Life In 19x19

Charlie wrote:

• Komi and Captures are readily visible. (I have not yet found a client that makes it easy to see the komi.)
• Event customization is a GREAT feature.
• The board and stones take most of the available real-estate, as they should.

Yes to all three.

Don't forget the 'Big Clocks' option. That was what I missed the most from WinIGC.

EdLee, you have apparently misunderstood what I was saying.

The thrust is to get the fucntionality first, then get the aesthetics correct.

Winigc permitted the changing of the board background pattern. You could have taken a jpeg
of real wood and put it in, if you wanted to go to the effort. Also the stones could be shown
as rendered/shaded stones, but I did not prefer that.

I can turn that on and do a screen shot... but that's absolutely not the point.
THE point is that this is 15 year old software, and should not be compared in terms of visual fidelity to
the fancy high-res graphics available today. Otoh, "eye candy" can be easily overdone, and easily made so
that it seems appealing, but really is only appealing to a certain segment.

For example, (to illustrate via a bit of excess) what might appeal to a 14 yo female in terms of visuals
would likely be very different than what would appeal to a 60 yo male engineer. The use of *pink* jumps right
out...

What I am attempting to advocate for is the maximum in flexibility and user customizability, within reason,
of course. Keeping in mind that a majority of users will merely accept whatever they get, and have,
it still makes sense to consider what was done 15 years ago and at least equal what that now antique
software was able to do.

This version of WinIgc was not the first version, and is maybe 2-3 years into its life... iirc.

I'll try to put up that jpg again...

[inline-hide][/inline-hide]

EDIT: Hmmm... most forum software makes this much easier to do... not three steps. And... oops, that did not work

( Fixed the attachment for you. -- Ed )

Ok, here is the not very good and old bitmapped stones, but showing the menu for customizing to
whatever you prefer... photoshop would make it possible to shoot ur own stones, if you wanted to...etc.

And, EdLee, sorry to come at you with this, but when you said that you couldn't bear to look at the board
on winigc, does that mean that you also can't bear to look at the primitive diagrams in go books too? Wondering.

Another thought, building a house? Get an Architect and a Structural Engineer. The Interior Decorator comes later...

Let's remember that's 15 year old software that works better than the current software by a fairly wide margin, and is more flexible and powerful. Comparing graphics to software developed when SVGA was a big deal, makes little sense.

Function first, then form, finally tweak the aesthetics.







_-_- ( Also fixed the photo attachment for you. -- Ed. )

Yo Bear! You want your picture to look like this when you are done.

oh...

I tried this:
[inline-hide][/inline-hide]

obviously, the wrong thing... ok, next time...

sorry.

wonder what <[inline-hide][/inline-hide]> does?

_-_-

bearzbear wrote:EdLee, you have apparently misunderstood what I was saying.
The thrust is to get the fucntionality first, then get the aesthetics correct.

bearzbear -- no, I completely understood what you were saying.
What you said was the thrust FOR YOU was functionality first, then looks later.

What I said was, for me, of course some functionality is important, but looks are also very important,
and has to be weighed case by case.
Again for me, in the case of WinIgc, its functionality is outweighed by its ugly looks.
Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying.

(I'll fix your second attached photo next. Thanks for re-posting it! )

bearzbear wrote:And, EdLee, sorry to come at you with this, but when you said that you couldn't bear to look at the board
on winigc, does that mean that you also can't bear to look at the primitive diagrams in go books too? Wondering.

No problem. In most Go books, the "primitive" diagrams are much prettier than WinIGC, so I have no problems with them.

bearzbear wrote:Another thought, building a house? Get an Architect and a Structural Engineer. The Interior Decorator comes later...

That's OK -- again, in the case of WinIGC, it appears to me the interior decorator never showed up.

I think people are missing the point.. there was a point in time where the stones used was state of the art. but over time tecnology changes, but if the app was continued to be supported, I would think that would change. If I remember right, there was a stone and board images from tweets personal set that were very good. The other thing was the high customization of the client. now you are stuck with what the developer tells you that you need

EdLee, I give up.

If you do not understand that that is 15 year old software and can't get past that idea and stop
talking about how IT looks, then there is no way to hold a reasonable conversation.

Are you one of the developers of GoPanda2??

If so, please take the time to reconsider your strongly felt convictions, and think this through
in a more logical way.

To use an analogy, maybe that will clarify?

Imagine buying a new car.
Yet while that car has nice seats, fancy gauges, excellent styling, it is actually lower power, has
fewer features and doesn't work as well as a 15 year old car? That's in essence what you are saying.
You still want the fancy looking car over the one that works better?

If that was my only choice, I'd want the old one.

The best choice is to improve upon the old car and have the updated styling and looks, as long as that does not come at the expense of the basic underlying functionality.

Got it now?

I think perhaps more of an "engineering" approach is called for. This as opposed to an "artistic" approach to the problem. Personally I tend to work from the artistic approach, and often find the engineering approach to be too narrow and dry, but it still can't be ignored and disregarded.

_-_-

@bearzbear, I think Ed gets your point completely, but is trying to let you know he approaches client desirability from the other way around. I'm a functionality first kinda guy too (and am very happy with command line prompts), but I know plenty of people that work the other way (aesthetics first, functionality second).

bearzbear, as I already said (and topazg got it, too), I completely got your point.
It is you who doesn't get my view.

I have the same connection to the development of gGo, gIGo, CGoban, GoPanda 2, and WinIGC --
none, except for expressing my views online just like yourself.

I find gGo, gIGo and GoPanda 2 pretty. I think gGo is not much younger than WinIGC, but I'm not sure.
I find CGoban ugly, even though it also has very nice functionality.

Yes, it nice to start with a good looking approach.
Assuming the path is from [appearance}--->[function], then other than what is done first, it makes
little difference IF one is successful.

While it is possible to go from an aesthetically pleasing design to a finished product, frequently is
is more practical to put a "skin" (or GUI, if you wish) on an backbone that is more or less functional and
functioning.

Car companies certainly do design sleek looking bodies and then turn them into "concept cars", so it can be
done. But that is a tricky and complicated process, that is changed even more if there is going to be a
production car that resembles the concept car.

Now I know that software is not exactly equivalent to a piece of hardware or a car. I suppose that IF one was very fluent with writing software, especially modular and/or object oriented, or whatever they're doing
these days, code one might be able to come up with a flexible enough method by starting with some sort of slick look. Fine, IF that gets done.

What is being said, elsewhere not here, and privately, is that the concern is that what is going to happen, or what is wanted by whomever does the wanting is a "small sand box" where the user gets to "take it or leave it". Period.

A disaster in the main.

Sort of a "dumbing down".
Which would be ironic for a client for a game that takes so much intellectual brain power to play, and more effort to study and learn.

Somehow, if developers don't see functionality as one of the primary goal and requirement, I doubt that functionality will ever be present except as a skeletal subset.

Finally, for most pieces of software it is hard to add on, unless the framework is set up initially and designed with the explicit intent to do just that.

Well, I think that's enough on this subject for the present.
Nothing I say seems likely to have any impact or impression, so this is an exercise in frustration for me.
A productive discussion would be nice, but that seems nearly impossible in this forum.
Parochial and prior viewpoints seem chiseled in stone.
Shame it is.

bearzbear wrote:Parochial and prior viewpoints seem chiseled in stone.

You mean like yours?

Just out of curiosity -- based on AESTHETICS ALONE, and ignoring functionality completely --
how would you rate (from prettiest to ugliest): WinIGC, gGo/gIGo, CGoban, GoPanda2, Nova, Kaya, Yahoo Go ?

dear sir,

why do you persist in beating your horse?

NOBODY SUGGESTED MAKING A MODERN CLIENT THAT LOOKS LIKE ****!

Ok?

Enough already.

bearzbear wrote:NOBODY SUGGESTED MAKING A MODERN CLIENT THAT LOOKS LIKE ****!

Of course not. Non sequitur.
Just like nobody suggested making a useless (low functionality) client.
Who would suggest making an ugly client, or making a useless client?
That doesn't say anything.