[barmar]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-06, 11:24, said:

I don't understand the comment about robots and speed. The tournaments are exactly the same, no matter what version users are logging from.

Not sure what this is in reference to, was it in the "meandering thoughts" that Ken edited out?

Maybe he's referring to robots in the MBC, not a tourney. If you play with robots at a regular table, it runs GIB on your PC, it doesn't use the version running on our servers. The pro is that it may run faster. The con is that the downloaded GIB doesn't get the regular improvements we make to the bidding rules database, so it may not play as well.

[diana_eva]

barmar, on 2016-November-06, 13:34, said:

Not sure what this is in reference to, was it in the "meandering thoughts" that Ken edited out?

Maybe he's referring to robots in the MBC, not a tourney. If you play with robots at a regular table, it runs GIB on your PC, it doesn't use the version running on our servers. The pro is that it may run faster. The con is that the downloaded GIB doesn't get the regular improvements we make to the bidding rules database, so it may not play as well.

Yes was reference to musings, doesn't matter now

[Oceanss]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-06, 12:24, said:

Access to the old version will continue for vugraph operators for as long as necessary (ie, until a viable web alternative exists). Same for private club managers, they can continue to manage their club on the old version until the web version provides an alternative.

We can not ask for more Thanks BBO !

[barmar]

Something we didn't mention specifically in the announcement is that the system will have a list of users that will still be allowed to use the old version. So if you have a critical dependency on the old version, we will be able to add you to the list.

[scarletv]

barmar, on 2016-November-06, 13:30, said:

The old version uses the network more heavily than the new version, mostly because it's frequently updating the list of everyone who's logged in (the new version only shows stars, yellows, and users you're following) and all the table and tourney lists (the web version gets these lists from the server only when you go to those screens) . So if you have a poor Internet connection, it's probably going to affect the old version more.

Thanks I nearly always use the browser version though I am still annoyed by that terrible noise when cards are played and I am not happy to see the news feed instead of my friends list and I am not able to adapt the screen in the way I would like to ... But I really understand that resources are limited and I am willing to fund BBO via robot tourneys.

BTW when I am in a hotel with a really bad internet I sometimes switched to the old download. That might be very slow at the login process but more reliable when you made it in. I am lucky I did not have to do that for quite a while. Wifi in hotels is getting better here around.

The problem I tried to describe is independent from the access I use. Disconnections might happen if a mobile connection is used or if in a hotel with bad wifi or maybe because one of the ads is spamming the computer or maybe it is just a user fault. Whenever that happens and the teacher is disconnected, the table will be closed and the hands are lost. And I can tell you it happens. For teaching and practicing purposes it would be an improvement to have the boards of teaching and bidding tables saved somewhere.

[onoway]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-06, 12:24, said:

Access to the old version will continue for vugraph operators for as long as necessary (ie, until a viable web alternative exists). Same for private club managers, they can continue to manage their club on the old version until the web version provides an alternative. Same for various categories of users who must use the older version, eg your aliases used to log lin files for the vugraph archives. Same for premium customers, if paying users strongly prefer to play on the older version they will be able to do so.

List of features that will be kept, considered, dumped is not final yet. That's the purpose of this thread, to collect feedback and put together a list of things old version users need and don't have on web.

This is VERY good news and entirely unexpected. Thank you! In that case I will try to distill out the major things that I personally find the most problematic about the web version. When it seemed as though it was a done deal as of February, a more critical look at exactly what the main issues are (at least for me) seemed to be a waste of time.

[Eszter5]

barmar, on 2016-November-06, 13:55, said:

Something we didn't mention specifically in the announcement is that the system will have a list of users that will still be allowed to use the old version. So if you have a critical dependency on the old version, we will be able to add you to the list.

How can we get on that list?

[johnu]

johnu, on 2016-November-03, 16:00, said:

The Windows client hand display is about 15-20 years ahead of the Web version. This is basically the OKBridge interface with fancier graphics which was OK for something from the early days of the internet. I've suggested several times that the Web version have options to:

1) Display dummy in columns by suit

I would also like to point out under the laws of Duplicate Bridge Law 41(D) which says

Dummy’s Hand

After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his
hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted
into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest
ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns
pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are
placed to dummy’s right. Declarer plays both his
hand and that of dummy.


If there was some computer related technical limitation that prevented this, that would be one thing but the Windows version was already programmed to do this, as well as some other sites I have seen in the past. For those that learn to play bridge on BBO, trying to "translate" dummy in a live game isn't going to help them. For those who have spent thousands of hours playing live bridge, sure you can tolerate an illegally displayed dummy, but why do you have to?

[fred]

johnu, on 2016-November-06, 16:20, said:

I would also like to point out under the laws of Duplicate Bridge Law 41(D) which says

Dummy’s Hand

After the opening lead is faced, dummy spreads his
hand in front of him on the table, face up, sorted
into suits, the cards in order of rank with lowest
ranking cards towards declarer, and in columns
pointing lengthwise towards declarer. Trumps are
placed to dummy’s right. Declarer plays both his
hand and that of dummy.


If there was some computer related technical limitation that prevented this, that would be one thing but the Windows version was already programmed to do this, as well as some other sites I have seen in the past. For those that learn to play bridge on BBO, trying to "translate" dummy in a live game isn't going to help them. For those who have spent thousands of hours playing live bridge, sure you can tolerate an illegally displayed dummy, but why do you have to?

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

[onoway]

One thing that is already a problem rises out of running a team match series with a number of matches going on simultaneously. On the download version, the home captains can set their matches in the interests of speed and efficiency, and add a director to oversee things, as in a tourney. That appears to be not possible on the web version and caused some havoc in the last series.

It would be HUGELY helpful if this was solved, as right now the only option appears to be to wail for help from a Yellow to add me as a director so I can help if a match has a problem. Or get some "remainer" on each team, rather than the captain, to set the match, which is cumbersome, but possible -for now- for at least some of the teams. Many people seem not to know if they are on download or web ( I've been asked how they can tell by a bunch of people, most of them are on the web but not all) so I've no idea whether or not we still have that many people clutching onto the download version who will be playing in the various teams for the team matches.

[diana_eva]

onoway, on 2016-November-06, 23:25, said:

One thing that is already a problem rises out of running a team match series with a number of matches going on simultaneously. On the download version, the home captains can set their matches in the interests of speed and efficiency, and add a director to oversee things, as in a tourney. That appears to be not possible on the web version and caused some havoc in the last series.

It would be HUGELY helpful if this was solved, as right now the only option appears to be to wail for help from a Yellow to add me as a director so I can help if a match has a problem. Or get some "remainer" on each team, rather than the captain, to set the match, which is cumbersome, but possible -for now- for at least some of the teams. Many people seem not to know if they are on download or web ( I've been asked how they can tell by a bunch of people, most of them are on the web but not all) so I've no idea whether or not we still have that many people clutching onto the download version who will be playing in the various teams for the team matches.

It is possible to add one or more co-TDs in team match on web. The difference to old version is that you have to add the TDs after the match has started, but the option exists. Click Edit Tournament in the Director panel, and there's a list of TDs where you can add/remove people. Here's a screenshot: https://snag.gy/XHFyG0.jpg

[onoway]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-06, 23:34, said:

It is possible to add one or more co-TDs in team match on web. The difference to old version is that you have to add the TDs after the match has started, but the option exists. Click Edit Tournament in the Director panel, and there's a list of TDs where you can add/remove people. Here's a screenshot: https://snag.gy/XHFyG0.jpg

ok thank you I didn't know that. I will try to get the captains to do this but I don't hold much hope out, they have other things on their mind once they are at the match.

[barmar]

Eszter5, on 2016-November-06, 15:45, said:

How can we get on that list?

Contact Rain or Jacki.

[jandrew]

diana_eva, on 2016-November-06, 12:24, said:

... Same for private club managers, they can continue to manage their club on the old version until the web version provides an alternative. ....

barmar, on 2016-November-06, 13:55, said:

Something we didn't mention specifically in the announcement is that the system will have a list of users that will still be allowed to use the old version. So if you have a critical dependency on the old version, we will be able to add you to the list.

barmar, on 2016-November-07, 10:19, said:

Contact Rain or Jacki.

This all looks like good news and is a positive way forward.

Although we, in the Acol Club, are not a private club, we run our tournaments using a members' list which is updated frequently and used by a group of hosts for every tournament.

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.

I have abandoned drafting my detailed email and hope that a shorter request in the next few days will suffice to ensure that our tournaments, which have been running for nearly 10 years, can continue to run beyond the end of January 2017 - perhaps for a further 10 years.

[onoway]

Probably the main problem I have with the web version comes down to things which were simple on the download version are now complicated, even when they have been brought forward.

Adding a director to a team match is one example, having two chat boxes to keep track of and to move out of the way or make bigger or smaller is another, and a third -and major one for me - is accessing who is kibbing at a table.

I know it is possible on web version to see kibbers as someone told me how to do it once, but I don't remember how I did it, something about going somewhere and clicking on something but it certainly isn't intuitive. I don't understand why it has to be something I should have to "remember how to do" when it is so intuitive..if you want to see who is visiting at a table you look at who is standing around the table..on the download version.

This is a constant source of frustration and irritation in a tourney, especially if there might have been some recurring questions about a player's bids or play. It's useful sometimes to see if a specific kibber who is otherwise never seen online, and may indeed never have played a hand on BBO, might be shadowing a player. Or not. Since directing often involves moving from table to table it should imo, be no hassle to be able to see who is at the kib box with me.

As an aside, there is no way on the web to limit subs in a tourney to members as there is on download. It's possible to restrict in some ways, but membership is not one of them. That's a mixed blessing, in that we have access to more subs, but often they are runners, (even with a high Completion rate specified)sometimes they are abusive and have to be booted etc. I know I won't miss a member willing to sub on download, it's a gamble on the webversion if we get a member or not, we don't know who all the members are by name, obviously. This is not a major item at all, just an observation, it is a very minor thing imo. If members want to be sure to play, they should get a partner and register .

But just in general at a table, especially if playing, I really want to be able to see at a glance who is kibbing, otherwise it feels like being in a zoo. There are numerous other examples of how complicated it is to do things on the web version which are simple and intuitive on download but this is a big one for me.

Even trying to go into a room with kibs, the computer tells me there are no open tables, why should I have to argue that I want to go in anyway? Small thing for sure, but like an mosquito bite each time it happens, just annoying. I have to explain to people all the time that they need to tell the computer to show full tables to get to teaching sessions.

To be sure, there are some things which are better on the webversion. It is just a testament to the quality of the original BBO site that it is still preferred by so many in spite of that. I suspect most of the objections rise out of the business of it now being so complicated to do things which we are accustomed to finding simple. So we know it's possible.

[fred]

jandrew, on 2016-November-07, 11:39, said:

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]

fred, on 2016-November-07, 11:51, said:

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]

fred, on 2016-November-06, 17:07, said:

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]

johnu, on 2016-November-07, 13:02, said:

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?