Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wuischke]

I think this is a good idea. I'll have a look at it tomorrow if you don't do it earlier.

[asamule]

There are too many useless options. A real interface redesign comes at a cost: reduced feature set, at least initially (main candidates imho are chat, messages and stats).

Except that I actually use stats, and messages.

As far as preferences go, is there any reason for which I shouldn't want to automatically connect at startup, reconnect after connection is lost?

Yes there sure is. Sometimes you just want check things without talking to the outside world, and if your connection goes down because aMule killed it, you don't always want it to reconnect again.

Why should I want to disable one of the possible networks?

Because comcast freaks out if I enable Kad, and some people don't like ED2K.

Heck do I really need to know about UPnP? it is meant to be transparent! (if you *really* want to keep the option at least label it something like "Bypass Router/Firewalls") .

And if you handle your own firewall? You don't always want aMule to use UPnP - or perhaps you want to be firewalled.

Do we really need separate download/upload settings for stats and limiting?

Of course you do, do you know anyone who has a symmetric connection?

What is slot allocation? there is no help for that.

Ok, that one doesn't do much.

Did anybody ever change ports or maximum file limits (and if you do, do you get any real advantage?).

I did.

Here we could remove entire PANES of options, relabel a few more and stop cloning eMule. I really think I could go on forever, given the interface looks like it is designed to test features and not to be used.

No, you can't. It's clear you don't use any of the advanced settings, but that doesn't mean no one does.

Try again - this time without removing ANY of the settings, just clearing them up and organizing them. Tell yourself: just because I don't use it/know what it is doesn't mean no one does.

[tekwyzrd]

Either you use gnome or MacOS. Either way, we like flexibility in the options we present to the user, and as much control over the features as possible. If you don't understand an option or won;t use it, fine by me, just don't use it. But don't prevent other people from ahving the possibility to use it just because you see no need for it. The whole "let's dumb down the interface as much as posisble and make assumptions about what people want" gnome-like mentality is, for me and for most people I know, wrong on so many levels.

Most, if not all, of the options you mention are not only used daily by most people, but some are essential to the program usage. Ignorance about how the program works is not an exuse to contest the existance of such options.

I'm always for finding better default values, but never for removing the possibility for the user to tweak the program at his/her will.

I agree wholeheartedly. I refuse to us gnome due to the fact that the devs insist on making decisions for me and have decided that I'm too dumb to understand any more than the simplest of options. Unfortunately kde has decided to follow this path as well. "Simplification" only benefits those too lazy to take time to learn and is a major insult to those who DO take the time to learn.

(aimed at the pro-simplification crowd about software in general) If a program is too complicated for you to use  go find another program that does the same thing. Don't complain when the fact is YOU CHOSE to use the program. I am tired of the attitude "I don't use it so it's not useful" and "I don't understand this option so it should be removed". To those people I say QUIT CRIPPLING MY SOFTWARE!

For aMule, one possible solution would be to do as boinc devs did and offer a choice of gui. Offer users the ability to select a simplified interface (for those complaining "Oh no... this is too confusing!") and an advanced interface (for those who want all of the options available).

[rufus]

It is evident that the gui is (still) a sore point.
May I suggest (again) to privilege function than form?

There are various applications that go straight to the point with their GUI,
avoiding clutter of any kind, which also saves a lot of time both when making
it and maintaining it. The following is just an example:

http://cabos.sourceforge.jp/

[Padre Quevedo]

I don't care about GUI design.Just make aMule good for Leopard.I promise my cat won't eat your mule.The only thing my cat doesn't like are bugs...

[skolnick]

It is evident that the gui is (still) a sore point.
May I suggest (again) to privilege function than form?

There are various applications that go straight to the point with their GUI,
avoiding clutter of any kind, which also saves a lot of time both when making
it and maintaining it. The following is just an example:

http://cabos.sourceforge.jp/

Sorry, but that will not happen. That's like you going to General Motors and telling them to remove from their cars the option to adjust the seat, the steering wheel and make them all automatic simply because you don't like complexities and will not learn how to shift gears on a manual gearbox. Most probably General Motors will tell you that their cars are OK the way they are. It's the same with aMule here. Developers will not throw away all their effort developing the lots of useful features aMule has simply because you don't like them or because your MacOS X looks "ugly" with all those buttons and checkboxes.

Regards.

[IsA]

It is evident that the gui is (still) a sore point.
May I suggest (again) to privilege function than form?

There are various applications that go straight to the point with their GUI,
avoiding clutter of any kind, which also saves a lot of time both when making
it and maintaining it. The following is just an example:

http://cabos.sourceforge.jp/

Sorry, but that will not happen. That's like you going to General Motors and telling them to remove from their cars the option to adjust the seat, the steering wheel and make them all automatic simply because you don't like complexities and will not learn how to shift gears on a manual gearbox. Most probably General Motors will tell you that their cars are OK the way they are. It's the same with aMule here. Developers will not throw away all their effort developing the lots of useful features aMule has simply because you don't like them or because your MacOS X looks "ugly" with all those buttons and checkboxes.

Regards.

On Mac OS X it looks ugly for other reasons. And removing all the less used options is not the only way to have a cleaner look. You can have a single checkbox that  show or hide the advanced settings, it's not a news and it's the only solution for all kind of users.
The reason it looks ugly on Mac OS X has been already said. I don't know if it's due to wxWidgets or other things but why does a native application look so different from a wxWidget application?
And again, why I cannot hide the toolbar? Why I have to close the application if I close the window? On linux is ok, on windows is ok, but on Mac OS it's not! Is it so difficult to change for Mac OS only?

And, really, I don't understand why this thread is here. Every change is not accepted. The only thing that can be changed are (perhaps) toolbar icons.

[lfroen]

The reason it looks ugly on Mac OS X has been already said. I don't know if it's due to wxWidgets or other things but why does a native application look so different from a wxWidget application?

Generally speaking, that's con of all cross-platform GUI libs. They looks ~same on all platforms, meaning, that on some platforms this gonna be ugly.

On linux is ok, on windows is ok, but on Mac OS it's not! Is it so difficult to change for Mac OS only?

No, it is not. However, vast majority of developers does not own Mac. Which means, that even if I completely agree with you on "let's do it as other Mac apps", I can't help. I can assure it works in some consistent way, doesn't randomly crash etc.

And, really, I don't understand why this thread is here. Every change is not accepted. The only thing that can be changed are (perhaps) toolbar icons.

That's because Mac's are rare. Most of developers doesn't live in US, Macs are expansive. Adding to this OSX which doesn't play well with VMWare we ending with situation when even trivial OSX-specific bugs can't be easy fixed. Except toolbar icons, which can be tested everywhere.

On the good side - I'm working to gen OSX to run on VMWare on my Linux.

[wuischke]

And, really, I don't understand why this thread is here. Every change is not accepted. The only thing that can be changed are (perhaps) toolbar icons.

I might have worded it a bit ambiguously, but I was actually only talking about new icons when starting this thread.
Simply because this improves the look of aMule already a lot without requiring too much work.

My vision is a native Mac client on top of amuled to solve this problem, but as most developers I don't own a Mac. (Hey, but I've finally started to use Vista...)

[lfroen]

Hey, but I've finally started to use Vista...

Let's not get started here

[brainnolo]

Except that I actually use stats, and messages.

You use stats? Is impossible to use stats, you can just stare at them. About messages, they may be useful but is full of spammers out there and is not the main purpose of the app

Yes there sure is. Sometimes you just want check things without talking to the outside world, and if your connection goes down because aMule killed it, you don't always want it to reconnect again.

aMule shouldn't kill your connection.

Because comcast freaks out if I enable Kad, and some people don't like ED2K.

You have a point here with the ISP (dislike for a protocol is not), but better solution is to get a decent one.

And if you handle your own firewall? You don't always want aMule to use UPnP - or perhaps you want to be firewalled.

I don't understand the problem. I didn't say that UPnP is required. If it finds a suitable UPnP device it works, otherwise you are left configuring your firewall. All it should do is report "firewalled"

Of course you do, do you know anyone who has a symmetric connection?

You didn't understand my point, separate download/upload are obviously needed, but separate "stats" and "real" limits are not.

Did anybody ever change ports or maximum file limits (and if you do, do you get any real advantage?).

And which advantage did you get?

No, you can't. It's clear you don't use any of the advanced settings, but that doesn't mean no one does.

I do not, yet aMule does its job perfectly. And my setup is not even common (Mac OS X + unbridged AP with dd-wrt). Again, what can it do for you that it doesn't for me?

Try again - this time without removing ANY of the settings, just clearing them up and organizing them. Tell yourself: just because I don't use it/know what it is doesn't mean no one does.

I'm sure some settings I'd remove are not useless in all cases and review is needed. But given the huge complexity of the current GUI imho only basic settings should be kept. You can edit the others from amule.conf if you are so in need of "advanced". With time some may be reinserted but with responsability and considering each added option as a big deal.

[sneeka2]

Hi,
Sorry to butt in so late in the discussion, but as somebody who has to think about UI design professionally I wanted to weigh in on the whole issue.

First off, yes the aMule GUI is horrible. The non-nativity does play an important role (Mac user here), but there are simply of lot of really bad UI design choices being made as well. For starters, let's compare aMule to another app, Transmission.



In these screenshots, both are doing the same thing: downloading stuff and presenting details about one download. Transmission does so using about 2.5 times less screen real estate. Here a direct comparison:



If you go through the details of what information is available in both apps, you'll find that both present very much the same level of detail about what's going on. Transmission actually gives more information: Every currently active download + details about a selected one, while aMule only manages to squeeze one download + details about it into the same space. Lots of clunkyness and wasted real estate on aMule's part here.



More of it on the network tab. Why two ED2k/Kad tabs? Why a huge, pretty useless graph on the Kad tab? The actually usable part of the Kad tab is so tiny, it could easily be put next to the server list. Why a separate ED2k Info/Server Info/Kad Info, all of which contain lots of free space (and the server info mostly spam messages)? The log would be entirely unnecessary for 95% of the users, if the other three tabs would present the contained information in a more orderly fashion. After all, the only purpose of these tabs is to let the user know whether he's connected or not, plus a few statistical details. But as it is, the information is all over the place in tiny bits and pieces, plus partially redundant in the status bar at the bottom.

Then there are the real usability issues like Global vs. Kad search. If I want to make sure I got every possible search result, I have to perform two searches. That's something the computer should do for me. Where's the "Search everywhere" option?

What struck me most in this thread is the hostility and ignorance of (some) of the main developers towards GUIs. I agree that users should familiarize themselves with the tools they're using, but that does not mean that everyone CAN do that. Fact is that aMule lives of the people using it (the ed2k network). Another fact is that only a tiny percentage of users will ever fully understand how it works. That's mainly you guys and a handful of technically minded people. If 90% of your users need a manual or and explanation for every other thing in the GUI, maybe it's just a bad GUI. If you don't get this, you shouldn't make GUIs. If aMule would be my creation, I'd take some more pride in my work and make sure it's as polished as possible. Sending people away with "If you don't get it, don't use it" is simply a lazy answer. Also, I do GET aMule. I'd love to use it more. I was a big eMule fan back when I had the luxury of a dedicated Windows machine in my old apartment. But now I just avoid using it unless absolutely necessary, because it's mainly a pain in the butt.

You first need to realize that you have a problem... Seeing the "official" reactions I think aMule will unfortunately continue to be a mediocre app.

Best Regards.

EDIT: Forgot to rebut a common rebuttal in this thread: making a better UI doesn't mean dumbing it down. A GUI can be more usable, even for "novices", without loosing functionality or information! It's a matter of striking the right balance.

[wuischke]

sneeka2: You say you are doing this professionally. Imho we should have a dedicated Mac remote GUI, if you would be willing to put some work in the design, I would appreciate this a lot.
Don't worry about the communication with aMule[d] (for now), just create a concept GUI, if you have the time.

[sneeka2]

sneeka2: You say you are doing this professionally. Imho we should have a dedicated Mac remote GUI, if you would be willing to put some work in the design, I would appreciate this a lot.
Don't worry about the communication with aMule[d] (for now), just create a concept GUI, if you have the time.

I wouldn't mind to, actually.
Having said that, I could only provide screenshots/mockups and guidelines, somebody else would have to code it.

Sent you a private message, let's email about it.

[IsA]

Imho we should have a dedicated Mac remote GUI

I agree, it seems the only way to have something prettier.
Just for curiosity, why is aMule so monolithic? Other apps like Pidgin are made by a library (libpurple) and a lot of other things. This allow everyone to code a native application. Adium uses libpurple and it's great. Why doesn't libmule exist?