[helene_t]

fred, on Aug 8 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

But my opinion is that we rate to have much larger increases in the user base for a different reason: that it will be a lot easier for people to get started.

Agree. Having to download and install the client is a bariere. People may be afraid of viruses, or of programs that clutter their harddisk and registry and cause their computer to crash, and is impossible to unistall without reformating the harddisk. First-time users who just want to watch a single match on the vugraph may think that they will have to go through half an our of installation procedures and will not consider it worthwhile. Of course we know that it's not like that, but how can they tell? The net is full of downloadable crap.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Aug 8 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

Out of curiousity, I don't suppose that you had a chance to overhaul the chat system?

I still think that an IRC model chat system that allows users to dynamically create/join/quit/destroy chat channels would make life better in oh some many ways.

The new client understands the notion of a "chat channel". What you see as the chat area in BBOTV is essentially a standalone component. In theory it would not be hard to make it so that multiple chat areas could exist, each representing chat from some subset of available channels.

However, I have always hated applications that pop up a new window every time you get a private chat from a new person. Unless a lot of people try to change my mind about this, I doubt there will ever be more than a very small number of chat areas (1?) in the new client.

Please don't try to change my mind about this now (or if you do please do not be insulted if I refuse to get involved in such a discussion in the near future).

To summarize, the basic architecture for implementing something along the lines that you suggest is present, but that does not mean that users will necessary be aware of what is happening behind the scenes. Implementing UI mechanisms that take advantage of this is not something we rate to do soon (and we may never do this).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

fred, on Aug 8 2007, 02:56 PM, said:

hotShot, on Aug 7 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

My popup-blocker does not allow flash applications to open browser windows, but i could relax that for the BBO site.

Are you sure about that?

Can you please try logging in to BBOTV and clicking the BBO Vugraph button near the top of the screen.

A window will appear that lists whatever vugraph matches are running. Please try clicking the Vugraph schedule button near the botton of this window.

In theory you should see new browser popup appear. What happens?

Thanks,

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Yes that is sure!

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.6 now, but i think it's no new feature.

I get the message that firefox blocked a popup window.

[fred]

There are also many people who simply do not understand concepts like "downloading", "installing", "web site", "application", "desktop icon".

And if one of these people is forced to configure their firewall, all bets are obviously off

There are also people who do not want to have to sign up for a user ID, especially if they perceive that doing so will reveal their identity or force them to provide personal information. Anon logins will make these people more comfortable.

You may not realize this, but if you are able to read and post to forums and if concepts like downloading software and dealing with firewalls do not make you nervous, your computer skills are likely strong enough to place you in the top 5% of BBO members in this regard.

You are like vugraph commentators who do not bother explaining "simple" bridge concepts like "Michaels" or "crossruff" because they assume that everyone out there is intimately familiar with these basic ideas. In the same way that it is hard for vugraph commentators to reduce the level of their bridge thinking to that of a typcial audience member, it is hard for people with reasonable computer skills to understand just how hopeless most people are with computers.

I know this as a result of many years of talking to such people on the phone and exchanging many 1000s of e-mails with such people.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

fred, on Aug 8 2007, 05:34 PM, said:

The new client understands the notion of a "chat channel". What you see as the chat area in BBOTV is essentially a standalone component. In theory it would not be hard to make it so that multiple chat areas could exist, each representing chat from some subset of available channels.

However, I have always hated applications that pop up a new window every time you get a private chat from a new person. Unless a lot of people try to change my mind about this, I doubt there will ever be more than a very small number of chat areas (1?) in the new client.

Hi Fred

I think that we're talking about slightly different things:

When I am mention different chat channels, I'm not particularly worried about whether or not they get displayed in the same chat area. Rather, I'm interested in functionality like the the following:

Lets assume that BBO is providing a Vugraph coverage for the Bermuda Bowl. The Italians are playing against the Brazilians in the finals. BBO is covering both the Open Table and the Closed Table.

I can see an argument that BBO might want to link provide different chat channels to each Vugraph table.

1. A Portugese language channel for the Brazilians
2. A French language channel for the French
3. An English language channel for the rest of the folks

(Furthermore, its entirely possible that some multi-lingual types might want to simultaneously subscribe to both the French language channel and the English language channel)

Each of these channels would be configured so that only a small number of official commentors could talk. And, while all this official coverage is going on, some group of spectators might want to create their own (temporary) channel where anyone could comment in a more free flowing atmosphere.

Normally, I've seen multiple chat channels in the same "area" with different color coding used to distinguish between channels.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Aug 8 2007, 02:50 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 8 2007, 05:34 PM, said:

The new client understands the notion of a "chat channel". What you see as the chat area in BBOTV is essentially a standalone component. In theory it would not be hard to make it so that multiple chat areas could exist, each representing chat from some subset of available channels.

However, I have always hated applications that pop up a new window every time you get a private chat from a new person. Unless a lot of people try to change my mind about this, I doubt there will ever be more than a very small number of chat areas (1?) in the new client.

Hi Fred

I think that we're talking about slightly different things:

When I am mention different chat channels, I'm not particularly worried about whether or not they get displayed in the same chat area. Rather, I'm interested in functionality like the the following:

Lets assume that BBO is providing a Vugraph coverage for the Bermuda Bowl. The Italians are playing against the Brazilians in the finals. BBO is covering both the Open Table and the Closed Table.

I can see an argument that BBO might want to link provide different chat channels to each Vugraph table.

1. A Portugese language channel for the Brazilians
2. A French language channel for the French
3. An English language channel for the rest of the folks

(Furthermore, its entirely possible that some multi-lingual types might want to simultaneously subscribe to both the French language channel and the English language channel)

Each of these channels would be configured so that only a small number of official commentors could talk. And, while all this official coverage is going on, some group of spectators might want to create their own (temporary) channel where anyone could comment in a more free flowing atmosphere.

Normally, I've seen multiple chat channels in the same "area" with different color coding used to distinguish between channels.

I think we are on the same page.

Short answer is, I don't think it will be hard for us to do this and I recognize that this would provide value for some members. If and when it actually happens and the exact form it would take are other issues.

Please keep in mind that BBOTV will have to be able to walk before it can run. Right now we are working on some very basic elements like the ability to play, to chat, profiles, friends management...

Over time the program will no doubt get fancier, but the primary mission is to create something that contains the necessary basic elements and is easy to use.

For the record, Uday and I often discuss fancy functionality that we will likely support in the future and write our code in such a way as to prepare for this.

Discussions and suggestions regarding fancy stuff are interesting and welcome, but don't be surprised if my response is just like this one.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[julie5607]

Well, I know you don't want to be convinced, but count me in on the group that thinks a pop-up private chat window option would be a good feature. I am not saying all private chat should be presented in separate windows, but the capability to initiate a chat that way would be very beneficial.

The same user group that has issues with downloading and installing the current BBO client are very unlikely to have any sort of IM function they are capable of using. They also (this is from experience trying to help 80 year old ladies who I have turned on to BBO) find the current chat system almost impossible to use. Telling a LOL who has responded to my private "hi" to click on my blue name to respond is a losing battle. Getting them to a chat room is even more difficult. They would hopefully have less difficulty with a pop-up box that ONLY has a conversation with the person who is trying to help them.

Another base of users who would make good use of private pop-up chat boxes are the people on public computers who cannot download and install their own IM systems.

Additionally, we have all seen a "sorry private" message at the table after someone has made an obvious error in targetting a reply to someone. Some of those obvious errors are quite . . .ahem . . .telling. Private pop-up chat boxes would lesson that . . . er . . risk.

I know you have no desire for the BBO client to be primarally a chat vehicle, and I can second that. But since there are many legitimate reasons two bridge players might want to have a long private conversation, why not included functionality that will make it as easy as possible?

Julie

[chicken]

why not keep the concept of the chatrooms?

[ng:)]

Bidding box (top right) has only 4 basic rows. Might be better at least 5 as a default.

Gabor

[mink]

My observations:

Bidding list does not scroll automatically when the 4th row of bidding is used, but instead new bids appear below the old bids and you can see only the upper few pixels.

In the bidding list there are not the players names but only the compass directions.

I am currently watching a vugraph where even below the cards are no names but only compass directions.

I have to click on played cards rather than just hover over it in order to review tricks.

I see a lot of blue space at both sides of the table display. However, the buttons are above and below the display, causing it to be smaller than necessary.

There is yet no option to control the speed of the animated cards, or to switch off animation, which I would prefer.


My suggestions:

Currently I can see either the table view or navigation. I would prefer to be able to switch between these views. Of course this makes not much sense currently, but makes a lot of sense when most of the functionality has been added. If you think this might confuse some users, maybe make it available only if the "enable advanced user interface" option is checked.

I would also prefer that navigation, table view, hand browser (myhands) and chat area are all the same type of window like currently only the hand browser, but they all do not stay on top like the hand browser currently does. Maybe a title bar is not necessary, or at least it can be smaller.

When transferring data about some other player to the client, this should include the information for which tourneys that player is registered and for which tourneys he has entered the partnership desk. This would make it much easier to find a partner among one's friends.


Just curious:

I guess that unlike the windows client the flash client does not automatically receive a message when the state of any player changes. Right?

When I click on a card in the windows client and in the flash client, how many milliseconds elapse until the message departs from my computer to the internet. Is this time significantly different for the windows client and the flash client?

Will the flash client be more robust as far as connection problems are concerned? Will the reconnection time be shorter?


Looking forward to more functions of the flash client being activated.

Karl

[fred]

mink, on Aug 9 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

My observations:

Bidding list does not scroll automatically when the 4th row of bidding is used, but instead new bids appear below the old bids and you can see only the upper few pixels.

In the bidding list there are not the players names but only the compass directions.

I am currently watching a vugraph where even below the cards are no names but only compass directions.

I have to click on played cards rather than just hover over it in order to review tricks.

I see a lot of blue space at both sides of the table display. However, the buttons are above and below the display, causing it to be smaller than necessary.

There is yet no option to control the speed of the animated cards, or to switch off animation, which I would prefer.


My suggestions:

Currently I can see either the table view or navigation. I would prefer to be able to switch between these views. Of course this makes not much sense currently, but makes a lot of sense when most of the functionality has been added. If you think this might confuse some users, maybe make it available only if the "enable advanced user interface" option is checked.

I would also prefer that navigation, table view, hand browser (myhands) and chat area are all the same type of window like currently only the hand browser, but they all do not stay on top like the hand browser currently does. Maybe a title bar is not necessary, or at least it can be smaller.

When transferring data about some other player to the client, this should include the information for which tourneys that player is registered and for which tourneys he has entered the partnership desk. This would make it much easier to find a partner among one's friends.


Just curious:

I guess that unlike the windows client the flash client does not automatically receive a message when the state of any player changes. Right?

When I click on a card in the windows client and in the flash client, how many milliseconds elapse until the message departs from my computer to the internet. Is this time significantly different for the windows client and the flash client?

Will the flash client be more robust as far as connection problems are concerned? Will the reconnection time be shorter?


Looking forward to more functions of the flash client being activated.

Karl

In response to your "just curious" questions:

1) Correct. The Windows client is always aware of complete state of the system (who is logged in, where they are, what their profiles are, etc...). This is a problem because the more people there are on BBO, the more info has to be sent from our servers to each client.

For example, if you log in to BBO and there are already 10K other people online, your Windows client will receive something like 1MB of data during the login process. That is why people with dialup connections sometimes experience very slow logins.

Furthermore, the Windows client is constantly receiving information from the server. The more messages that are sent, the more likely that something will go wrong with one of these messages. When something goes wrong the connection will slow down and/or die.

The Flash client takes a different approach. It receives information on a need-to-know basis. The downside of this approach is the possibility of very slight delays when the user wants to know something and has to ask the server. Some of the upsides are:

- much faster logins
- much more reliable connections
- BBO will be much more scalable (ie we will be able to handle a lot more simultaneous users once significant % of people start using the Flash client)

2) Typically a very small number of milliseconds for either client and no significant difference between the two.

3) Yes. See answer to 1) above.

Some general comments about your comments:

In general we are trying to eliminate mouse-over to initiate action in the Flash client. Users will have to click in order to initiate some of the functions that were initiated by mouse-over in the Windows client.

The interface consists of a set of components. Some examples of components include: the bridge table, the chat area, the primitive navigational tool that currently does no more than take you to a table, the window that displays a list of vugraph tables. There are some other components that currently exist in various states that you have not seen yet (because we have not enabled them).

Each component has the ability to either reside in a popup window or within any "container". Currently the interface has 3 containers (one at the bottom where the chat component currently resides, one at the top left where the bridge table and navigation thing currently reside, and one at the top right which is not being utilized in the version of BBOTV that you have seen).

We can easily provide functionality for allow people to choose where they want any given component to reside (either in a specific container or in a popup window). Probably we will include such functionality eventually, but I am not sure when this will happen or how the interface for customizing the location of components will work.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

Can you add in the "Show Played Cards" option?

And if so, does the design of BBOTV solve the problem that the Windows client has with restoring this option after you've played hands?

[DrTodd13]

Out of curiosity, how much code sharing is there between the regular client and flash client? Basically, what percentage of the code is UI and what is non-UI?

[JanM]

barmar, on Aug 10 2007, 03:38 PM, said:

Can you add in the "Show Played Cards" option?

And if so, does the design of BBOTV solve the problem that the Windows client has with restoring this option after you've played hands?

Another request for "show played cards" - Actually, since many people will be using the BBOTV option to kibitz, not to play, and surely some of them will be relatively unsophisticated, I'd vote for "show played cards" to be the default.

[fred]

DrTodd13, on Aug 10 2007, 10:54 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, how much code sharing is there between the regular client and flash client? Basically, what percentage of the code is UI and what is non-UI?

The answer to your first question is: none

The answer to your second question is: I don't know, but I would guess 50-50

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

JanM, on Aug 10 2007, 11:02 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 10 2007, 03:38 PM, said:

Can you add in the "Show Played Cards" option?

And if so, does the design of BBOTV solve the problem that the Windows client has with restoring this option after you've played hands?

Another request for "show played cards" - Actually, since many people will be using the BBOTV option to kibitz, not to play, and surely some of them will be relatively unsophisticated, I'd vote for "show played cards" to be the default.

I am sure there will eventually be an option for "show played cards".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

In the Hand Browser, please sort the Other Tables list by the scores, as is done in the regular BBO movie window. Also, I think it should use the same format of displaying hands (diagram versus pictures of card) as the user has chosen for the main window -- I think it's unlikely a user would have different preferences depending on whether they're looking at a hand being played versus an old hand.

[bradd]

Actually I have different preferences for the hand format, so would prefer it left as is.

The only thing that would be helpful is if the hand browser window would stay the same size throughout the session, if the user enlarges it (which I do).

Otherwise I think the whole thing is superb (colour choices included) and I'm really looking forward to the various enhancements as they appear.

[barmar]

Yeah, I agree with remembering the hand browser size. On my 12-inch iBook, the default size of the browser results in an unreadable font, so I always have to enlarge it.

The running score needs the score of the last hand, then I'd have less need to open up the browser.

Stylistically, everything looks very nice EXCEPT the box that pops up when someone claims. It's a huge rectangle with just one line of tiny text "So-and-so claims 5".

[cherdano]

Some random comments:
- "Take me to a table with lots of spectators" often leads to the table of a certain personality who has been discussed in various internet fora way too much. I am not sure this is how you want to introduce the potential hundreds of thousands of new BBO users to "our" place.

- Maybe this is a generational thing but "TV" has a bad connotation to me and I suspect many others: TV = traditional, non-interactive, very little choice, highly uninformative; internet = interactive, find the stuff you are really interested in, etc. So (especially once the flash client is similar in capabilities to the existing client) IMO a name change would indeed make sense...

- Personally I like the mouse-over events of the old client, but obviously you have given this a lot more thought than I have. The only case where I think it worked badly is for the explanations given by FD, which were often missed by less computer-savy users, or computer-savy-but-often-distracted users. (On the other hand, mouse-over events don't work with touchscreen gadgets, some of which promise to become very popular, so maybe that is where you are heading...)

- I am wondering whether there are already mobile phones with sufficient flash support to run BBOTV. (If so, organizer of tournaments with VuGraph better take notice immediately...)

- I have no idea whether this is possible or feasible (given pop-up blocking) but I would prefer to have the myhands/movie window as a separate browser windwow. Similar to mink's point above if I understood him right, but for the movie window I care more since I like to have it open all the time while playing, and now it covers the playing view instead.
[Also, on my system it is infinitely slow to drag along the window within the flash application, not sure whether this is peculiar to my setup.]

Obviously the graphics of the new client aren't quite finished yet but it seems they work much nicer in many ways, rescaling etc., I am actually looking forward to the day when I can play using the new client just for this reason...