when saying "interface", i don't specifically mean how oders are entered to the map, but the overall site, beginning from signup for new accounts, down to ... well – setting orders.

What do you mean? It looks good and is functional. Websites don't have to be flashy and gaudy. It's functional, streamlined, and it looks good on all platforms.

Perhaps you should post this question on the official developer forum (http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/).

I do not think there is special reason why web diplomacy / vdiplomacy looks as it looks apart from being as easy and clear as possible without too much effort. But if a facelift will not change any functionality or will not reduce the clear arrangement but improves the front end of the site, it will probably be welcomed by kestas (and others).

Hi Hirnsaege,
vDip looks like it does, because it uses the webdip-code and as I do not have great PHP or CSS skills I just tried not to change that much to avoid update problems.
I do not need any programming skills at my work (and not much computers at all), so my skills in this area are really lacking.
So if I change to much of the site layout I might run into troubles once kestas make changes in the main webdip-code and I can't stay in sync because my code is too different (have seen quite a few sites getting abandoned because of this).

don't get me wrong, i don't think there has to be any change – it's really good enough for me.

but i have to disagree when Chaga says that it's "functional" when understoot that functional is "in a way that all functions were planned before, then implemented in a design, then implemented in code".
the order and hierarchy of information (grouping of corellating elements), arrangement of buttons, the icons, the separation lines, etc. look like they evolved from earlier versions, with added new functions now and then, here and there.
there is nothing wrong about that, and i definitely don't want to make it look "flashy and gaudy" (please never make it that way!).


as an example what i want to say, let's just have a look at small section of the information about a opened game (in board.php, the part above the chat window) ... there is
– the games name
– below the current pot (a game setting mostly, but dynamic) and in same line there is the the current turn/phase (this is information about the current state of the game)
– then there's a new line with the map variant, winning mode and the info about anonymity (those are game settings)
– in the right part of the block is the time to the next phase (info about current state of the game), and then the phase length (a general game setting again)

So we have
– The games name
– general preset game settings like Variant, Anonymity and Point distribution, maybe the pot information too
– timing information like current phase, current time left, information about pauses and extends, and general phase length (this is a game setting, but time relevant (to be thought about where it really belongs).

so in conclusion this could be re-ordered to be more logical, clear on one sight and more compact. and we did not talk at all about making things "flashy", it's just structural order.

second example (i won't execute this in detail):
the chat window with it's tabs for each potential contact is not visually grouped as it could be, it's not immedately visible which contact i have opened, the send button is placed *before* the message field, not after (that's reverse oder in western reading direction), mark as unread-button is below, and the information about the player i am talking with is a repetition to the information that is given all below the map and orders section (could that be integrated completely somehow?).
now of course this "works", but it is not "functional".


so once again, i fully understand why it is the way it is now, and i know (it's my job) that redesign the interface is a huge load of work that might be beyond the capacity of the maintainers ... that's why i was asking what's the status of this topic in general ... there is constant developement feature and content wise, but not interface wise. that might be as the developers are more interested in this, or don't have the capacity for the reorder, or something is in work anyway but it's not ready yet, or ...

i will copy this to the developer forum for discussion too, just wanted to not "end" this before it even started here.

@Oli: i sent my message without reading yours, they overlapped in writing.
thanks for that information – i do understand this reason all too well ... using precrafted code in content management systems i'm aware that changing too much breaks update possibilities too fast.
so if at all, this should be proposed and implemented in the "official" branch of phpdiplomacy? (i have no overview about the structure and evolution of the different versions ...)

Why don't you make a picture with an example layout of all the information and how a page would look? Then we could say "hey this is better" or "oh this is awful"

Because if that picture is done, a significant portion of the work is done – it includes as all the hard thinking and forming (and potentially dummy coding, as user experience always is more than a static image).

Re-designing the complete board.php output is not 2 hours of work but more likely 40 to 60 hours if done really thoroughly ... that's why i was asking in advance if there is interest or a project running already. But if there is interest, and there is a chance for implementation the one or the other way, i'd be interested in contributing.

I believe there is a dev forum that Kestas frequents, if you post this question there you'd probably be able to start a conversation with most of the site owners and judge interest.

It would take 40 to 60 hours to make a picture with boxes that says words and has like one picture?

yes ... depends on how much thought is put into it :) the mere drawing process is done in an hour, but it's worthless without thinking what and how to improve, evaluate options and integrate them in a functional way.

@jmo / tobi1: i will carry this to the devs forum and see if there's interest.

of course it also should look good, as if not then 90% will just shout out "ugly" ... so as said ... when the picture is drawn (or the html dummy is coded), the work is already done.

Well, the way I see it, the current website is both functional and not ugly. It might not be flashy but I like the way it works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

there are shades between "broke" and "perfect" – but i can accept your opinion ...
to me it's "good enough" currently.

current problem:
can't signup to the devs forums as no confirmation mail is sent (checked spam filters, different mailadresses, etc.). half an hour – 59,5 hours to go :)

I also am waiting on a confirmation email

you need to post in introductions
http://forum.webdiplomacy.net/viewforum.php?f=29

I really wonder how you can possibly spend 40 to 60 hours on html and css of this site.

It's not that hard... I know there are design choices, but in the case of html and css you can just try a lot of things and take what you like best...

You don't have to re-invent the wheel by making your own graphics and such...

40 to 60 hours are really not that much IMHO.
If you think about this I needed 100+ hours to get the new HoF right, and this is all about sorting the players based on their performance.

If there is a way to add new layouts (esp. considering mobile) without changing too much webdip-code I'm always open for help...

@kaner: i tried, but i have to log in for that ... logging in with my registred user name (like the one here, "Hirnsaege") just drops the error message "The specified username is currently inactive. If you have problems activating your account, please contact a board administrator." but i can't find a contact adress ...
i triple-checked spamboxes serverside and clientside, it just seems i got no confirmation message so far.
Tried with another User name ("HalberMensch") and a completely independent mail adress, with the same result so far.


@steephie22:
it's not so much about building the html structure and the css – that's rather easy (but still takes lots of time if done in production quality later). its also not much about graphics design, i would not change too much at all there.
but it's gathering all the complex information that needs to be represented (yes, it's all there, but it's scattered due to developement by adding features one after another), sort it, see what can be reduced or shown in a simpler way, grouped, hidden until requested, etc. and placed in a structure that is as flexible as possible to different amount of text lengths, and - if possible - flexible to the device the site is visited with.
(don't want to sound bold in this, but if we offer a redesign of a site like this as a professional service at office, there would be way more than 40-60 hours announced. not because we want to rip off the customer, but because the time spent lies in all the details that arise when looked closely).

i am working on a dummy page of board.php output just for the fun of it ... it's far from ready to be shown or usable yet, but restructuring the players details at the very bottom of the page just took me about 3 hours to figure it out until it was complete, still much shorter and more clear than the original, structured more logically and fit to the dummy page.
I will show this dummy draft when it's somewhat ready and complete – showing halfway and incomplete just never can compete to the complete and very used-to-everybody original. If the attempt is worth further work, i'm happy to help. If it's not worth the effort, i'm happy to play on – that's why i'm here since two years now :)

I really like Hirnsaege's ideas...I also support Oli's suggestion to focus on the interface for mobiles, as I think that things could really be improved there...

My only complaint about mobile play is the scroll selection for moves and territories. Buttons (maybe 2 per row, as many rows as needed) would be better.

"If there is a way to add new layouts (esp. considering mobile) without changing too much webdip-code I'm always open for help..."

If there is an easy method of doing this with some basic improvements to design I can probably convince Kestas to add them into the webdip code and save you the trouble.

I would be happy with an m.vdip (m.webdip) mode that had buttons.

the draft is growing, and i'm getting feedback from some trusted players to it so far - some of them eager to have a "more mobile" version of this too. i have drafted about everything except the orders section and some details of the map section. will do some adaptations to make the layout more flexible to small devices (this can be done to great adaptation to the device with css media queries today, no need for completely different pages for desktop and mobile).

about the orders section:
buttons for the types of moves (attack, supports, hold, convoy ...) is easy to represent visually. they are limited in number and distinctable (in fact in the direct map input variants there are buttons used for this already).
what's much more difficult is to represent all the countries as buttons ... depending on variant it could be done with some thought, but in many large ones with many different moves available due to small countries and convoy possibilities, it might be impossible. still there can be some improvements to the current representation.
question is if the direct map input variant is the "standard future" anyway, or if it stays an experiment and we'll live with the classic way to enter moves for quite a while yet.

For mobile I'm much more concerned about usability over looks. It could look like a Windows DOS computer screen and be fine if it works.

i'm absolutely with you with this.
in my draft i have changed looks only very slightly, nothing disturbing. it's more to sort information, unify usability, optimize the layout to different screen sizes, optimize loading times, and propose potential ajax-functionality (like a chat windows that does not need to reload the page as a whole when sending a message or optinally loading some sections according to personal settings instead of default).
part of this is inherent with creating the dummy. other things need to work in coordination with the server part of the software (all the personal settings and ajax stuff– that is a different story to implement and was not my primary "task" for this dummy yet.

i'm aware this is a bit nebulous to talk about without showing :)
its just that showing a halfway draft has only disadvantages ... it's "new" (thus not used to, thus unfamiliar), it's not complete, it's not consistent yet, it needs explanation where no expanation should be necessary so this has to wait a little while yet. i have shown it to 3 players i work well with to get some feedback in advance and improve what they think needs attention.

So it's been a while, but i i've been busy ... I still have no access to the devs forum where details could be discussed, but i thought i'll just show here now and get some feedback and new ideas, if there is interest in this.

http://gestaltungssache.at/dip/ >>> this is the "standard version"
http://gestaltungssache.at/dip/?info=1 >>> this is the version with explanation

Detailed explanation is placed in the explanatory version.
In short, please consider this is a "living template", it has no functionality to the backend at all, just layout, graphics and some frontend interaction like dropdowns.
I tested so on Firefox 26 and Chrome on desktop, and on ipad2 for smaller screens / touch. While it is re-usable code, the coding is not "production quality" but "draft quality".

thanks for any input!

Looks informative on my mobile, but it seems I can't scroll by sliding when touching the picture.

Weird bug?

Also everything but the map and the background only take up the left half of the screen for me.