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

[Bantari]

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.

I knew Flash and Java were not working on Apple portables, but I was not aware that Androids (and others) are also disabling these two. What is the world coming to...

In any case, I am not sure that your example here qualifies. Can we say, for example, that most of the apps you can get on iPhone are poorly designed because they would not run on Android, and vice versa? I think this is more of a question of target demographics, and we can certainly discuss that, then design in the sense I mean it here, namely "prettify."

[HermanHiddema]

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.

I think that "pretty" and "usable" are, to some extent, inseparable. Colors and shapes provide visual clues to the user.

But anyway, even entirely ignoring usability, I think that we should absolutely spend way more time on making things "spiffier". Just pretty colors and shiny buttons, as you say. Especially when it comes to something like and introductory go website. To speak in marketing terms: Better design leads to more conversions. The goal of an introductory site is, first and foremost, conversion. And people are sensitive to design. Everybody is influenced by colors and shapes. The goal is not to give people the best explanation of how go works. The goal is to give them a positive feeling. If they enjoyed themselves, they will come back.

So I'm not just arguing for more usability, I'm also very much arguing that we spend too much time on content, and too little on making things pretty.

[ez4u]

...[snipped, see above]...
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.

This is redefining the OP, which specifically talks about better interactive websites and and an updated replacement for eidogo, not just pretty graphics. I think it would be great to see some fundamental improvements in Go sites. My pet peeve is eidogo. It was last updated in 2008, before the iPad went on sale. I find that eidogo's design is a lot less compatible with 60-year-old arthritic fingers than it is with a mouse. There are many posted games here that I don't even try to look at due to the frustration of getting 10 plays into the game and then hitting the slider bar and finding myself at move 150 with no back button.

In addition, I think it is great that the leader of a university Go club (full disclosure: I grew up in Connecticut. Go Huskies!) chooses L19 as a place to seek support for change and improvement in our beloved game. However, perhaps they need to be careful about the reception received and remember that L19's are exactly the people that have put up with clunky interfaces and dysfunctional tools. We are the filtered remnant of all the Go fans that stopped by. The more modern and less tolerant took a look and gave us the go-by.

[quantumf]

Despite my love for this game, I honestly have no idea where to send my friends or my children if they express an interest in learning more about the game. There are no websites or resources that I know of that I believe would be attractive, compelling or approachable enough to grab and sustain their interest. I find this an enduring tragedy. I find it depressing that even when programs like Hikaru or Teen Wolf promote our game, we have to suitable place to send that interest.

If I'm wrong, and there are good resources, please let me know!

[gowan]

Despite my love for this game, I honestly have no idea where to send my friends or my children if they express an interest in learning more about the game. There are no websites or resources that I know of that I believe would be attractive, compelling or approachable enough to grab and sustain their interest. I find this an enduring tragedy. I find it depressing that even when programs like Hikaru or Teen Wolf promote our game, we have to suitable place to send that interest.

If I'm wrong, and there are good resources, please let me know!

How about this? http://www.usgo.org/learn-play

[HermanHiddema]

If I'm wrong, and there are good resources, please let me know!

I think http://321go.org/?ln=uk is nice. (The Dutch version is better though).

[Bantari]

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.

I think that "pretty" and "usable" are, to some extent, inseparable. Colors and shapes provide visual clues to the user.

But anyway, even entirely ignoring usability, I think that we should absolutely spend way more time on making things "spiffier". Just pretty colors and shiny buttons, as you say. Especially when it comes to something like and introductory go website. To speak in marketing terms: Better design leads to more conversions. The goal of an introductory site is, first and foremost, conversion. And people are sensitive to design. Everybody is influenced by colors and shapes. The goal is not to give people the best explanation of how go works. The goal is to give them a positive feeling. If they enjoyed themselves, they will come back.

So I'm not just arguing for more usability, I'm also very much arguing that we spend too much time on content, and too little on making things pretty.

You make some very good points there.
I think what you say is true, but for me it is still the question of priorities. We have a rather limited resources of people willing to seriously invest their time in doing something for the community, and personally I rather see them putting their effort into the content rather than into making shiny buttons. Shiny buttons can be, if they are really needed and all else fails, outsourced to people who don't know Go and so cannot contribute any other way. Like some graphic artist friend - can be done for cheap and often for free.

So the question for me is - if we have a web designer who is also a strong player (a pro, for example), would I rather him create shiny buttons for SL or would I rather see him write some good articles about new developments in chinese fuseki or comment some games. And my answer: I would rather him write about fuseki and comment games any day, and screw the shiny buttons.

Still, if all a person can contribute is shiny buttons, I won't say no to that, we all do what we can.

Having said the above, I agree with you that an introductory website might benefit from spiffy looks more than advanced site, just to draw people in and give them a better first impression. On the other hand, Go is a harsh mistress, and if spiffy looks are what is needed to draw somebody in, what are the chances of them staying with the games through all the ups and downs? I dunno...

[Boidhre]

You make some very good points there.
I think what you say is true, but for me it is still the question of priorities. We have a rather limited resources of people willing to seriously invest their time in doing something for the community, and personally I rather see them putting their effort into the content rather than into making shiny buttons. Shiny buttons can be, if they are really needed and all else fails, outsourced to people who don't know Go and so cannot contribute any other way. Like some graphic artist friend - can be done for cheap and often for free.

So the question for me is - if we have a web designer who is also a strong player (a pro, for example), would I rather him create shiny buttons for SL or would I rather see him write some good articles about new developments in chinese fuseki or comment some games. And my answer: I would rather him write about fuseki and comment games any day, and screw the shiny buttons.

Still, if all a person can contribute is shiny buttons, I won't say no to that, we all do what we can.

Having said the above, I agree with you that an introductory website might benefit from spiffy looks more than advanced site, just to draw people in and give them a better first impression. On the other hand, Go is a harsh mistress, and if spiffy looks are what is needed to draw somebody in, what are the chances of them staying with the games through all the ups and downs? I dunno...

I find this something of a bizarre point. Graphical layout, design, UI and similar are one of the very few areas in go where strength matters not a damn. There's not necessarily any alternative cost here, you don't need a shiny dan certificate to update Eidigo's aging UI.

[quantumf]

I think http://321go.org/?ln=uk is nice. (The Dutch version is better though).

Sadly, it's offline at the moment. However, I do recall checking this out when it first came out. I seem to remember that it was better than average, but on the other hand, I'd forgotten about it entirely (and nothing has reminded me about it since then, suggesting it's not exactly a must-see resource). I hope you're right though, I look forward to seeing what it's like now.

How about this? http://www.usgo.org/learn-play

It's not bad. The video is pretty good, actually. But we've already discussed the flash based interactive way to go, which was "austere" even in 2005 when I first saw it. Overall it's still rather basic, and not a place I'd particularly consider sending newbies to.

[cloudbrows]

Oh, gods, are we really debating this?

Beauty is worthwhile for its own sake, and you'd think a bunch of go players, who play a game with famously beautiful elements, would appreciate that fact.

The more things that can be made beautiful, the better. And, yes, beauty and usability are intrinsically bound. And, yes, it's absurd to worry about making go so attractive that people who won't stick to it later might be interested. We should burn all the beautiful gobans out there, if that's the case, and make beginners play with thumbtacks on go boards printed on sackcloth. Because, heck, if they're only here for the pretty equipment, how will they survive later on?

Sorry to jump in with a grumpy comment. To everyone out there considering beautiful things, do it! I'm working on that, too.

[skydyr]

Oh, gods, are we really debating this?

Beauty is worthwhile for its own sake, and you'd think a bunch of go players, who play a game with famously beautiful elements, would appreciate that fact.

The more things that can be made beautiful, the better. And, yes, beauty and usability are intrinsically bound. And, yes, it's absurd to worry about making go so attractive that people who won't stick to it later might be interested. We should burn all the beautiful gobans out there, if that's the case, and make beginners play with thumbtacks on go boards printed on sackcloth. Because, heck, if they're only here for the pretty equipment, how will they survive later on?

I think that with experience, people will often find beauty in an efficient and powerful interface more than specifically because it's been prettied up. Professional chefs don't worry a great deal about the look of the lids on the pots they use to work, any more than people should pick cars based on colour first, functionality second. Once the functionality and interface are well designed, then they can be prettied up for broader appeal. To design for the look first and the functionality second, however, seems misguided.

Of course once that functionality is in place, the appeal of the design to a broader audience will be a key factor in convincing them to stay long enough to get something out of the functionality. It's imperative to realize that the functionality is primary, though, as without that, there's no point bringing them to the site in the first place.

[gowan]

I think http://321go.org/?ln=uk is nice. (The Dutch version is better though).

Sadly, it's offline at the moment. However, I do recall checking this out when it first came out. I seem to remember that it was better than average, but on the other hand, I'd forgotten about it entirely (and nothing has reminded me about it since then, suggesting it's not exactly a must-see resource). I hope you're right though, I look forward to seeing what it's like now.

How about this? http://www.usgo.org/learn-play

It's not bad. The video is pretty good, actually. But we've already discussed the flash based interactive way to go, which was "austere" even in 2005 when I first saw it. Overall it's still rather basic, and not a place I'd particularly consider sending newbies to.

Yes the Interactive Way to Go is very basic and not exactly exciting but I think it is quite user-friendly. I could teach all needed rules, life and death, and basic tactics and simple strategic principles in five minutes but I doubt whether true beginners would remember much. They'd be overwhelmed. For real beginners starting with really basic things and doing them over and over is the way to do it. Repetition is the soul of teaching. The index of IWTG allows skipping ahead for people who are fast learners. My favorite beginners' book is Iwamoto's Go for Beginners. I think it's really elegant but it probably isn't good for true beginners. The first book in Janet Kim's series is more practical but much more basic. I've seen too many beginners give up the game because they got overwhelmed when first learning. Another aspect of this is that beginners need other beginners to play with. It can be mind boggling how many ranks weaker they are than most of the players in the club, and the stronger players have only so much patience for playing real beginners. And beginners can be frustrated at having to play so many people on small boards. Good computer programs that can be adjusted to play at a weak level have their uses but beginners need the personal interaction with a human partner in my opinion.

[HermanHiddema]

Yes the Interactive Way to Go is very basic and not exactly exciting but I think it is quite user-friendly.

Well, they make a lot of basic usability mistakes. Lets analyze:

The start page is http://playgo.to/index-e.html

If Flash is not working, the page starts with a "broken plugin" icon. My immediate instinct, if there is a broken Flash app at the top, is to think "Well, this Flash app is probably important, it's the first thing here. I'll have to fix Flash first."

If Flash is working, there is a Flash app playing through a game. This is the first thing that attracts my attention. It is colorful, is obviously about go (the thing I came here for), and has buttons I can push, allowing me to manipulate the game. Playing around with it a bit, it becomes clear that I cannot do much. I can go forward and backward in the game, set the automatic replay speed, turn on move numbers, and that's about it. I understand nothing of what is going on on the board and there is no way to get an explanation. Ok, apparently I've been wasting my time with this app?

Below the board, there are ten links. None of these links stand out. The first one, "About this site" is entirely unhelpful. It just says some generic things about go, but gives me no clue how to continue.

The second and third links are the links to the actual tutorial. Ok, lets do the Flash one http://playgo.to/iwtg/en/

New page. On the left is a list of topics, on the right is the first page of the tutorial. It has three links, "Next", "Table of Contents" and "Home". Home goes back to the front page, so it is not useful. Table of Contents opens the exact same list that is on the left also in this frame on the right, so it is not useful either.

These same three links are on every page of the tutorial. Notably, there is never a "Previous" button. If I want to read the previous topic again, I have to find it in the table of contents or use the browser's back button (provided I came here from the previous topic, and did not click to here from the table of contents).

So that's just a slew of usability errors. Why doesn't the front page have a nice big shiny button saying "Start Learning Go Now!". Why the flash app? Why no "Previous" button? Why put two useless buttons on every page of the tutorial? This is not rocket science, these are not newfangled ideas. So much could be gained here. I love the idea behind IWTG, and I still recommend it to people, but I do always have to warn them that it is a site that is 10 years out of date, and that saddens me.

[Bantari]

You make some very good points there.
I think what you say is true, but for me it is still the question of priorities. We have a rather limited resources of people willing to seriously invest their time in doing something for the community, and personally I rather see them putting their effort into the content rather than into making shiny buttons. Shiny buttons can be, if they are really needed and all else fails, outsourced to people who don't know Go and so cannot contribute any other way. Like some graphic artist friend - can be done for cheap and often for free.

So the question for me is - if we have a web designer who is also a strong player (a pro, for example), would I rather him create shiny buttons for SL or would I rather see him write some good articles about new developments in chinese fuseki or comment some games. And my answer: I would rather him write about fuseki and comment games any day, and screw the shiny buttons.

Still, if all a person can contribute is shiny buttons, I won't say no to that, we all do what we can.

Having said the above, I agree with you that an introductory website might benefit from spiffy looks more than advanced site, just to draw people in and give them a better first impression. On the other hand, Go is a harsh mistress, and if spiffy looks are what is needed to draw somebody in, what are the chances of them staying with the games through all the ups and downs? I dunno...

I find this something of a bizarre point. Graphical layout, design, UI and similar are one of the very few areas in go where strength matters not a damn. There's not necessarily any alternative cost here, you don't need a shiny dan certificate to update Eidigo's aging UI.

The point is very simple:
If we have a person who is qualified to do both (content and interface), but only has time to do one (content or interface), which one would you have him rather do? I pick content.

Nothing bizzare about it, just matter of priorities, as I said.
I mean - read all of this again if it still does not make sense, not sure how to put it any simpler.

[gowan]

I just saw this http://senseis.xmp.net/?topic=2992 "Quick Question" on SL (herman already knows about this) and the original post gives a common experience of beginner players when there are no other beginners in their club. This fellow might even be considered to be no longer a beginner. It is a bit OT for this thread but I do believe we lose a lot of potential long-term club members and players because of experiences like this fellow's.