Is it really off-topic if I started this discussion in the first place? And half of y’all’s “on-topic” discussions are nothing but friendlier versions of things I already said about design – basically: There is potential to improve but it’s not a priority for the near future. and it’s too difficult to find the right person/people with a very small budget – and part of it is because of what I posted today about UX design being a relatively new field. The home page thread, lichess comparisons, etc. were all my ideas originally. I think my complaints in OGS chat were what motivated/pressured anoek to update the home page, as a matter of fact.
I don’t think it’s worth it for anyone to waste more time thinking about re-designing the frontend of the website in a big way. Minor improvements and bugfixes will be enough.
People have started bringing in additional potentials for improvement now but I think it’s important to make clear that these are very distinct disciplines.
UI/UX was the initial topic about the look, feel and usability of the whole app. I still think it makes sense to look at what chess.com and lichess.org are doing in that regard.
Now User Onboarding is its own thing. I also believe that this has huge potential for OGS but this is a different topic than the overall UI/UX. Here again chess.com did a pretty good job IMO, they go through all the very basics to understand the game:
Our competitor PlayGo.gg has also somewhat tried to build a tutorial series.
And then you’ve got marketing which is another totally different area of potentials. I personally don’t think OGS should spend too much effort for this though, at least not in the western world. Anyone in the western world who plays Go already knows about OGS and its benefits. One quick win IMO would be a dedicated landing page though.
Currently if you visit OGS as a new user you see this:
I assume for two reasons: a) It is not true, unless you specify a general area (e.g. Europe, USA, “the West” etc) b) It is the website equivalent of “I’m better than 98% of you.”
I think it is true until someone shows me a bigger Go web app than OGS. I guess one that might qualify would be toyo-igo but I’m actually not sure about their user numbers.
Well in that case you should reformulate the sentence supposed to be equivalent with the chess.com one.
Why would an app be the condition to be a community? Besides I am not fully updated but you need a client to go on fox or other asian servers. I don’t really see the difference here.
Last OGS is not an app lol, although some were created around it.
Ok I see what you mean by web app, which is not what we usually call an app.
Now I miss how a go web community implies the use of a web app only. For me there are go communities on the internet using different ways (browser, clients)
I used the correct terminology (having worked in that industry for years), you didn’t understand the terminology, yet your sentence makes it sound like I’m the one having used the wrong term
Ok, fair point. I think if you’re going to court then someone could try to argue that “Go web community” could imply “Go community in the internet” and not “Go community on a web app”.
Let me rephrase it then: Play Go/Baduk Online on the #1 Site!
Join X+ thousand players on the world’s largest Go website
How about now? No matter how you put it Fox/Tygem are not websites. I think this sounds like a great marketing slogan and I think it would hold up even in the toughest of courts.
I am not arguing the terminology. What I want to say is that when a friend ask me if there is an app for OGS, he’s not thinking of a web app as you define it, but as an app like on the format of what you find in the Google store. Not something opening the browser but at reverse something working in an autonomous way.
A bit like a client under windows instead of something in a browser, got it?
Well that’s what I used to understand in the expectations from others.
Are you sure? They use clients but aren’t they websites too?
