RE: [Bug-gnubg] Coloured moves in game list and request

[Albert Silver]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:bug-gnubg-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Ian Shaw
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 1:27 PM
> To: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Coloured moves in game list and request
> 
> 
> Some good ideas here, but perhaps a few too many colours to be meaningful.
> Do we really need to differentiate between doubtful/error/blunder in the
> move list? We already define moves we are interested in by setting
> thresholds in the first place, so we are probably going to look at them
> all.
> 
> I think the foreground/background distinction for cube & chequer errors is
> a cool idea. If doubtful/error/blunder are to be marked differently, I
> think I'd prefer to see shades of the same colour, like the temperature
> map.

I quite like this idea. It avoids requiring too many colors to be
remembered. Thus the different levels of cube errors would be distinguished
by different shades of yellow background, or whatever color the user
chooses. Pale yellow would be a doubtful cube decision, a mid-tone yellow
would be an error, and a darker/golden yellow would be a cube blunder. 

On the other hand, I'm not crazy about a bunch of different colors for each
level of checker play mistake. One option might be to simply leave the
question marks as they are, except now they would only represent checker
play mistakes, thus no confusion as to what kind of mistake they represent,
and perhaps to boldface them so as to improve visibility. What do you think?

The actual move notation would be left as is in other words.

                                                Albert

> 
> Possible refinement: Only a roll is lucky or unlucky, so only the roll
> need be emphasised, not the move. I think bold/italic is fine. Perhaps
> this can't be separated off, but if so it would free up bold & italic for
> use on the move display.
> 
> -- Ian