Life In 19x19

Posted: **Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:16 pm**

Here are my thoughts on the topic.

:grumpy:

Posted: **Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:17 pm**

Bantari wrote:
HermanHiddema wrote:
DrStraw wrote:Problem with all these little pictures is that for those of us who only use one or two, at most, we don't have a clue what the rest of them are supposed to mean.

Most of them are exaggerated versions of common facial expressions. Happy. Sad. Shocked. Confused. They're supposed to be easy to understand to anyone with a basic ability to judge facial expressions. We add them because we can't add tone of voice to text on the internet, which in normal conversation would immediately clue people in if something was a joke. If you don't understand them, perhaps you should learn. They're a pretty basic staple of internet communication, and have been for 30 years.

For me, the problem is that different people use the very same symbols in very different ways. For example - the symbol you used was a "wink". It can be used to denote lack of seriousness, or saying "don't worry, even if you're wrong this time, I still like you" or anything inbetween and beyond. So sometimes it is hard to tell. In situations which are inflamed or lead to inflamation, I find it best not to rely that such symbols are clear enough to clearly communicate intent. Especially if the intent seems to be contrary to the actual words chosen.

PS>
For example - I used the same "wink" at the end of the above paragraph. Does it mean I said it all in jest or that I don't mean any of that?

This is true of an actual wink as well. Sometimes it means "you get the joke," sometimes it means "Everything's cool" and sometimes it means "I'd like to sleep with you." Sometimes the winkee gets the signal, sometimes (s)he doesn't.

Posted: **Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:31 pm**

I read on the interwebs that those emoticons are a Unicode standard and they are considered racist and that is why Apple wants to talk to the Unicode people to add colored ones. ...

Personally I think you may be insulting your reader if you suggest they can not figure out all by themselves the intended meaning of what you wrote. OTOH it may help when English is not your first language. So I am neutral, but don't like to see them used overly much.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 5:05 am**

DrStraw wrote:But what is the point of posting a question if only positive responses are acceptable?

Speaking abstractly, since this is an issue that comes up on every forum for discussion I've ever participated in, this is absolutely right. There must be room for giving positive and negative feedback. Too much forced positivity is rare, but when it happens it's just as stifling as too much negativity.

What is problematic is when ideas are immediately greeted by aggressive or condescending negative reactions from people who have no real interest in discussion, only pontificating. Such attitudes are rarely right, because if you don't allow for discussion, you can't learn from it. But that's really beside the point: even when the critic is right, they tend to lower the value of the discussion, because you move from exploring the space of ideas to saying "I'm right", "No I'm right, ur dumb!"

P.S Since you seem a little anxious in this thread, Bantari, none of this is about you. I thought you weren't right, but I thought your response was relatively productive.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:11 am**

HermanHiddema wrote:We add them because we can't add tone of voice to text on the internet,

Or gestures, or other paralinguistics.

They're a pretty basic staple of internet communication, and have been for 30 years.

Well, 30 years ago we made do with <s> for smile and <g> for grin. These became

and

. Now the latter has become wink.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:05 am**

HermanHiddema wrote:
Hayang wrote:Do you guys agree that the community could benefit from some well-designed and developed web tools?
(Developers, do you know about any current development projects in Go?)

Absolutely agree. IWTG is a good concept, but the execution is appallingly outdated. Not only is it ugly, it needs either flash or java, meaning it does not run on any mobile devices or tablets.

I love Sensei's Library for its content, but its style is 10 years out of date.

KGS has great features, but visual appeal is not one of them.

There are a few projects that are breaking new ground, either technologically or from a design perspective. Pandanet 2.2, the latest version IGS client, looks great, for example. And projects like OGS and Ootakamoku are definitely moving forward and using new technology in interesting ways.

Speaking as one for whom something created in 2004 is still fresh and new, I worry that people may be spending too much time on presentation that is not so bad, really, and not enough on developing better content. The presentation of the game is very simple, a rectangular 19x19 grid and two types of "stones" of contrasting colors. It is the content of go (rules, strategy, tactics) that is difficult and much work is needed on that, as evidenced by some of the questions asked here on L19.

I think Hayang said that he felt that many young people who come to go come via the video game culture. I'm not sure that's true but regardless, go is not like video games. When people actually play go there are no flashy video effects. Hikaru no Go was aimed at young manga fans and many young people who were enticed by the manga to take up the game came with unrealistic expectations. HNG came to the USA in English about ten years ago so some of the L19 participants may have forgotten the large number of players on the servers with user names connected with HNG and the naive people who posted on Go Discussions vehemently stating they were going to be go professionals. Making it easier for people to get into the game is a good goal but keeping them in once they learn is also important and above all,presenting go in a realistic way is important.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:02 pm**

Funny, wasn't senseis just an ill guided attempt to use newfangled technology to change the presentation of go content, at the expense of quality? I mean, do we really think that the content on senseis is better than what's in paper books? Let's not forget that just like Hikaru, sensei's had its heyday, but now seems to be declining, with only a few librarians left over.

Wait a gosh darn minute, aren't we having this discussion on a platform that's just some convenient new presentation compared to sensei's?

P.S which emoji should I be using for this post?

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:33 pm**

hyperpape wrote:Funny, wasn't senseis just an ill guided attempt to use newfangled technology to change the presentation of go content, at the expense of quality? I mean, do we really think that the content on senseis is better than what's in paper books? Let's not forget that just like Hikaru, sensei's had its heyday, but now seems to be declining, with only a few librarians left over.

Wait a gosh darn minute, aren't we having this discussion on a platform that's just some convenient new presentation compared to sensei's?

P.S which emoji should I be using for this post?

While I recognize the problems with Sensei's Library, I also note that the answer to almost every question asked on L19 can be found on SL. The reason there are fewer editors on SL than there were in the past has more to do with the fact that most of the "easy" content has already been done on SL and, understandably, many people aren't interested in polishing or organizing what someone else wrote or fixing content that someone messed up. I think SL is superior to Go Discussions or L19 as a repository for go information. L19 has proven to be superior as a place for conversations and turn-based games (Malkovitch), the pages for which probably constitute a major part of L19.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:06 pm**

gowan wrote:
hyperpape wrote:Funny, wasn't senseis just an ill guided attempt to use newfangled technology to change the presentation of go content, at the expense of quality? I mean, do we really think that the content on senseis is better than what's in paper books? Let's not forget that just like Hikaru, sensei's had its heyday, but now seems to be declining, with only a few librarians left over.

Wait a gosh darn minute, aren't we having this discussion on a platform that's just some convenient new presentation compared to sensei's?

P.S which emoji should I be using for this post?

While I recognize the problems with Sensei's Library, I also note that the answer to almost every question asked on L19 can be found on SL. The reason there are fewer editors on SL than there were in the past has more to do with the fact that most of the "easy" content has already been done on SL and, understandably, many people aren't interested in polishing or organizing what someone else wrote or fixing content that someone messed up. I think SL is superior to Go Discussions or L19 as a repository for go information. L19 has proven to be superior as a place for conversations and turn-based games (Malkovitch), the pages for which probably constitute a major part of L19.

I think this is slightly OT here.
Question: Would SL (or L19 for that matter) have better content if it had a spiffier and niftier interface? Would there be more librarians willing to organize content or users willing to submit content? Would it be more usable? Different questions, maybe different answers...

This is what started this thread, if memory serves.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:12 pm**

gowan wrote:While I recognize the problems with Sensei's Library, I also note that the answer to almost every question asked on L19 can be found on SL. The reason there are fewer editors on SL than there were in the past has more to do with the fact that most of the "easy" content has already been done on SL and, understandably, many people aren't interested in polishing or organizing what someone else wrote or fixing content that someone messed up. I think SL is superior to Go Discussions or L19 as a repository for go information. L19 has proven to be superior as a place for conversations and turn-based games (Malkovitch), the pages for which probably constitute a major part of L19.

I've never thought of this site as a source of information. Sure, there is some here if you go searching, but I see it as mostly a chat site. SL is the place to go for information. The two sites are complementary in my opinion.

Posted: **Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:33 pm**

My point was that this site and senseis library do not do what they do for to by being great sources of information, but by having a certain presentation or vibe or ease of entry.

And SL used to be a chat site of sorts it got supplanted by Go Discussions and this site. Sometimes I clean up bits of chat from ten years ago.

My point is that few things under the sun are truly amazing and magical. Many good things are slight repackagings of what have come before. I doubt better designed introductions to the game will revolutionize to in the West. But there is real room for improvement and it might make a difference.

Posted: **Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:14 am**

Bantari wrote:Question: Would SL (or L19 for that matter) have better content if it had a spiffier and niftier interface? Would there be more librarians willing to organize content or users willing to submit content? Would it be more usable? Different questions, maybe different answers...

Lets turn that list around.

1. Would SL be more usable with better design?

Yes, absolutely. Design is not just about pretty colors. Design is also about creating intuitive, easy to use, user interfaces. Apple is an excellent example. The devices they make are not just pretty, they are incredibly well thought out in terms of user experience.

2. Would SL have more users/librarians willing to create and/or organize content if it were more usable?

Very probable. If you make it easier to use, you lower the barrier to entry, hence you will get more users. Users do not need to have a high playing level to make SL better, it would also be much improved by people willing to organize and clean up content.

3. Would SL have better content if it had more users and librarians adding/organizing content?

Again very probable. Page quality probably follows a bell curve. The average page quality wouldn't improve, but the total number of pages and the quality of the best pages would. As long as you can find some way to mostly direct people to the better pages, the quality of the library, for the end user, would improve.

So how about L19? Why are we even here? What does L19 offer that was not already offered by the rec.games.go newsgroup?

Well, on RGG, diagrams looked like this:

Code: Select all

+--------------
| 1 X O . . O .
| 2 . 3 X X O .
| X X X O O O .
| O O O . . . .
| . . . O . . .

On L19, that looks like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$+-------------- $$| 1 X O . . O . $$| 2 . 3 X X O . $$| X X X O O O . $$| O O O . . . . $$| . . . O . . .[/go]

Arguably, all that has been changed here is the design. The content is the same. The functionality is the same.

I think that that design improvement has made things better. Do you?

This is what started this thread, if memory serves.

Well, what started the thread was a post about an introductory site, with IWTG (http://playgo.to/index-e.html the Interactive Way To Go) given as an example. IWTG is a prime example of a good idea, with good content, but incredibly poor design and usability. The fact that it needs Flash or Java means it does not run on any tablets or mobile devices. Given how popular and wide-spread those are, that is a very severe limitation.

Posted: **Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:54 am**

HermanHiddema wrote:
Bantari wrote:Question: Would SL (or L19 for that matter) have better content if it had a spiffier and niftier interface? Would there be more librarians willing to organize content or users willing to submit content? Would it be more usable? Different questions, maybe different answers...

Lets turn that list around.

1. Would SL be more usable with better design?

Yes, absolutely. Design is not just about pretty colors. Design is also about creating intuitive, easy to use, user interfaces. Apple is an excellent example. The devices they make are not just pretty, they are incredibly well thought out in terms of user experience.

2. Would SL have more users/librarians willing to create and/or organize content if it were more usable?

Very probable. If you make it easier to use, you lower the barrier to entry, hence you will get more users. Users do not need to have a high playing level to make SL better, it would also be much improved by people willing to organize and clean up content.

3. Would SL have better content if it had more users and librarians adding/organizing content?

Again very probable. Page quality probably follows a bell curve. The average page quality wouldn't improve, but the total number of pages and the quality of the best pages would. As long as you can find some way to mostly direct people to the better pages, the quality of the library, for the end user, would improve.

All very true.
It is a no-brainer that a more usable interface and better organized content makes for a better product.

But not what I was asking. I never said anything about "better" interface, in usability sense. Only about "spiffier" interface. What I meant by it was exactly what you seem to exclude: the pretty colors and shiny buttons. Because the original post was mainly about that - making things pretty rather than working on the content. Or, at least, that was the part I was making a comment on.

The better usability and organization is actually what I am advocating for by what I say in this thread.
My whole point, and why I got involved here, is because I think that instead of concentrating on making things pretty, we should concentrate more on the content. As it making it better, better organized, and more accessible. Which is somehow what you are arguing for as well, but you making it look like you are arguing against my point rather than in support of it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:56 am**

HermanHiddema wrote:Well, on RGG, diagrams looked like this:
Code: Select all
+--------------
| 1 X O . . O .
| 2 . 3 X X O .
| X X X O O O .
| O O O . . . .
| . . . O . . .
On L19, that looks like this:

$$W
$$+--------------
$$| 1 X O . . O .
$$| 2 . 3 X X O .
$$| X X X O O O .
$$| O O O . . . .
$$| . . . O . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W $$+-------------- $$| 1 X O . . O . $$| 2 . 3 X X O . $$| X X X O O O . $$| O O O . . . . $$| . . . O . . .[/go]

Arguably, all that has been changed here is the design. The content is the same. The functionality is the same.

I think that that design improvement has made things better. Do you?

Absolutely!
And this is actually an excellent example, thanks!

But the example can be taken further. The change you outlined, from ascii diagrams to graphic diagrams is huge and certainly makes a huge difference. Now if we go an extra step and make the graphic diagram more pretty, shiny stones, maybe some shadows for 3D effects... would the change in usability also be huge? Or are we having a diminishing returns here?

My point is that the change from ascii to graphics addresses a usability issue. A change from flat graphics to shiny 3D graphics only addresses cosmetic issues.

Posted: **Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:06 pm**

HermanHiddema wrote:
So how about L19? Why are we even here? What does L19 offer that was not already offered by the rec.games.go newsgroup?

Well, on RGG, diagrams looked like this:
Code: Select all
+--------------
| 1 X O . . O .
| 2 . 3 X X O .
| X X X O O O .
| O O O . . . .
| . . . O . . .
On L19, that looks like this:

$$W
$$+--------------
$$| 1 X O . . O .
$$| 2 . 3 X X O .
$$| X X X O O O .
$$| O O O . . . .
$$| . . . O . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W $$+-------------- $$| 1 X O . . O . $$| 2 . 3 X X O . $$| X X X O O O . $$| O O O . . . . $$| . . . O . . .[/go]

Arguably, all that has been changed here is the design. The content is the same. The functionality is the same.

I think that that design improvement has made things better. Do you?

This is what started this thread, if memory serves.

Well, what started the thread was a post about an introductory site, with IWTG (http://playgo.to/index-e.html the Interactive Way To Go) given as an example. IWTG is a prime example of a good idea, with good content, but incredibly poor design and usability. The fact that it needs Flash or Java means it does not run on any tablets or mobile devices. Given how popular and wide-spread those are, that is a very severe limitation.

There's another way in which L19 is superior to RGG. RGG was subject to trolling and flame wars which, for me, made it very unpleasant. The moderation on L19 (and its predecessor GD) made for a much improved environment. Of course this has nothing to do with interface or presentation.

Life In 19x19

Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban applet!

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Spread of Go severely hampered by lack of design/develop

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Spread of Go severely hampered by lack of design/develop

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app

Re: Wish we had a better introductory Go website + goban app