[FM75]

It seems that the order and orientation of the "defender" cards and suits has changed, when kibitzing and viewing all hands.

I would prefer that all hands be shown in the same suit order. As a kib, SHDC is fine.

In the latest version the cards are now displayed in shortest suit to longest suit order - for each defender! I think the card images have reoriented by 90 degrees as well.

To me, this is just weird. That said, If some like the new, I don't object to their being able to continue to view it that way.

So to Options (somewhere):
1) Add a suit order option. (4 characters - letting user pick shdc or shcd, etc.), or longest to shortest, or shortest to longest.
2) Same order or not for both defenders. (If same order then total length maybe the way to go).
3) Card orientation - vertical, horizontal (when card images are displayed)

[barmar]

Are you talking about the new mobile version? Please say so, or put your comments in the mobile app thread so the context is clear.

[FM75]

Web version - and the issue appears looking at dummy as a defender as well.
Option set to view cards.

Now the shortest suit appears at the top, longest at the bottom. The orientiation of the cards is vertical instead of the normal horizontal that one would ordinarily see at the table.

It would be nice to give the user options on the appearance of dummy (or EW, when kibbing all hands).

[fred]

FM75, on 2012-November-13, 15:39, said:

Web version - and the issue appears looking at dummy as a defender as well.
Option set to view cards.

Now the shortest suit appears at the top, longest at the bottom. The orientiation of the cards is vertical instead of the normal horizontal that one would ordinarily see at the table.

It would be nice to give the user options on the appearance of dummy (or EW, when kibbing all hands).

Try right-clicking anywhere on the green table surface. A menu will appear that will allow you to change various display options.

We haven't changed any of the defaults. In theory the only way you could have arrived at this state is via the right-click menu described above.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[FM75]

Thanks.
Another BBO Easter Egg!
All back to normal now.


Seriously Fred, why the "Easter eggs" on BBO, BBOWin, and the new phone/tablet versions? OK - that is a rhetorical question. Definitely off topic.

It would be nice, at least for us modern era types, for ALL "preferences" be on a menu (or come up on a "gear").

[barmar]

I think the reason for this is that you can set different viewing options for the main playing table and the little table below the results. So it's done as a context-sensitive menu rather than a site-wide option.

[FM75]

barmar, on 2012-November-15, 10:52, said:

I think the reason for this is that you can set different viewing options for the main playing table and the little table below the results. So it's done as a context-sensitive menu rather than a site-wide option.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think there is anything wrong with context menus. That said, the same options that can be configured on a context menu should be configurable in a application wide configuration menu.

People know to look there. It is very little effort to "complete" the configuration menu. After all, you have the elements in place to store the selection, and use the selection. All the code is in place, except for consolidating in one natural spot. It might not occur to somebody that the results table can be configured differently than the playing table. Giving the two items distinguishable names exposes the internal model to the user so that his mental model is more consistent.

Maybe all these years the people who have been complaining about cards too small are talking about the cards on the results table (maybe most call that the movie table?). Labeling the two tables would not be a bad idea just to distinguish them.