barmar, on 2017-January-17, 10:13, said:
That's not supposed to happen, it may have been a temporary glitch. Do you see this regularly?
In fact, for people following lots of players, the web version is better than the download version. The download version has a limit on the size of the friends list, and if you have too many friends than this you may not see them all; you're over the limit. The web version has no such limit.
If I just log into the web version and click on friends nobody shows up. Ever. Never have. I have to click on who's online first,then back to friends and then I am allowed to see them. Also, apparently I can only talk to them, I cannot find any way to join their table, right clicking on their name is like throwing sand in the sea, nothing at all happens. So how do people join tables, they have to find out where the the friend is, then go to that area and scroll down to their table to find them?
The web version may have no limit on how many friends it allows, but I can say with absolute confidence that the download version SHOWS more of them than the webversion comes anywhere close to showing. I see it every time I log in on one or the other. I've never counted how many but at least 6 columns will show up purple friends on download. As far as I can tell, there is only room for two columns on webversion. it seemed odd to me that the stuff which should be large,..the size of the table unless you change it, is small and the names of friends, which should be small so as to allow more to show up, are large.
One of our members has written up a "how to" for members who are being booted into the web, she announced tonight that we have that on the website now and she said she instantly got 22 requests for help. I don't know why they aren't accessing the help from BBO, but apparently they either aren't or they are finding it just too complicated for what they are trying to do.
It seems there are lots of features on the web version that you have to be a computer person to access and most of us are not, and more to the point, have no wish to be forced to be. I found by accident how to increase the size of the table, which makes it actually usable,yay! but if I do that to look at pending tourneys, for example, then I cannot change back to the previous screen. Undoubtedly there is some way to do this but it is decidedly not intuitive and I didn't find it, I just logged out eventually.
Also, the arrangement to add co-directors to team matches is simply next to useless. When a match starts, people are not thinking about going back and editting the settings for the match, they are quite reasonably, thinking about the cards, bidding etc. We reminded captains every match and still most of them forgot once there. If you are going to allow for co-directors at all, what on earth is the point of not doing so at the time of setting the matches? Having team match series for groups of players becomes something impossible to offer, really, unless co-directors can be listed. They are not the same as casual random matches.
One thing I have got oodles of complaints about is the kib system and how unhappy people are about not being able EASILLY to see who is kibbing at a table, and having constantly to update the information instead of it being just "there". This is especially a sore point for those of us who are helping out with teaching sessions.
It seems people either don't know about the this thread or are uneasy about complaining, so I end up bringing these things up for them. Sometimes they are very small things: Why, for example, after you delete messages is it necessary to tell us that we have deleted messages, presumably we are aware of that? Having the messages all there at once instead of them coming up one at a time is an advance, so don't mess it up with trying to force us to have a conversation with the program which is both unnecessary and unwanted.
It might possibly be useful to consider having non computer people try out the next edition and see what they think, it should not be necessary to force people into a new system if the system is truly at least as user friendly as the old one was, in whatever form the new one takes. It CAN be done.
I was told that the beta version I saw a million years ago before the web version was released initially was a figment of my imagination, which is/was inexplicable, since I can't even imagine dreaming, awake or asleep, about a computer program. I was quite ready to jump to that one, although it was very different it looked very doable. So it isn't just a reluctance to change or try new things, it's a reluctance to lose the features that make the old one valuable.