New Graphic on NBC Telecasts

[albatross]

Not sure why it took me this long, but I've figured out the perfect solution.  Those of us that like it, like the "1 2 3 4" because it tells more of the story than "2nd shot."  If the guy is near the green, for example, you'll know right away if he missed the green on a par 3, or if he nearly drove the green on a par 4.  If he's in the fairway, you'll know if he's trying to get a GIR or give himself an eagle putt, etc, etc.  It provides more info.  Those who dislike it think it's redundant, and the space could be better used for some other information.  They are right.  In several of the cases (especially on the tee and on the green) the extra info is not necessary.  And all of the ideas above for alternative info is great.

The solution is simple:  Don't get rid of the "1 2 3 4," but rather, get rid of the "2nd shot" line.  Now, those of us that like it get our extra info, and it's not redundant, and there is room for the other stats or whatever.  Everybody wins!!

P.S.  @newtogolf , I like your gamegolf idea, but think it would probably be a much easier sell to have the caddies wear it than the players.  They already have the primitive  hand signal game they play with Feherty and Maltbie, so this could make it a little easier and quicker.

How is it redudant?!

It is replacing the par for the hole....

Instead of it reading 16th Par 4.

It has the numbers to add up to the par and the circle to indicate the players position on that hole.

Without the numbers, please tell me where it reads a par 4....

You picked 1 example where they didn't show Par for the hole.  I watched the coverage last night, and in almost every case it displayed the Par, the shot they were taking, and the line of numbers. So definitely redundant.  I did notice there were a few times where it was displayed like the picture you just posted, which frankly, is even more annoying.  They don't even consistently display it the same way every time!  Needless to say, I still hate it.

[albatross]

And here is yet another way they've displayed it.  So now we're talking about showing it 3 different ways.  This one has the number 2 highlighted AND it says second shot underneath it. This one doesn't say it's a Par 4.  The old way told you everything you needed to know. That can't be argued. The old graphic told you the hole number,  par for the hole, the distance, and what shot the player was taking.  That's all you need, even with the volume off.

[Golfingdad]

And here is yet another way they've displayed it.  So now we're talking about showing it 3 different ways.  This one has the number 2 highlighted AND it says second shot underneath it. This one doesn't say it's a Par 4.  The old way told you everything you needed to know. That can't be argued. The old graphic told you the hole number,  par for the hole, the distance, and what shot the player was taking.  That's all you need, even with the volume off.

Sure it does.  It says everything that the "old way" said with one slightly redundant extra piece.  That's the tiniest of changes, that some people find helpful ... I can understand why you wouldn't care that they had it or not, or thought it didn't make sense ... but I have a hard time understanding how somebody could HATE something so minor.  What's the big deal?

[albatross]

Sure it does.  It says everything that the "old way" said with one slightly redundant extra piece.  That's the tiniest of changes, that some people find helpful ... I can understand why you wouldn't care that they had it or not, or thought it didn't make sense ... but I have a hard time understanding how somebody could HATE something so minor.  What's the big deal?

The "slightly" redundant piece is the entire point of the thread.  It's cluttering the graphic with numbers that don't need to be up there.  I understand that you love the new graphic, and that's great.  That's an opinion. I was just pointing out the fact that the new graphic provides absolutely no new information, compared to what we had in the past.  That's all.

[Golfingdad]

The "slightly" redundant piece is the entire point of the thread.  It's cluttering the graphic with numbers that don't need to be up there.  I understand that you love the new graphic, and that's great.  That's an opinion. I was just pointing out the fact that the new graphic provides absolutely no new information, compared to what we had in the past.  That's all.

No, you said that it doesn't show the par anymore ... but it absolutely still does.  And how is it cluttering?  There used to be four characters in that line that said P A R 4 .  Now there are four characters in that line that say 1 2 3 4 .

Stick to the "I don't like it" and "it's redundant" arguments.  I can't and won't argue those.  But don't say that it doesn't show the par, because it does, and don't say it's cluttering, because it's the exact same amount of typeface as before.  (OK, I'll let you say it's cluttering on Par 5's ... but only if you stipulate that it's cleaner on Par 3's )

[albatross]

No, you said that it doesn't show the par anymore ... but it absolutely still does.  And how is it cluttering?  There used to be four characters in that line that said P A R 4.  Now there are four characters in that line that say 1 2 3 4.

Stick to the "I don't like it" and "it's redundant" arguments.  I can't and won't argue those.  But don't say that it doesn't show the par, because it does, and don't say it's cluttering, because it's the exact same amount of typeface as before.  (OK, I'll let you say it's cluttering on Par 5's ... but only if you stipulate that it's cleaner on Par 3's )

This is like an Abbott and Costello routine.  I realize you can tell from  the 1 2 3 4 that it's a Par 4, but my point is that it was fine the way it was.  It used to say Par 4, Second shot.  Just my opinion, but I liked that a lot better.

P.S.-  You and the new NBC golf graphic should get a room.

[Golfingdad]

It used to say Par 4, Second shot.  ... I liked that a lot better.

That's it right there.  This opinion is help by many, is 100% valid, and is completely unarguable.

P.S.-  You and the new NBC golf graphic should get a room.

LOL.  I am quite childish so this humors me.  Although, I think it would have been even funnier if you said (in a mocking voice): "Oh, so if you like the graphic so much, why don't you marry it??"

P.S.  I asked my wife what she thought of the graphic last night and she said "that's stupid" before I even had a chance to explain what I was asking about.  (She's not really a golf watcher )  I will see my dad today though, who is an obsessive golf watcher AND is very opinionated on everything.  Can't wait to hear what he says.

[Ernest Jones]

Can't wait to hear what he says.

Me too!

[iacas]

No, you said that it doesn't show the par anymore ... but it absolutely still does.  And how is it cluttering?  There used to be four characters in that line that said P A R 4.  Now there are four characters in that line that say 1 2 3 4.

Stick to the "I don't like it" and "it's redundant" arguments.  I can't and won't argue those.  But don't say that it doesn't show the par, because it does, and don't say it's cluttering, because it's the exact same amount of typeface as before.  (OK, I'll let you say it's cluttering on Par 5's ... but only if you stipulate that it's cleaner on Par 3's )

Drew, you might be slightly out of your depths here. And before you take this too seriously, I did say "slightly." You're certainly not out of your depths to talk about what you like, but if you want to talk about the definition of "clutter," then that's getting into UI design and User Experience level stuff. I'm not an expert in it, but I dabble, as you have to when you develop and write software for Mac OS X and iOS for years and years and years (very few successfully designed Mac/iOS apps have "poor design" or "poor UX").

There are two small points that speak to the UX of this graphic that I'm not sure you're really considering. They kind of tie together, so I'll just mishmash them together here, because anything I type past this sentence is already overkill, so I don't want to do too much more.

If the viewer wants to know what the par for the hole is, which one will be more obvious to them?

"1 2 3 4"

"PAR 4"

The "1 2 and 3" are still "clutter" - particularly since one of the numbers is colored differently - and they're confusing and distracting. The viewer is attempting to find the "par" and has that word in mind, so their eyes will quickly lock on when they scan and see the word "par." They'll have their answer.

When they see 1 2 3 4 and one of the numbers is colored differently, they have to pause to think about what "1 2 3 4" means.

Maybe you don't notice it. And maybe golf viewers will come to be almost as quick about processing these graphics as they did the ones that said "PAR 4".

But to argue that they're not cluttered because of character counts ignores what clutter is truly about: clarity of information.

Here's an example about bathroom signs. You typically expect to see one of these, often with "MALE" or "MEN" beneath the one on the left, or the word "RESTROOM" beneath:

It takes you no time to process these, and you go in to the right bathroom without having to think about it.

Yet then you go to the Outback, and suddenly you really, really have to pee, and you're confronted with this:

You ( @Golfingdad ) might argue that's less cluttered than a stick figure of a woman and the word "RESTROOM" beneath it. Yet in that moment, when you're about to pee yourself, it slows you down. You have to think to yourself "oh, Sheilas, oh right it's the Outback Steakhouse, they're playing up the Australian theme, and Sheilas means women, so I don't want this one."

The lack of contrast doesn't help either - even the letters are tougher to see, the word tougher to read, than white-on-blue, black-on-white, etc. It slows you down, and…

Oops, you just peed yourself.

More information is not always better, and even the same amount of information can be called "clutter" if it's going to slow someone down because it's confusing.

[boogielicious]

@iacas

Any Monty Python fan would know "Sheilas" is the ladies room!

[albatross]

More information is not always better, and even the same amount of information can be called "clutter" if it's going to slow someone down because it's confusing.

This made me seriously LOL.  Good explanation.  You were funnier and more articulate  than I was.

[Ernest Jones]

More information is not always better, and even the same amount of information can be called "clutter" if it's going to slow someone down because it's confusing.

Jeez, I sure wish this post hadda been a little shorter, I had to pee really bad when i started reading it and almost didn't make it!

[Golfingdad]

You have to think to yourself "oh, Sheilas, oh right it's the Outback Steakhouse, they're playing up the Australian theme, and Sheilas means women, so I don't want this one."

Why not??

P.S.  One time in college, I really had to go and our student union had restrooms like you see at airports where they don't have doors, just kind of a "maze" or "S" shaped opening you have to walk through, and I wasn't paying attention and walked straight into the women's room.  Luckily, the women in there were too busy having a pillow fight in their underwear to notice me before I got out of there.

P.P.S.  I will stipulate that I have no knowledge of UI.  I will also ackowledge that at first glance, it could be confusing and not intuitive to all golf viewers, especially more casual ones.  The first time I saw it, I was like "What's that, that's weird."  Then, after about 2 seconds, I was like "Oh, OK, I get it."  Would I care if they dumped it?  Nope.  It's not THAT much more helpful, but it's not really cluttering to me, so for the few times that it does provide info not previously available.

And as I'm writing, another argument in favor of it popped into my head, and this is in direct correlation to "clutter" and/or "UI."  Previously, I could have figured out the situation but it required a little work.  (a very little work, mind you, but still)  I would have to look at the two separate pieces of info ("Par 4" and "2nd shot") to deduce exactly what the situation was.  Now, I get both of those pieces of info in one, concise line.  That (again, still speaking as a non UI person here) seems easier to me.

Then again, I'm also going to have to stipulate that I like having as much info as possible, and that perhaps a lot of people are not like me.  (I am a channel flipper, and I have lots of background noise in the house, so my attention span is short - the more info you can give me quicker, the better.  I'll adapt.)  I remember watching baseball or football as a kid (80's) and having to wait a few minutes, possibly until the next commercial break, to see what the score was, or to see the game situation.  They never used to put ANY graphics on the screen during the play of the game.  Now I get almost EVERY relevant (and some not so relevant) piece of information possible, and I think it's great.  If they added another line beneath the ones that are already there and displayed tournament position, or club, or ball speed, or just about any extra bit of info, I'd probably like that too.

I guess the bottom line for me is that we're talking about one little line here ... they're not turning it into Bloomberg TV or anything (now that is clutter!!)

[iacas]

but it's not really cluttering to me

THere's a difference between "it's not really cluttering to me" and "I don't mind that much clutter" or "I've adapted to that much clutter." It's still more cluttered.

And as I'm writing, another argument in favor of it popped into my head, and this is in direct correlation to "clutter" and/or "UI."  Previously, I could have figured out the situation but it required a little work.  (a very little work, mind you, but still)  I would have to look at the two separate pieces of info ("Par 4" and "2nd shot") to deduce exactly what the situation was.  Now, I get both of those pieces of info in one, concise line.  That (again, still speaking as a non UI person here) seems easier to me.

You're still looking at two pieces of information: what's the total count, and what number is highlighted. They're closer together, but you're talking about arc seconds (i.e. you don't even have to move your eyes let alone your head).

[DEsler]

I've been in bars and sports book rooms where golf was on and I had no idea what the shot was or par or anything really and it was very frustrating so I like the new graphic.

Mr. Barzeski:  I can guarantee you that the people working for NBC did more than just dabble in graphic design to land a job in their sports graphics department.  There is also a 99% chance that there were meetings and focus groups before the change was made.  Network TV is the definition of "group-think graveyard" where good ideas go to die... so a group of people in charge made these changes and sent out the memo to the announcers that they had to talk about them every 5 minutes.  To me it is obvious that this change is designed to inform the very very casual viewer who may be watching in a bar setting and does not necessarily know what Par means.

You and I and everyone on this forum are hardcore golf fans and like it or not, the network people do not care if we are annoyed by the graphic because they know we are going to be watching anyway.  The changes were not for us.  I agree with several points in this thread that there could be even more useful information given out.

Really though... It's really not a big deal at the end of the day.  Seriously... how angry can you really be if you are living a life that allows you to watch golf for fun.

I am as guilty of it as the next person of being annoyed by little things but if the fact that some tiny letters and numbers aren't laid out the way you would prefer is really that upsetting than some perspective needs to be had.

Darren

[iacas]

Mr. Barzeski:  I can guarantee you that the people working for NBC did more than just dabble in graphic design to land a job in their sports graphics department.

As you know, that doesn't guarantee good design, or lack of clutter. There are "experts" in all areas that goof, and countless examples of "design by committee" producing some pretty lousy crap (which I'm not saying this is).

Case in point: anything that's come out of Microsoft in, oh, ever.

There is also a 99% chance that there were meetings and focus groups before the change was made. Network TV is the definition of "group-think graveyard" where good ideas go to die... so a group of people in charge made these changes and sent out the memo to the announcers that they had to talk about them every 5 minutes.  To me it is obvious that this change is designed to inform the very very casual viewer who may be watching in a bar setting and does not necessarily know what Par means.

I'll disagree (primarily with the bold part) and move on.

You and I and everyone on this forum are hardcore golf fans and like it or not, the network people do not care if we are annoyed by the graphic because they know we are going to be watching anyway. The changes were not for us. I agree with several points in this thread that there could be even more useful information given out.

Again, I disagree. Hard-core golf fans are the only people paying any attention to golf on a random Thursday, or basically any time certain people aren't playing or certain tournaments aren't being contested. The casual viewer who doesn't even know what par is probably couldn't care less about the graphics. And for all we know "1 2 3 4" might imply to them that he has three shots or chances remaining.

[ztexz]

It's funny looking.  I don't like it.  I'm not going to offer any more of an explanation that that because I don't have one other than: I don't like it.

[albatross]

I've been in bars and sports book rooms where golf was on and I had no idea what the shot was or par or anything really and it was very frustrating so I like the new graphic.

Mr. Barzeski:  I can guarantee you that the people working for NBC did more than just dabble in graphic design to land a job in their sports graphics department.  There is also a 99% chance that there were meetings and focus groups before the change was made.  Network TV is the definition of "group-think graveyard" where good ideas go to die... so a group of people in charge made these changes and sent out the memo to the announcers that they had to talk about them every 5 minutes.  To me it is obvious that this change is designed to inform the very very casual viewer who may be watching in a bar setting and does not necessarily know what Par means.

You and I and everyone on this forum are hardcore golf fans and like it or not, the network people do not care if we are annoyed by the graphic because they know we are going to be watching anyway.  The changes were not for us.  I agree with several points in this thread that there could be even more useful information given out.

Really though... It's really not a big deal at the end of the day.  Seriously... how angry can you really be if you are living a life that allows you to watch golf for fun.

I am as guilty of it as the next person of being annoyed by little things but if the fact that some tiny letters and numbers aren't laid out the way you would prefer is really that upsetting than some perspective needs to be had.

Darren

I don't know what bar you were in, but CBS and NBC have been telling you the Par of the hole and the shot the player is taking on the screen (no volume needed!) for at least the last 15 years.  That's the most annoying part about this thread, and what most people arguing for the graphic are continuing to miss.  You can love or hate the graphic, but you CANNOT continue to argue that you like it because it's providing something you didn't have before.  I've watched A LOT of golf in bars, and they have absolutely provided all the information you need on the screen in the past.  They've just decided to do it a different, and in my opinion, more annoying way.

And I'm sorry, but the whole "explaining what par" is argument is ridiculous.  The new graphic doesn't "explain" it, and I don't think there are too many golf viewers on a Sunday afternoon that don't know what par means.  Probably about as many people watching the football game that don't know what a touchdown is.

I'm all for educating people new to the game, but I think you have to assume that viewers have some sort of basic knowledge of the sport when they tune in, and I would argue that putting 1  2  3  4   on the screen actually makes it MORE confusing to the casual viewer than just putting Par 4 up there like they used to.

Maybe some of them don't know how many feet are in a yard.  We should probably put that in the graphic, too.