A strange reply. I don't take it that absolutely everything that happens on the screen during a game here is "necessary." After all, why keep your own camels spread out so you can count them? If you're paying attention, you'll simply remember how many camels you took, right?
Clearly, "necessary" is not the operating consideration. If it were, why, we'd have nothing but a blank screen with a minimal coded text describing the hands. Those who are "paying attention" should have no problem negotiating such an interface!
Rather, I take it that the designers aren't going for just what's "necessary," but rather, wish to design the smoothest user interface possible given constraints on costs and programming time. This entails some things that are "unnecessary" but nevertheless very nice to have. It's up to them to weigh the benefits of this convenient informational redundancy with the costs of changing the program etc.
The way it currently works, the card has flipped over before you even know which card is being selected. This is how the brain works. It expects physical cues to precede sudden changes in the environment. In a live game of Jaipur, one sees the hand going for the card, and this primes the eyes to see which card is being taken. But in the current interface here on BGA, there is no such priming cue. For this reason, in many cases you must
remember what card was there that was just taken, rather than
seeing which card is
being taken. This is surely not ideal from the perspective of UI design. But as I said, the programmers know more than we do about how convenient it may or may not be to make this change in the interface. But the desirability of the change, abstracted from the costs, is without question.
