more ambitious

[obo]

If someone can think of a 'better' design they should put a design document on the wiki so it can be discussed. Wouldn't that be a good starting point?

There is a previous attempt at http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/MenuLayoutDiscussion

[cc]

I have been looking at the current menu structure (thinking about writing the missing manual section) and mostly I think it is pretty good.

From using it, the only thing I wished was higher up was the LCD brightness, but I got round that using .cfg files for the two settings I need (day and night).

BTW here's the picture of the whole* menu system I have so far (eventually it will be latex, but html/js is easier for now!).

(*actually there are a couple of missing menus that I'm not sure where to fit yet)

[DefineByte]

Are there any statistics that show the settings most changed by users? You could use that data to tell you what settings should be at the top etc.

[nls]

No there are no such statistics and I am pretty sure it varies a _lot_ between users so making a new layout that is good for everyone is far from easy...

[DefineByte]

Of course it varies a lot. If any trends are evident though, it will aid the design. I thought user metrics were a fundamental part of this process (at least, that's what I was taught).

[Bagder]

There's also the risk that one or several settings just won't be changed because they're buried too deep down so people don't find it or won't bother...

So the changed settings doesn't display what people want to change, but only what they have in fact changed.

[DefineByte]

Yes, you'd certainly want to delve deeper than that.

[Lear]

Regarding the menu layout, wasn't it the plan that after the introduction of the (no longer not so) new menu/settings handling code (or was it the root menu?), there would be some layout changes, in particular regarding the settings menus, which were moved down in a bit? Not much of that happened... (And no, I don't know what the plan was.)

[Llorean]

I agree that laying it out on paper first is important, but a very large part of a good menuing system is "how does it feel when using it?"

New users should be able to find things quickly by categories (and in this case all current Rockbox users who didn't have a hand in creating the layout are "new"), so really to see whether a menu system is an improvement, it needs to be testable on-target (in my opinion). Lots of things look good in theory, bad in use.

[DefineByte]

I'd certainly go with iterative development (not really much choice with open source is there? x) ).

[soap]

I agree that laying it out on paper first is important, but a very large part of a good menuing system is "how does it feel when using it?"

Llorean, quick and dirty menu testing could be accomplished using a variation of your "directory tree and .cfg files" joke of an idea.

[Llorean]

Indeed. Do that in a UI sim, and you have a quick and dirty, drag 'n drop, on-the-fly menu tester.

[JdGordon]

Regarding the menu layout, wasn't it the plan that after the introduction of the (no longer not so) new menu/settings handling code (or was it the root menu?), there would be some layout changes, in particular regarding the settings menus, which were moved down in a bit? Not much of that happened... (And no, I don't know what the plan was.)

that recode makes rearranging the menu extremely simple (code wise).

[arodier]

Sorry if I have upset somebody.
Two remarks.
For the moment, I don't think to have sufficient free time to study the rockbox code core and produce patches. Actually, I keep my free time is for another open source project from myself. Please, don't believe I just came here to post free critics.

I will be very happy to view this project more adopted, and not only by geeks. If interfaces like KDE or Gnome, (or others) have never been created, I'm not sure that Linux adoption would be so important today.

May be a large adoption of rockbox by no powerful users, with help from friends of course, sensibilise them to open source, and open source formats.

[GodEater]

And, as expected, someone else with great ideas for Rockbox has come back to us and said "actually I don't have time to do any of this."

Well, that pretty much means it won't get done then. Nothing more to see here. Move along