Fenix Outfitters        

View Poll Results: What should the next QK16L UI look like?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Keep it the same

    1 9.09%
  • Option #1

    3 27.27%
  • Option #2

    7 63.64%
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

  1. #1
    Flashaholic* archer6817j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Mountain View, CA
    Posts
    826

    Default POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    Hi Fousevens Fam,

    I've heard your feedback on the Quark UI. Our first production run on QK16L lights sold out on Kickstarter and we are about to begin the next batch, so I may have an opportunity to revise the UI to make it more nerd friendly. A term of endearment of course!

    First, let's acknowledge that no one ever agrees on UI and the ONLY solution to make everyone happy is fully programmable. That's not an option at this time. So, the new Fourseven's UI (in general) is intended to be as simple as possible while capturing the preference of a majority of flashlight users...not just enthusiasts I would also point out that those two goals are in conflict, and the final solution must strike a middle ground. Given all that:

    Should the next Quark UI stay the same but lower the medium output to 40 lumens, or should a 4 mode UI be implemented? My main hesitation with adding a 4 mode is the need to add two additional configurations, bringing the total from 6-8. 6 is easy enough to memorize long term. 8 configs and you better not lose your user manual. I'm also not sure there is enough memory left on the chip to add two more configurations.

    Notes on the current UI spacing:


    1. High mode is set to 60% of Max/Burst (100%) output because this is roughly "one step" in brightness. Burst is a battery conservation measure because the change in perceived brightness is not very drastic, but the extension of battery life is.
    2. Medium mode is set to 1/4 the output of High mode because a 4x change in output is equivalent to doubling the perceived brightness. This is a nice spacing (seemed good on paper) but I agree, a resulting 100 lumens is a little bright...especially for us flashlight nerds. I don't think civilians will care.


    My personal inclination (proposed UI #1) is to keep the UI the same, but drop medium mode to 40 lumens. This equates to a 10x change in output between medium and high instead of 4x. This is basically the same as the current Mini/Turbo MKIII settings and no one has taken issue with that yet

    Existing UI


    • Config. 1: High - (Burst)
    • Config. 2: Max - Strobe
    • Config. 3: Medium - High - (Burst)
    • Config. 4: Low - Medium - High - (Burst)
    • Config. 5: High - Medium - Low - (Burst)
    • Config. 6: Low - Med - High - Strobe - SOS - Beacon - (Burst)


    • Output Max/Burst: 700 lumens (100%)
    • Output High: 400 lumens (60%)
    • Output Medium: 100 lumens (15%)
    • Output Low: 1 lumen


    Proposed UI #1 (just change medium to lower output - my personal preference)


    • Config. 1: High - (Burst)
    • Config. 2: Max - Strobe
    • Config. 3: Medium - High - (Burst)
    • Config. 4: Low - Medium - High - (Burst)
    • Config. 5: High - Medium - Low - (Burst)
    • Config. 6: Low - Med - High - Strobe - SOS - Beacon - (Burst)


    • Output Max/Burst: 700 lumens (100%)
    • Output High: 400 lumens (60%)
    • Output Medium: 40 lumens (6%)
    • Output Low: 1 lumen


    Proposed UI #2 (add a 4 mode option where the difference between low and medium is also 4x - may not be possible due to memory constraints - seems overly complicated - I get dizzy just looking at the options)

    • Config. 1: High - (Burst)
    • Config. 2: Max - Strobe
    • Config. 3: Medium - High - (Burst)
    • Config. 4: Low - Medium - High - (Burst)
    • Config. 5: High - Medium - Low - (Burst)
    • Config. 6: Moon - Low - Medium - High - (Burst)
    • Config. 7: High - Medium - Low - Moon (Burst)
    • Config. 8: Low - Med - High - Strobe - SOS - Beacon - (Burst)


    • Output Max/Burst: 700 lumens (100%)
    • Output High: 400 lumens (60%)
    • Output Medium: 100 lumens (15%)
    • Output Low: 25 lumens (4%)
    • Output Moonlight: 1 lumen

  2. #2
    Flashaholic* id30209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,697

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    I’m using med 80% of the time and 100-200lm is my working range. Going low looks nice on Preons and other tiny lights.
    Quarks are not that tiny, they’re more like a tools so having Preon in my shirt pocket for low lm tasks are way to go.


    Sent from Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* Jose Marin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    522

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    A version of icarus with customizable modes/ mode order is really the only way to please everyone imo
    Granny shiftin not double clutchin like you should

    Wanted: quark 18650 body and malkoff wildcat v5 5000k mtg2 head

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* id30209's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,697

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Marin View Post
    A version of icarus with customizable modes/ mode order is really the only way to please everyone imo
    Huge like! Icarus in Quarks, that would be a huge step up


    Sent from Tapatalk

  5. #5

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    Icarus would be great - but since I assume we can't have it...

    I would prefer the second option, except that I don't really see the need for a Low/Med/Hi mode and also a Moon/Low/Med/Hi mode. Does it violate your design principles too much to just replace Config 4 & 5 with your proposed Config 6 & 7? That would keep the total modes to six.

    I have found that the modes I use most on my old Quarks are Low, Moon, and Turbo (in that order). Consequently I was unwilling to purchase a new Quark without my most used setting. Either of these proposed changes would have me reconsidering.

  6. #6
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,602

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    I voted for 2 if it can be done. I would use config 4 90% of the time, and config 3 for bicycle use. I rarely find a use for 1lm unless I'm inside a tent.
    Light is the activity of what is transparent - Aristotle

  7. #7

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    Option #2 gets my vote - having more options is better IMO (and I'm guessing most people will probably just pick one configuration they like the most and stick with that anyway). I'd also prefer max mode to be constant brightness rather than burst if it isn't due to thermal limitations or so.

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* Hondo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    1,533

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    I had to vote for #2, but was already thinking the same as snark, just keep 6 modes and replace 4 & 5 - especially with how the hybrid memory function works. It is so easy to get back to the lowest setting, having another brightness is seldom a burden. Original Quark Pro had four levels, with "burst" being a head-twist. And it is my current favorite 4Sevens UI.

  9. #9
    *Flashaholic* gunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    7,943

    Default Re: POLL: Vote on UI changes for the next round of Quark QK16L lights

    I'd vote option 2. I prefer that mode spacing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •