UI has been streamlined for quicker navigation access

[Hardy]

In recent nightly builds Victor has done a great job imlementing some of our ideas about quicker (fewer taps/dialogues) access to the "Directions" functionality.

 

This now implies we need to also change some of our historic wording to re-create overall UI consistency throughout the application, as explained below. Please comment if you see any issue with this.

 

(1) Wherever OsmAnd displays "Set as destination" today, we should now also convert it to "Directions", because this function now points you to the Directions dialugue directly

(2) Wherever we have "Add as waypoint" today, it
  (a) text should display "Set as destination" if no destination has currently been set
  (b) text should display "Add as waypoint" if a destiation has already been selected. In addtion the very dialogue which has now been eliminated after "Directions" needs to pop up, asking about replacing the existing destination, adding a first or last waypoint.

I think this is a needed change to make the UI consistent overall. Any concerns?

(3) In the future, we may also want to everywhere add an additional new action "Car Directions" (or similar), which would directly start a navigation in car/follow mode without the interim "transport mode" screen, providing a one-tap navigation access making OsmAnd a LOT more driver-fienldy, but that's still under discussion.
 

[Andre]

Hi,

I think "directions" is typical Osmand vocabulary.  In all other navigation programs this is "Navigate to". Directions is merely understood as a list of actions in tabular text format.
If only a (new) route is calculated, I vote for  "Calculate route" or "Show route" or "Preview route".
I still don't have a clear idea if this only is available in car mode. I think it should be consistent with biking and walking.  So I vote that if the map is in "Show map" mode it should ask for the mode of transportation. If this is once set it could be set clearly in the top side of the screen (it even could be a switch button like compass ). Once it is set "no questions asked"

Andre.oid

Op 9 jun. 2013 10:14 schreef "Hardy" <hm.gg...@gmail.com> het volgende:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osmand+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Hardy]

Yes, "Directions" could be replaced by "Navigate to" in most contexts (certainly in the context menus) I would have to check if it fits in all contexts, because it is nice to be able to use EXACTLY the same expression everywehere where you link to the same functionality). But that's merely an English vocabulary question and not my concern here.

 

Your question regarding the options: Full nav options are and remain available for all modes. We only discussed (elsewhere) about maybe creating an additional quick-access to the car nav mode in particular, becasue it maybe the most frequently used mode.  But that's not decided yet. and you are right, it would single out the car nav over other modes a little. :-)

 

One way I do not think is too good is keeping pre-selected transport modes active forever, and even basing the default navigation on it, unless we re-think some other issue of app bahavior, too: While it seems to make sense at first sigth, too many users are not aware

- that there are different app profiles in the first place (!)

- that starting a navigation in a certain mode also changes their map display mode accordingly (with some major effects on map content and screen appearance/orientetion, day/night view, etc.)

 

So if we do not reset the map display to default/map view mode consistently upon app restart, we get a lot of 'confused' questions from user who played with things, and subsequently got stuck forever in some mode without consistent re-set upon app restart, and without finding out what they did, how to re-set it, and nevereven  being queried again which transport mode they wanted for new navigations. (We were there already.. :-) )

[Hardy]

Regarding my original post: I have implemented (1) in the English strings as a strawman to look at, I think it is a non-brainer, we must do that.

Regarding (2), I have for now changed the string statically to "Add as destination or waypoint". We could add the "dynamic" waypoint / destination display easily if we wanted.

 

What still remains to be done is this menu item can now be displayed EVERYWHERE all the time, regarding if there is a destination set already or not (because it now serves the purpose of setting both): Favorites screen, Search result screens, location context menu on map. (We have in some cases still some unneded "dynamics" built in when to display this action). If anything, we only need "dynamics" on which caption to display.

[Hardy]

Commenting on something I received by mail:

 

Yes, I do think we are sometimes making things too complicated both in our code and for our users:

 

The very same action

- should have the same "name"/text label everywhere (context menus, search screen etc.)

- the same icon

- the same follow-up dialogue and functionality (i.e. also 'code' as much as possible) regardless from where you start the action

 

This is exactly the point I made in the first place. We need to clean up text labels, icons, what menu entry appears where and when, and make them all result in the same familiar follow-ups (e.g. some of our waypoint actions still ultimately lead to the "Directions" dialouge, while others only add the point and return you to the map view ...

 

I will look at ths systematically over the next few days and complie a list what needs to be fixed in this direction.

 

[Victor Shcherb]

Quite a lot of information, will try to comment condensed : 

- Please keep strings short and consistent  I'm fine with "Navigate To", "Add waypoint", "Show on Map"

- In future we can introduce default navigation mode or special shortcut for OsmAnd. We probably can create a special launch icon. So we don't see another dialog which mode.

- Please verify these 3 actions consistent in all search.

- Don't try to rename strings, it is easier to create new and let others translate, otherwise we will be not consistent with translations.

P.S. : I'm trying to solve icon consistency, but this is for later.

Victor

 

--

[Hardy]

Agreed. Even though we get a lot of dead strings in this fashion ..  :-)

 

One specific question I am currently working on: 

- I suggest we have an action called "Set as destination", respectively "Add as waypoint."

- We will dynamically label it one or the other, denpending on whether there is already a destination set

- It will "ALWAYS appear (everywhere: Favorites, serach results, map context menu), as there is no need anymore to hide it when no destination is set yet (as was necessary for its curren "add as waypoint" only function

 

Right?

[Andre]

Hardy,

You are absolutely right. The profiles are confusing to a lot of people, because to a first-user it is not clear what settings are implemented or changed by a profile, and because using profiles is not a (advanced) user choice to use them or not, but they are mandatory: users are required to use them if they want or not. If navigating is ready and the program falls back to "default profile" some users do report 'what the hack is going on' questions.

Even in the settings menu there is some inconsistency: navigation and logging services are profile dependant. And global app settings start with a profile setting, but changing this setting to another profile has no effect (of course) on the global app settings ;-)
The configure screen gear wheel is also profile dependant so very very much settings are profile dependant, but not all.(The refresh "reset to default" button is also unclear to me) Even if I set profile to bicycle I can choose rendering mode to car (?) and I can use "road only maps" but I don't see "Show cycle routes", because if I want to show lcn or rcn routes, I have to choose a certain renderer (Touring view. Ok. But why?). Who does understand this?

So I think we should make TWO interfaces: A simple- or starters interface, and an advanced user interface (an alternative to the plugin- idea more or less,  which is unfortunately very confusing sometimes, because you can hide active settings this way!!  ). My idea: The simple interface has no profiles and switching settings from car usage to walking usage are all set by the user, so he knows what he is doing.  Some complex or confusing abilities of the program could be hidden also. We can allways (later) decide which settings then. Then if the users decides to use the advanced user interface, he has to read a page about profiles, wiki and the discussion group, accept it, and after confirmation he gets the choice to use profiles and more advanced features like editing gpx, shortest salesman routing, compass related settings, public transport search, OSM editing and so on to name a few.
Well , I sure will set it in advanced mode myself, because I like all the possibilities of Osmand. But it becomes more and more an app with a rather steep learning curve. So lets  keep it simple for first time users and warn them: Advanced usage of profiles is not for dummies .... ;-)
Well I do understand this will be a enormous job for the developers in their private spare time,  so it would probably become version 2 and it needs a lot of (re)designing first before rebuilding. What is basic and what is advanced?? 1-click gpx track logging-and-showing with autosave can be very basic for first biking and hiking users for instance.This should not be a plugin. While online http tracking servers with web adresses certainly are. Gpx waypoints planning and rearranging is certainly advanced user mode, and might indeed make the user interface too complex and cluttered, to join this thread discussion back again. 

My 5, maybe 6 cents. By the way: I am an absolute Osmand fan, read this not as criticism, but as a sincerely wish to make it even better.  Not for myself but for starters. Keep up the good work, because this a very enthusiastic and active group with very active contributors.

Like.
+1

Andre.oid

--

[Nico W]

Profiles..... here is what I don't understand and is redundant  /confusing: if I go to Settings -> General -> User Profile I can chose between car / bike / pedestrian. Fine. I choose pedestrian. Shows left bottom of screen. Now I add a "destination": I get the menu c/b/p again.  Say I choose bike, will the map now create a bike route or still a pedestrian route as indicated by the pedestrian in the lower left corner? Now I long press on the screen, touch the lat/lon box, menu pops up and with the "add as waypoint" or "show route from here" same c/b/p box pops up. I can now choose "car". What does it do? Remember, "settings"= pedestrian, "destination" was bicycle, "show route" is car..........

 

Solution: keep the "settings" user profile and do away with the car/bike/pedestrian popup box, OR

do away with the user profile and keep the car/bike/pedestrian question and link this to the correct profile / renderer. This to me is preferred since it eliminates a lot of searching for beginning users (=I found it last time, where is it now....-oh yeah, settings!)

But keep the icon in the lower left.

Now if someone wants to change from one mode to the other make a "do you want to change mode of transportation yes/no" pop-up on the first time this different mode is selected, icon bottom left changes and from now on everything stays in this mode 

[Andre]

Hi Nico,

What you see indeed, is that the map display profile / screen display profile can be another profile then the routing profile!. Things are indeed confusing.  Besides: The configure screen gearwheel also configures the map display. And there is an additional map source world icon on top which actually configures additional map display properties (mapsource AND a choice of map layers.
So it is clear that you ask for consistency. 

My shot: The profile you see in the icon leftunder should be a routing profile in my opinion. It defines what you are doing in real world.  The map and screen profiles should give a good shot as default, and let the user choose or override the defaults if he wants. That should be simple mode. Advanced users then can choose to configure and eventually create their own named profiles, but even in this case routing profile and map/screen profile should be logically linked.

Andre.oid

Op 9 jun. 2013 17:20 schreef "Nico W" <wiss...@gmail.com> het volgende:

--

[Nick A]

Hi,
I also find it very confusing, & ended up driving one journey with a map displaying contour lines only - the route was fine but I'd done something somewhere & it took me a few minutes to sort out.
My tenpenneth - if I select 'pedestrian' it should change all the rendering styles to my preferences for pedestrian, which I set in the settings dialogue, if I want to change my profile to cycle, it should select my predefined rendering preferences for cycle, and car should have a similar simple scheme.
It's a wonderful app, but it can take me longer to change my map display than it does to get changed & get the bike out of the shed!

Keep up the good work

Nick

[Hardy]

We have already had long discussions on profiles it in the past ...

 

In short:

(1) Yes, there is (sort of) a "map view" and a "navigation" portion of the profile.

(2) These 2 are not RIGIDLY linked, BUT: If you have your map view set in one profile, then start a navigation and chose another one ("transport mean"), also your map view will change to this other one, but only for the duration of the (follwow)-navigation or until you manually stop it, then return to what you first had for map viewing. I think this is what makes sense and helps most users who do not fiddle with profiles at all but expect that the navigation behaves ok for what they select while the corresponding map appearance sort of suits their needs accordingly.

(3) I agree that it is not entirely clear which settings are profile dependent and which not (and there is also some room for cleanup). This has bugged me for a long time, and we had already tried multiple ways to depict this, many got lost again in different UI developments. See my wiki article if you want at least a current documentation (latest pdf attachment is almost up-2-date): http://code.google.com/p/osmand/wiki/SettingsDocumentations as a basis for discussion.

 

[Andre]

Hi Hardy,

I can understand that. But the point is that many users won't. Thousands of them are fiddling around with settings till they have the right screen and map, then start navigating and suddenly everthing looks and behaves totally different . I don't think I have to convince you but of course I see the great complexity of adjusting this everywhere in coding.
For us this behaviour is logical, because we understand the concept.Because we are deep in. And the deeper you are, the less you see the water around :-)

Andre.oid

--

[Victor Shcherb]

Before we had a simple rule to split settings : 

- All profile settings are navigation settings! Navigation doesn't mean Follow procedure but also look through. For example you can seat in the car and select Map view - Car because it is logical. 

- All other settings are global

Map style settings you can consider more as a bug which we need to consolidate and do our best out of the box, propose show cycles tracks by default for appMode=bicycle . And it is configurable separately which means no code should be changed.

I feel more and more doubtful that we could find a good solution at all. Google/Apple... splits application into 2 parts which I was thinking is not good, but now it makes more and more sense. My evolutionary idea could be :

- Allow switching profile only in advanced mode.

- Whenever application starts ask what kind of profile do you want and follow profile through the whole application. 

- After route is calculated in default profile suggests "Navigate To" which will switch application profile.

Victor

[Hardy]

Could something like this help?

[Andre]

Hi Hardy,

I have seen something like that passing by sone time ago. I think it is a very good logical interface in advanced user mode. However, not sure if this fits under the gear wheel, that might still be the current profile alone.  But in advanced user settings it gives s superior overview and it is allowed to occupy more space there. Good suggestions!

Andre.oid

Op 11 jun. 2013 12:07 schreef "Hardy" <hm.gg...@gmail.com> het volgende:

Could something like this help?

[Alexander Horst]

Hardy wrote:
> Could something like this help?

Yes, please. Even if some text only fits on the display in wide screen
mode this simplifies configuration by a great deal.

[Evgeniy Kachalin]

May I join the conversation? Please excuse me if I say something wrong or something that may look rude or whatever.

From my point of view, as for now, route construction in OsmAnd is a total mess. Now you are trying try to fix it step by step instead of complete rethinking of interaction with user.

1) The user wants to plan a route. The most often the user is a user of a certain transportation type: he is most type cyclist, car driver or just walker. This must be selected once and not asked every time, but user needs to see the type of the route he sees on his screen.

2) The user knows the start point and the end point. The start point is not always his current GPS position. The more user hiking-oriented, the less he is attached to his current GPS position. As for me, I do plan a route when I'm in the train to my starting point.

3) After getting a basic automatically built route, user wants to correct it. He must have all the possibilities do it. For this he may use basic instruments such as waypoints (hoping that after adding a waypoint the route would satisfy him) or he may use advanced (and hard-to-implement) instruments such as moving the route using fingers. The latter is realised in some commercial online maps such as Yandex maps.

Thanks for your attention, please don't be angry at me.

[Manfred]

Hi Evgeniy!

There is not "The user", there are lots of different users.
I, for example, am a bicycle rider, a walker and a car driver.

Regards
Manfred

[Evgeniy Kachalin]

Manfred, me too (except for the car). But most of the time a user (I'm not fluent with english articles, please take this in account) uses the software for a certain type of activity. Or say, he uses the software 10 times to build a route as a cyclist, then he may sit into his car and build 3 route as a car driver, and so on. The problem I wanted to underline is that a user do not need explicitely select the type of activity every time he build a route. He may switch the route type as the need arises, and he may see the route type as a little icon in the corner of the screen.

вторник, 11 июня 2013 г., 20:40:34 UTC+4 пользователь Manfred написал:

[Victor Shcherb]

I would like to direct you all to more constructive discussion :

-  Try to not use adjectives or any expressions, that's something messy or doesn't make sense unless you are sure you've got all use cases

- Please be more specific what is need to be fixed (move button, selection by default)

- Always create a simple explanation how it should work, if you don't know how it could work, then no one will understand later how does it work.

- If you are annoyed by something try to think what is the reason (probably you are stuck to one function or you would like to use more profile), don't expect adaptive system

- If you can't understand why the menu is cumbersome always write a simple story (the story is much more important than your feeling)

 -1) was looking for compass

 -2) looked in settings, pressed 10 times on compass didn't found

- Quick learning system often contradicts consistent. In order to use consistent system person needs to learn some basic concepts of program. For quick learning systems (if it is not the same that was before) it is required to have repetitions.

I hope you can understand my request correctly because number of flying emails is more than I can process.

Thank you 

Victor

--

[Sabra Sharaya]

If I long press the map screen and choose "show route from here", a dialog appears with options for the routing type and whether to do navigation, gpx, or just display the route. For people who choose different methods frequently, this is good. For people who do the same thing every time, it would be good if default options were used and choosing "show route from here" were all that was necessary. When the dialog appears, to select the routing type, perhaps there should be a checkbox that says "don't show this again". But then there would be people who accidentally select this and are forever doomed to use the same options every time.

[Evgeniy Kachalin]

Victor, that was my fault, thank you for the corrections. I will remember it.

First I wanted to express the thought that sometimes it is better to rethink the interaction with user from the scratch. If you against this, please tell me, and I will stop developing this scenario.

Now I will try to continue the mentioned scenario. The items are related.

1) The most frequent scenario is building of a route with already defined parameters (with previous parameters). That means no any questions must be asked when building a route. No transportation type, no "show or follow" dilemma every time. Almost every route needs to be corrected, so saving a route immediately  to a GPX file is never needed. "Follow button" must be displayed on the screen later, along with the route calculated.

2) "Show route from here", "to here" are too verbose. Why not to call them just Start and Finish ("Start here", "Finish here", "Waypoint here"). On the big computers' screens (Google maps, Yandex maps) we see this just as two fields which we can fill with an address or a coordinate. The basic idea is that entering of a point must be very simple.

The points entered must be accepted absolutely and unconditionally. There must be no such conditions such as the need of entering start before finish or finish before start. 

If all this looks reasonable, I may try to write what exact steps are necessary to implement the ideas in software. If not, please excuse me.

вторник, 11 июня 2013 г., 21:56:56 UTC+4 пользователь V S написал:

[JeCh]

I agree with Evgeniy in point 2 but not that much in point 1. Most of the time if I want to get somewhere by car, I have no need to change the route, if I don't know that place I have no idea if it is a good track or not, I simply have to believe the navigation and that's all I want to do.

So I think it needs some simplification but some of the current ideas are fine and well implemented. Anyway I have some suggestions what might be improved:

If I select a destination, currently I get the options to show it on map or set it as destination. I suggest these different options:
1) Navigate! - immediately start navigation according to the currently selected profile with no further questions, only ask what to do if here are already some waypoints selected
2) Set as waypoint - ask to set it as new destination or add it as a fiirst/last waypoint and continue just like it behaves now
3) Show on map

Best regards,
JeCh

Dne středa, 12. června 2013 8:23:14 UTC+2 Evgeniy Kachalin napsal(a):

[Martin Gregor]

I would also prefer to have a default, as I use the map exclusively for driving. It would be definitely an improvement so one does not have to always select from the three options available.

[Martin Gregor]

I think what Evgenyi is talking about is that the the map controls are not quite intuitive. Every person is different, but there are general principles that would apply to all. I like the program, I contributed a small sums several times and I spend hours editing/updating the maps in my area (under another ID) but as an average user, it is still a frustrating experience to set up a route, add waypoints, change them to one's liking etc and especially if you want to do it fast. BUT, once this is accomplish the program is great!!!

Regards,
Martin

[Evgeniy Kachalin]

Jech, if you have no need to change a route, you can leave it as it. You must not be presented a dialog where you have to choose again, even if the default is selected.

среда, 12 июня 2013 г., 14:42:28 UTC+4 пользователь JeCh написал:

[Victor Shcherb]

1) This is really discussible, again it brings to profile idea, which lots of people get lost. It is better to be more verbose, especially in kind of "Professional software" especially multitarget.

 - Google Maps - are not professional, they do only what they think is the best of user and provides almost 0 configuration

 - Navigon/Garmin - professional (sometimes semi), but they have very specific target and this is navigation.

2) This is a wording question which is less related to me. I'm not native speaker and not having a good scripting skills.

Victor

[Evgeniy Kachalin]

> It is better to be more verbose, especially in kind of "Professional software" especially multitarget.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The software has to be verbose and has to inform user. But to be verbose does not mean to ask many repeated questions.

>  - Navigon/Garmin - professional (sometimes semi), but they have very specific target and this is navigation.

And we are discussion the interface of the navigation block of the software.

 

 

[Hardy]

All valid suggestions, but please consider the whole impact then suggest a complete concept here:

Yes, I agree that e.g. "Show route from here" could be converted to act as something like "Set as start point", and we could allow letting this start point be set any time and then keep it until manual deletion (or some other predefined action deletes it)..

But this would get negative feedback from "mostly navigation" users who accidentatly had set a start point, forgot about it, and then wonder why their routes are all calculated from some static start point while driving a car and having other things to tend to... also not an ideal situation.

I agree we can find a better UI flow for starting route-calculation and navigation. The above thread contains some valid ideas. But someone needs to please think througn the _all_ related processes and dialiogues, including GPX routing (which again do not mandate a target point) and so on. I sguggest someone produces an exact doocument for general review of what exacrtly should happen when and with what dialogues.

 

[JeCh]

Hardy, Evgeniy Kachalin, V S> All of you have very good points. I think we all want basically the same - make it simple but give as much options as possible at the same time.

This is usually extremely hard to do. My offered solution is one button that could be internally called "I know best what you want - Google style". That is one possibility. The other is to show a dialog with many options, that could be just confirmed if you don't need to change anything.

Btw. there is one related question which confuses me already for some time. What is the default profile for? I perfectly agree with the 3 profiles - car, bike, pedestrian. But what is the 3rd profile supposed to be for? I would understand to add an ability to define custom profiles for advanced user but have only the 3 by default. But I'm probably missing some concept behind this general profile...

I'll try to post my complete navigation UI idea soon.

Cheers,
JeCh

Dne pátek, 14. června 2013 11:21:08 UTC+2 Hardy napsal(a):

[Evgeniy Kachalin]

> "Set as start point"

Even this is too long. There is no need for a verb.

> But this would get negative feedback from "mostly navigation" users who accidentatly had set a start point, forgot about it, and then wonder why their routes are all calculated from some static start point while driving a car and having other things to tend to... also not an ideal situation.

This can be solved very easily. There will be two (three) items: Start here, Finish here (and Waypoint here). To solve the issue with navigation only users it is enough just to add fourth item: Navigate here. 

Start and Finish, if short enough, are well recognized without any pictogram. Additional icon (pictogram) must be added to the "Navigate here" item. That's all.

Later I'll try to imagine how the context menu may and should look like.

[Evgeniy Kachalin]

> This is usually extremely hard to do. My offered solution is one button that could be internally called "I know best what you want - Google style". That is one possibility. The other is to show a dialog with many options, that could be just confirmed if you don't need to change anything.

This is not so hard to do, but you (or a developer) must just *know* what is good for a user and what is not so good. To my opinion, there is no many place for such a contradiction like "Google" vs "advanced features". It is possible to implement both of them and if you imagine or feel this, this is not *so* hard.

What I wanted to tell is that a dialog (with *many* options!) is fundamentally wrong. A dialog with two options is basically wrong too. In mobile interfaces. 

So coming back, you don't need to confirm the default (or previous) set of options. An action must be taken immediately and only THEN you may change the parameters and options. Possibly, many advanced finger controls can be used for this. I understand that such controls demand for a big amount of developing and programming, so this can be postponed. But such easy principles like minimization of number of dialogs, questions and additional steps are easy to implement.

[Hardy]

JeCh, quick answer, got to run here: The "default" profile is a transport-means-independent "neutral" proifile we will likely rename to "map view" (and change the icon accordiungly). It is meant to not favor any roads, biking, hiking etc., paths, but show a "balanced" map for viewing or searching stuff. Hence  this profile has no meaning in navigation.

 

Example: You may prefer a day-view map for looking/searching for stuff  (even at night), but for actually driving you may want the night view (so I use day-always in default, and automatic day/nigh switching in the car profile). The old name "default" results from setting initally selected in this profile used to be pushed to all other profiles to (to make setup easier), but I am noit sure this feature ist still systematically in place.