Thread: YOUR dream front end

Originally Posted by NeonBoomBox

What would it be?

Simple to use while driving and configurable to the individuals needs.

What I mean is that if it takes more than a glance at the screen to be able to read it or find the control you are looking for, then it is not simple.

As far as configurable, the app itself should be the core that controls it's look and feel while plugins add the actual functionality. This lets the end user decide what things they what loaded which has two benefits. First it doesn't force the user to wade through functionality they don't want/need and secondly it reduces the overall resources the app uses.

How would it look/function?

No offense to NBB as it is now and you can go look back at all the times i've poked Jirka for the same thing . It should "feel" like the platform it is running on. What this means is that it's UI elements (both look and placement) should reflect the UI of the underlying OS. To me, if a Mac user can't look at the front end and say "That looks like a Mac!", then there is no point to using a Mac over a Windows box for this.

Would you control it with a touch screen or something else?

The App should offer support options for both. Ideally most of us would not like to use a TS, but it is the simplest control method.

What functions would it have (ie. music, movies, games...)?

I think Music is the #1 for everyone. Beyond that, that is where making the functions plugins comes in handy. I personally will never load videos or images in my car, so why should I have them taking up UI space and resources (HDD space & memory)?

I would guess the #2 feature most want is Navigation, but outside of what Jirka is doing that appears to be the holy grail on a Mac at this time.

A well developed and documented API will allow others to build the plugins for their special needs to that may not be practical for the core developers to spend time on.

Being able to skin the front end could also be a nice touch too as it gives users and developers that much more flexibility.

-dave

It should "feel" like the platform it is running on.

see to ME the "platform" should be the car itself. I have a red car so Neon Boombox's default color is red, my buddy has a blue car so his Neon Boom Box interface is blue.

if a Mac user can't look at the front end and say "That looks like a Mac!", then there is no point to using a Mac over a Windows box for this.

are you suggesting that if it doesn't look "mac like" then it looks windows like? ;-)
we don't want our FE to look necessarily mac or windows like. the reason to build Neon Boombox on OS X is simply due to the awesome power of cocoa and that we feel like the mini is the best choice in hardware.

the funny thing to me is that it is the power of cocoa that lets me alter the look of our FE to NOT look like the OS it is on. I simply don't see why the OS should matter to anybody when the front end itself should be the acting OS (IMO), maybe I am the only one who feels like the ultimate FE would almost never require the user to navigate outside of it.

With that said what makes a Mac program mac like to me is functionality coupled with ease of use. Aesthetics is secondary to function, and even then as long as the Front end doesn't look like *** that makes it alot more mac like than most windows FE's IMO.

By all means if anybody feels like Neonboombox is hard to use or is ugly as sin PLEASE say something. I would love to fix any and all usability issues.

sorry if I hijacked the thread at all...


In case anyone decided not to read that...

To me a dream front end should look as factory as possible. I want my car to look professionally done, that goes for the hardware install as well.

I want big buttons and easy to read text. I don't want to have to navigate a bunch of screens to get to anything that I will want to access while driving.

I also would love decent voice commands so that I don't have to navigate screens period.

the biggest features I want is music GPS with navigation bluetooth phone integration and some automatic sync capabilities so when I pull into my driveway or plug my ipod into my car everything gets synced. everything else after that is pure gravy to me ;-)

oh almost forgot I've got a thing for neon accent lighting in my car that absolutely must pulse to the music

if you could press a button and a keypad came up, and you could punch in the first two letters of a song, and it zoomed down to that area in your song list? You get the idea.

that is an awesome idea that I will have to steal ;-)
that is once i finish the basic functions of the module

out of curiosity do you feel like neonboombox would scroll better if it scrolled as you drag you finger as opposed to how it does it now by having to drag to the top/bottom of the list?

it should be available now at our website

thank you for your help in testing. post your thoughts in the neonboombox forum

Originally Posted by NeonDev

see to ME the "platform" should be the car itself. I have a red car so Neon Boombox's default color is red, my buddy has a blue car so his Neon Boom Box interface is blue.

To me the color isn't that big of a deal, it's how the UI elements look. For example the buttons in NBB and QCar have no connection to the OS itself while AMP and CFE have that "jelly bean" look common in OSX.

are you suggesting that if it doesn't look "mac like" then it looks windows like? ;-)

No, i'm saying that for me (who loves the Mac platform and is using a Mac in spite of it's current limitations/lack of support for in car computing) that if the front end doesn't feel like it is an OSX App then there is no reason to use the Mac over Windows which has a much higher level of supported features (and there I would argue that you should hide what the OS looks like ).

the reason to build Neon Boombox on OS X is simply due to the awesome power of cocoa and that we feel like the mini is the best choice in hardware.

Exactly my point actually. So why not show it for what it is?

maybe I am the only one who feels like the ultimate FE would almost never require the user to navigate outside of it.

In an ideal world I completely agree with you in this regard. But for someone that is used to using an OS, then the FE should act the like the OS. That way it's not like a life long Windows user sitting down and trying to be productive in OSX the first time out of the gate.

Aesthetics is secondary to function

Actually the Aesthetics have always been the main factor in how Mac OS (and later OSX) applications were supposed to be designed. Find an old Mac programmer (from back in the 80s and 90s) and ask them about the design standard documentation. Now it's nice and easy to read it electronically, but it used to be something like 6 or 10 feet worth of books

To be perfectly correct, none of our Apps (including AMP and CFE) meet the Apple design standards.

By all means if anybody feels like Neonboombox is hard to use or is ugly as sin PLEASE say something. I would love to fix any and all usability issues.

That wasn't my intention at all. We each have our own tastes. You asked what I thought the "perfect" FE would and I explained

I want big buttons and easy to read text. I don't want to have to navigate a bunch of screens to get to anything that I will want to access while driving.

Absolutely agree.

oh almost forgot I've got a thing for neon accent lighting in my car that absolutely must pulse to the music

Kids these days

-dave

Originally Posted by Cybix

I found the 'AMP' navigation awful. It took me a long time to get used to it. It has still set standards however.

For all the love of AMP some people have, I actually agree with you. That was why I started CFE. I liked AMP's general L&F, but you had to perform far too many actions to perform simple tasks (like exiting/hiding the app when you have the song info window up (something like 6 or more actions IIRC)).

-dave