Proposition: SimpleBox

[keuleJ]

Also I think most usability "problems" could be solved by having a really big "MANUAL -- read it" link covering at least half the front page and flashing and playing some anoying sounds or something because we have a IMO pretty good manual (albeit not in very good shape for the h10 yet) and it seems it is very difficult to find it...

I don't think that you get the whole usability issue. The GUI of RockBox should be that simple, that you don't need to look at the manual for the most stuff!
I mean, has anybody ever looked at the manuel for functions of the iPod original firmware? I think in terms of usability, the iPod original firmware is way better than RockBox.
Of course, RockBox has much more Features, but they're often presented in a complicated way. I think that there even is the idea of making such a SimpleBox port shows how complicated RockBox ist to use.

[mnhnhyouh]

There is a choice between a simple interface, and lots of options. To keep their interface simple, Apple do not give users access to the equaliser, only presets.

I prefer options, and those options are what Rockbox is about.

h

[tucoz]

How about distribution a couple of cfg files with rockbox that get installed in, say, the root directory or /.rockbox. Then we could state "try the shipped configurations, if none matches your need just look into the manual and build a configuration yourself". That way we could have a "most users.cfg" that uses iCatcher as wps, turns on tagcache, selects a font that is suited to the screen size etc.

Good idea That must be the least complicated way of shipping "default" settings, that most people will  use eventually.

[LinusN]

Of course, RockBox has much more Features, but they're often presented in a complicated way. I think that there even is the idea of making such a SimpleBox port shows how complicated RockBox ist to use.

Can you give an example of where Rockbox could be changed to make it simpler? If we can simplify the interface without sacrificing flexibility, I'm all ears.

[lachlan]

How about distribution a couple of cfg files with rockbox that get installed in, say, the root directory or /.rockbox. Then we could state "try the shipped configurations, if none matches your need just look into the manual and build a configuration yourself". That way we could have a "most users.cfg" that uses iCatcher as wps, turns on tagcache, selects a font that is suited to the screen size etc.

Good idea That must be the least complicated way of shipping "default" settings, that most people will  use eventually.

I also think this is a great idea.

[Febs]

Also I think most usability "problems" could be solved by having a really big "MANUAL -- read it" link covering at least half the front page and flashing and playing some anoying sounds or something because we have a IMO pretty good manual (albeit not in very good shape for the h10 yet) and it seems it is very difficult to find it...

I don't think that you get the whole usability issue. The GUI of RockBox should be that simple, that you don't need to look at the manual for the most stuff!
I mean, has anybody ever looked at the manuel for functions of the iPod original firmware? I think in terms of usability, the iPod original firmware is way better than RockBox.
Of course, RockBox has much more Features, but they're often presented in a complicated way. I think that there even is the idea of making such a SimpleBox port shows how complicated RockBox ist to use.

If you want SimpleBox, use the original iPod firmware.  That's what it is.


I agree with Linus--if there are ways of making the interface easier to use without sacrificing features, let's hear them.  But if you just want to strip features off of Rockbox to make it more like the original firmware, what is the point?

I come back to the equalizer as an example.  Rockbox has a fully parametric 5-band EQ.  On the 5G, it also has what is curently a 2-band semi-parametric EQ.  The iPod firmware, on the other hand, has *only*a number of crappy-sounding presets that give the user no ability to control them.  It would be a relatively simple matter for someone to make a bunch of EQ presets and make them available to Rockbox users to duplicate the "functionality" of the iPod software.  Although I personally find EQ presets to be useless, I would have no objection to including such presets in Rockbox if it improved the usability of the firmware.  Likewise, I would have no objection to improving the interface of the EQ to allow users to access the existing settings in a more intuitive matter.  (In fact, I've had discussion with some of the developers about doing just that.)

On the other hand, I would object, and strenously so, if there were an effort made to strip out the customability of the EQ for  the sake of making Rockbox "simple."  That would be a huge step backwards.

In short:

Improving usability of existing functions = good
Reducing functionality to "improve" usability = bad

[keuleJ]

How about distribution a couple of cfg files with rockbox that get installed in, say, the root directory or /.rockbox. Then we could state "try the shipped configurations, if none matches your need just look into the manual and build a configuration yourself". That way we could have a "most users.cfg" that uses iCatcher as wps, turns on tagcache, selects a font that is suited to the screen size etc.

The idea of making "good" presets is great. But why packing them into a config file, which the user first has to select, instead of making them default in the firmware? OK, there would be different presets for different players, but that istn't too difficult, is it?

And I think, the GUI could use some slight improvements. I think it's not always intuitive where you get when you push certain buttons etc.

The third point is the menus. I don't know if this is the right place to discuss the whole menu again. But maybe we should hide the more esoteric options in a menu in a submenu called "advanced" or something like that.

[Llorean]

Why include them in the firmware? If they're hard-coded, they're always in memory even when not used. How on earth is having them in seperate files a bad idea, since you still just browse presets and see a list of them?

As for the menus, I don't see how hiding anything in an advanced menu improves anything. That just means your options are in two places instead of one, and you have to learn which options are considered "advanced" and which aren't. Is it really all that difficult to just not use an option if you don't know what it does?

[keuleJ]

Why include them in the firmware? If they're hard-coded, they're always in memory even when not used. How on earth is having them in seperate files a bad idea, since you still just browse presets and see a list of them?

OK, maybe saving them in a file is alright. But that the user first has to go into the menus, find out where to select the config files and then select this file, I think this is a bad idea.
Maybe we could just save the settings in a file called default.cfg and load by default this config file.

[xlarge]

Still the big WHY hasn't been answered properly imo...

Isn't it quite an insult towards people saying that we need a "simpler" interface?
I can't imagine anyone willing to use and capable of installing rockbox without being intelligent enough to learn the menues (although there can be quite intelligent people who doesn't want to spend time learning it - a completely different story).

If it's to big of a deal to learn the menues or look in the manual i don't think they (the people) will use rockbox at all! They are perfectly satisfied with the original firmware.
I mean, flash the firmware, compile rockbox (no, you are right people would prefer to download an already built one... i guess) - without using manual - and then complain about the interface?

I'm tempted to say; Just go for it! Make it happen! I won't use it.

[keuleJ]

Why?

Maybe because a simpler interface would be more efficient and easier to use & learn?

Maybe because more people would use RockBox and its great features if the interface would be easier?

Maybe because it's annoying if you wonder the 10th time which button to push to get to menu x to change setting y?

[tucoz]

I agree. There is a lot that could be done to simplify the user experience. Also a lot to be done with the first impression of rockbox. And a simple fix to that is to provide a demo.cfg with a prettier wps, larger font etc.
Wrt the navigation, key assignments, menu layout etc. I think someone will have to convince the developers that their approach is better than the current one. And a nice way of doing that, is to provide a patch with your proposal for the developers to try. Another thing to do is to really put some effort into a restructure proposal wiki-page, and try to convince the devs that this is good

Martin

(sorry for the off topic spin off here)

[Peter200lx]

Would it be possible to make a .rock plug-in for the simple interface for now so that people can experiment with how things work. Then have some way to auto load the plug-in at start up for the people that want to use a simple interface. I personally like the current interface, but I can see why people might like something a little less complex. And we could have an option in the simple interface to go back to the standard one. Maybe even have the simple interface have a settings menu that only has basic stuff like SHUFFLE:[yes...no] .

Just my 2 cents.

[LinusN]

I think a good way to start is to try to explain what it is that makes the current interface so complex. When we know that, we should be able to figure out a way to make it simpler.

[bazmonkey]

Would it be possible to make a .rock plug-in for the simple interface for now so that people can experiment with how things work.

There is no "simple" interface.  The original poster wasn't even announcing one.  It's a pipe dream right now.

BUT, this is a great time for everyone to tell everyone what's wrong with the interface?  Besides "it's hard", or "I didn't get it at first".

Like the equalizer, what's difficult about it?  It's got 5 bands like the custom EQ's on many players.  It's got a graphical interface.  If you only adjust the gain, it works EXACTLY like a "normal" custom EQ that y'all are used to.  So what's wrong?

I'm all for a cfg that has a bunch of popular settings enabled that usually aren't in the default settings.  That just makes sense, that the initial settings be the ones the most people will be satisfied with.  I understand some things can't be on as default because some players don't support it, some aren't working well yet, etc.  But if you've got a new-ish player, color screen, and nothing crazy going on in your music collection, a little cfg would do no one any harm.

A couple of people have thrown out "read the manual" as a solution to a difficult UI, which it isn't.  I personally don't think it's that difficult, but reading a manual on it doesn't make the UI easy.  A flight manual doesn't make piloting aircraft magically easy.  A bad interface with a manual is just a documented, bad interface.  But rockbox's interface isn't bad IMO.