Simplified LuCI interface project: dashboard, quick setup, configuration

baptiste at baptiste at
Fri Jul 31 11:42:55 EDT 2020

On 31-07-20, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > As there has been no negative feedback about this, we will move to
> > configure the same SSID for 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz in the quick setup.
> > This will simplify the user experience.
> We have never tested it, but we did notice vendors nowadays, as well as the
> *large* ISPs witht their own CPEs and firmware, append _2G and _5G (or do
> something to that effect) to the default SSID.

I noticed that too.  Do you know why they do this?

If you want a device to be able to connect to both networks (e.g. your
phone), you have to type the same password twice.  It seems cumbersome.

> > > As always, keep in mind that this should match the common needs of casual
> > > users: advanced users can always go to the current Wireless menu.
> It can also be argued that casual users are better off with two networks
> they can trivially use for separate things.  Videogames and Smart TVs on 5G,
> cellphones and tablets on 2G.

Ok, this is a good use-case.

In general, having more control from the device side is good, but it
brings more complexity.

> This is not a "special use case", you'll find lots of friends telling their
> friends to do it that way, etc.

So these "casual users" know about the two radios and their difference
with respect to range and throughput?  I'm a bit surprised.

> IMHO, you could do it this way and still keep it very simple:
> Network Name (also knonw as SSID):  XXXX
> [ ] assign different names for each radio
> Then you'd get all radios with SSID "XXXX"
> Network Name (also knonw as SSID):  XXXX
> [X] assign different names for each radio
> Then you'd get XXXX_2G, XXXX_5G, and on APs with many radios, XXXX_5G2, etc.
> Nice and simple.  No need for a [x] that triggers an UCI form change that
> asks for separate SSIDs (although *that* would work as well).

It's close to the current UI (see ),
although it doesn't offer a choice: it merely informs the user that the
second radio will have a slightly difference SSID.

Some users are lost when they are faced with a choice they don't
understand.  If we go this way, it would need some UX efforts to
convey that "it's really optional, no worries if you don't

If I sum up, the three options so far are:

[1] configure the same SSID on all radios
[2] configure a different SSID on every radio
[3] leave this choice to the user

I would like to avoid option [3] for the reason above, but if half of
the people need [1] and the other half need [2], then we need [3].

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list