Which BBO client do you use?

[TylerE]

Best of all worlds would be a new native client written against a crossplatform GUI library. QT for instance will allow the same code to be used on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Windows Mobile, and a Nokia smartphones.

[Hanoi5]

I think as long as some features in the windows client are not present in the browser version I will not completely switch. I'd like, for example, to be able to have a look at a file in my computer with BBO, say a hand I played or watched being played or even one I created or better still that someone else created and have it for a class or a bidding practice; this can be done at this moment BUT only if you input the hand into the browser version and save it to your favorites or something. What if I have a file of 32 boards? It's a drag having to input it into the browser version.

 

Maybe this could be done easily, maybe you could translate lins into handviewer (I think this should be easy, I saw it somewhere, don't remember where) and then from handviewer to Browser version. Handviewer is also a great tool, by the way.

[paulg]

Although I initially did not like the look and feel of Flash, it does grow on you as some have said. However this will not happen if you continue to use both and you just have to bite the bullet and use the web client exclusively for a week or two. Then the windows client starts to look old.

 

So I use the web client exclusively now. However I only play with friends so some of the deficiencies mentioned are not relevant to me.

 

As I mentioned on the Support forum, better advertising for team matches on the web client is my most important request for enhancement - as I would occasionally like to play team matches with soon-to-be-friends.

 

p

[calabres]

I have made translation to Portuguese of new web version.

 

I regret to say, that I will never change from Windows version to Web version.

 

Mainly as a TD, when I try to change any parameter of one of my tournaments in Web version, all the initial description is lost and tournament changes to something like that #??? Untitled. Very bad. and if one of my TD's is directing from Web version, if i am not in the Windows version, the simple fact if he/she add time to a round causes the same effect.

 

Fred and BBO Stuff, please make the same efforts to make a better Windows version, like you are doing to the Web version.

 

The 90% of BBO'ers using Windows version will appreciate.

 

Happy Bridge

[fred]

I have made translation to Portuguese of new web version.

 

I regret to say, that I will never change from Windows version to Web version.

 

Mainly as a TD, when I try to change any parameter of one of my tournaments in Web version, all the initial description is lost and tournament changes to something like that #??? Untitled. Very bad. and if one of my TD's is directing from Web version, if i am not in the Windows version, the simple fact if he/she add time to a round causes the same effect.

 

Fred and BBO Stuff, please make the same efforts to make a better Windows version, like you are doing to the Web version.

 

The 90% of BBO'ers using Windows version will appreciate.

 

Happy Bridge

Hi Luis,

 

What you describe is a bug and I am fairly certain we have fixed it. If not we almost certainly fix it soon and then you will have no excuse to continue to use the Windows version :(

 

Sorry but at this point in time it seems very unlikely that we will do any serious work on the Windows version in the foreseeable future. I am not in a position to discuss the exact numbers, but I can tell you that they are nowhere close to the 90% that you mention. I can also tell you that the % of people using the Windows client is steadily dropping.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[USViking]

I hope I made the correct choice by selecting the "windows only version".

 

My choice is the "Version 5.2.6" accessed by clicking a Knave icon

on the desktop screen.

 

I have tried the other version but have not found any comparative

advantage to it.

 

I have noticed one comparative drawback to the other version:

the shade of red used for the heart-diamond pips is too dark for

my slightly colorblind eyesight, and appears almost black and

undistinguishable from the spade-club pips. The different shade

of red used for the "Play or Watch Bridge" and seveal other caption

bars is ok though.

 

I guess I could get used to browser version if I had to, but I am

close to 100% happy with the windows version, and I hope it never

has to be shut down.

[BillHiggin]

I have noticed one comparative drawback to the other version:

the shade of red used for the heart-diamond pips is too dark for

my slightly colorblind eyesight, and appears almost black and

undistinguishable from the spade-club pips. The different shade

of red used for the "Play or Watch Bridge" and seveal other caption

bars is ok though.

I too have impaired color vision and agree that the red suit symbols are a problem.

 

What works best for me is dark red outlines with bright red fill, but of course I have no clue how that looks to the rest of the world.

[onoway]

I have tried the Flash version from time to time and each time found it very frustrating. It seems counterintuitive and so much more challenging (using the word advisedly) to get around and has ambiguous labels tucked away in weird corners..I had to get help to find out how to find a yellow, for example. It seems the the Flash version is much more popular with people who are perhaps more comfortable with computers and like the bells and whistles. Perhaps also people who never used the download version to start with so never had the pleasure of a very user friendly clearly laid out and straightforward site.

 

It seems that people who like to play/work with computers somehow often lose the concept of simple. (not just referring to BBO here, I have run into a couple of other programs which have been "improved" to the point they are sometimes virtually unusable for the computer naive. ) Much to my astonishment, I find that I am not even the least computer competent person on BBO.

 

If there were two versions of Flash.. one could have all the bells and whistles but other be as easy to navigate and had the same emphasis on the options that I prefer (such as the way the chat area is organized in the download version, including going automatically to c/drive, and being able to go directly to a club without being challenged as to what table and why) then I would be happy to change but right now not a chance. To tell me that if I keep using it I will eventually like it is like telling me if I keep hitting my head with a hammer I will eventually enjoy being a masochist. Sorry.

[awm]

Well, I use the Flash version exclusively now because I'm on a Mac.

 

The windows version is not really all that easy to use either. For example, figuring out how to turn the sound off or deactivate "auto-play singleton" took me a while at first. I think both versions have certain things that are easier to do and other things that are harder to do.

 

For someone just starting out with BBO, neither version is particularly easier to use than the other. I think most of the people who prefer the windows version, it's just because they're more used to it.

[matmat]

I am probably in a very small group that feels this way, but I expect to not switch to the web version until the chat keyboard bindings are implemented there.

[calabres]

Some tools used by the best Hosts/TD's on BBO, I forget to mention, are the Chat Assistant or OKScriptX to sent the main announces during a Tournament.

 

I love OKScritX that I adapted to BBO Windows version.

 

I don't think those tools can be used on Web version, and not being possible, it will be very boring to TD's to make that using old way of copy/paste from a macro, insted to make the same with a simple hit on a button.

 

Best regards

[jkljkl]

without repeating other points already made:

 

- My cahe and history is cleared after every session, so the client has to be downloaded every time anew. This takes longer than to start the windows version.

 

- Every time I tried it in the past it crashed my browser (opera).

 

My needs are covered 100% by the downloadable windows version and I will stick to it till bbo will not longer allow it.

 

ciao stefan

[Rossoneri]

Use the Windows version as well.

 

Let's just say, the main reason why I still prefer it is the fact that it is still more stable than any web browser!

[TimG]

I don't think those tools can be used on Web version, and not being possible, it will be very boring to TD's to make that using old way of copy/paste from a macro, insted to make the same with a simple hit on a button.

There is a chat manager in the Flash version. Maybe not as efficient at the OKscript, but it does work.

[fred]

I am probably in a very small group that feels this way, but I expect to not switch to the web version until the chat keyboard bindings are implemented there.

You will have them in the next version of the web-client.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

The feedback in this thread is very useful, but I have to admit that some of the comments don't make a lot of sense to me. In particular, there are two points that multiple posters have mentioned that seem very strange. If anyone can clarify their remarks pertaining to these issues, I would appreciate it:

 

1) The navigation is difficult/confusing

 

This is strange to me because, as far as I can tell, the most important navigational aspects of both clients ("List all tables" in the web client and "Click to play or watch bridge" in the Windows client) are almost exactly the same in terms of both function and structure.

 

Both clients have several other top-level menu items in common (like "Help me find a game", "Vugraph", "Masterpoints and Races", "ACBL World", and "Robot World"). In general these work exactly the same way in both clients (although "Help me find a game" is significantly more powerful in the web-client).

 

It is true that the web-client has several additional (and IMO useful) top-level menu items that are either unavailable or harder to access in the Windows client, but I would have thought that many people would see many of these as a convenience.

 

What am I missing?

 

2) Too many bells and whistles

 

Some examples would be helpful as I have absolutely no idea what aspects of the web-client these comments are referring to. Besides that, I would have thought that most Forums regulars would be the type of people who would like bells and whistles :)

 

In our design of the web-client we actually went out of our way to either leave out or semi-hide a lot of the bells and whistles that are present in the Windows client and that we thought that few people understood or used. We tried to make the web-client simpler.

 

Meanwhile the web-client has a lot of (IMO) great features that are not available in the Windows client, but I don't see how any of these get in the way for those who don't want to use them. Also, the implementation of some features common to both clients is (IMO) much superior in the web-client. It would be helpful for me to know which features are thought of as "bells and whistles" and how people who are not interested in these features think they hurt user experience.

 

I am trying to keep an open mind and there have certainly been some legitimate complaints expressed in this thread. However, unless some of you can enlighten me about the two points above, it will be hard for me to conclude that such complaints are the result of anything other than lack of familiarity.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[TylerE]

What it comes down to for me is that the web clien tries to have too much on screen at a time by default. Results, fiends, etc. By default in the Windows client you get your table, and the chatbox. Everything else is either a popup when clicked or essentially tabbed. (The mini table list for instance).

 

by contrast the flash is far too busy looking, and then you've got the browser window around it to just to make it even busier. Also Flash vs Native GUI widgets doesn't help either.

[fred]

What it comes down to for me is that the web clien tries to have too much on screen at a time by default. Results, fiends, etc. By default in the Windows client you get your table, and the chatbox. Everything else is either a popup when clicked or essentially tabbed. (The mini table list for instance).

 

by contrast the flash is far too busy looking, and then you've got the browser window around it to just to make it even busier. Also Flash vs Native GUI widgets doesn't help either.

Thanks for clarifying your point of view Tyler, but...

 

1) For the past few months the default view when at a table has been to display only the actual table and the chat area. As with the Windows client, you can optionally display friends, results, table lists, etc. when you are at a table. If you are not seeing the default view and want to restore it, there are a few ways to do this. For example, try toggling the "Results" button below the table itself.

 

2) If you log into the web-client through the yellow link on our home page, most of the traditional browser controls (menu bar, space to type URL, back and home buttons, etc.) will not be shown. With some browsers you can eliminate all browser controls by pressing the F11 key on your keyboard (but this mode makes multi-tasking more difficult). Press F11 again to exit this mode.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[paulg]

What it comes down to for me is that the web clien tries to have too much on screen at a time by default. Results, fiends, etc.

Someone using the new categories in the web client? :)

[diana_eva]

Someone using the new categories in the web client?

 

<----------------

[babalu1997]

What it comes down to for me is that the web clien tries to have too much on screen at a time by default. Results, fiends, etc.

Someone using the new categories in the web client? :)

actually i have been using the web browser because of that

 

if and when i am playing with random partners or regular partners in tournaments, i want to mark some people for various reason, it is much easier than player notes or enmying people .

 

but getting inot a table is still difficult because of the slowness of the refresh button

 

another point about the web browser:

 

ability to retrieve recent tournament results the next day , looking for those in the main site was tedious.

[sallyally]

To Chime in again: Using the web versions while in a teaching table (something I decided to live with - to copy and paste) I discovered that I could have my chats to the teacher, and each opp, show separately. There was no obfuscation by other table chat. It showed only your converstion with that particular person.

 

So, I decided this is great and proceeded to bring up each person and leave them there so I could see all the chat with them individually and carry on conversations that way.

 

However, something happened there. I think by keeping my teacher up for conversation (private) I lost her table talk about the hands to save in the ordinary chat. So I will look at that some more.

 

I am not sure how clear this is. I hope anyone who cares understands.

[fred]

To Chime in again:  Using the web versions while in a teaching table (something I decided to live with - to copy and paste) I discovered that I could have my chats to the teacher, and each opp, show separately.  There was no obfuscation by other table chat.  It showed only your converstion with that particular person.

 

So, I decided this is great and proceeded to bring up each person and leave them there so I could see all the chat with them individually and carry on conversations that way.

 

However,  something happened there.  I think by keeping my teacher up for conversation (private) I lost her table talk about the hands to save in the ordinary chat.  So I will look at that some more.

 

I am not sure how clear this is. I hope anyone who cares understands.

Thanks for clarifying - I understand what you are saying.

 

This is actually intentional. When you have a private chat window up, chat messages that are sent to and received from the person in question appear only in that window. I thought it would be unnecessarily distracting if such messages appeared in two places at once.

 

I realize this is not ideal for the purposes of chat-logging, but probably the correct solution is to implement some kind of automated chat-logging facility. This is easier said than done given the difficulty of getting Flash applications to be able to read/write files on your hard disk.

 

That being said, some of the comments in this thread have reinforced the notion that chat and hand logging is very important to a lot of our members. I will give some more thought to trying to find a way to address these concerns (but I can't make any promises that I will be successful or, if I am, when you might see a solution).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[zenko]

I am not 100% happy with Windows version, and in principle I would love to switch to Web app but Flash version just does not work for me, and judging by pool results for many others too. I admit my bias against it is mostly subjective, Flash designs for me in general look "tiny", too busy and unappealing. I am well aware that these kind of objections are very frustrating for developers, but it surely is not just because I am not used to it. At my work for years now I am using Flash apps and I still dislike the way they feel.

 

Despite that I would be very wiling to switch to Flash if few key things in it get fixed, for example the general chat, which is either not available or I do not know how to activate it. Or maybe there is some other way to sign up for team matches, but I could not figure it out, but thats not really a good advertisement either.

[fred]

I am not 100% happy with Windows version, and in principle I would love to switch to Web app but Flash version just does not work for me, and judging by pool results for many others too. I admit my bias against it is mostly subjective, Flash designs for me  in general look "tiny", too busy and unappealing. I am well aware that these kind of objections are very frustrating for developers, but it surely is not just because I am not used to it. At my work for years now I am using Flash apps and I still dislike the way they feel.

 

Despite that I would be very wiling to switch to Flash if few key things in it get fixed,  for  example the general chat, which is either not available or I do not know how to activate it. Or maybe there is some other way to sign up for team matches, but I could not figure it out, but thats not really a good advertisement either.

Thanks for your feedback, Zenko.

 

There is no chat->lobby in the web-client, but there is a new (and IMO much better) way to organize team matches.

 

You can actually start a team match without specifying all 8 players. Those players who are specified with receive invitations as usual, but the other seats will remain empty when the team match is created. People using the web-client can then click on the empty seats in order to request permission to join the team match.

 

So far there are not many people using this facility, but this is probably mostly a function of not many people knowing about it. I suspect that once words spreads, especially among those who play a lot of team matches and have been complaining forever about the difficulty of getting 8 players together using chat->lobby, this will be very popular.

 

The developers are not fans of chat->lobby so I doubt this will be implemented in the web-client, but it is not unlikely that we will eventually create some kind of semi-automated facility that allows people to issue notifications like "need 3 for team match", for interested parties to subscribe to these notifications, and for the software to take care of getting these people together.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com