[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]

TylerE, on Aug 11 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

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]

TylerE, on Aug 11 2010, 03:14 PM, said:

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]

Quote

Someone using the new categories in the web client?

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

[babalu1997]

cardsharp, on Aug 11 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

TylerE, on Aug 11 2010, 03:14 PM, said:

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]

sallyally, on Aug 12 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

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]

zenko, on Aug 12 2010, 08:51 PM, said:

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

[hotShot]

fred, on Aug 12 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

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.

I would imagine that a "Team Match Club" in an analog way to the MBC, would be a better solution.

[Dwingo]

[quote name='hotShot' date='Aug 13 2010, 02:57 AM'][quote name='fred' date='Aug 12 2010, 10:02 PM'] 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. [/QUOTE]
I would imagine that a "Team Match Club" in an analog way to the MBC, would be a better solution.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dwingo,While creating Team Matches on web version, Chat to Lobby is sorely missed.

I understand the issues for not allowing Chat to Lobby using the Web version. As it currently stands, there are not many players who are clicking on the empty seats if a TM is formed without all 8 members.

I would suggest that as soon as a TM is created with atleast 1 seat unfilled, that the system generates an Automated message to Lobby ( this way there is a control on the No. of messages that is sent to Lobby) and people who want to join the TM should be able to right click on the message and join the TM screen with the empty seats shown. This way the empty seats would be filled up pretty soon.

If this can be done both for Windows users and Flash users, that would be great.

The good thing about this version, the TM starts when 1 table of 4 members is seated. The 2nd table can be formed even as the 1st table is playing. However the 2nd table has to be filled within a specific period of time. I am not sure what that time is. I remember when I was in the 3rd or 4th deal, the Team Match was closed on us as we are not able to get another 4 for the 2nd table.

Though I appreciate the progress made on the Team Match front in the web version, there is still scope for improvement. As a TM organiser, I still prefer to use windows version for creating Team Matches. [/QUOTE]

The semi automated facility is very good idea, but would prefer that the host retains control of who enters the Team Match, similar to asking for Permission to sit at the table in MBC.

It will be a disaster, if implemented in the "Take me quickly to a Team Match" fashion, as is now being done in MBC.

[patroclo]

is it possble to save hand with the web version and use other software to analize?

[zenko]

[quote name='Dwingo' date='Aug 14 2010, 02:51 AM'] [quote name='hotShot' date='Aug 13 2010, 02:57 AM'][quote name='fred' date='Aug 12 2010, 10:02 PM'] 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. [/QUOTE]
I would imagine that a "Team Match Club" in an analog way to the MBC, would be a better solution.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dwingo,While creating Team Matches on web version, Chat to Lobby is sorely missed.

I understand the issues for not allowing Chat to Lobby using the Web version. As it currently stands, there are not many players who are clicking on the empty seats if a TM is formed without all 8 members.

I would suggest that as soon as a TM is created with atleast 1 seat unfilled, that the system generates an Automated message to Lobby ( this way there is a control on the No. of messages that is sent to Lobby) and people who want to join the TM should be able to right click on the message and join the TM screen with the empty seats shown. This way the empty seats would be filled up pretty soon.

If this can be done both for Windows users and Flash users, that would be great.

The good thing about this version, the TM starts when 1 table of 4 members is seated. The 2nd table can be formed even as the 1st table is playing. However the 2nd table has to be filled within a specific period of time. I am not sure what that time is. I remember when I was in the 3rd or 4th deal, the Team Match was closed on us as we are not able to get another 4 for the 2nd table.

Though I appreciate the progress made on the Team Match front in the web version, there is still scope for improvement. As a TM organiser, I still prefer to use windows version for creating Team Matches. [/QUOTE]

The semi automated facility is very good idea, but would prefer that the host retains control of who enters the Team Match, similar to asking for Permission to sit at the table in MBC.

It will be a disaster, if implemented in the "Take me quickly to a Team Match" fashion, as is now being done in MBC. [/quote]
How can you even start a team match in web version? Under Play or Watch tab I have only Start a table option, not start a match, is it hidden somewhere else?

[zenko]

hotShot, on Aug 12 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 12 2010, 10:02 PM, said:

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.

I would imagine that a "Team Match Club" in an analog way to the MBC, would be a better solution.

Thank you very much for clarification. I will try that new feature for sure, will this semi-automatic team match matching have the same "I have a partner" option which now exist in "help me find a game" tab? Also, playing with your regular partner against a random hook-up pair is often like shooting fish in a barrel, so I much prefer playing team matches open only for pairs to sign up, will be there a way to screen for those?

[fred]

zenko, on Aug 14 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

Thank you very much for clarification. I will try that new feature for sure, will this semi-automatic team match matching have the same "I have a partner" option which now exist in "help me find a game" tab? Also, playing with your regular partner against a random hook-up pair is often like shooting fish in a barrel, so I much prefer playing team matches open only for pairs to sign up, will be there a way to screen for those?

Click "List all tables", then "Team matches", and then click the "Create team match" button (near the bottom).

You don't have to worry about unwanted randoms getting into the team matches you create. When a player clicks on an empty seat in your team match, you will receive a permission request that includes the user's profile. You can say "yes" or "no" as you see fit.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[inquiry]

patroclo, on Aug 14 2010, 06:43 AM, said:

is it possble to save hand with the web version and use other software to analize?

The hands are automatically saved for everyone on the BBO servers. The hands stay available there for variable amounts of time, but there seems to always be a minimum of 1 month, and often many months.

You can go to the myhand site and save each hand individually if you like (or pick the ones you want to save).. the website is

http://online.bridge...hands/index.php

Or you can use a great little free tool provided by a commercial website. The website is www.bridgecaotain.com. If you want, you can download their free double dummy solver from one of their download pages (short cut to it is...

http://www.bridgecap...downloadDD.html ).

This program has an option to grab hands directly from the bridgebase online myhands server, and put them all in a single file. The options are
1) enter a player name (in this case yours if grabbing your hands)
2) Enter time frame to grab hands from (options are last 24 hours, last 7 days, this month, and last month).

It will grab all the hands stored in myhands and put them in a single file. It does this very quickly.

A side benefit, is it calculates makable contracts, par contracts, and allows you to choose teh "double dummy" card for most tricks at anytime during the play of the hand. For a little freebie, this is an amazing little program, and it calculates the makable contracts very quickly.

[mgoetze]

Oh, BTW, I no longer have Flash Player installed on any of my computers, since there is no current official version (i.e. without major security holes) available for 64-bit Linux and I don't consider Flash important enough to bother fiddling with the 32-bit plugin wrapper.

I just tried to load the latest flash client with Gnash 0.8.7 on Iceweasel 3.5.11 (Gnash is an open-source reimplementation of Flash, and Iceweasel is a rebranded Firefox). It works well enough to show an advertisement, but not anything else. Since I don't come to BBO mainly to look at ads, I'm definitely sticking to the Windows version for now.

[paulg]

inquiry, on Aug 14 2010, 07:31 PM, said:

patroclo, on Aug 14 2010, 06:43 AM, said:

is it possble to save hand with the web version and use other software to analize?

The hands are automatically saved for everyone on the BBO servers. The hands stay available there for variable amounts of time, but there seems to always be a minimum of 1 month, and often many months.

You can go to the myhand site and save each hand individually if you like (or pick the ones you want to save).. the website is

http://online.bridge...hands/index.php

Or you can use a great little free tool provided by a commercial website. The website is www.bridgecaotain.com. If you want, you can download their free double dummy solver from one of their download pages (short cut to it is...

http://www.bridgecap...downloadDD.html ).

This program has an option to grab hands directly from the bridgebase online myhands server, and put them all in a single file. The options are
1) enter a player name (in this case yours if grabbing your hands)
2) Enter time frame to grab hands from (options are last 24 hours, last 7 days, this month, and last month).

It will grab all the hands stored in myhands and put them in a single file. It does this very quickly.

A side benefit, is it calculates makable contracts, par contracts, and allows you to choose teh "double dummy" card for most tricks at anytime during the play of the hand. For a little freebie, this is an amazing little program, and it calculates the makable contracts very quickly.

I blogged about some of the new features in this free program recently.

[1eyedjack]

For me the benefits to the web-based interface are, in no particular priority:
Web1) The hand constraints that you can impose in the Partnership Bidding area are much better
Web2) I can play at lunchtime on my office computer, where installation of non-work-related software is banned
Web3) The chat manager
Web4) The opportunity to set up a teams game table before having all 8 players to assign (I only learned about this feature when reading this thread, and it has been a major bugbear of mine for years)

For me the benefits of the windows-based interface are, in no particular priority:
Win1) Instantaneous refresh without prompting
Win2) Easier (albeit still more longwinded than necessary) navigation to the point in the site immediately above the table of a named friend (ie to the club or tourney in which he is playing)
Win3) Use of GIB double-dummy analyser in real time when kibbitzing a hand
Win4) Hand logging and chat logging direct to my local PC

I have no doubt that there are a lot more advantages to one interface over the other than that which I have listed here, but I simply list those which seem to impinge on me personally in my browsing and playing habits.

Thus, applying this to my habitual activity,
Web1 is relevant if I am interested in Partnership Bidding, but is otherwise irrelevant.
Web2 trumps all other issues when I am at work. When I am not at work Web2 is utterly irrelevant.
Web3 is always relevant but low priority in comparison with other issues (and to some extent duplicates other third-party solutions)
Web4 has some legs to it, but is of no relevance if for that session I have no intention of setting up a team game

Win1 is generally relevant throughout, and a high priority
Win2 is generally relevant when kibbitzing or at any time when I am unsure precisely what I want to do at the site
Win3 is only relevant when kibbitzing but a high priority on that event.
Win4 is generally relevant throughout, and a high priority. I have to say that I was unaware of the third party utilities publicised in this thread for data-mining MyHands, and this reduces somewhat the priority of the issue. However changing the facility within the Web interface from "impossible" to "possible but still a lot more cumbersome than the Windows interface" does not entirely eliminate the Windows interface advantage.

In conclusion, which interface I will use at a given instant does depend a bit on the activity which I intend to perform when I am logged on, but for the most part, unless there is a specific activity better suited to the web based interface I will generally use Windows. I should add that "look and feel" plays absolutely no part in my decision. (Relevant) functionality is all.