From: gl <gl_at_ntlworld.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:38:20 +0100

First off, why not just have an 'Advanced' root menu entry, and store
qualifying settings there? That way nothing's hidden, just neatly
partitioned and still cleans up the rest.

Second, there are a whole bunch of settings that are set up once and then
never changed, and those can go into the Advanced or a similar dedicated
branch. For example, the disk shutting down completely. Surely nobody
needs to toggle this frequently. And even if they do, they can go into the
Advanced branch.

I see no point expecting people to edit config files when all you need is
some reorganisation to achieve the same thing.

--
gl
----- Original Message ----- 
From: XavierGr
To: Rockbox development
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Option rework (was: Re: my next crazy idea... rework the 
menusystem)
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 
welcome.
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 
etc.
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