|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: NEWKEYS v2Re: NEWKEYS v2
From: c s <rb_dev_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:11:01 -0700 (PDT) --- Kjell Ericson <Kjell.Ericson_at_haxx.se> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, c s wrote: > > > I say that cancel should be eliminated rather than > > overloaded onto the same > > key used for backing up one menu level. > > I made the cancel function because I think pressing > "stop" for accepting a > setting is confusing. It's not confusing at all. Changing to meaning of STOP while in the menu is what is confusing. STOP is the universal key used in every player menu to back up one level, so when you have changed the setting to what you want it to be, it's just common sense to press the STOP key to back out of the current menu level. Why would the user pressing the key known for going back a menu level expect that action to cancel a setting? This makes no sense and is horrible UI design. > > > > After changing a setting, that change must be > confirmed by pressing the play > > button, > > Don't you press "OK" in you window dialogues? Don't > you hate it if they > removed a cancel button? > Your analogy is completely wrong. This is not how the Rockbox cancel logic works. There is no OK/Cancel dialog in the Rockbox settings menu. The Rockbox user is given absolutely no indication that he has to confirm the setting before exiting the setting level and then when he presses a key expecting it to go back one level, he accidentally invokes a hidden cancel function. This would be equivalent to if a Windows setting dialog box had no OK/Cancel buttons but only a “close window” button which canceled your new settings when you closed the window unless you performed a <ctl>S before closing the window AND the windows dialog box didn’t tell you that the <ctl>S was necessary to save the settings. Even windows users would find that unacceptable, but that is what we have implemented in the Rockbox settings menu. > > Then ON, ON, STOP could be cancel... > > Uhuu, are you really serious that this should be a > logic thing and user > friendly? It beats using the key that everyone expects to go back one level, and beats it by a long shot... no more inadvertent cancels by people who intuitively expect the stop key to go back one level like it does everywhere else while in the settings menus. > I have been testing settings (in Rockbox and other > systems) and found that > I need to cancel my new changes. Cancelling is much > easier than trying > to refind the original setting (you can't argue > there). That is a very poor argument. So we should give the STOP key a hidden and inconsistent meaning in the settings menu because you often change a setting and then change your mind and want to revert? That's hardly how the settings menus are used by the vast majority of people. That's what makes the implementation of the cancel function such poor design. It's a little needed function that is rarely needed or used, yet it is hidden and also mapped to a commonly used button that everyone intuitive expects to only go back one menu level. > > > so when the user intuitively uses the key that is > used everywhere else to > > back up one level, the setting change is > unintentionally cancelled. > > Just see it that you haven't reached the last level > in the settings menu. When > I press stop in other menues and go up one level I > see it as cancelling the > current level. That's ridiculous. Now you are just playing with words to try to support a bad design. Everyone thinks that the stop key goes back one menu level, not cancels a menu level. > If many users are confused then it would be > friendlier for everyone to add a > "confirm"-dialogue when pressing stop/cancel - not > removing the cancel > possibility. I would not be for adding yet another level of complexity to a function that there is already very little need for, and most people wouldn't care if it went away. If a few people absolutely want to keep the cancel, it should be moved to a more obscure key combination, not overloaded without warning on to a common menu navigation key, and definitely not make them respond to an additional confirmation screen just because a small number of users might like to start to change settings and then change their mind and don't want to have to manually set it back to the original setting. > Be my guest, the source is free. I fixed this design faux pas in my own personal version a long time ago. My goal in this discussion is providing a well thought out user interface to users who have to rely on the official builds. I would suggest that you look past your own atypical use and need for this function and instead think of having a good consistent user interface for the masses. ===== Craig rb_dev_at_yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com Received on 2003-08-25 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |