So I asked a newbie question. Got CDex - plenty of people say it is by far the best. You learn all about variable bit rates and other gubbins. Then you find it doesn't do what those same people say you must. It doesn't do flac.

So you fiddle and faff, you download the flac program. 2 programs now. And things don't seem to go in the right directory.

Then here people say foobar is the best so you download that - only noone tells you how it works, nor does anyone explain that you have to get Lame yourself. Another 3 hours to understand the jargon til someone says EAC is the best.

So you play with that. There is a wonderful guide to using it!! Phew!!
Then you find that it will rip mp3 and it will rip flac and it will convert eggs, milk and flour into pancakes (*) - but it wont convert flac into mp3. Which apparently is the preferred way of doing things.

They're free and not a word against them - and if ONE of them does what everyone says they should - archive using flac and then rip mp3's from that I shall pay, like I always do when they do what they say on the tin!!

PS (*) and a little salt

First this should go into site related discussion. Then people here have no obligation to help you whatsoever. I'd also disagree with you: HA is one of the most sensible places over the net. But you have to learn to help yourself first.

And I don't know what you're talking about. CDex does FLAC. Everyone would have their own choices to do something and clearly they tell you that. How are they supposed to know what you'd like?

First of all, I think you have to understand two important thing:

- Cdex, as EAC is a RIPPER: it means that it reads audio data from audio CDs and transforms it to uncompressed audio data.
- An ENCODER is a software that convert your uncompressed audio data into a compressed file.

A ripper has also the ability to pass the uncompressed audio data to an ENCODER, but it must have the encoder and know "how to talk" with it. CDex comes with a bult in lame and (AFAIK) ogg encoder, but nothing more.

All you have to do is to download flac and setup cdex to use it. In options > settings > encoder select flac.exe (encoder path) and, in parameter string field put -8 -o "%2"

PS: EAC is best, but if your CDs aren't scratched or protected CDex is good too

About FOOBAR: it is a player with a lot of function. You can set it to read your FLAC and directly "send" them to the lame encoder, but I can't help you here...
My suggestion is to use directly LAME with alt preset extreme. You won't be able to hear the difference.

Bye

PS: next time try to be more polite... nobody MUST help you

I didn't consider his post unpolite. He's just a bit overwhelmed with all the tech, which is understandable - one can basically pay for commercial software which will be easy to use.... but may sometimes do things not exactly as you want them to be done - or you can use free pro-tools.... which can usually do everything but have a steep learning curve with difficult to find documentation.

Thus, his frustration is understandable - but its not the people who are at fault... its just that poweruser-software usually have a steep learning curve and require quite some patience and time to master them :)

I hate to sound a little harsh, but it's better if you post follow-up questions to the original thread that deals with the matter.

CDex can convert FLAC to mp3. You might need to place in_flac.dll (a FLAC decoding Winamp plugin) somewhere in CDex's installation path for that to work. With that plugin, you can choose to convert FLAC into anything CDex can normally make, through the menus.

The original poster is reflecting a small slice of the frustration that many experience when trying to work through the maze of digital audio tools, information and details.

HA tends to be dominated by tech afficianados who love playing with the technology; that is fine. But for most people I know, this is well beyond their needs and interests. They want to understand enough to create a working mental model of what they need to do, then get on with it. Configuration strings? Obscure acromyns? Forget it.

I am a geeky sort with a degree from MIT - I have fun playing with EAC, LAME, Foobar2K and the rest. Many of my friends and family come to me for recommendations, etc. For most people I know, my advice goes something like this: use iTunes and be done. It will do 95%+ of what they need more than well enough, and it won't require them to memorize archana. If they rip their CDs at 128kbps AAC or 160kbps MP3, they are happy campers and that too is fine.

For the great majority of people, "adequate and easy" trumps "excellent and complex" every time.

And what do you tell them when they come back and say that an mp3 of theirs does have strange "blips" in them? "Well, iTunes made an error there, just rerip it". "oh, okay - but what about the other 500 tracks which i ripped do i need to check them all as well now?"

A simple secure and efficient ripper has a large market out there. It doesnt need offset correction, flac-to-mp3 etc. This is mostly just an UI and preconfiguration issue..... EAC already has the tech, and IIRC foobar is on the way to as well provide a similiary secure extraction method. Setting V2 or V3 as the default as well would be peanuts.

So what does a ripper for normal users need in terms of UI?
- it needs a tracklist where you can select which tracks should be ripped
- it needs a dropdown-menu where you can choose the format (available formats automatically detected by looking which CLI-encoders were dropped in the app-dir)
- it needs a second dropdown-menu where you can choose the quality - in case of LAME this would be "streaming"(ABR 64), "normal"(V5), "high"(V3), "ultra-high"(V2) and "portable-compatible"(CBR 128).
- it needs a "rip & encode now!" button

Everything else - like CDDB-lookup, tagging, etc. - can be done automatically. If someone wants to finetune it, then he can still go to the config and change it there - but this should not be necessary.

This is not a matter of coding-effort or technology - it is because most of the good tools are written by geeks for geeks. Their difficulty in terms of setup and configuration is not because it cannot be done more easy - it is because those apps are intentionally made more configurable and difficult than necessary for the average-joe...... because they were not intended for this audience but instead for powerusers.

So, let me exaggerate and generalize a bit to make a point: Commercial corporations make crappy inefficient applications while folks like us write software which only we can understand. So for mortals, the softwareworld consists mostly of applications which either do a crappy job, or are almost unusable. Ironically, i remember computers before the PC, which maybe could not do more than PCs nowadays - but they were able to do it much more easy. Ironically, even in terms of hardware they did implement similiar things as PCs are now doing.... just 10years earlier. Specialized graphic-accelerators? Done long before the PC. Specialized soundchips with acceleration for multichannel? Great idea, creative labs, but gravis did that 8years ago, and the amiga did it 10more years earlier.... and it didn't even have to resample while playing MULTIPLE channels at different samplerates. All invented long before the PC came on the scene - you even got it for free right out of the box without having to upgrade.

So what do i want to say with this? Computers are becoming more complicated, unreliable and unintuitive in the most basic tasks. While they are now capable to do the most incredible things, they suck at the most basic daily task - unless you're an addicted poweruser like me who knows all its quirks in and out already.

</nostalgic rant>

I totally agree. But what do you do when someone comes here and asks for the best ripper / encoder / player / whatever? Lie? That's one reason that HA tries to discourage the word "best" in these types of discussions, it is a useless word without context. And I don't know what he was originally asking, but if he wanted the best programs in terns of security and audio quality he got the correct advise. It's just that he is too easily frustrated. I know I couldn't use cdex, eac, and foobar on the first day or even week. It takes time to figure them out. Trying to learn all three at the same time was probably not a great idea though.


Nobody likes to look stupid, and nobody likes to feel stupid. But in this case there's a tradeoff... One can ask for a simple program that does everything for you with little interaction or configuration, and look a bit stupid in the forum. Or you can ask for the complex tools when you're not up to that level of computer experience and feel stupid for the next several days while you try to figure them out. The good thing about feeling stupid is that if you work through the frustration you often find that it gets better.


That's odd. I would say the exact opposite. Simple tasks are really easy, and the problem with that is that there is now a large disconnect between the easy and the hard tasks. It used to be you had to sit down and learn the command line before you could do *anything* with a computer. In fact the lowest level of computer usability has constantly been getting easier -- at the beginning you had to program the thing yourself because there were no pre-made programs. But the difficult things have remained more or less the same. Scripting and programming are still like learning a foreign language. Advanced configuration of many programs needs a large "vocabulary" of what various options and interactions do.

This is good because computers are a good thing and it's important that everyone can use one. But it's occasionally frustrating for the geeks because we have to work with people who think *everything* should be just as easy as point and click, and noobs who want to run before they can walk.

Please explain to me why securely ripping a CD to MP3 at good quality has to be more complicated than the above.

- Lyx

edit: in case someone is wondering about drive-capabilities - the app can just keep a list of supported drives. If the drive is not included in the list, the user is asked if he wants to update the list of supported drives from the inet, or instead try to autodetect its features. For those who want finetuning, manual settings can be banished to the preferences (which in most cases the user should not need to visit).

It doesn't need to be, but the complexity of programming means I don't think you'd get it for free. It would require too much time and work. Auto-configuration like that is not trivial. Also, every time an encoder changes its command structure you'd have to reprogram the ripper, or at least change all the scripts. And when do you stop? There are a ton of codecs out there... Add some recommended settings for each one and you have an endless task.

Edit in responce to Lyx's edit: God, I didn't even think about drives. Secure ripping requires some drive configuration, doesn't it? Multiply the job by another ten or twenty times in hours. Probably you'd have to set up a internet based network of people to contribute data on drives... Which means you need a whole *crew* of geeks working to keep this program up to date. What's their motivation, seeing as they know how to use the current programs?

Because of the way the computer market works, software tends to fall into one of two catagories: general apps aimed at the lowest common denominator, and geek-made specialty programs. It would be nice if more geeks worked to make their programs both easy *and* powerful... But that's probably the most difficult thing of all.

(For example, Firefox at first glance has limited config and options, a very easy program. But between about:config, the css user config files, and extensions it is a very powerful and versatile program. It took them two years, and most of the guts were simply copied from the main Mozilla source.)

I beg to differ. If you go to a grocery store you need to know how to calculate the change. Using a computer is no different. If you don't know the basics of computing it's really your problem if things don't work out as you want. This has not much to do with geeks writing complex software. None of us here particularly enjoy tinkering around with complex encoder strings or making things any more complex than they are. Most of such programs are already easy but not any easier then they have to be. Why should the software be designed for "technically ignorant" people? I just don't get why we should condone being ignorant about computers any more than those people who can't calculate if they got the correct change at a grocery store. Life demands a bit of know how and I don't believe it's beyond anyone's level of skill. Most people just choose to be plain lazy+ignorant. Because they happen to constitute the majority, does that give them the right to expect educated/interested people tolerate their frivolous desires? Ridiculuous...
Maybe so. But those people are welcome to install their iTunes, which is already common knowledge. If they come here, ask questions, we assume they care a little bit more about such things and respond accordingly. Caring about little things in life (which is the definition of geek) is not something that should be look down on. Listening to music contributes a great deal to my life. Therefore I'd love to pay a bit more attention if I believe that would increase this contribution. And participating at HA does exactly that. So please spare me the "Majority of people..." nonargument. If they don't care to begin with then why are they here? They can do what they like as long as they don't interfere with the quality of discussions over HA.

I'd like to go offtopic and answer the original posters concerns.

You actually got what you asked for. The best of the best, in terms of what a savvy user would say about these programs.
But do you need all this complexity?
I, for one, still use Winamp as my day-to-day music player. Winamp has everything I need to playback music out-of-the-box - And it even has an easy-to-use Media Library.
If you need a good program to playback music, I suggest Winamp.

I only use fb2k when I need to playback a flac file with a cuesheet, or something similar and obscure.
What average user needs the powerfull features of fb2k, when all they want to do is play music? I dont need these features all the time, and fb2k is just one doubleckick away.

Now, the trickier choice - What audio grabber/ripper do you need?
The choice, I believe, here should be either CDex or EAC.
CDex is very easy to use, and you can even configure it if you look in the settings. Everything is packed in a nice GUI - A choice with which I was happy with for a long time.
I suggest that you use CDex - Because it's easy, intuitive, and rips all your CD's good as long as they are not protected or have scratches.

Once I decided that CDex wasnt enough, I switched to EAC. Maybe that day will come for you aswell, some time, but CDex is a good choice to stick with.

That is all.

edit:

I beg to differ.

Software should be designed for the broad middle, with something for the beginner and something for the expert. Most people will gravitate towards the middle of the bell over time. I think about this a lot.

My job is not to program - these days I manage programmers and thus have to be interface between them and our customer base. The fact is that a huge percentage of our paying customers are essentially non-technical but wish to use technology. They are not stupid, nor are they unwilling to learn, but their skillset and mental model of goals and tasks is different from one looking at the technology from the "inside".

It is not dissimilar from other common technologies - the car, the TV, the phone - all of these things have been ultimately rendered effective regardless of the user's knowledge of implementation. They operate on a different conceptual level and thus provide benefit without much in the way of special skills. That, to my engineer's mind, is the pinnacle of technical maturity.

These people are not lazy or ignorant - anymore than you or I are lazy and ignorant for not fully understanding the things in which we are not directly interested. To think that technology and science are inherently obvious or that understanding them very well makes one superior to others is a common fallacy in which I too have indulged. It is simply not true, and blinds us to the complexities in other fields. Try teaching 3rd grade for a week, or designing a maintenance plan for a public park and see how you do. I know for myself that my fancy MIT degree would be of little real help, and I don't consider myself stupid.

So, while I continue to play with HA-approved toys (!) I will still recommend iTunes to most users. It will make more sense to them and does quite a decent job. Will there be clicks on some tracks? Yes, if the CD is damaged or dirty, but usually not. Will the user be deprived of ripping to FLAC or Ogg? Yes, but this deprives them of no significant functions or goals. Most importantly, coherent software like iTunes provides a conceptual framework that allows these users to get benefit by leveraging their existing knowledge.

Personally, I have ripped several hundred CDs with iTunes and found the number of issues to be very small, with less than 0.05% that are audible. As per my job experience, that is pretty damn good software performance right "out of the box". EAC may do a better job, but in the great majority of common cases it will not deliver a benefit proportional to the additional effort.

I believe these devices are entirely different than a computer. A computer requires a lot more interaction and user input because the task a computer does demands this. It is an algorithmic device, neither TV nor phone qualify as such. You don't need to know the underlying principles of internet protocol but you still need to know how to use a browser to browse on the internet. And a browser would have its own set of input parameters just like any other software.
I am not directly interested in the things you mention. But if I need to do it, I'd sit down and pay attention for a bit. This is the crucial issue which I can't tolerate. I am not saying people are stupid. On the contrary I think they're far smarter than they make themselves believe. Thus they can, if they wished, learn how a CD is ripped and the difference between encoding and ripping. This is not like asking them to learn Galois Theory. I don't think there's anything intinsically difficult about what is being discussed on HA boards 99.9% of the time (the algorithmic details of lossy and lossless algorithms apart). So I consider the whole issue as a matter of simple ignorance -- just like refusing to learn how to calculate the correct change.

What one gets out of a hobby is directly proportional to the amount of effort they put into it. As long as one is willing to experiment, make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes in order to try again, all without giving up easily, then one can pretty much make a PC do anything they want no matter how steep the learning curve may be. However, if one is lazy and expect others to do the work for them, or simply unwilling to stick with it because they feel it's too hard, then that person is in all likelihood going to be eternally unhappy and should probably choose a different hobby. Enthusiasm is the key. How much do you have?

I agree that the word "enthusiasm" is key to this thread. This group is one of "enthusiasts" who apply themselves to a subject for which they clearly have a passion. When a person feels that way about a subject, they will usually achieve a degree of expertise. If they don't, they won't.

While a PC is indeed an algorithmic device (viewed from the implementation side) it engenders enthusiasts of different sorts. Some love the entire implementation model (programmers) while others love only a particular aspect or function of the computer. In that respect, the car analogy is apt; if I love cars in general, I will learn about many aspects of them. If I love to travel, then the car is only a means to that end and I will only learn what I need to achieve that end.

Ditto for audio software. Many of my best friends are musicians who have extensive collections and a deep passion for music, but no interest in computers per se. They have tremendous enthusiasm for music and managing their music, but little for the other things a computer can do.

These are the people of which I speak. They will devote time to understanding enough to get to the real subject of their passion. Once they have enough knowledge, they will use it with zeal and imagination, but in fact may never need to know more in order to achieve those ends. Those people need tools that speak to them but say no more than is necessary, just as the traveller needs a car that works but cannot tell you how the ignition system works.

That's enough of that.

Oversimplification comes at the cost of modularity. If you invent a one click tool that rips a CD and converts the PCM files to FLAC and MP3, it's not going to be useful to many people. People are going to want to compress into Monkey's, WavPack, or OptimFROG. People aren't going to like the ripping mode (if you use burst mode some people will want secure mode or test & copy, you'll have to add more options). The end result is a highly modular tool has to be relatively complex. Someone has a signature along the lines of "the cost of having a highly configurable tool is you actually have to configure it". This is true.

I'd regard foobar2000 as one of the best compromises between modularity and simplicity. One user might download it, drag and drop their MP3s in and it will play them fine.

An advanced user might want to use an obscure lossless format, go and download an input plugin, configure foobar2000 to resample the audio and output it through Kernel Streaming, use advanced tagging features to catalog their files and then use Diskwriter to produce lossy copies for their portable. The fact that foobar2000 will do the job for both these users is a pretty impressive display of application design in my book.

another nice one: make a tool so simple that any fool can use it and only fools will use it.

To the original poster:
Well, if you just wanted easy, then that's simple. Get dbPowerAmp. Even my mom can use it, and I had to teach her the difference between a click and a double-click.

If you try to do something and you need to install one of the plugins, it not only pops up telling you what you need to install, but it launches a web browser taking you to the page to download it.

I don't use dbPowerAmp myself because I enjoy fiddling with computers (hey, it's what I do), but when I want to setup somebody with software that is easy for them to use and still produces high quality sound, that's where I go.

Edit: For 99% of people, they're really not interested in the extreme edge of getting the absolute highest quality. This forum is mainly for that 1% that is interested in that sort of thing. However, at the same time, all the people that develop these tools, both the easy ones to use and the complex stuff aimed at that 1%, they all do read these forums. It's the cutting edge, man. Expect complications. People here thrive on them.

Want to be a computer (music) geek or be one of those average "noobs" who think mp3 at 128kbps is near CD quality?

take no offence we are all noobs in different things at one point or another, I was a computer noob, had no ideal about hardware, bios, drivers etc… took ages and a lot of time on forums to learn everything.

Same here, I found this site and started to use EAC since I wanted my music collection on my computer. Took a while to learn how EAC works and how to configure to so it rips to specific folders and how the file naming scheme works.

I think it took me a good 3 hours or 4 to learn how to use it… then I read on here about mp3  LAME, and how good it is and which bitrates I should use to have the best possible sound quality… so I re-encode a whole lot of albums..

Then came lossless… then came foobar…. god foobar took ages, first how to use it, then how to configure it, then how to make it look nice, then to learn about the functionality etc…. god it is so powerful and so good, but no real manual and loads of plugins make it hard to learn… I think it took me a good 4 days playing around and reading on here how to do the basics, and after 2 months and a searching the forum and asking loads of NOOB questions I learned how to use it.

I always find it fun and challenging learning something new, I used other programs before EAC as well to rip, but then you hear program x is better then Y etc. It’s a constant learning cycle and slowly but surely you move up the circles until you become one of those 1337 members and suddenly you are no noob no more… and specialized forums like these always help, you ask, you search, you read you learn, and if the forum is good you will always get great help like on here.

Have fun learning, it can be frustrating but we all went through it and it is really worth it when it comes to music.

PS: Very tired please ignore bad gramma and english

Correct. I consider firefox to be at the forefront of a new software-paradigm. Firefox breaks new grounds in multiple departments. It is one of those projects where the missing link between hackers and designers is filled with competent leaders who have knowledge of both worlds and additionally a good sense of "social design". Also, firefox combines good opensource software with effective marketing - another thing which is rarely seen. I have long been of the opinion that extremes are a bad thing. Being on one side of the two poles makes you great in one area, and incompetent in another - if software is written that way, then the result will reflect that. If on the other hand both "worlds" work together in tandem(usually by linking them with good leaders who besides of leadership have skills in both areas) then the result as well will reflect that. It is the missing link, the absense of the third component - social design - which makes nowadays software lacking. Apple is one of the handful of corporations which understood that and thats the reason why iTunes is so popular. There may be quite some things about firefox which annoy me or where i notice gaping unpolishedness and flaws - but overally i do have great respect for the firefox-paradigm.


They do not want to be technically ignorant - but they are forced to "give up and just obey" because they are overwhelmed by the software and dont understand it. The reason why they dont understand it is not because they are stupid, but because the software failed in explaining itself and being intuitive(see above). There is (commercial) software which intentionally tries to make people stupid and obbeying. This is because some corporations have an interest in making their customers stupid and do what the corporations want. But blaming this on social design and ease-of-use is like blaming a sword for murdering someone. I could as well blame programming-languages for the existence of virusses.


Not necessarily true. See firefox. The above usually only happens, when the creators of the software failed in the design as well as social-design department. It is easy to write a visually clean app with almost no choice. Skill is if you make the app flexible and powerful while still keeping it easy.


"My" proposed interface was already able to do that, although it only consisted of two dropdown-menus, a button, and a tracklist.


Here is the falacy. People dont need to know the technical backgrounds of an action. They only need to know its purpose, its advantages and disadvantages - and other relevant info. You are thinking like a programmer, not like a user. There is no need to tell the user some technical term, and then let THEM *translate* this into the meaning - instead, you can just tell them the meaning right away. In the ripper example, you would only need a third dropdown-box with the choices "Fast (no error-checking)" and "Safe (error-checking enabled)".


So, now we have an app which looks like this:
[ripping-method] [fileformat] [quality] (Rip & Encode now!)
<tracklist here>

How many percent of EACs "options" did we drop here without loosing significant features?

Edit: double post

And how do you specify the path to the CLI encoder? You can't. Do you plan to bundle every format under the sun with your ripper (which would bloat the program size hugely and also wouldn't be as modular)?

How do you plan on distinguishing secure mode and test & copy? Both are "safe", but different.

I don't think you really answered the question. Why should the software have to explain itself? Should we keep simplifying programs until people are not required to use basic logic to operate them?

As mentioned earlier, it will just look which CLI-encoders are in the application-directory. This would be the default. For people who want to specify a path themselves, there could be an option in the preferences. This way, the app can work out of the box if you just drop the CLI-encoders into the app dir, and the user does not have to setup anything - yet still, advanced users can go to the prefs and set the paths themselves.


I would propose to drop one of them completely. The added complexity is not worth the gain. Another method would be to add an option in the prefs where you can set which of the two modes is used when "secure" is choosen in the contextmenu. This way, again, normal users dont need to care or setup anything - but advanced users have the ability to choose.


With all respect, is this question really meant serious? Whenever you buy some technical tool, you either have to study manual, or it is just intuitive to use - or it is a mixture of both. Do you really propose that software being intuitive to use should be *avoided*?? Whats next - do you propose that technology should make our life more difficult instead of easier?

Much ado about some rant. Does this all belong in the general audio forum?

This would disadvantage advanced users - I use both in EAC, depending on the disc.

But then you increase the amount of work an advanced user has to go through to change options. By simplifying it's operation for novice users you are disadvantaging advanced users.

I also disagree with your concept of good application design. I'm familiar with the design process, having taken design-related courses (not software) at both tertiary and high school levels. A good design is one which performs it's intended purpose. If I walk into NASA, I won't be able to operate a shuttle engineering program. Does this mean it's a badly designed program? No, it's designed for people who have a background in a specific type of engineering. Similarly, Andre designed EAC for people with an interest in audio. The fact it's hard for inexperienced users to use does not make it a badly designed application, unless ease of use was a specific design objective.

That question is 100% serious. If I design a calculator program, should I have to instruct people how to perform basic arithmatic? You have to draw the line somewhere. If you designed an application that had to explain everything to anyone from any culture you'd end up with documentation the size of a novel.

Joe-average and powerusers form 99% of the population. Instead of enforcing "tyranny of the minority", the uber-advanced users should use another application like EAC. My proposal was not to create an interface which is perfect for everyone, but perfect for most people and "okay" for the rest. Besides, IIRC in EAC you as well have to go to the prefs to change the ripping-method there - except that the EAC-prefs are more cluttered, so even for "uber-advanced users", this app would be more easy to use.


If 99% of applications are either for idiots or for experts, then yes, the software overally failed to cover the needs of the majority of users. IMHO the usefullness and progress of technology should be measured in how much it improves the capabilities of mankind overally. Making apps which are either simple but inefficient, or complicated but efficient is like asuming that mankind only consists of idiots and geeks.


Okay, so because the transitions are fluid instead of black/white, we should not do it at all. Strange logic. Similiar to saying "well, if you want to eat healthy, then its difficult where to draw the line, so you can as well only eat fast food.".

- Lyx

Ah, but you are forgetting the original argument, my statement that simplicity comes at a cost of modularity. If the "uber-advanced" users have to go and use a more modular application then you are proving my statement correct.

You do, but I'm referring to the ease of use of an advanced user vs. a novice user in your hypothetical application, not EAC.

I disagree. If scientists develop a tool for making scientific research far quicker, then it's not really benefiting mankind directly, only scientists. It's still a useful technology in my opinion.

No, that is not what I implied. Because the transitions are fluid, it is not fair to call a complex application badly designed because it has some level of assumed knowledge. Applications can be aimed at a specific part of this transition without being badly designed.

The missing part is that this is not a black/white issue. Up to some point you can achieve great flexiblity and scalability in terms of target-audience. But trying to make something do EVERYTHING will make you end up with seamonkey. Thus, applications can be simplier and more flexible than most are today. But trying to make an do-it-all which at the same time is simple is an utopy. The keyword is balance - extreme paradigms are bad. Overly nonscalable apps have a too small level of usefullness. Overly scalable and advanced apps become complex and bloated. But something in-between can cover a great range of needs while still staying overally simple.

By the way - the toolbar could be made configurable. So that in the default setup, it looks as i proposed - but advanced users could add an "secure mode"-dropdown-menu. So, even here there is a solution without making the app more difficult for the majority of users. Would that mean higher setup-effort for advanced users? Yes, but it is they who want to tailor it to their needs, so they should also be the ones who pay the price. Adding every conceivable option which an advanced user may want would bloat the interface, so it is in the best interest of the advanced users, that they start with a basic interface, and can then add only the stuff which they need - therefore, increasing longterm-efficiency even for advanced users. You can see this paradigm in action with firefox - and it works.


And to afterwards make the gains available to the majority of people you need just what i proposed.


Right, and again, targeting that part of the transition, where you get the best intuitiveness/simplicity-ratio, results in the most "bang-for-the-buck" - i asume this is called "efficiency".