[1eyedjack]

I got to thinking about Fred's comment

fred, on Dec 24 2006, 11:16 PM, said:

Uday has convinced me that having a ton of options is a sign of poor initial design so nowadays I am trying harder to get things right the first time so that it is not necessary to include options that act as little more than bandaids.

found in this post:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=166415

There is a time for providing a user with choice, and that is when the user-base as a whole would in significant numbers, if properly informed of the available choices, make different choices from among those presented. In such cases, giving users the choice protects the supplier from complaints and enhances the benefits to the users.

The time for not providing the user with a choice is when all bar perhaps a few users choose a common choice from among those presented. In such cases the presenting of a choice adds unnecessary clutter to the interface and makes it more difficult for users to make informed choices generally or otherwise to navigate the options and sites.

It occurs to me that there might be a case for BBO management to build into the software a facility for the server to gather data about the choices (where available) that have been selected by the user. The client software might even be able to log whether the user has even accessed the choice, as well as whether he has changed it from the default setting (and to what setting).

Ironically, it might be preferable to have yet another option to the user to deny feedback, as a sop to the more paranoid among us regarding computer privacy (into which category I would normally number myself, although in this case I would be happy to provide the feedback).

Where you encounter within the forums quite heated discussions over (eg) whether kibitzers should or should not be allowed, and whether dummy should be able to see declarer and/or the opponents' hands during play, and who should be granted the rights to permit or forbid such items, there is some evidence to suggest a substantial difference of opinion, and these are ripe for the site management to distance itself from the userbase by providing more choices, rather than less.

Conversely, if 99% of the users select hand presentation in the diagram mode rather than the fancy playing card mode, and all of them disable the animation etc, then this would indicate that the interface has in those areas become too cluttered, to the detriment of enjoyment.

The feedback system that I suggest would give the software developers some raw data on which to make these decisions, limiting the amount of guesswork. The major downside is that you would have to provide choice initially in order to measure whether choices are taken up.

[Al_U_Card]

Strangely, although I wish all systems were user-driven (especially the one where I work....) in this particular case, I far prefer the system to be efficient and effective. Even to the detriment of the user and his choice, options or even methods. What we have here is a free to use, at their behest, system that requires significant attention and resources. I would much rather it be easily maintained and stay in existance than become so overloaded administratively as to require fees or massive infrastructure changes. As much as my aquarian nature responds well to innovation and opportunity, I feel that the BBO gang is already in up to their necks and I, for one, do not wish to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

[onoway]

In regard to choices I very much appreciate the fact that the "classic" view of the BBO site is still an option. Although some of the later pages have been refined and work excellently, I find the new initial page for BBO cluttered, unwelcoming, confusing and hard to read. In discussion with several friends, they have also resorted to the classic view...one with relief after not noticing it as an option.

This is not to say there werent things on the new page which were improvements (like the sliding bar to navigate who is online) but imho the new first page is too aggressive and trying to do everything all at once.

Also, black is not a particularly welcoming colour, and to be confronted with several large black bars when entering the site is disconcerting the first time you see them and discomfitting thereafter.

On the other hand, I am not a computer person, so perhaps this has something to do with my rapid retreat to the old view. Thank you so much for maintaining it as an option and for the site in general, it's wonderful!

[rona_]

Quote

Also, black is not a particularly welcoming colour, and to be confronted with several large black bars when entering the site is disconcerting the first time you see them and discomfitting thereafter.

You can change the colour of some of those bars. Options/more options/colours/play bridge, and change the colour of the first bar. "Other bridge activities" is Explore Bridge in colours, and that changes too. Experiment and see how many you can change. I actually love the black bars with the yellow foreground so as you see it is hard to please us all, but we are given choices.

[zielona]

I agree with the predecessors' comments regarding the feedback and how so many choices may possibly make Fred a bit busy for a while. Being a software developer myself I would rather offer less choices and have less to maintain and debug. But then again, I have less users - only slightly - and possibly much easier way to ask them what they want (if I care to ask).

I hope I won't sound too contradictory if I ask for yet another choice. Can it be possible to opt against the ads at the table? I am still on the dialup and whenever a new ad is loaded my bbo stops for 2 or so seconds and I'm forced to stare at the little hourclock pinned to the cursor. Please?

Interestingly, few nights ago I ran a tourney with the old style tables, no ads and the chat-lobby-tables-tourneys buttons neatly arranged one above the other. How could that happen? I have been looking for "an option" ever since and can't find one (

[barmar]

If you enable opt-out of the ads, don't you think EVERYONE would opt out, making them useless?

Perhaps the software could check response time between the client and server. If they're above a certain threshold, suggesting a slow connection, the ads could be skipped.