Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: GUI
From: Jochen Schulz <ml_at_well-adjusted.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 01:27:48 +0100
> >Jochen Schulz :
>> What I like about your proposal is the focus on usage scenarios. This
>> cleans up the root menu and helps the user find what he is looking for.
>> I am using Rockbox on my Iriver H120 for almost half a year now and I
>> still have to search for some settings now and then. And there are some
>> menus that I would like to reorder or move somewhere else entirely.
> Totally agree. Different users use their devices in different ways. In
> particular, the habits for "ex iRiver users" are different from the habits
> for "ex iPod users", "ex Archos users", etc.
I agree with Linus here, that the system the user has used before
Rockbox should not be the basis for these design decisions.
>> Another topic which I think should be at least thought about in the
>> same process is the mapping of keys. I cannot come up with
>> irregularities that are annoying me at the moment, but I guess if I
>> go searching for them, I will find some. ;-)
> There's definitely two camps of thought already: some argue that Stop or
> Left (on an iRiver device) should always "back out" of any menu and
> eventually return you to the WPS. some argue that Stop in a menu should
> stop playback and that Play should always back out of any menu and return
> you to the WPS. But I think the current behaviour is somewhere in between
Generally agree. To add my proposal: play (or more correctly: "ON")
should always go to the WPS, stop should act as a "cancel button" in the
menus while left and "PLAY" (center joystick press) accept the input. I
really don't know why but I hate having to push the joystick centre.
> >- I like the idea of a "System" menu. The three "settings" items plus
> > "Browse Themes" plus "Playlist options" Rockbox currently has in its
> > root menu are a mess
> Again, as a fellow ex iRiver user, I would agree
Actually, I have never really used the original firmware. Rockbox was
mature enough when I bought my iriver (< 6 months ago), so whereever my
habits come from, it's not iriver's firmware.
> >- "Radio" and "Recorder" are just fine, IMHO. "Plugins" is ok, too,
> > although I ask myself whether someone may think it may be a good idea
> > to seperate "Games" from the rest of the plugins.
> That would be neat (not necessary, but some users could find that useful,
> and so it would be nice to make such a behavioural option available)
I don't think such things should be configurable. But an idea that just
struck me: why don't plugins have tags or at least a category? There
could be Games, Applications, Screensavers, Techdemos and all other
kinds of stuff. That would help recognizing what a Plugin does more
easily, too. The easiest solution would be to use different filename
extensions for every category. That way, you could still use the file
browser to display plugins.
-- I'm being paid to act weirdly. [Agree] [Disagree] <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>