Proposition: SimpleBox

[LinusN]

I'd have to agree with keuleJ, while I've never had problem navigating the interface of rockbox, it's always bothered me that having the entry point for the radio or the recording screen in the settings menu seemed like an afterthought.

1) The menu is not only for settings, thus the FM radio and recording are not in the settings menu.

2) Yes, FM radio and recording came after music playback in the original Rockbox on the Archos, so you can call it an afterthought if you wish. In fact, all features that are added to Rockbox are basically afterthoughts, since that is how Rockbox is developed.

I propose that rockbox hosts a "default rockbox color wps" design competition.  This wps should scale well across all the color targets and would present an initial unified front to the new rockbox user community.

And the winner is: iCatcher!

[belly917]

And the winner is: iCatcher!

LinusN, I appreciate the humor! 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't iCatcher require the Album art patch?  And if so, how can it be included as the default WPS in a daily build?

--- edit --
I was wrong, the icatcher on the wiki is different than the one included in daily/cvs builds as Llorean points out below.  I never copy over the wps folder when I update rockbox because I use my own, hence I never noticed it.
--- /edit -----

And sorry if I didn't make it clearer before, but my thought was that this unified rockbox WPS would be the default that shows up when you first run rockbox.. not the simple text one that is the current default.

I know that the default WPS is currently hardcoded into rockbox's code, but with the possible changes that Llorean discussed, this sounds plausible.


p.s.   Talk about thread hyjacking.. I never liked the simplebox idea, but once the question was raised of suggestions to change the rockbox interface, the topic shifted to a more interesting subject and took off.

Sorry for contributing to the hyjacking.

[DrSpud]

• make a "main menu"
  • Browse files
  • WPS (Maybe now playing or something)
  • Radio
  • Recording
  • Settings
  • Browse Plugins
• Play Button always goes to WPS
• Rec Button always goes to Recording

Believe it or not, that's very similar to how I changed the menus in my patch. Thanks for confirming that this style of layout is what people would expect  
Seriously, we should just have the main functions of the player on the 'main' screen - wps, file browser, radio, recording, plugins, and also playlist & bookmark controls (IMHO) - I would have had the first two in my patch if I knew the code better  
Then put all the options - organized neatly - in a single 'Settings' menu, and we'd have what nearly any user would expect as far as navigation and usability goes.
Simply put, regardless of how RB works and is structured internally it should present an interface that makes sense from the user's point of view.

[Llorean]

Well, this thread is still discussing the merits of a simplebox idea, and the way to achieve similar goals without forking the Rockbox project, so it's not really hijacked (yet).

Also, no, iCatcher does not require Album Art. It's been included with CVS Rockbox for ages, and is usually what I recommend now for people who want to change WPSes to one that will skip less than the default with peakmeters.


And to many of us, starting at the file tree does make sense to our point of view. The vast majority of the time you're selecting a song or playlist to play, so the most logical place to start is where you can choose one from. I think part of the problem is that people have an expectation of starting in a menuing system because other firmwares do so, but I really don't see the benefit of requiring extra keypresses to get to the filetree every single time I turn my unit on.

[RedBreva]

Isn't the fact that iCatcher (for example) is 'better' on newer platforms (ie no skipping on iPods etc) a good reason in it's own right to seriously consider using it as 'The Default', regardless of any aesthetic considerations.

It would look 'better' - The poster is being subjective!! - and would in likelihood reduce some of the newby support questions regarding performance!

[nls]

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.  

I was reffering to this statement in the original post

The majority of us don't use/don't know how to use the majority of the features of RockBox

If you don't know what something does I think you should look in the manual. The manual also explains the rockbox interface and its quirks, most people have a difficult time with it in the beginning because it is simply different from the system they're used to and what they expect from a use interface.

[mnhnhyouh]

And to many of us, starting at the file tree does make sense to our point of view.

I agree.

As for the manual not making a plane easy to fly, that is because flying is hard. Rockbox is not simple when you first start, but if you stick to it, you will learn how to use all or most of its features.


So far, except for having some use of colour and a sensible font as default for each platform (and sensible differs amongst platforms because of their screen characteristics) all of the suggestions seem to lean towards dumbing down to make it easier for beginners.

The idea behind Rockbox is that it offers a very wide choice of options. The only way to make them easier, is to remove them.

One suggestion is to make the order of options in a menu user definable.  This would not make it more simple, but more complex to use, and would require a couple of manual pages to explain. I love the idea of user definable menus. I dont mind the extra complexity. But it wont make Rockbox more simple to use.

h

[bazmonkey]

As for the manual not making a plane easy to fly, that is because flying is hard. Rockbox is not simple when you first start, but if you stick to it, you will learn how to use all or most of its features.

I bet if you stuck to piloting you'd figure it out, too  

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.

[Llorean]

And yet many of us are just fine with the interface. The problem is, those of you who say it should be improved suggest making it more awkward to use AFTER you've learned it. Hiding the options away in an 'Advanced' menu, or putting them anywhere that makes them less readily reached somewhat defeats the purpose of Rockbox being a powerful alternate operating system.

Face it: People who are satisfied with the basics will stick with the original firmware. Rockbox is targeted for people who want to get more from their player. In general this means they want ready access to the advanced features as well as the basic ones.

[mnhnhyouh]

I dont think the interface is unintuitive, but it does take time to learn as there are *lots* of options.

I have just read this thread again, to look for what people are actually asking for, and it seems there are 5 things.

1) Hide some of the more esoteric* menu options in sub-menus

2) Add graphics to make it more intuitive

3) Make it more intuitive

4) Start in a menu system instead of the filetree.

5) Remove some menu options.

I address them like this....

1) I use some of them, I prefer them near the top of the menu tree. I think most who stick with Rockbox want access to them, because those who stick with Rockbox tend to be the sort of people who like to fiddle. But I do like the idea of a file RB reads the menu layout from that is easy to configure with standard tags for each menu option. That way I could set it up just the way I like it with each theme I will even write the manual for this if somebody does the code

2) I would like some examples of this. I thought the iRiver H3xx menu system good at first, but wasted effort afterwards.

3) I have yet, besides option 2) seen any indication of what this might mean.

4) I prefer to either return to the song/playlist it was on when I stopped, or the filetree. Which is exactly what I get

5) Please dont remove options. Add them


*esoteric in this context means anything the Apple firmware doesnt have.

h

[Febs]

3) Make it more intuitive
(snip)

3) I have yet, besides option 2) seen any indication of what this might mean.

You mean besides my suggestion that the "Play" button always go to the WPS, from both the browser and the menu system?  

I would implement this feature myself if I could.  In fact, I have looked into the code and while I have learned a great deal about how it works, unfortunately, I just haven't had time to learn enough to make the changes that are required to make this work.  So for the time being at least, I have to just keep making the suggestion in the hope that someone will implement it.

[mnhnhyouh]

You mean besides my suggestion that the "Play" button always go to the WPS, from both the browser and the menu system?  

I am using Senabs second last build, and it is implemented on that. Well unless you are a couple of layers into the menu, then sometimes it doesnt work....



Forgot that I am not using the standard build.

h

[Llorean]

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..


To follow the previously posted breakdown of some of the general concerns in this thread, these are how I would address them:

1) What about things Apple doesn't have but iRiver does? The idea is for Rockbox to have the same menu layout on all targets so someone can updgrade to a different Rockboxable player and be on familiar ground. Again, it's vitally important that choices *not* be made simply because that's what a commercial firmware did. As well, hiding the options just makes it more of a hassle to get to them once a user *is* ready to use them, and I don't see how having them available from the start can actually *confuse* someone. If you don't know what it does, don't change it or look it up. How confusing is that?

2) How do graphics "make it more intuitive" since all they do is the exact same things as word. Graphics are only more intuitive for the illiterate, and it's very hard to express "Sound Settings" as an image, let alone "Playlist" and various other things.

3) What do you even mean by "more intuitive" exactly here? I mean, ideally that means "things are where a person could reasonably expect them to be" as in the category and submenu names follow a progression that if someone thinks "I want to change the equalizer" and sees several choices, one of them is clearly enough the one they think they should go through to find it. In most cases this is already true, though I've no doubt a few things are in unintuitive places. If you mean something else with "intuitive" please expand.

4) As has been said, it makes the most sense in to return to the filetree/tagtree since if you're using the device for the intended purpose of "being a file-based music player" the filetree is the primary place you return to, as most menu settings aren't changed as often as you start new playlists or pick songs.

5) Removing options doesn't really "improve" the situation so much as sticking your head in the sand and trying to pretend it's not there. One could respond "Why remove them when you can simply ignore them?"

[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.

[Llorean]

Well, it's rather easy for things to fall out of date, I suppose.