From: Thomas Martitz <kugel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:11:32 +0200

Am 15.08.2011 12:33, schrieb sideral:
> Let me respond to three messages in this thread in just one reply.
>
> Alex Parker<parker.alex.e_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Can't we think of some way of having all the sleep timer stuff
>> together?
> That's a good question. Right now almost all functions have their
> configuration sitting in the (separate) Settings menu. The present
> patch does the same for the sleep timer, but it's becoming clear that in
> doing so it hampers an important use case: selecting a new duration each
> time the sleep timer is started.
>
> Thomas Jarosch<tomj_at_simonv.com> writes:
>
>> How about this one:
>>
>> *** Settings> General> System> Sleep timer ***
>> Default sleep timer duration (time)
>> Start at boot (yes/no)
>>
>> *** System> (Date& Time) menu ***
>> "Start sleep timer" -> Brings back the old sleep timer selector
>> with the "default sleep timer duration" selected as default.
>>
>> That way we would get the persistent sleep timer and a sensible
>> default value while keeping to freedom to choose another value easily.
> I like your proposal very much. I think it's the best compromise we can
> achieve in the short run: It provides both a default (at the expense of
> one more click than in the present patch) and the option to select a new
> value each time.
>

I disagree with this proposal for the same reason as Hayden. I would
object to have the sleep timer (or generally time & date) related stuff
to be split into several places. I also don't see why the sleep timer
needs to be so deep into settings->general->system->sleep timer. As I
mention below, IMO settings->time & date would be best.

I know we have plenty proposals now, but I like the one outlined in the
opening comment on FS#10849, with the addition to move everything from
System->Time & Date to Settings->Time & Date.

In fact, I thought about it a bit more and also came up with a proposal
that makes sense to me. It is similar to the first in FS#10849, except
that I find the "Sleep Timer Duration" item redundant. What I would
prefer is to have two menu items (actually one, since I actually don't
see the point in applying the sleep timer on boot):

Settings -> Time & Date:
  - Set sleep timer: If inactive, then set the time and start the sleep
timer (the initial time would be remembered, i.e. persistent). If
active, then it transforms to "Stop sleep timer" which just cancels the
current sleep timer and transforms back to "Set sleep timer".
  - Start sleep timer on boot: yes/no.


Slightly related to the topic: I quite like what my TV does. It has a
persistent absolute off time (I set it to 3am). This time is applied on
boot as well, so it always turns of at 3am. And additionally it has a
relative sleep timer which is non-persistent (although I wouldn't mind
if it was) and isn't applied on boot.


> Hayden Pearce<saint.lascivious_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I genuinely believe there is a valid argument for pulling the Date&
>> Time menu out of System and putting it in Settings. [...]
>> IIRC both Thomas and sideral agreed that moving Time& Date into
>> Settings would make this patch a lot easier on the user when I
>> brought it up on IRC [...]
> I agree with most of what you said, but I'd prefer to discuss the best
> placement of the Time& Date menu and the sleep timer separately from
> the present patch.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss this first then.

It was always awkward that time & date is in system. It should really be
in the settings. I always understood that the reason that it's in system
is to make the number of "clicks" needed to get to the sleep timer
lower. But it could be just as well a top level item under settings with
the same number of clicks.

> I'd just like to point out that I never agreed that the function to
> start the sleep timer belongs under Settings. Quite to the contrary: I
> always said that I believe only settings belong into that menu, but not
> functions.
>

Where do you draw the line between settings and functions? To me they're
the same, particularly from the UI point of view.

Best regards.

PS: This topic looks like a great opportunity for a neat bikeshed
discussion :)
Received on 2011-08-15