Options / Settings Menu

[+-KROP-]

Woukd love to see an options/settings menu so we can enable/disable features and make the app more usable. For example...

 

Any way to turn off the "you're getting close" message? I havent met anyone that likes it.

 

Any way to turn off the grouping when looking at the map? It's really unusable when looking at urban areas with high cache density, or for power trails.

 

I appreciate there's still plenty to do for your developers as the classic was turned off way before the new app was close to ready but would be great for these to be added to the list.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Settings menus are among the easiest things to program. I can only conclude there was a conscious decision to "keep it simple".

 

I'm willing (and hopeful) to be proven wrong...

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Settings menus are among the easiest things to program. I can only conclude there was a conscious decision to "keep it simple".

 

I'm willing (and hopeful) to be proven wrong...

 

 

Glad to oblige.

 

"Settings Menus" may be easy to program, but not so the effects of their use!

 

For every feature you make 'switchable', you have to reprogram your application to provide two behaviors: one "ON" and one "OFF".

 

Not a simple thing if you have a complex application where one of these settings may effect function in multiple parts of the app.

 

Then you have to make sure that the reprogrammed options work properly in all combinations, working in concert with all other options, everywhere.

 

So, to retrofit an application that was written with a fixed set of behaviors to make them optional, modifiable, selectable, .....

[+tim.devos]

"Settings Menus" may be easy to program, but not so the effects of their use!

 

For every feature you make 'switchable', you have to reprogram your application to provide two behaviors: one "ON" and one "OFF".

 

Are you serious? I'm a developer myself and such a settings screen is quite easy. For instance the great "almost there" sound. It is literally one statement:

 

if (AnnoyUserWithAlmostThereWarning) {

AnnoyUser();

}

else {

// do nothing and keep the cacher happy

}

 

One day I had a hope they would open source this stuff and let the community contribute to this project but in the mean time I gave up... (see other forum posts).

 

In my opinion they shouldn't shut off the classic application until all features are available in the new app. But anyway, my opinion won't matter to GS.

 

If you see how fast Cachly, the c:xxx application and other developers are going...

[+-KROP-]

Brilliant tim.devos!

 

I saw on another thread people requesting the option to change between km/miles rather than just relying on the phones language settings.

 

Especially in the UK, we tend to mix up imperial and metric (incidentally the default for UK is metric when actually we use miles...)

 

This is something I would imagine would be in a settings menu and probably not the most complicated change to make.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

"Settings Menus" may be easy to program, but not so the effects of their use!

 

For every feature you make 'switchable', you have to reprogram your application to provide two behaviors: one "ON" and one "OFF".

 

Are you serious? I'm a developer myself and such a settings screen is quite easy. For instance the great "almost there" sound. It is literally one statement:

 

if (AnnoyUserWithAlmostThereWarning) {

AnnoyUser();

}

else {

// do nothing and keep the cacher happy

}

One day I had a hope they would open source this stuff and let the community contribute to this project but in the mean time I gave up... (see other forum posts).

 

In my opinion they shouldn't shut off the classic application until all features are available in the new app. But anyway, my opinion won't matter to GS.

 

If you see how fast Cachly, the c:xxx application and other developers are going...

 

Am I serious? Seriously? Yes, I'm serious. I've been a software developer since the 1970's.

 

Did you even read my post, or just the first sentence?

 

Responding to a post where Viajero said "A settings menu is easy to write", I started with, "Yes, a settings menu is easy to write, BUT..", and you responded with "Are you serious? A settings menu is easy to write!"

 

If you want to deride me for writing something, at least address what I've written.

[+tim.devos]

Hi teamrabbitrun,

 

I really have no intention of insulting anyone so no offense. Yes I read your complete post.

 

My point is. It is really easy. Give an average software developer a few hours and you have a settings menu with options for units, toggling "you are close", and disable clustering. Even with writing unit tests this is really a no brainer.

 

Again, open sourcing the app on e.g. github would be a benefit for everyone but GS keeps it desperate closed source (which is their right of course). Don't get me wrong, i have no problem paying GS for their services. Proof: I bought the classic app and I am a premium members for a few years now. But since the app is free and the forum is full of complaints it would be a wise decision to listen to the community.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Hi teamrabbitrun,

 

I really have no intention of insulting anyone so no offense. Yes I read your complete post.

 

My point is. It is really easy. Give an average software developer a few hours and you have a settings menu with options for units, toggling "you are close", and disable clustering. Even with writing unit tests this is really a no brainer.

 

Again, open sourcing the app on e.g. github would be a benefit for everyone but GS keeps it desperate closed source (which is their right of course). Don't get me wrong, i have no problem paying GS for their services. Proof: I bought the classic app and I am a premium members for a few years now. But since the app is free and the forum is full of complaints it would be a wise decision to listen to the community.

 

Tim -

 

No worries, no insult.

 

So, the point I was making in response to Viajero is that while a settings menu is easy, that's not the only thing you have to do. Your "If..Then..Else" example statement may be simple and simplistic, but the example is self-contained; probably doesn't effect anything else in the app - when you get close, either play a sound or not.

 

But, NO application is that simplistic. For example, that sound fires off at twenty-five feet (?). If you get close, hear the noise, then walk out to fifty feet, then walk back, do you hear it again? (This is for example only - Sitting here at my desk I have no idea if you hear it again.)

 

Add in the factor of multiple switchable settings working in concert, depending on each other, and complexity grows exponentially.

 

Virtually every programming decision in an integrated application has the possibility of having cascading effects throughout the code, and my point to Viajero was just that it isn't as simple as just putting a 'selector button' in an app, especially as a retrofit.

[+tim.devos]

Glad to agree ;-)

 

But, NO application is that simplistic. For example, that sound fires off at twenty-five feet (?). If you get close, hear the noise, then walk out to fifty feet, then walk back, do you hear it again? (This is for example only - Sitting here at my desk I have no idea if you hear it again.)

 

I get the example you are saying but in this case it looks really easy to me. Maybe that's where we do not share the same opinion ;-)

[+thomfre]

I can only speak for the Android-version of the app (this being the Android subforum, that should be OK), since Android is the only mobile OS I've developed apps for.

But this really is as simple as it can be. Android makes it really easy to create a settings fragment. And at least giving us the option to turn off the "alert every muggle in sight"-sound and change the units, is not adding a lot of complexity.

 

My guess (and I might be wrong) is that Groundspeak is afraid of adding settings, they probably fear that it will be confusing for many. But I really hope you will consider adding settings, Groundspeak. It will make the app a lot better for the ones of us that doesn't fall into the "default category".

 

I'm sad to say that the only reliable alternative for Android-users, is c:xxx. And I really do not want to install that app...

[+tim.devos]

I share your opinion.

 

I have more than 1700 caches and every single one of them was logged with the classic app up until the 23th of March. And what can I do now? I really tried again using the new app this weekend (yes, I'm open to new improvements) but it's just not ready for prime time. Maybe over a year (I hope), but not now... They locked down the old app with plenty of features missing in the new app.

 

On Android there really are not many options. If you look at the Offical site you see only

 

• no longer being developed
  
• not updated since...
  

 

Except for the non official c:xxx app. Don't get me wrong. I can understand the guys from GS that they are not happy with scraping the website (I would be neither if they would do it on my web site) but the quality of this app is far far far beyond this GS "new app".

 

I would rather not install it but what can I do? I can not use the old classic app. The Locus add-on is maybe the "best" of all official Android partners but to c:xxx it's definitely way more complex to use. c:xxx is the only app which is intuitive and has all options a cacher needs.

 

I hope to use an API certified app in the future but for now GS is giving us no option.

[+hofy67]

If anyone thinks that settings would be confusing for some people then what happens when these people actually to look for a cache?

[+Viajero Perdido]

If anyone thinks that settings would be confusing for some people then what happens when these people actually to look for a cache?

They force the Lock-n-Lock lid to close when it's upside down.

 

And now I have to speak up. C:xxx is NOT the only alternative by any means. And on that subject, Locus has the deepest settings hierarchy I've seen in any phone app, and on a par with some really full-featured desktop apps. Yet all this complexity is handled by *one* developer. (Okay, I recognize wizardry when I see it.)

 

I'm still convinced Groundspeak made an explicit decision to "keep it simple". And you know what that's a euphemism for, don't you?