button in their profile and you'll see the entire conversation in a pop-up window, so you don't have to chase it down to the chat window where it's mixed up with other chats. My complaint with the chat function is that it frequently requires me to click in the chat line to get going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 If I'm not registered for a robot tourney, I can't kibbitz the players in that tourney. Only players who are in the tourney and have finished their boards can kibbitz the remaining tables. But if I go into a running robot tourney, the Kibbitz column says Join in all the tables, rather than having the No Entry symbol like regular no-kibbitzer tourneys do. It still doesn't let me kibbitz, but why does it even have the button available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted December 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 If I'm not registered for a robot tourney, I can't kibbitz the players in that tourney. Only players who are in the tourney and have finished their boards can kibbitz the remaining tables. But if I go into a running robot tourney, the Kibbitz column says Join in all the tables, rather than having the No Entry symbol like regular no-kibbitzer tourneys do. It still doesn't let me kibbitz, but why does it even have the button available? We were endplayed by an early design decision such that a given table's "allow kibitzers" property can not take the value of "only certain kibitzers". The only way to implement this property (without a massive rewrite of code) is to set the table to allow kibitzers and then reject inappropriate kibitzers who try to join the table. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted December 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Onoway - thanks for your comments. I would respectfully suggest that most of the issues you raise are a result of you being very familiar with the Windows client and not having spent enough time with the web-client yet. I suspect that, if you spend a week using the web-client exclusively, you will start to feel differently. More often than not this is what seems to happen when a long time Windows client user spends a significant amount of time with the web-client. It sounds to me that you did not spend much time with the web-client and that you missed some things. No doubt this is partly our fault - one thing we should definitely do is write a "migration guide for Windows client users" at some point. Here are some things about the web-client that I think you might have overlooked: - You can see a list of kibitzers in the web-client and invisible kibitzers do appear in this list. - Barmar addressed some of the issues you raised with respect to chat. The ability to (optionally) show each private chat conversation in its own area is very useful. The next version will contain some improvements to chat (including the long-awaited "save/recall a list of common chat messages"). - You have a lot of control over the size of the font in the chat area. I suspect that you will be able to set the font to a size that works better for you than either of the 2 discreet sizes available in the Windows client. - The navigational interface under "Show all tables" is very similar to that which is available through "Click to play or watch bridge" in the Windows client. "Help me find a game" is much more powerful in the web-client. If you want to give the web-client another try and if you can't figure out how to do some of the things I describe, please make another post and I will supply details. Of course I am not claiming that the web-client is a work of art just yet, but it has been improving rapidly and I expect this to continue for the foreseeable future. Even though I think that some of your comments may have been due largely to your spending much more time using the Windows client than you have spent using the web-client, such comments are still helpful and appreciated. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 I cannot add a second director when creating a team match. It is useful to have a second director (in case the first has a problem) and often just polite in a more formal match.I've discovered that I can do this, but you have to do it after the match is created (in Edit Tournament) and not in the initial creation screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 If I'm not registered for a robot tourney, I can't kibbitz the players in that tourney. Only players who are in the tourney and have finished their boards can kibbitz the remaining tables. But if I go into a running robot tourney, the Kibbitz column says Join in all the tables, rather than having the No Entry symbol like regular no-kibbitzer tourneys do. It still doesn't let me kibbitz, but why does it even have the button available? We were endplayed by an early design decision such that a given table's "allow kibitzers" property can not take the value of "only certain kibitzers". The only way to implement this property (without a massive rewrite of code) is to set the table to allow kibitzers and then reject inappropriate kibitzers who try to join the table. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com I see. It's basically an automated version of "Permission required to kibbitz", where the decision is based on whether you were an entrant in the tourney. That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted December 18, 2009 Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 One thing that caught me out yesterday with the web client. A team game that I created allowed kibitzers (by default). During the game I decided to employ my new found skill and add an additional Director. After successfully doing this I got lots of messages asking why had kibitzers been thrown out of the match (I was hosting not playing). It seems that the Edit Tournament tab has a default of kibitzers not permitted. Not a major issue, but it would be preferable for the default to be the current state of the tournament for all these check boxes. Paul (To be honest the web client must be pretty good when I am complaining at this level!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted December 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 18, 2009 It seems that the Edit Tournament tab has a default of kibitzers not permitted. Not a major issue, but it would be preferable for the default to be the current state of the tournament for all these check boxes.That is how it is supposed to work. You have identified a bug (thanks!). What you describe only happens if you allow kibitzers but do not allow kibitzers to chat with players. I have a fix for this bug, but not clear if it will make it into the next version (which is theoretically in its final testing phase) or the one after that. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred Posted December 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2009 This thread is now closed. We have released a new version of the web-client and created a new comments thread here: Link to new web-client comments thread Thanks for everyone who contributed their thoughts to this thread. Sorry that I am unable to respond to all posts, but I think you will see that the latest version includes several of the improvements that were suggested here. Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts