Proposition: SimpleBox

[bluebrother]

The point I was getting at still remains; a poor interface that comes with a manual documenting said poor interface does not make it a good interface or an easy one.

IMO the interface is even superior to all other interfaces I've seen on such kind of devices. Calling it »poor« is just useless -- it's different, and as Linux won't change the way its terminal behaves just because some users coming from Windows aren't used to it Rockbox interface won't change just because someone isn't used to it and calls it »poor«. I also needed to get used to it the time I started using Rockbox. Every time I happen to start the OF again I'm shocked how broken the OF (and its menu and navigation) is.

[Febs]

I thought there was a working play-button-to-wps-from-menu patch already? Like, on the tracker. That someone just needs to be browbeaten into committing..

I just tested that patch against current CVS on my iPod 5G.  It applies cleanly.  The "quick exit" part works, but the "Play to WPS from within menus" does not.

I'm compiling a build for my H100 right now and will test it there.

It  works on the H100.   Maybe there's a button mapping issue on the iPod.

[keuleJ]

First of all, what's wrong with making RockBox easier to use for noobs? Maybe that not only geeks could use such a player?
We definately should find a way to make RockBox easier to use without loosing functionality.

One key for this, in my eyes, is to have good defaults and that is certainly not just for colors and fonts, but for pretty everything. If RockBox had a good default for "Max Files in Dir Browser" for each player, the average user would never have to touch this option.

I still like my proposition of having a main menu. And I still like the idea of having it popping up when you push the menu button. You still could have record button for going to rec and play button for going to wps. I just think wps, radio and recording screen are similar und should be treated similarily.
Maybe we could even stay with "press select for file browser in wps".

For start up, I think you should have the following options:

• main menu (default)
• file browser
• WPS
• recording

[bluebrother]

how do you want to decide what "good defaults" are for e.g. the "Max Files in Dir Browser"? Of course you can simply use a greater value on players with a bigger memory. But that value highly depends on the way you organize your music -- I for example have organized my files in a way that a folder usually has less than 20 files. Using a higher value is simply waste in that case. Of course, as "try this first" defaults a bigger value could be used e.g. for ipods, as the chance the users are using tagcache (and thus having a pretty long "Artists" list) is pretty high.

Also, there is a main menu. What's wrong with it? You won't get the devs convinced to start in any other view than the browser. It's simple: what do you want after turning on your dap? Listening to music. To do so, you either resume the last played playlist (which then automatically switches to wps) or you need to pick some files. Thus, the only logical starting point is the browser. Starting in any menu would require another keypress to switch to the browser, and this keypress is the reason why you won't get devs convinced to start in anything else than the browser.

The "quick exit" patch makes the buttons a lot more consistent by only adding a few changes. AFAICS it isn't unlikely for this to get implemented, but apart from that (and maybe a little menu reordering) I don't see any point in adding an additional "startup" menu.

Also, I don't think it's a good idea to make Rockbox too much noob-friendly. Those noob-not-reading-the-docs questions are already annoying enough, and Rockbox is intended for people who acually want to get the potential of their hardware and are willing to dig into it. People who just want to "use" something -- why don't they simply stick to the OF? Rockbox is a different firmware. It's not for simply adding the missing functionality to the OF. IMO the user interface of Rockbox is pretty good, but you need to get used to it a bit. Which also is the case (according to my experience) for most interfaces that are "different". Once you get used to it it's logical and fast. To quote Linus Torvalds on a (different) usability issue (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00021.html):

This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality of
Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will
use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long
since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do.

I believe the same applies to the usability discussion for Rockbox, so that's the point I don't think it's useful making Rockbox easier for noobs. IMHO I don't believe we want nor need users that don't care about. YMMV.

[tucoz]

@bluebrother:
I have to disagree somewhat with you on this.
We are all noobs sometime, and i wouldn´t want to not have them rockbox for whatever reason.
Rockbox should be made simpler. By that, I don´t mean changing the fundamental design, but reorganizing the menu, installing a prettier theme by default. If these changes make the experience more beginner-friendly, then all good. I would like all people (to some extent) to use rockbox instead of their original firmware. If a reorganization of the main menu would lead to a more intuitive feel, then we would get less questions from newbies without changing anything in terms of functionality.
I do however agree with you on the gnome issue. I would not want to remove the tweaking heaven rockbox is. I think of rockbox as all about settings, and doing what you like with it. Not based upon what the average joe would like to do with it, and the settings he would apply.
And the devs have in fact played with the idea of being able to select if you end up in the filebrowser, or a top-level menu when you boot rockbox. So that idea looks like it could be made possible.
But, like always. Someone has to do this, and show their efforts to the community for a change to be made.

[mnhnhyouh]

And the devs have in fact played with the idea of being able to select if you end up in the filebrowser, or a top-level menu when you boot rockbox. So that idea looks like it could be made possible.

More settings? YAY!!!!


h

[Yotto]

Remembering back to when I myself was a Rockbox noob, I recall not knowing how to get to the menu.  Yes, I know the iPod has a button for it.  Doesn't matter, it was not intuitive because it wasn't on the screen.

I of course solved this by reading the manual, but I'm an exceptional noob

Would it be difficult, or even possible, to have a *file* named "Menu" or "Main Menu" residing in the root?  A newbie could select it and get the menu.  Just a thought.  We've been arguing about putting a "file browser" in the menu (not a bad idea, to be frank), but nobody's thought to put a "menu" in the file browser.

[Llorean]

1) Putting anything in the file browser pretty much makes it not a "file browser" any more. Why is pressing a button to get to the menu even remotely a non-friendly concept? I don't think putting a visual option for it in the filetree makes things more intuitive. Once you do that people go from the concept of "Filetree" to "Base level of the menu" and I think that ruins everything. Filetrees don't have options in the same list as files. In the context of TagCache is the same limitation even necessary? If you're browsing an in-RAM tagcache there should be a way to manage creating the list without even particularly much extra memory since it's already in RAM (I'm sure someone can come up with it) and if it's in disk it could probably be loaded by parts or something. Just a few ideas, for that aspect.

2) Out of curiosity how is 400 *not* a sane setting for "Max files in Dir Browser." The larger you make the setting, the worse battery life gets, and the vast majority of decently organized music collections should only have about 30 or less songs in a folder (the size of a moderately large single album).

3) In regards to the Noob question: I think the idea isn't "the noobs can just deal with it" but rather that "noob-friendly usually meanys dumbed down, and that's different from improved, so we should concentrate on how to squeeze more out of it, not how to simply simplify."


I personally am quite against the idea of putting non-files in the filetree. It's already quite easy for someone to see the main menu, and I honestly think it's rather stupid of ANYONE to replace the firmware on their multi-hundred dollar MP3 player without looking at least briefly at how it works first.

[bluebrother]

We are all noobs sometime, and i wouldn´t want to not have them rockbox for whatever reason.

Sure, we are all noobs sometime. But the point is if someone is actually trying to get a new thing known (be it a software, some hardware design or whatever). Currently I see a load of noobs who are not interested in getting to know Rockbox, it's simply a "I don't like apple, so I need to use something else (but this should be the same)". Writing this "Quick Start" for the manual was one attempt to make it more noob-friendly (which still could be improved -- but it's a bit frustrating to see those questions answered there getting asked again and again simply by those people not reading it).

Rockbox should be made simpler. By that, I don´t mean changing the fundamental design, but reorganizing the menu, installing a prettier theme by default.

IMO Rockbox should be made more consistent, not simpler  
There are some inconsistencies that should get eliminated. The "quick exit" patch was for one of those. Using "nicer" defaults is another, but with those defaults I also see some problems: the current defaults don't need any additional files. When using iCatcher as default it will fail if the theme is not installed (unlikely) or the fonts are missing (extremely likely). As missing fonts aren't warned about the theme will look completely broken and users will report this "broken" theme (or call rockbox "crap" because of this).

Maybe the best solution would be to (a) include some "runme.cfg" file in the fonts package's root folder or (b) generate a separate zip file with some try-me-first configurations.

I would like all people (to some extent) to use rockbox instead of their original firmware.

This is something like a "holy war" like Linux vs. Windows. I'm a linux user and would like to see more people using it, but I have stopped trying to convince people. Why? Those people who are not willing to get themselves used to it only create hassle. So while I'm sure to use the OS that's better for my needs I don't want others to use it just for the sake of doing so.

Rockbox can play doom. How many users install Rockbox simply because of doom and "it's cool", but don't actually want to get used to it? I don't think those will keep using Rockbox, but those are creating a lot of disturbances by their ignorance and super-noobish-behaviour.

I do however agree with you on the gnome issue. I would not want to remove the tweaking heaven rockbox is. I think of rockbox as all about settings, and doing what you like with it.

Unfortunately there is always a tradeoff between simplicity and settings. More settings automacitally means to make it more complex. So I don't think there is actually a way to make it simpler without sacrifying the settings options. Some menu reordering could be done, indeed.

Some ideas:
- the recording screen could get moved up one level. It's a bit strange it is hidden in another submenu while e.g. the fm screen isn't. The recording settings would fit below the "General Settings" along with the "Playback" menu. As the Recording Settings are accessible directly from the recording screens also I don't think this would complicate it.
- reorder the main menu a bit so that additional screens (fm, recording) come last (except the "Info" entry which should stay the last IMO).
- implement the "quick exit" patch. The menus are toggled, and thus it should be able toggling them from everywhere.
- provide a "start me first" configuration package, possibly including a README file.
- I don't like this "startup screen" patch but would prefer to have the screen last active saved and restored upon reboot.

And the devs have in fact played with the idea of being able to select if you end up in the filebrowser, or a top-level menu when you boot rockbox. So that idea looks like it could be made possible.

Really? AFAIK this is "only" a patch in the tracker. Might be possible, though.

[tucoz]

IMO Rockbox should be made more consistent, not simpler  

I think there is language confusion from my part here. By simpler I do not mean less options, but more consistent and intuitive menu(s). Just a reorganization of the main menu would be splendid in terms of that (like a lot others point out).

This is something like a "holy war" like Linux vs. Windows. I'm a linux user and would like to see more people using it, but I have stopped trying to convince people. Why? Those people who are not willing to get themselves used to it only create hassle. So while I'm sure to use the OS that's better for my needs I don't want others to use it just for the sake of doing so.

Hmm, I think I know what you mean. It´s an uphill battle in any case, but I would´t consider myself part in that war. People use what suits their needs. I said i want all people to use rockbox. - Consider this a dream situation. And to be honest, I do not like the noob term. I do not think it´s the noobiness that is the problem with lazy people, but lazyness.

Really? AFAIK this is "only" a patch in the tracker. Might be possible, though.

well, this has been discussed in irc at least once by people i consider core  

[mnhnhyouh]

This is something like a "holy war" like Linux vs. Windows.

I guess there are some that might think I am on this sort of kick over at the iLounge where I spend some effort to publicise Rockbox.

However, I think Rockbox is not even for the majority of iPod users. Most will be happier using iTunes and the stock firmware.

My hope is that some of the iPod users who take up Rockbox will join the Rockbox team. I would be happy if it just meant a few more well designed wps, or a couple more people testing bugs.

If I was the person who caused somebody to come to Rockbox who then started developing code, I would be a very happy person

h

[keuleJ]

2) Out of curiosity how is 400 *not* a sane setting for "Max files in Dir Browser." The larger you make the setting, the worse battery life gets, and the vast majority of decently organized music collections should only have about 30 or less songs in a folder (the size of a moderately large single album).

I have 491 Artists in my "Music" directory. I don't order them by genre.

Also, there is a main menu. What's wrong with it? You won't get the devs convinced to start in any other view than the browser. It's simple: what do you want after turning on your dap? Listening to music. To do so, you either resume the last played playlist (which then automatically switches to wps) or you need to pick some files. Thus, the only logical starting point is the browser. Starting in any menu would require another keypress to switch to the browser, and this keypress is the reason why you won't get devs convinced to start in anything else than the browser.

What do you want after turning on your dap? Maybe listening to music, maybe recording music, maybe listen to the radio or even play a game?
OK, we have a main menu. But I think it should have entries for WPS and Browse Files and I think it should show up at startup optionally, but by default.

[Llorean]

You can't make the maximum possible assumption though, because increasing the limit decreases the battery life for *everyone* who doesn't know about the setting. It's better for the few people with higher than average lists to increase theirs than making everyone with smaller lists decrease it to improve their performance.

[Febs]

I have 491 Artists in my "Music" directory. I don't order them by genre.

IMHO, the problem there is with your method of organization, and NOT with the 400 file default setting.  Not that there is anything wrong with your method of organization if it works for you, but you are clearly in the minority of users, and therefore (again IMHO) you need to adapt to the default rather than vice versa.

With respect to the other topics of discussion:

I have Word 2003 on my work laptop, and a slightly older version on my home computer.  The version that is on my home computer is the one that hides most of the settings in the menus, and shows only those that have been recently used.  I can't stand it.  If I know what menu something is in but it is an option that is not currently visible, it's an extra click that I need to make to get to that option.  If I don't know where something is, that "feature" makes it a real pain to look for it.   In short, hiding menu items to make the interface "easier" does nothing of the sort.  It only adds hassle.

I am 100% behind making Rockbox more user friendly by making the interface as intuitive as possible.  I don't think that "dumbing down" the interface is the way to do it.

[bluebrother]

What do you want after turning on your dap? Maybe listening to music, maybe recording music, maybe listen to the radio or even play a game?

About 95% of the users want their dap to play music. Not radio, not games, not recording. So having the main menu as startup will make startup slower for about 95% of the users. Sorry, but this is the majority. Adjusting to 5% of the users (or probably even less) doesn't make sense at all.

OK, we have a main menu. But I think it should have entries for WPS and Browse Files and I think it should show up at startup optionally, but by default.

I completely disagree. You simply need to take into account what most people are doing with their players. Additionally, some players even have those options. Take the ipods for example -- no fm, no recording. What should that main menu be for? Selecting "Playback"? For all users starting with something else it's simply one additional button click. (Even the iriver OF doesn't start with such a useless menu!).
Also, there is a play button that takes you to the wps. Why have an additional (useless) menu entry when the same function can be achieved with a button? (Nevertheless this should work from all menus -- but this is a different topic).