c4countdown

tonywarren wrote:Been too busy training Carol for 19th to get on every day. Liked and got the hang of most of the developmental versions. Tried today and failed miserably. For me it sucks donkey balls. Nothing is where I expect it to be, can't read the operators without my glasses, can't use my glasses with the computer, in short I really hate it. Can't even say I'll get used to it. Any of the intervening attempts to improve the interface would have been alright, but this

I found I picked up which button was which operator really quickly (my eyesight is pretty terrible) - to the point where I was recently using a machine where the operators didn't show up for some reason, but I could remember where the + or whatever were anyway.

tonywarren wrote:Been too busy training Carol for 19th to get on every day. Liked and got the hang of most of the developmental versions. Tried today and failed miserably. For me it sucks donkey balls. Nothing is where I expect it to be, can't read the operators without my glasses, can't use my glasses with the computer, in short I really hate it. Can't even say I'll get used to it. Any of the intervening attempts to improve the interface would have been alright, but this

That seems crazy to me, in that the latest version is far more similar to the original version than any of the intermediate ones were. (Did you also hate the old numbers interface Tony?)

In my eyes, the only improvement it really needs (ignoring the brackets/no brackets argument) is to have the original blue-style buttons restored so that the numbers stick out more (might even help you eye-conscious types?). But as Charlie points out, blue blocks aren't conducive to being seen as buttons by the less computer-savvy types, so I'm happy to concede on that point.

I hadn't really made my opinion public as I'm in the privileged position of talking to Charlie about all this sort of stuff away from the forum, but for the record: I think the new numbers interface is great.

I can see Tony's point, I sit close enough to the screen that I can see okay but I did think the numbers and the operators could have been larger and clearer. Could it vary depending on which browser and implementation of Java you're using?

Jon Corby wrote:I can see Tony's point

Your eyes can't be that bad then.

Jon Corby wrote:I can see Tony's point, I sit close enough to the screen that I can see okay but I did think the numbers and the operators could have been larger and clearer. Could it vary depending on which browser and implementation of Java you're using?

Almost certainly. To me they look fine, and apparently on a Mac they're too big (so that the numbers sometimes don't fit on the button.) I did talk to Raccoon about making a more accessible version of the interface, but he was all "don't patronise, fag". If you want larger text then there are better ways of suggesting it than rambling about donkey balls.

Charlie Reams wrote:I did talk to Raccoon about making a more accessible version of the interface, but he was all "don't patronise, fag".

That doesn't sound like me, I'd've thought I'd've said "apterous is so rubbish that I'm practically glad that it discriminates against my people, fag".

Well I only had about a week of the old one before it changed to the new system (halfway through a duel by the way...first numbers old one, second numbers new one, arghhh!!!) And I really can't see what all the fuss is about. Being too thick to know what to do with brackets anyway (other than to frame a verbal aside) I really can't say they're a problem. My only quibble, which has been mentioned up there ^^ somewhere already, is that I sometimes hit Done when I mean to hit the bar with the 'commit to' bit on it, but it always has the 'are you sure?' box anyway so that's not life threatening. I think it's far better than the old one from a newbie point of view...far less scary.
All I need to do now is learn my 93 times table and lose about 7 stone and I can be the next Carol/Susie.

Maxine Silkstone wrote: All I need to do now is learn my 93 times table and lose about 7 stone and I can be the next Carol/Susie.

....and live in England.

Think I might have picked up a bug with the new system - meant to do 10/10 = 1 in a numbers game but accidentally clicked the minus button instead. It stopped me from continuing any further! Not sure if I could have solved it with what was left but had it not stopped running I would have had a go. Is there a reason for this or is it a bug?

Barry Evans wrote:Think I might have picked up a bug with the new system - meant to do 10/10 = 1 in a numbers game but accidentally clicked the minus button instead. It stopped me from continuing any further! Not sure if I could have solved it with what was left but had it not stopped running I would have had a go. Is there a reason for this or is it a bug?

Not quite sure what you mean. Did you click the minus button and then it disabled all the other buttons? Or did you click "10", "MINUS", "10" and then try to change the minus to a divide?

Meant to do "10" DIVIDE "10", DID "10" MINUS "10" and after I'd confirmed, it wouldnt let me touch or use any of the other numbers

Barry Evans wrote:Meant to do "10" DIVIDE "10", DID "10" MINUS "10" and after I'd confirmed, it wouldnt let me touch or use any of the other numbers

Sounds like it got annoyed with you making a zero or something. I'll have a fiddle around with this.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Barry Evans wrote:Meant to do "10" DIVIDE "10", DID "10" MINUS "10" and after I'd confirmed, it wouldnt let me touch or use any of the other numbers

Sounds like it got annoyed with you making a zero or something. I'll have a fiddle around with this.

I tried to recreate it earlier and 'Carol' said something like 'no, you can't do that.' and I was locked out. Probably for the best I was going to try to make it do 0/0.

Ben Wilson wrote:I tried to recreate it earlier and 'Carol' said something like 'no, you can't do that.' and I was locked out. Probably for the best I was going to try to make it do 0/0.

0/0 should be fine, it's anything else/0 that's a problem.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Ben Wilson wrote:I tried to recreate it earlier and 'Carol' said something like 'no, you can't do that.' and I was locked out. Probably for the best I was going to try to make it do 0/0.

0/0 should be fine, it's anything else/0 that's a problem.

What is 0/0?

Kai Laddiman wrote:What is 0/0?

Huh, looks like I'm mis-remembering first year maths.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Ben Wilson wrote:I tried to recreate it earlier and 'Carol' said something like 'no, you can't do that.' and I was locked out. Probably for the best I was going to try to make it do 0/0.

0/0 should be fine, it's anything else/0 that's a problem.

No; division by zero is the illegal. It doesn't matter what you divide through. Otherwise it becomes possible by saying 0/0 to make spurious proofs of things.

I did however once confuse my maths teacher in year 12 by setting up 1/infinity and using it in a lemma.

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:No; division by zero is the illegal. It doesn't matter what you divide through. Otherwise it becomes possible by saying 0/0 to make spurious proofs of things.

Indeed - see my previous post...

IMO 0/0 is -infinity and infinity. Anyone else?

Kai Laddiman wrote:IMO 0/0 is -infinity and infinity. Anyone else?

Now you're just trolling

0/0 is generally undefined, but it certain contexts can make sense if properly interpreted. For example, consider sinx / x near x = 0...various arguments (e.g. using Taylor series) suggest that the limit as x approaches 0 is 1. So in this case 0/0 ought to be 1, if anything. In other contexts, it ought to be other values and in even further cases, it ought to be infinite.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Ben Wilson wrote:I tried to recreate it earlier and 'Carol' said something like 'no, you can't do that.' and I was locked out. Probably for the best I was going to try to make it do 0/0.

0/0 should be fine, it's anything else/0 that's a problem.

Tell me, do you have a background in mathematics? Because it sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

Charlie Reams wrote:Tell me, do you have a background in mathematics? Because it sounds like you don't really know what you're talking about.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

This reminds me of the fact I was taught at school that polar bears have fur that acts like fibre-optics.

I've been trying to work out where I got this idea from, and all I can think is school level algebra and being told that you can cancel out things in the numerator and denominator of a fraction, and not have to worry about the bit you take out of the denominator being zero as long as it's only zero when the numerator is zero. Unfortunately I haven't done proper maths for a few years, and so am not particularly inclined to head back into the world of epsilons to try and (properly) work out whether that makes any sense.

And anyway, my degree was in Land Economy.

(maybe)

I've put my finger on the problem I have with the numbers interface now. When you get to the time you need to commit to whatever operation you're doing, there's no option to not commit to it as far as I can tell. Why therefore do we have to commit to it in the first place? Seems a bit of a moot point really. It would be nice to be able to retract mistakes.

I completely agree with Ians point about the committal button. I also seem to be having problems with clicking on the brackets, they seem to be redundant.

Eg, if i click [9] [x] [(] [100] [+] [6] [)], i should get 954, but i'd get 906

Kai Laddiman wrote:IMO 0/0 is -infinity and infinity. Anyone else?

0/0 is a sloppily drawn percentage sign.

Next question.

JackHurst wrote:I completely agree with Ians point about the committal button. I also seem to be having problems with clicking on the brackets, they seem to be redundant.

Eg, if i click [9] [x] [(] [100] [+] [6] [)], i should get 954, but i'd get 906

Somebody else complained about the same thing in a game against me earlier.

The brackets don't do anything yet.

Ian Volante wrote:I've put my finger on the problem I have with the numbers interface now. When you get to the time you need to commit to whatever operation you're doing, there's no option to not commit to it as far as I can tell. Why therefore do we have to commit to it in the first place? Seems a bit of a moot point really. It would be nice to be able to retract mistakes.

You can still change the previous number.

Charlie Reams wrote:The brackets don't do anything yet.

Ian Volante wrote:I've put my finger on the problem I have with the numbers interface now. When you get to the time you need to commit to whatever operation you're doing, there's no option to not commit to it as far as I can tell. Why therefore do we have to commit to it in the first place? Seems a bit of a moot point really. It would be nice to be able to retract mistakes.

You can still change the previous number.

How?

JackHurst wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: You can still change the previous number.

How?

Just click a different one. Is this feature broken or is there a sudden outbreak of common sense failure?

Charlie Reams wrote:

JackHurst wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote: You can still change the previous number.

How?

Just click a different one. Is this feature broken or is there a sudden outbreak of common sense failure?

I'll check later when I get home!

I've just been bitten by the numbers interface. 25 × ... no, hang on, I need to do the 6 + 4 first....

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon wrote:I've just been bitten by the numbers interface. 25 × ... no, hang on, I need to do the 6 + 4 first....

Stewart.

I miss brackets.

Ian Volante wrote:

Stewart Gordon wrote:I've just been bitten by the numbers interface. 25 × ... no, hang on, I need to do the 6 + 4 first....

Stewart.

I miss brackets.

I quite like the not having brackets. I think before it was a bit awkward and difficult to implement without allowing people to buy extra time by opening unnecessary brackets. My main issue is that if I'm going to declare something other than the target, I have to basically commit to this a few seconds before the end of the time so don't get the full time to solve it. So I'm often in the dilemma of sticking to what I've got or going for the target, which I might get right at the end of the normal time or in the blag time. Having said that, I think it generally works quite well.

Something I was thinking to get round the problem of having to declare before the time is up - at the end of the time when it goes to the solution making screen, it could give you a chance to change your declaration on there before you do any of the calculations, but without giving you any extra time.

So the target is 999, and that's what I've declared. But I've only got 998 and I don't want to waste the last few seconds of the time committing to this in case I get 999 at the death. So up comes the solution maker, with 999 in the box. The patience bar starts running down. I have the chance to change the number in the box to 998, but have to do this and press the first button of the solution before the timer is reset. So no extra time is given. And once you press the first button of the solution, your declaration is locked in.

One problem with this is that currently if you've got 998 and your opponent has it spot on with 999, it won't even give you the solution maker unless and until your opponent gets it wrong. This way it will force it to come up. But I think this would be a good thing actually. I know on the show the person further away from the target doesn't give their solution, but it's very different there. You can see the person telling Rachel their answer and you'll know exactly when it goes to you. On Apterous, you're sitting there waiting, sometimes for ages, and then it suddenly asks you for your solution and can catch you out. I don't think it matters if someone gives a solution that the game doesn't really need. In fact I think it would add to it.

And on a separate subject, for maxes only, it should always ask for you solution if you are closer than the "max" in case it's wrong (mainly in hyper) and I think it should ask you anyway (when you're further away than the max) because when I declare bang on and it goes to the solution maker, I know straight away that it's possible and I'm not sure I should be provided with this information. It's a little bit like (vaguely anyway) telling someone there's a 9 in the selection.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Something I was thinking to get round the problem of having to declare before the time is up - at the end of the time when it goes to the solution making screen, it could give you a chance to change your declaration on there before you do any of the calculations, but without giving you any extra time.

So the target is 999, and that's what I've declared. But I've only got 998 and I don't want to waste the last few seconds of the time committing to this in case I get 999 at the death. So up comes the solution maker, with 999 in the box. The patience bar starts running down. I have the chance to change the number in the box to 998, but have to do this and press the first button of the solution before the timer is reset. So no extra time is given. And once you press the first button of the solution, your declaration is locked in.

One problem with this is that currently if you've got 998 and your opponent has it spot on with 999, it won't even give you the solution maker unless and until your opponent gets it wrong. This way it will force it to come up. But I think this would be a good thing actually. I know on the show the person further away from the target doesn't give their solution, but it's very different there. You can see the person telling Rachel their answer and you'll know exactly when it goes to you. On Apterous, you're sitting there waiting, sometimes for ages, and then it suddenly asks you for your solution and can catch you out. I don't think it matters if someone gives a solution that the game doesn't really need. In fact I think it would add to it.

And on a separate subject, for maxes only, it should always ask for you solution if you are closer than the "max" in case it's wrong (mainly in hyper) and I think it should ask you anyway (when you're further away than the max) because when I declare bang on and it goes to the solution maker, I know straight away that it's possible and I'm not sure I should be provided with this information. It's a little bit like (vaguely anyway) telling someone there's a 9 in the selection.

I think it's fine as it is. If you don't have it exact then you should, in theory, have that typed in the box but if at the death you get the solution it only takes a split second to click the target at the top to change you declaration. If the target was 999 and you just enter 999 at the start and then suddenly realise that you can't get it with about 1 second to go then it's just tough titties.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I quite like the not having brackets. I think before it was a bit awkward and difficult to implement without allowing people to buy extra time by opening unnecessary brackets. My main issue is that if I'm going to declare something other than the target, I have to basically commit to this a few seconds before the end of the time so don't get the full time to solve it. So I'm often in the dilemma of sticking to what I've got or going for the target, which I might get right at the end of the normal time or in the blag time. Having said that, I think it generally works quite well.

But which is the lesser evil - having this means of buying extra time, or not being able to correct this (probably very common) misclick at all?

I guess we need to either:

• decide how the patience meter should behave when a bracket is entered, to limit the player's ability to take unfair advantage of it
• limit the number of brackets that may be used
• rather than re-enabling brackets, implement a means of saving the "25 ×" for later.

Perhaps an option, albeit a messy one, would be to have 10 small buttons either side of the target button that are clickable. When it comes to changing your target in the final moment, it would save a lot of time compared to having to select what is in the target box, delete it, then retype three (or four) numbers and hope to do it all in time. It would also completely eradicate all those declarations of 9 or 95 or 96 when you try and change from, say, 959 to 960. You *know* with the button method you'd end up declaring 959 if you weren't quick enough to click the button and 960 if you were, no half-way numbers.


Obviously haven't done the numbers as they would be but you get the idea.
Window could be changed a bit (made slightly fatter) to allow for larger, better-proportioned and fitting numbers.

That looks pretty good Matt.

Stewart Gordon wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I quite like the not having brackets. I think before it was a bit awkward and difficult to implement without allowing people to buy extra time by opening unnecessary brackets. My main issue is that if I'm going to declare something other than the target, I have to basically commit to this a few seconds before the end of the time so don't get the full time to solve it. So I'm often in the dilemma of sticking to what I've got or going for the target, which I might get right at the end of the normal time or in the blag time. Having said that, I think it generally works quite well.

But which is the lesser evil - having this means of buying extra time, or not being able to correct this (probably very common) misclick at all?

I guess we need to either:

• decide how the patience meter should behave when a bracket is entered, to limit the player's ability to take unfair advantage of it
• limit the number of brackets that may be used
• rather than re-enabling brackets, implement a means of saving the "25 ×" for later.

Corby suggested earlier in this thread that the brackets don't reset the patience bar and I have a vague memory of it being mentioned somewhere else too, so that would be a reasonable solution.

Matt Morrison wrote:Perhaps an option, albeit a messy one, would be to have 10 small buttons either side of the target button that are clickable. When it comes to changing your target in the final moment, it would save a lot of time compared to having to select what is in the target box, delete it, then retype three (or four) numbers and hope to do it all in time. It would also completely eradicate all those declarations of 9 or 95 or 96 when you try and change from, say, 959 to 960. You *know* with the button method you'd end up declaring 959 if you weren't quick enough to click the button and 960 if you were, no half-way numbers.


Obviously haven't done the numbers as they would be but you get the idea.
Window could be changed a bit (made slightly fatter) to allow for larger, better-proportioned and fitting numbers.

It was tried, people didn't like it IIRC.

Charlie Reams wrote:It was tried, people didn't like it IIRC.

Ah fair play. Wish I knew that before I did that image!

That must have been right back in the day though, old school apterous like before I joined?
Cos the numbers thing has been revolutionised at least once since I joined and I never remember it.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:It was tried, people didn't like it IIRC.

Ah fair play. Wish I knew that before I did that image!

That must have been right back in the day though, old school apterous like before I joined?
Cos the numbers thing has been revolutionised at least once since I joined and I never remember it.

It only last a few days before I got sick of the complaints. I could try it again though, it wasn't hard to implement.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:It was tried, people didn't like it IIRC.

Ah fair play. Wish I knew that before I did that image!

That must have been right back in the day though, old school apterous like before I joined?
Cos the numbers thing has been revolutionised at least once since I joined and I never remember it.

It only last a few days before I got sick of the complaints. I could try it again though, it wasn't hard to implement.

Making the declaration box a little bigger/easier to click into in a hurry and/or adding a couple of seconds 'patience' bar whenever the cursor is in it would make a big difference imo. If you have 21 buttons at the top you know some cack-handed idiot'll complain about not being able to find the right button in a hurry... and you know that idiot's almost certainly going to be me...Or more likely, Bevins

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:It was tried, people didn't like it IIRC.

Ah fair play. Wish I knew that before I did that image!

That must have been right back in the day though, old school apterous like before I joined?
Cos the numbers thing has been revolutionised at least once since I joined and I never remember it.

It only last a few days before I got sick of the complaints. I could try it again though, it wasn't hard to implement.

Was it like Matt's? His one still has the option of playing exactly as you do but also with the buttons as an extra.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:It was tried, people didn't like it IIRC.

Ah fair play. Wish I knew that before I did that image!

That must have been right back in the day though, old school apterous like before I joined?
Cos the numbers thing has been revolutionised at least once since I joined and I never remember it.

It only last a few days before I got sick of the complaints. I could try it again though, it wasn't hard to implement.

I've been thinking about this and it would be very handy for spoilage numbers:
In spoilage you don't want to blag if you have any sort of an answer so the typing in box gets a lot of use.
I'm usually working on how many away I am rather than what actual number I have so it takes longer to decide what I need to type in.
I often lose my train of thought while typing in my answer, so have to start again rather than further refining my current method.

Personally I think just two lots of the numbers 1-10 in boxes (one lot for being above the actual answer, one for below) would be at least as handy as the actual numbers which might look a bit messy especially when you have 4 digit targets. But perhaps less intuitive for newer players.

At the risk of courting controversy, I'd just like to say that I think the current numbers interface is perfect as it is. Playing the numbers game on apterous is not the same as playing it on the show, as you do get a little bit extra thinking time during the entering of the solution, more so than you would on the show. You could make the patience bars go faster between operations but there's only so far you can take that, so there's always going to be some extra thinking time built in. And given that, I think it's probably fair that it is quite difficult to go for a last-second presto-change-o declaration and I don't think the interface should be changed to make it easier.

JimBentley wrote:At the risk of courting controversy, I'd just like to say that I think the current numbers interface is perfect as it is. Playing the numbers game on apterous is not the same as playing it on the show, as you do get a little bit extra thinking time during the entering of the solution, more so than you would on the show. You could make the patience bars go faster between operations but there's only so far you can take that, so there's always going to be some extra thinking time built in. And given that, I think it's probably fair that it is quite difficult to go for a last-second presto-change-o declaration and I don't think the interface should be changed to make it easier.

I don't see why it's fair though, because by making it difficult to change your declaration at the last second, you're punishing the wrong people, and giving the blaggers even more of an advantage over them. For someone playing "properly", they are going to be trying to get the solution for most of the time, but then a few seconds before the end, they will have to commit off target if they haven't got it spot on. The blagger will have all the time in the round plus whatever time they get afterwards when they have to enter their solution. It's a big advantage. So I would argue that anything that gives more time to the non-blagger makes it fairer.

Also, in short rounds, it becomes even harder to play anything other than the blag game because you lose a bigger proportion of your time to declaring your target.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

JimBentley wrote:At the risk of courting controversy, I'd just like to say that I think the current numbers interface is perfect as it is. Playing the numbers game on apterous is not the same as playing it on the show, as you do get a little bit extra thinking time during the entering of the solution, more so than you would on the show. You could make the patience bars go faster between operations but there's only so far you can take that, so there's always going to be some extra thinking time built in. And given that, I think it's probably fair that it is quite difficult to go for a last-second presto-change-o declaration and I don't think the interface should be changed to make it easier.

I don't see why it's fair though, because by making it difficult to change your declaration at the last second, you're punishing the wrong people, and giving the blaggers even more of an advantage over them. For someone playing "properly", they are going to be trying to get the solution for most of the time, but then a few seconds before the end, they will have to commit off target if they haven't got it spot on. The blagger will have all the time in the round plus whatever time they get afterwards when they have to enter their solution. It's a big advantage. So I would argue that anything that gives more time to the non-blagger makes it fairer.

Also, in short rounds, it becomes even harder to play anything other than the blag game because you lose a bigger proportion of your time to declaring your target.

Yeah, I do see your point. I think what I wrote was more to do with me liking the simplicity of the current interface and not wanting it changing, really.

I agree with Gavin's most recent point. As a relatively weak numbers player, I struggle in Speed Numbers as I frequently have to declare a solution which doesn't match the target. To move my cursor to the declaration box, then accurately type three digits (or four in Hyper) plus RETURN... that often takes an old duffer like me at least 5 seconds. In Speed games, that's half my total solving time.

So I would be in favour of Matt's interface with the 20 small buttons alongside the large "exact target" button.

Just my $0.02.

Matt Bayfield wrote:I agree with Gavin's most recent point. As a relatively weak numbers player, I struggle in Speed Numbers as I frequently have to declare a solution which doesn't match the target. To move my cursor to the declaration box, then accurately type three digits (or four in Hyper) plus RETURN... that often takes an old duffer like me at least 5 seconds. In Speed games, that's half my total solving time.

So I would be in favour of Matt's interface with the 20 small buttons alongside the large "exact target" button.

Just my $0.02.

I think it would help a lot if the cursor remained in the declaration box when you clicked on the target to declare exact. Then it would be easy to have your hand hovering over your numberpad ready to make the last minute change of declaration.

I think maybe it would work having the option of not declaring in the time, then when the time's up, the selection and target disappear and you make your declaration against a short patience bar and then you enter it as before.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I think maybe it would work having the option of not declaring in the time, then when the time's up, the selection and target disappear and you make your declaration against a short patience bar and then you enter it as before.

This.

I seem to remember having buttons by the target was tried out a while back and wasn't too successful. I think it would just overcomplicate the process and clutter the interface up, whereas Gevin's idea would help me no end, because I often make last minute declarations but run out of time, so I end up declaring 57 instead of 576.