I didn’t specify anything because half of the entire frontend needs to be fixed, starting with the home page. The alternative is to make a separate thread for the Play page, the logged out version of the home page, the logged in home page for returning users, the cockpit meme settings page, etc. I’m not interested in doing that. I intend to make one final push to fix a lot of the flaws with OGS’ frontend before I move on to other projects. It’s been a decade and OGS still has the reputation of being a strong backend with an outdated frontend, and that gap is only going to widen as time passes. To me, that warrants a discussion that prioritizes speed and holistic website improvements over being pedantic.
Feel free to disagree, but this is my contribution after playing Go exclusively on OGS since 2022 and I don’t want to debate it considering it feels like less than 20% of the things I want to change will be implemented within the next year.
In this community, you see people brushing off valid UI concerns like Private chat blocks game chat because “DM is such an infrequently used feature that it’s probably not a priority.” What do I stand to gain in meticulously separating my suggestions if this is the type of response they get? This community has gotten too used to UI/UX problems being swept under the rug and taking years to update after consulting with statistics, polls, etc.
When I ran my own website (not a Go server, a management platform for a niche video game), I usually fixed these types of concerns within 12 hours of them existing. There were some difficult UX problems that took me weeks to figure out how to fix, but I never ignored them. I’d rather go back to doing that than fit into this kind of rigid system and make highly detailed specifications have a ~30% chance of being implemented. In fact, this might be a reason why you see so many talented developers starting their own Go servers instead of contributing to OGS.
Im not going to argue that OGS client is perfect, though i do not have major issues with it.
I do think a wholistic change like this would be best served with a wholistic proposal. (Even if it’s just a strawman). That way the default becomes the proposal rather than the status quo. And the forums discussion becomes a discussion about the fine details and decision on whether to update.
I don’t have many major issues with this website either, but us regulars and power users are not representative of most people. We are a vocal minority. Small annoyances can easily add up and turn new visitors and potential customers off from using the site – those people will never participate in polls or contribute much data.
My comment was not implying that we need to poll less active users. Not sure where you got that from. My suggestion is that you present a wholistic proposal that people can accept/reject - rather than the current approach of “hey forumites, air your grievances!”
But you do make a good point. Everything any of us say here should be taken with a grain of salt. Good UX data would need to come from the broader userbase. Things like metrics (i think OGS does this to some extent) and A/B tests (i think OGS does none of this)
very true, I could’ve done that better. But to be honest, I didn’t have this exact idea until a few days after the original post, so all the brainstorming everyone contributed did help at least slightly:
I think in general this kind of data-driven, spec-driven, test-driven development is too slow and corporate. For some things it may be the correct approach, but not for everything. But I can see my approach of collecting grievances and moving in a vague direction also has its problems, such as resulting in a lot of back-and-forth discussions and lack of measurable progress. A middle ground would be ideal.
Thank you all for participating in this thread. I think it’s gotten to the point where we can even close the thread and start a new one with more specific intentions.
I think the thread is stalling because we are jumping to solutions before agreeing on what the logged-in home page is supposed to do.
Anoek and others have mentioned the key issue: different players want different things.
This was touched upon in this thread, but then it moved away from it again. I think any improvement starts there. Roughly, I think this needs to happen:
1. Identify the main player types:
correspondence players, live players, learners, kibitzers/spectators, social/forum/chat users. Who else? And are these actually different players, or just the same players in different moods?
2. For each type, define what they want from the home page:
see the games in which it’s their move
start a game quickly
which games are currently played (on OGS, tournaments)
did someone reply to me on the forum
where is the chat activity
See the OGS tournaments schedule
Access to lessons, study materials, etc.
And also: Is there a common flow that people first play their moves, and then move on to the chats to continue being social there? Or that people first practice joseki, and then jump into a quick game?
3. Decide the strategy
First: which player type(s) is/are most important. Be warned.. this can be a kind of a painful process and where data is definitely necessary to avoid our ‘forum users bias’.
Second, how are they best served:
A middle of the road homepage
A customisable homepage
A very clear purpose for the homepage (for example My Games) and different pages for each of the other functions.
Only after that, discuss specific homepage elements, designs, etc.
Two templates, one for suitable for correspondence players to see their ongoing games, one for live only or mostly live players who would otherwise just see a big blank space.
Another toggle setting is not a solution I dislike, but why not just show ongoing (correspondence) games if there are any, and something else otherwise?
Or depending on the number of ongoing games use the space that’s left on the screen for other stuff. If someone’s playing just one game, there’s enough room for quick play buttons or whatever.
