CCExtractor / ultimate_alarm_clock

GNU General Public License v2.0
68 stars 124 forks source link

Bug: Incrementing the time from snooze does not portray the time left in a user friendly way #508

Open Wreck-X opened 6 months ago

Wreck-X commented 6 months ago

Description

When incremented enough, The timer is always of the format MM:SS, I believe its better to change the format of the time when it hits the 60 minutes mark to either HH:MM:SS or switch to HH:MM.

additionally i also think it would be better to move the incrementing buttons towards the bottom that is above the snooze button making it easier for the users to tap on them.

I would like to be assigned to this issue

Screenshots

image

Wreck-X commented 6 months ago

if its approved please assign this to me as id like to work on this :)

mohnishdeshpande commented 6 months ago

Hi @Wreck-X, I was the one adding snooze buttons, I specifically positioned them close to the timer display. If it were closer to the 'dismiss' button, in a user workflow it is possible to hit the 'dismiss' button instead of the add snooze timers, and failing the whole point of the alarm clock app. And for the display of hours in timer, I wonder if that's necessary because then we would have the '00' sitting there (if implemented according to the current design) idle most of the time, as a user would rarely go past 30 mins of snoozing, let alone an hour. However, if the maintainers think that the changes should be made, either of us can work on it.

Wreck-X commented 6 months ago

@mohnishdeshpande The timer need not necessarily display the 00: all the time it could add the field incase it ever does go over the 60 minute mark imo, as for the position of the buttons I guess it's fine to keep it at the top if the idea was to avoid misclicks.

MarkisDev commented 5 months ago

Although I doubt anyone is going to be snoozing for over 60 minutes, I think its good to handle the case anyway. I'll assign this to you, ler's show the HH only when it is necessary. As for the buttons - I agree with @mohnishdeshpande too close to dismiss would be a bad idea.