Why are all go sites so 1990s?

[Koroviev]

To reiterate [clears throat, adopts firm tone]: BAN HAMMER.

[Dusk Eagle]

Yeah, if this was the only post, banning would be questionable. But every single post the guy made was ridiculous, including one which was deleted from the Malkovich section, which insulted the game between cloud and Shaddy.

[jokkebk]

While the original poster might've been a troll, I do have to agree on topic. It seems Go world definitely has it's share of ugly web sites and application UIs.

For those who like to argue that they like "simple and working UIs and not graphical gimmicks", I challenge them to defend e.g. Kiseido's or Het Paard's http://www.schaakengo.nl/ web page designs, or the dozen terrible excuses that are called IGS clients (some Mac ones do not suck too hard, though).

I think it has to do with the fact that many of the sites are built by enthusiasts who are not web designers by profession, and the sites don't make any money so there's no incentive to pay anyone to design the site. Similar effect is visible on many electronics web sites - both hobbies attract technical people who can make web sites but usually care less about aesthetics. It's a bit of shame, as following just few simple guidelines would make the websites / UIs usually much better (like: do not use neon colors, an hour spent on improving the UI will save a thousand for others, etc.)

-Joonas

---
http://jgoboard.com

[MarylandBill]

While the original poster might've been a troll, I do have to agree on topic. It seems Go world definitely has it's share of ugly web sites and application UIs.

I think it is fair to invoke Sturgeon's Law here (Named after Theodore Sturgeon, an important writer of Science Fiction from the mid-20th century). To adapt it to go websites; Yes, 95% of all go websites are @#$&, but 95% of all websites are @#$&.

I think there is a difference though between functional old designs (which might look like they are from 1995, but still work very well), and designs that are bad no matter when they were written.

--
Bill

[Tsuyoku]

So long as a site does what is expected of it, it's alright if it's ugly.

If it doesn't, though, it doesn't matter how pretty it is.

[wms]

For those who like to argue that they like "simple and working UIs and not graphical gimmicks", I challenge them to defend e.g. Kiseido's or Het Paard's http://www.schaakengo.nl/ web page designs, or the dozen terrible excuses that are called IGS clients (some Mac ones do not suck too hard, though).

I would also add the KGS client to the "out of date UIs". It was pretty good when it was new, 10 years ago. It could be a lot nicer now.

And yes, I do have a plan to improve it, but it will be a while. Hopefully I can get it to the point that it will last another 10 years...I think a GUI redo every 10 years is bearable to me.

[Kiai]

I would also add the KGS client to the "out of date UIs". It was pretty good when it was new, 10 years ago. It could be a lot nicer now.

As an enormous fan of KGS (it is the only Go server I use on a regular basis), I have two things to say:

It's nice to see that you have the--is humility the best word?--courage to recognize that the client is out of date. KGS's UI is incredibly well designed (kudos for your hard work), but looks ancient.

On the flip side, I am incredibly happy to hear you have an update planned, I can't wait!

Also, on a different note, I know I'm late, but the Android client is the coolest thing in existence. I've had a chance to use it and now I'm just waiting for the money to buy an Android phone so I can use it. I should mention I had no plans to buy an Android phone before your client came out.

[vash3g]

would telling you that the aga is in the process to moving to drupal in the future? is that old tech now?

[jts]

Hopefully I can get it to the point that it will last another 10 years...I think a GUI redo every 10 years is bearable to me.

I actually love the kgs gui. I strongly prefer that style. No need to change

The Cgoban gui, on the other hand, is kind of ugly. Is it just me, or do dark green and beige not go together?

[wms]

Also, on a different note, I know I'm late, but the Android client is the coolest thing in existence. I've had a chance to use it and now I'm just waiting for the money to buy an Android phone so I can use it. I should mention I had no plans to buy an Android phone before your client came out.

Google should pay me money. Or at least give me free phones and tablets! Glad you liked the client when you saw it. It's getting closer to where I want it to be.

[Jedo]

In terms of KGS being updated, the thing I care most about is definitely the board/stones themselves. I can't even put my finger on it, but the look of Wbaduk/Tygem/Gnu go definitely seems more pleasing

[Dusk Eagle]

GNU Go?



Anyway, I really don't have any preference with regards to the board and stones of the various clients. I think Tygem's and Wbaduk's interfaces look newer and fresher, but their layouts are worse than KGS's.

[gaius]

KGS's UI is incredibly well designed (kudos for your hard work), but looks ancient.

What's wrong with the UI? It has everything you need, and the graphics are pretty good, no? The only thing I can imagine is that the greenish background looks a little, well, dull. But changing that is just a matter of changing some image file somewhere in the client before a new release, right?

[RobertJasiek]

KGS's UI is incredibly well designed

It misses a full screen mode. It wastes extraordinarily much space when used in vertical screen position (the board width does not equal the screen width). The game information field above the board is superfluous and wastes its space; the information can be in the window title field. The buttons waste too much space. The messages when entering KGS and the user images are annoying. Teaching and demonstration modes are hard to use. Etc. Hence I disagree very much.

[RobertJasiek]

http://igolocal.net/ <-- Definitely makes use of modern web technologies.

When "modern" means security risks like JavaScript, I prefer "old-fashioned" but secure.