Forum for 3-4 point Josekis
WME [#2193]
i stop for now. any additions welcome. i made the wme similar to the 4-4 point joseki page. this page now contains completely different information - presented differently.
go on like this? what about the less popular variations - they do need some index too? are the referred pages up to date?
regards tapir
I preferred the old version of the page. It didn't look as tidy, but it had a lot more information on it. I'll take content over form every time. (Of course, ideally we should have both...)
Sorry, I don't like to be negative, I'm sure you spent a lot of time on this. But I'm not convinced it's the best way. I know that there is a lot of duplication between 34 point josekis/original and pages such as 3-4 point high approach; but removing that duplication means that people have to click through two index pages rather than one before they get to the actual variations. The new way looks more efficient, but it really isn't.
i wrote this already on metadiscussion, where we had a discussion and decided to go for reorganizing joseki pages on sl - with not much results as of yet. but the 4-4 point joseki page was remade similarly. the idea of the diagrams subpage btw. is to be able to use the smaller more tidy thumbnails. cheers t
I am not sure about what I am doing at 3-4 point joseki because this page now gives one move less (earlier there were links to all the answers to the usual approaches, the intermediary main pages are often not well developed!) but maybe this is the price when the page tries be more comprehensible. Additionally I added some statistics.
Another library work which may help navigating is renaming some odd joseki pages to more comprehensible names or adding aliases.
I have one request for the future. If you click on 'high approach' on the new main 3-4 joseki page right now, you get essentially a brick in the face. The excellent and clear clickable multi-link diagrams of the old page should be incorporated in these "second level" pages.
(Come to think of it, why have thirteen images each with a single move instead of two multi-link diagrams, one for approaches and one for enclosures?)
The one thing I *really* don't like about this new style of joseki main pages is that the diagrams don't link to pages but bafflingly to a list of the diagrams.
Somehow the new format seem rather similar to systematic joseki. I didn't really like it because it takes a lot of clicks to reach what I want. Perhaps I'm a bit old-school, so I prefer the older format where I see more context on the same page.
The new format has its merits too. Let me see whether I can cook up something.
Yes, indeed. It occured to me while making the WME - which I btw. thought was approved upon in the said discussion - that by reducing the depth of each entry page one has to take care not to emulate the Systematic Joseki approach. However this can be done by switching from such a fast branching one move per page approach to single or group Joseki pages giving rather long sequences at one page as soon as possible. The form adopted here should only be used in first level pages otherwise it ends up making even more trouble than the systematic joseki approach.
Admittedly I wonder a little bit, that the 44pointjoseki WME escaped notice totally. I would be happy to change our approach again. If this helps to keep the process of remaking joseki pages going. Taking thumbnails instead of multimove diagrams with links was introduced by Kyle, and I agree with him that the result is much tidier = comprehensible = better to navigate. The remaining problem is that the thumbnails link always to the page they are taken from - we could get rid of this problem easily if each of us changes one second level page so that we can take the thumbnail from there. Maybe all letters and links in those diagrams are a help rather than a distraction.
I don't agree about the value of repetition - the repetiveness and opaqueness of the joseki pages are imho one of the main reasons nobody touched them again after the most active of original contributors left. (at least I see signatures of Charles Matthews and André Engels most of the time.)
Yes, the 4-4 point joseki WME sort of escaped my attention. I was too busy a while back to pay much attention to SL.
Maybe it takes me a while to get used to the new format. I suppose, once I moved that question into BQM 504, hardly any information is lost in the new tabular format. However, since clicking on thumbnails currently do not bring the reader to the desired page, I would like to suggest that the thumbnails in the tables be replaced with normal diagrams like the following, such that clicking on a number or letter brings the reader to the desired page. I guess it might not be necessary to reintroduce the textual descriptions that accompanied the original diagrams.
as most joseki pages feature upper left corner diagrams, i would propose to in future just stick to that and redo 44 and 34 joseki with the thumbnails from the second level pages (diagrams then link to the desired pages) as soon as possibly.
No objections from me, as in I don't really mind. But just FYI, thumbnails doesn't have that links in intersections feature. Besides, the link in a thumbnail contains an anchor, which means that when you click on the thumbnail, you arrive at a place which is not at the top of the target page. Do we want to make feature requests from Arno?
The reason why SL has a disproportionate amount of upper-left corner diagrams is because the "edit page" page provides copy and paste code for only the full board and the upper-left corner. It seems to me that elsewhere, the upper-right corner is more commonly used.
it is only, that it looks odd when both variants are mixed in the same index. we made upper right corner on 34pointjoseki and 44pointjoseki but all second level pages have upper left corner diagrams afaik. i am not eager to forcefully change that now. well not the most important issue.
do you want the inlinks in diagrams for each approach / enclosure - and it's followups. or do you want one diagram with inlinks for approaches and one for enclosures?
if the diagram links to the appropriate second level page featuring the same diagram with inlinks in the beginning i guess keeping. that is - the common answers to the approach are indicated already by letters in the thumbnails.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. Better hear what the others say.
I prefer the old way of having one diagram with the low approach with hyperlinks to each of the various answers, another of the high approach etc. If I want to look up a 3-4 joseki fewer clicks and scrolling around is more important than the relative frequency of the various plays. This is interesting information, but should be secondary to easy navigation of the moves themselves.
Actually I feel a bit awkward, because we started all this because we considered joseki pages too messy and unnavigable. Now - it is one click more but far less scrolling. I am not sure whether this is better, but a comment like this as if I only tried to add some irrelevant statistics (the same kind we had, but with errors, for years on 4-4 point joseki) while making you scrolling and clicking more to find the page you are interested in makes me feel silly. Do you remember how the page was before, how much you actually had to scroll around and that it did not include the enclosure josekis?
Kind regards Tapir
willemien i hope only a minor point but can we position all corners to the top left corner? and that the 3-4 [ppoints are always at the same point?
(I prefer the 3-4 point to be at the 3rd row 4th column)
SL should follow the precedent of current written material, i.e. josekis are displayed in the upper right corner, with any Black stone not on the line of symmetry on the right side. This follows naturally from where Black should play the first move of the game.
As for the tabular format, I proposed earlier that we make thumbnail diagrams have an optional link that page authors could provide; however it seems that idea has gotten lost and won't be implemented. I am ambivalent on what approach should be used (tabular vs. linked diagram) but I think the most important is to keep the presentation of each page simple. This allows those to find what they are looking for quickly.
Kyle
If we put the diagrams which we want to have as thumbnails on the second level pages, we can use the diagrams as links as well. However, the present joseki pages overwhelmingly use upper left corners. I have no objections to anybody changing all these - but I won't do this. (Though a little patch to make links variable under thumbnails should be not too much work.)
How about using the normal size diagrams with inlinks for the most common and or important follow ups, but completely removing the text (which made the original so long) - and putting a diagram with inlinks to all follow ups with pages on the second level pages?
I've made a new version, aiming to strike a balance between the information-rich but cluttered layout of the original, and the visually appealing but much shorter version with the thumbnails. I'm putting this forward as a suggestion only. I don't mind if people want to edit it further, or revert to the previous version.
My own feeling is that the top-level joseki pages should be more than just an index. Therefore I want to have some commentary on the names and meanings of the moves, and how to choose. But others may not agree.
ETA: tapir's latest edit has the comment "is the additional linklist beside the diagrams necessary?". I have mixed feelings about this. Yes, it takes up a lot of space. On the other hand, it's always easier to remember things that have names. And it gives a way to add brief commentary. It's a shame the formatting of text alongside diagrams often comes out slightly messy on SL. But I left it in because I think it makes the page a bit more friendly. I'm interested in what other people think about this.
I added a kind of introduction to it.
I just like to have something to read and introductions are nice.
I was wondering of turning every reference into a link. but that is a lot of work.so let it sink in first.
Also i was wondering. the high approach is more common than the low approach (see the statistics) is this really so? and if so should we not change the order. (or atlest explain it (Haha more text :))
Yes, the high approach really is more common nowadays. But I've heard people say that it's better to study the low approach first, because it's easier to understand from a strategic point of view (even though the variations get very complicated). Maybe we should change the order, I couldn't decide.
Another idea is to reduce the width on the second level diagrams (and give a full list on separate pages) the feel about this page being glutted may originate there. So to the low approach - it is enough to link to the 3-5 most common answers - but giving a link to a page where all are listed. Of course finding the specialities may be more difficult, but the beginner isn't led astray as easily as he is now.
I feel the enclosures and followups are again underrepresented at the page now. I did like the idea to give them even coverage. As enclosures are often played, but often not well understood in amateur play (at least at my level, even the most common probes are not) - I applied a similar didactic approach when adding the keima jump at the basic 33 invasion page (because it is not known enough in the western go world - as someone strong told us).
The playing percentages are lost, when the page is build like it is now, as text supported by diagrams. In the limited old approach it was easily seen at a glance, right now it would be better to make a separate page e.g. komoku statistics.
And isn't it kind of similar to the original now, apart from the introduction and the enclosure coverage?
Regards Tapir.
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")