[Martijn]

ssssh don't tell any one

[Hitcher]

indeed I added this for a reason in the last version, is it perfect No. But if people choose not to read it its not my fault, short or a complete redesign on how things work its sure good enough and the side menu is probably the least complained about thing

If the word 'MENU' was added to it then there's no excuse for not knowing what it's for and where it is.

[Ned Scott]

It's horrible. The sidebar, as it is now, should die.

No way, it's an excellent way of de-cluttering the GUI so your media is at the forefront.

The only thing that maybe could be improved is in the navigation to it so it's more obvious to get to, so people don't get confused with scrolling left in horizontal views and activating the side menu.

I don't oppose a slide out menu for options. Hence my "as it is now" qualifier. A label, like Hitcher uses, along with more consistent usage (see PVR), would go a long way to making the sidebar much better. Also, as you say, the way to get to it the sidebar menu could be easier.

However, I do think we should avoid hiding options when it's not a matter of clutter. I don't think it's natural for people to expect there to be a settings for settings.

[Ned Scott]

The whole point of this settings level exercise was to hide the more advanced stuff from the newbie or the inexperienced, thus changing the level should not be some prominent button since all what will happen is that they will see it and change it and we are back to where we were the beforehand. Although I do like Black's idea below of a different colour for more advanced settings thus giving a subtle colour reference as to whether you are in an advanced settings level or not to people who know about it.

I disagree with this. It's not to hide the more advanced stuff from newbies, but just to show them only the stuff they should change first, as well as to label other settings as being more advanced (and needing more caution). Hiding settings from the user and hoping they don't find them, as a method of control, is a bad solution in my mind.

Though I'm not sure that is the point you are trying to make. I don't think it is. I do see your point about not making it a prominent button. It does scream "push me" in some of the suggestions.

[Ned Scott]

I was thinking more about this, and I think we're forgetting a screen:



This first screen that people view when going into settings. It might be a good place to put a switch, though we would still need the reset button on individual settings pages. If you're going to make a setting for settings, and one that is global to all of these settings, this is the screen I think makes the most sense to put that switch.

Then, keep the sidebar menu for easy access to the switch and reset button once under settings individual and add `Black's settings label (top right corner) and color codes:

[`Black]

The prominent button is bad imo because it's something which simply doesn't need to be seen all the time. It takes away space and makes the settings look less clean. It's not a bad design to have options in a hidden menu.

I would go for:

1. Leave the settings in the menu on the left
   
2. Reduce the activation area of the menu and make it accessible only if the user hovers the handle
   
3. Add a label which says which label is currently active
   
4. Optional
   • Color advanced and expert options
     
   • Group settings and visually split basic from advanced settings
     
   • Reduce number of levels to basic and advanced
     

[Ned Scott]

We shouldn't worry about if something needs to be seen all the time or not. The same argument could be made for a lot of settings and other UI elements. Rather, we should look at if it hurts the situation if it is seen all the time. In that case, I think jjd-uk made a good point about users wanting to press it right away without thinking about it. However, I think that is more an issue of how prominent the button is, rather than if it is visible all the time or not.

I don't understand what you mean by #2. You can't hover with a remote, and a remote control is always our first priority when it comes to UI control. I think I'm misunderstanding you, though.

I like the rest of your suggestions, including all the optional ones. How would you feel about an extra switch on the parent settings page? We could make it subtle, in the bottom left corner, like your suggestion here (minus reset):

[`Black]

With #2 I was talking about mouse control. Everything is fine with a remote, no changes needed there.

Do you mean Settings.xml with parent settings? If yes that was one of my first thoughts where those settings could go. However while the level button affects all categories, the reset button doesn't. If you are fine with a button which resets everything, then I would put it there.

If you really want to have the controls present in the category window, I would go with this approach

[Ned Scott]

Ah, I see what you mean now with #2.

The other thing: Well, the reset switch wouldn't be on the parent settings window, but we would still have the existing sidebar switch and reset buttons as well.

[jjd-uk]

On the number of levels I think it was supposed to go something like:

0 = Basic : a restricted mode, maybe think kids or kiosk mode, however is there anything is System -> Settings what would require this reduced level of access? should at this level they be simply locked out of settings altogether (not sure what is possible at the moment with Profiles), or perhaps there should be a Level 0 but it displays no settings

1 = Standard: these are the settings required by everyone to get a working XBMC system for the core functions

2 = Advanced: these are all the tweaks that may confuse a new user and are not necessary for correct operation of XBMC

3 = Expert: this was seen as allowing stuff from the advancedsetting.xml to be brought into the GUI

I can see an argument that Advanced & Expert could be merged leaving 3 settings levels, not sure about going down to 2 but I guess that revolves around do we want a kiosk/restricted type mode and if so what should it be capable of and whether a setting level is a good idea to help implement this or whether it could be done elsewhere in Profiles for example.

[Ned Scott]

I haven't tried it since the settings revamp, but master lock (wiki) did/does have a specific option for locking settings, which can require a password, or be locked/unlocked per profile.

[jjd-uk]

Actually I'm starting to come to the view point of 2 setting levels:

0 = Kiosk
1= Standard

Then where advanced was needed each page of settings would have a "Advanced" dialog similar to in the Skin settings there is:



which opens another page of settings.

So using that page as an example move "Settings" to bottom of page and rename it "Advanced" or "Advanced Settings" to ensure consistency across the GUI.

[GBB1]

Just an overview of the different things we want to achieve:

- Kiosk mode: all settings locked down, only media viewing allowed
- Basic: simple settings for the novice user
- Advanced: all settings available

In terms of levels we can say that Basic and Advanced are ways to control the settings. Like in 'How much can a user change?' with regards to his level op expertise.

But in Kiosk mode there is no need to control the settings as they already have been configured by an advanced user. This being said, I guess it's better to have these 2 things separated, as Kiosk mode might even hide the complete settings page.

So IMHO Basic and Advanced should be visible at all times. So the the user can toggle between them, hidden or not. But Kiosk mode is something entirely different and should only be activated or deactivated to change the whole experience... Once in Kiosk mode it can only be switched back to normal mode by entering a password or something.

I hope this makes sense...

[pecinko]

Actually I'm starting to come to the view point of 2 setting levels:

0 = Kiosk
1= Standard

Then where advanced was needed each page of settings would have a "Advanced" dialog similar to in the Skin settings there is:
which opens another page of settings.

So using that page as an example move "Settings" to bottom of page and rename it "Advanced" or "Advanced Settings" to ensure consistency across the GUI.

Amen.

Now, if we realise that using lock can prevent kids and grandfathers from fiddling with settings, we we may come to a conclusion that level 0 is superfluous. Note that without locks kids can install inappropriate add-ons get lost in skin navigation or such. Since locking is needed all the same why don't lock the settings as well and have way better protection. Normal users benefit by not having to switch from "lamer" to "wizard" mode.

This leaves us with settings as we have now, with added tab "Advanced" per settings section that should hold settings that are not necessary needed to fiddle with but which, at the same time, does not be log to advanced settings XML.

[jjd-uk]

Level 0 may needed with an eye to the future, because if I recall correctly there was some talk that the settings re-factor may expand out into other areas such as side bar controls, if this were to happen then perhaps the view settings would be Level 0 candidates, so a kids profile could be completely locked down but they would still be able to change the media views to suit themselves.