Bugzilla – Bug 9570
Repeat Alarm is confusing
Last modified: 2011-11-06 23:23:12 UTC
Lots of people are getting confused by what Repeat Alarm does. They expect it to refer to the alarm playlist and so set it to Off. What it actually does is to make the alarm be turned off once it has sounded. It is therefore used for one-time alarms. We need a better name for the feature. "Go off once and then turn off until I turn it on again" is perhaps a bit long, but that's the sense we need. ;-)
Weldon, you have a thought here?
Ah yes, alarm clock design! The classic interaction design problem (along with VCR clocks...) I'm a bit confused as to what UI is being referred to. I have a classic hooked up to SC right now and don't see it in the SC UI. Where can I find this UI? Is this just for the boom and/or duet?
It's in the player ui for all squeezeboxes. Alarm Clock -> Alarm n -> Repeat Alarm. It's a per-alarm setting, so you need to add one in order to see it.
Perhaps the better solution is to reverse the default functionality of the alarm (default to make it NOT repeat), then name the menu item "repeat daily" (with the default being named "do not repeat.") So it would function pretty much the way the shuffle options do in a playlist, just with 2 options instead of 3.
change 5147 - fall back to prototypejs if ExtJS isn't loaded
Oops... sorry, closed the wrong bug
Wouldn't most people expect an alarm to repeat by default? Something that's just occurred to me is that the term 'recurring' is much better than 'repeat alarm'. Could we just do this rename and leave the default as it is?
I think it's just the word "repeat" which we also use for looping playlists and songs. The Controller UI has either: Repeat Alarm (*) One Time Alarm ( ) Which is less ambiguous...
I was a little confused by this as well, particularly when I return to set an alarm after not having used the interface for a while. I think the wording 'Recurring Alarm' with Yes/No or a checkbox would be clearest. Just avoiding the word 'repeat' makes it a lot less confusing. Equally important, the 'i' information text needs to be better. It will need to be redone anyway if the interface is reworded.
Fixing this will be part of the alarm clock design...
this is an administrative shuffle on priority fields to help make better judgment on the top end of the priority list. P4->P5, P3->P4, and P2->P3.
this particular bug isn't hitting my "critically on fire" list of alarm bugs, but my two cents on it: the wording should be "Recurring Alarm" not "Repeat Alarm"
Matt Weldon doesn't work for us any more.
Unassigned bugs cannot have a priority.