Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Option rework (was: Re: my next crazy idea... rework the menu system)
Re: Option rework (was: Re: my next crazy idea... rework the menu system)
From: XavierGr <xaviergr_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:22:30 +0300
My opinion is that Rockbox menus are just plain Great!
Lots of options for serious users. Plain and simple menus that allow the
user to modify his DAP like no-other player. Of course a little discussion
to where each menu should be or optimisation of the menu system would be
All the users should read the manual and ask about a specific option if they
are not sure what it does. Once you know about it you will never forget it.
Give me as many options as you can and I am happy! Call this "optionitis"
but that is why I use Rockbox, to be able to modify each and every little
detail on my player.
I am not fond of the advanced/simple idea scheme either. Although it could
make the menus more tidy fast and easy I see no point to it. If the user
doesn't want much interaction with the "cluttered" menu system then why not
use .cfg files? Most of the users eventually will enabled advanced options
to feel that they can fully customize their player.
Remember that a simple option for your maybe advanced for others. So yet
again we will have to argue which of the options will be advanced/simple.
The idea I would like to see would be to allow the user to choose the layout
of the menus on a config file. But that would be very tricky to implement
On 23/08/06, Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that a simple/advanced scheme does not solve any problems at all.
> First: The problem of having a hard time finding options. In the simple
> scheme they will theoretically be just as hard to find, they're just harder
> to find in a shorter list on the page they're on.
> Second: You don't know they're hidden or not until you switch to advanced
> (unless you do the gray-out thing, in which case you lose all benefit of
> simplification entirely, as you've just got all the options there, with some
> being unchangeable, which really is no different from a user choosing not to
> change them.)
> I think a Simple/Advanced scheme has absolutely nothing to offer without
> rather drastic menu reorganization in the "Simple" schema, and then, if
> there's even one option a user likes to change not under Simple, they won't
> use it. I don't think it's worth the code.
> On 8/23/06, Malcolm Tyrrell <malcoh0l_at_yahoo.ie> wrote:
> > > My point is, that when you have the simple view, and turn on advanced,
> > a
> > > bunch of settings just appeared, and you have no idea which, or where
> > > they are. This makes it, in my eyes, more confusing than simply always
> > > having all options available.
> > Another option is having options grayed out if you're in Simple mode.
> > Malx.
Received on 2006-08-23