My first attempt to get to know GH-561 a year ago was quickly ceased, as I found the device not useable for the purpose it was developped.
With the new firmware, and after testing yesterday, my opinion has changed. The device now works as advertised - providing you take time to learn how to operate it.
And here is where I feel GlobalSat has important lessons to learn - the User Experience is not what is should be.
Apple products' user interface has been painstakingly reviewed and reworked, over and over again - up to a point where for many of their products, they do not even include a manual any more, as the interface is so intuitive. Such interface simplification requires a constant questioning by the developper whether a specific function is 1. possible, 2. needed, 3. wished, or 4. adviseable. Functions that are possible, but do not cater to the needs of the majority of the user, are not implemented. It's more important to understand what can and should be left out, than to what you can technically cram into it.
And here is where I believe GS makes things unnecessarily complicated, adding to the complexity of operation - and to the frustration of the user.
I'm going to give you an illustration with GH-561.
Situation : you have created a route on the PC, and uploaded it to GH561 using GS Travel Manager. You're in the field, and open the route to start navigating.
1. Problem 1. The screen lists all waypoints with the first waypoint selected,, and defaults to the option to Insert/Remove/Edit a waypoint.
I must wonder if there ever has been anyone who has used that function without having a PC nearby. First of all, you don't know at all where, example, waypoint 25 or 26 is (you don't have a map, you're in the field). so why would you ever want to move, change, or add a waypoint? Do you have the coordinates at hand? (And if you are sitting in front of your PC, why would you not change it on the PC, where you can see a map?)
Such function is unneeded, unpractical, unuseable, and frustrates the user because it's the first option he's being presented with. It's not because it's technically possible to offer that option, that you should.
The same goes for whether it's adviseable to offer the option to go to the next/previous waypoint, since you have no clue, following a route while in the field, where that waypoint is.
2. since it's not easy to remember the function of each of the 6 buttons, a user is bound to hit the wrong button while searching the right one. When following a route, clicking on the "waypoint creation" button immediately shows the "create waypoint? Yes/no" screen, with "yes" highlighted as default. In his search for an "escape" button (which does not exist), the user may inadvertingly confirm the "yes" (thus maybe overwriting his programmed location?). To get rid of the "create waypoint" screen, a user must highlight the "no"-button (...if he remembers the button to do so). Frustrating, unnecessary.
3. Waypoint saving and searching
when saving a waypoint, the user can select an icon, example a Car. Fine.. but in the next confirmation screen, the saved waypoint is assigned by a number. When you want to go back to that waypoint, you can no longer search for your "car" icon, but you have to search the waypoint number. Hopefully, you remembered that your car was number 1... or was it 2? . So why do these icons even exist? (And at the same time, why would you even offer a "delete" option, since when you're out, you don't even have a clue where/what that waypoint is?)
The interface is clearly designed by engineering minds, and therefor FOR engineering minds. Rule one of interface design : NEVER let engineers design it. You will end up with an interface only an engineering mind can succesfully navigate.
This is just an illustration on the issues. I'm not trying to criticize, I'm trying to convince you to make the devices accesable/useable by a wider audience, and not only the geeks. Assign someone to interface and useability development.