Windows client retirement feedback thread

[fred]

In our case this requires using the old version until such time as the new version can be made to read a file of names held on the host's computer or on the web.

The web version does allow a TD to specify a list of users who are allowed to play in a tournament. This list is stored on the web.

 

A complication is that these lists are associated with a specific user ID and there is currently no way for multiple IDs to share the same list. So you would want to create an ID like AcolTD (or whatever) and agree to some mechanism whereby the various Acol Club administrators agree on who will be responsible for maintaining the list associated with the AcolTD ID. Then use the AcolTD ID to create your tournaments and select the option to allow only people who are on the list.

 

This may be a little awkward to begin with, but I think you will find that in general the TD interface in the web-client is much more sophisticated and powerful than that which exists in the Windows client.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jandrew]

The web version does allow a TD to specify a list of users who are allowed to play in a tournament. This list is stored on the web.

 

A complication is that these lists are associated with a specific user ID and there is currently no way for multiple IDs to share the same list. So you would want to create an ID like AcolTD (or whatever) and agree to some mechanism whereby the various Acol Club administrators agree on who will be responsible for maintaining the list associated with the AcolTD ID. Then use the AcolTD ID to create your tournaments and select the option to allow only people who are on the list.

 

This may be a little awkward to begin with, but I think you will find that in general the TD interface in the web-client is much more sophisticated and powerful than that which exists in the Windows client.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Thanks Fred.

 

I have already looked at the web-client and can certainly live with that - as a TD.

 

My problem is, I think, only with maintaining the membership list which the host uses to set up the tournament.

 

Perhaps I see more complications than there really are and, rather than go through all the points in a public forum, I will send a short email to you, Uday or Barmar which might identify useful additions to the web-client.

 

It would good to think that I can get my act in order before the end of the year - I suspect that a short-term help would be for our hosts to join the list of old version users until we are ready. We will ask when/if it proves necessary.

[johnu]

There were two main reasons why we decided to go with the horizontal dummy in the web-client:

 

1) It allowed us to make the cards bigger. This is especially important for people who have poor vision and/or who are not great with a mouse.

 

2) When the Windows client was first developed, the most common screen resolutions were 800x600 and 1024x768 (that is, 4:3 aspect ratios). In more recent times the trend has been toward monitors with larger aspect ratios (such as 16:9). Vertical space is now at a premium. The fact that the web-client runs in a browser and that browsers eat up their own vertical space makes things worse.

 

Yes there are other possible configurations of the primary screen components (the table, chat, and the list of results) that we could have used that might have allowed for a nice-looking vertical dummy with big cards (at least on some monitors). However, this is a complex subject and I am not prepared to get into a long discussion about the pluses and minuses of the various alternatives (sorry).

 

Suffice it to say, this was not a decision that was made lightly. Overall we judged that the advantages of a horizontal dummy in the web-client outweighed the disadvantages. If, after reading the above, you still disagree with our decision then that is your right of course. But hopefully you will at least appreciate that we had what we thought were sound reasons for this difficult design decision.

 

We receive very very few complaints about the horizontal dummy. Evidently it is something that many 1000s of people can happily deal with once they get used to it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

 

Thanks Fred,

 

I have no problem with your original decision on the web version because I didn't have to use it. And if I used a mobile version, the screen is too small. I will note that the Windows version size of cards is perfectly acceptable, at least to me, and takes up a lot less space than the web version. As far as ease of use with a mouse, it's totally a problem with the width of the cards, not the height. I don't think anybody ever had a real problem clicking below or above a card, only with clicking an adjacent card.

 

And of course, these days, 800x600 and 1024x768 are rarely found as most people have much larger monitors with much higher resolutions.

 

As far as complaints about the horizontal dummy, the number of forum users appears to be a minuscule percentage of your total user base. Also, there was no real need to complain for long time users because they could always vote with their feet by sticking with the windows version. Most newer users who have only used the web version wouldn't even know that it was possible for BBO to display the dummy according to Law 41(D). They would just be happy to play and watch any kind of bridge from the comfort of their homes.

 

Have you ever taken a poll to see what players prefer? Show a mockup of a dummy arranged by columns compared with the web standard and see who prefers each version.

[fred]

Have you ever taken a poll to see what players prefer? Show a mockup of a dummy arranged by columns compared with the web standard and see who prefers each version.

No, but in general I agree that it would be good if we did more of this sort of thing. We do pay attention to Forums and we also receive a lot of e-mail from our users (both to our support department and to various members of our staff, including me, personally). We also rely heavily on real designers (rather than bridge players who happen to be programmers like me) to help make important design decisions.

 

In this particular case a mockup alone might not be enough - it would be good if people could actually judge what the playing experience would be like (they might not like it if, for example, dummy has a very long suit and the cards have to either be very small, be scrunched together, or overlap other UI elements, especially if you want the suit order to be the same as in the other hands which we know many of our users care about).

 

We are actually in the middle of planning an entirely new BBO client both for the web and for mobile devices that will be based on HTML5 and Javascript rather than Flash. Given the current state of Flash, it is important that we get moving on this. That, and limited resources, may well constrain how much effort we willing to put into improving the existing (Flash) web-client (or it might not - unclear at this point). In any case, we have received plenty of useful feedback both in this thread and from other sources that, at a minimum, I expect will have some impact on the design of the HTML client.

 

Hopefully needless to say, we will try to ensure that the HTML client makes for the best BBO experience yet. We try very hard to make the best decisions we can, but of course you can't make all of the people happy all of the time and of course sometimes we simply make mistakes that are a lot easier to see in retrospect.

 

I am not sure you understand my point about monitors - it is aspect ratio (the ratio of the number of horizontal pixels to the number of vertical pixels), not screen resolution, that is the relevant factor in terms of the issue in question (among many others).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

The main reason I use the windows version is the automatic saving of hands to a local drive that is possible not just when playing but when at bidding or teaching tables and when kibitzing including vugraph. I particularly have used the ability to do that from a bidding table a lot.

 

Is there a way to save or get hands from a bidding table other than saving them one hand at a time from the web client?

[mycroft]

Interesting. At home, I have a three-monitor setup, and the middle one is vertical, simply because web browsers, and web pages, like to use a lot of vertical space, and it's precious. 900x1600 should be enough for anybody, right?

 

There are issues, but fullscreen web-BBO on a deep screen has zero problem with chat size. Keeping the screen and the results page up at the same time and of readable size, that's an issue.

[isabable]

Please do not cancel windows. I dislike the web version thank you isabable

[johnu]

In this particular case a mockup alone might not be enough - it would be good if people could actually judge what the playing experience would be like (they might not like it if, for example, dummy has a very long suit and the cards have to either be very small, be scrunched together, or overlap other UI elements, especially if you want the suit order to be the same as in the other hands which we know many of our users care about).

 

Yes, very long suits are problematical. IIRC, even in the Web version you switch to a smaller font for EW with an 8(7?)+ card suit. My thought was that when it was dummy's turn to play, as you hovered over a suit (automatically if following suit) that you could get an a magnified window popup showing the suit with larger cards (optional).

 

We are actually in the middle of planning an entirely new BBO client both for the web and for mobile devices that will be based on HTML5 and Javascript rather than Flash. Given the current state of Flash, it is important that we get moving on this. That, and limited resources, may well constrain how much effort we willing to put into improving the existing (Flash) web-client (or it might not - unclear at this point). In any case, we have received plenty of useful feedback both in this thread and from other sources that, at a minimum, I expect will have some impact on the design of the HTML client.

 

I guess it depends on the timeframe for the new platform, but if I was the project manager, I would freeze Web development except for fixing critical bugs, and move any new features directly to the new platform. There doesn't seem to be any point in adding new features to a platform that is going to disappear in the near future.

 

 

I am not sure you understand my point about monitors - it is aspect ratio (the ratio of the number of horizontal pixels to the number of vertical pixels), not screen resolution, that is the relevant factor in terms of the issue in question (among many others).

 

Apparently not :) Sorry for being dense and not seeing the problems caused by different aspect ratios.

[smerriman]

My thought was that when it was dummy's turn to play, as you hovered over a suit (automatically if following suit) that you could get an a magnified window popup showing the suit with larger cards (optional).

As a web dev myself, I can tell you that with so many touch screens these days (not just mobiles), you can no longer assume the user has a mouse/the ability to 'hover' for anything crucial - and a large enough tappable area is definitely crucial.

[matmat]

I really miss the Windows version feature that would play the correct card for you automatically. Can you please make sure that gets ported in future updates?

 

 

 

There are a bunch of features described as "missing" from the web version on this and another site and I am pretty sure (in some cases certain) that the features are there but the way to get at them might not be immediately clear to some folk.

 

There may be value in generating an FAQ, or a Q&A thread, or something of the sort to make people aware of these purportedly missing features and help guide people through the transition.

[johnu]

As a web dev myself, I can tell you that with so many touch screens these days (not just mobiles), you can no longer assume the user has a mouse/the ability to 'hover' for anything crucial - and a large enough tappable area is definitely crucial.

 

You could use a tap to bring up a magnified suit view for a touch screen. The point was that just because your original display of the suit might be smaller than optimal for selecting a card to play, there isn't any reason that you couldn't expand the suit view when you needed to play a card from that suit.

[johnu]

An interesting poll on BBO platform preference at http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bbo-client/

 

At this time, the Web version has a very small lead over the Windows version, and surprisingly, the mobile versions have very small support so far. There are a number of reason why people prefer the Windows version. I would have thought this very unscientific poll would have shown a preponderance of support for the Web version since new users have no choice and many old users would have changed to use the new features that BBO has been touting.

[1eyedjack]

One would hope that those without access to the windows client would have the nous to refrain from voting.

[barmar]

As a web dev myself, I can tell you that with so many touch screens these days (not just mobiles), you can no longer assume the user has a mouse/the ability to 'hover' for anything crucial - and a large enough tappable area is definitely crucial.

Isn't press-and-hold the usual replacement for hover on touch screens? That's what the mobile client currently uses to display the meanings of bids.

[johnu]

One would hope that those without access to the windows client would have the nous to refrain from voting.

 

LOL, that doesn't seem to be the case in any other poll that has been run. I did say that this was an unscientific poll. As the saying goes, opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one. What kind of fantasy world do you live in :P

[steve2005]

I really miss the Windows version feature that would play the correct card for you automatically. Can you please make sure that gets ported in future updates?

 

 

 

There are a bunch of features described as "missing" from the web version on this and another site and I am pretty sure (in some cases certain) that the features are there but the way to get at them might not be immediately clear to some folk.

 

There may be value in generating an FAQ, or a Q&A thread, or something of the sort to make people aware of these purportedly missing features and help guide people through the transition.

If you mean auto-play singleton that is available on web version, though is frowned upon because card is played fast so you can tell it's a singleton.

If you mean computer plays some other card for you that would be against the laws of bridge although auto-singleton probably would violate bridge laws too.

 

 

[diana_eva]

There's a random delay when auto-play singleton is on, it's not insta-play. It used to be instant play but that was fixed that a few years ago.

[barmar]

There's a random delay when auto-play singleton is on, it's not insta-play. It used to be instant play but that was fixed that a few years ago.

Except in robot games, since the robots don't take inferences from tempo. So if you play lots of robot games, you might get the wrong impression that it does this all the time.

[a rebel]

I have always use the windows version except when on someone else's computer; and vote emphatically not to discontinue.

[smerriman]

Isn't press-and-hold the usual replacement for hover on touch screens? That's what the mobile client currently uses to display the meanings of bids.

Sure - but not when the aim was to make it easier to select in the first place!

[onoway]

one question is what is the point of the list of people and the start of their comments on the right side of the screen? I fail to understand the rationale for this, especially if space is at a premium.

 

Much as I respect Diana Eva, reading two words of whatever comment she (and of course all the others, it just seems to be Diana_Eva most of the time)was making in a conversation ( I assume) which doesn't even remotely involve me seems an odd use of space. It also feels like eavesdropping.

 

I would much rather see that space used to list the friends I have online, albeit in much smaller type. That would give you more room for the card table and be much more useful, imo.

[barmar]

one question is what is the point of the list of people and the start of their comments on the right side of the screen? I fail to understand the rationale for this, especially if space is at a premium.

It's supposed to be a kind of social networking. I'm personally not a fan, either, but I don't use facebook or twitter, either, so I'm out of step with modern times.

I would much rather see that space used to list the friends I have online, albeit in much smaller type. That would give you more room for the card table and be much more useful, imo.

Switch to the Who's Online tab and the news feed is replaced with the list of friends who are online.

 

Is space really at a premium? Modern PCs offer very high resolutions.

[matmat]

I also miss the ability to do a minor hack on some of the data files and fly a pirate flag!

[scarletv]

Is space really at a premium? Modern PCs offer very high resolutions.

For me space is really a matter, as I mostly play on a small laptop and eyes are getting worse. The smaller the playing area gets the more tiresome it is. Avoid any space consuming elements like thick bars or buttons in the top that could be placed elsewhere.

 

When BBO gets more and more a place to play with robots and not to meet or find human partners for a friendly play I don't think it is a good thing to happen. In my personal priority list everything that makes it easier to find suitable players is welcome. Showing the friends list on first view would be one of my wishes. Filter possibilities for nationality, skill level with all its pain, similar completion rate (+/-10 %) and last but not least system key words would be very welcome. For table lists and finding a partner for casual game or tourney everywhere welcome.

 

I guess BBO should have data on how players use the newsfeed. My experience is that I don't need much of it. Mainly the important BBO announcements are of interest. I have seen little from followers/friends that I found useful. With a split screen on the right side it should be possible to have both, friends and news feed. Customizable would be very much appreciated.

 

As TD I prefer the possibility to login with two different usernames at the same time. I hope very much that this will be possible with HTML5 as well.

 

Last but not least get rid of that completely unnecessary noise when cards are played. I want to have sound to catch my attention when needed and not to be spammed.

 

And for all those that still prefer the client solution. You are missing a real lot of good stuff in the web version. I wonder what others appreciate, for me the categories is one of the most useful tools BBO applied.

[paulg]

It's supposed to be a kind of social networking. I'm personally not a fan, either, but I don't use facebook or twitter, either, so I'm out of step with modern times.

 

Switch to the Who's Online tab and the news feed is replaced with the list of friends who are online.

 

Unfortunately you cannot make this the default tab.