This is pretty much exactly my situation. My wife's only requirement is that she can control everything manually. I can do whatever I want as long as she has that option.
She also comes to me whenever she thinks of something and gives me the idea for what she wants automated.Ii talk it through with her to automate. Then i get it added and she tests it out. It is a great way to manage WAF
Lastly item 5, Breadcrumbs are nice, but I would expect you should know what you are trying to do already.
This pretty much sums up your response. Either you are suggesting Rule Machine is user friendly, or you are blaming the user for it not being user friendly. Breadcrumbs are ubiquitous in user interfaces. I really don't care if you think they're useless. They serve a purpose.
edit: With complex automations, no... I do not neccesarily know how to accomplish what I want, let alone within a specific system interface. I want to turn on a light when a door opens, and turn it off 2 minutes after closing it, between sunrise and sunset. It is NOT intuitively universally obvious whether that should be a schedule trigger or contact sensor trigger. It is NOT universally obvious that the schedule needs to be a "Required Expression" (I think?). It is NOT magically self-evident whether that is one automation or two. How a user expresses an abstract concept within an application is only as intuitive as the application allows.
I never said RM was user friendly at all, and in fact I would say it is anything but. If you want something designed to be user friendly I would suggest you look at the other apps that come with the hub that are more curated and directed for certain use cases like the "Basic Rules" , or "Simple Automation Rules", "Notifier" apps. I am not even sure I would suggets Room Lighting as it can be a bit overwhelming with the amount of ability it has.
There is a reason that many of us suggest starting with those tools instead of RM.
I think by trying to use Rule Machine you are actually making your life harder than it needs to be.
Same thing applies. More simple does not equal more user friendly. You've now added ANOTHER layer of complexity. Am I, as the user, an idiot who can only blame myself for not knowing I should have used Basic Rules rather than Simple Automation Rules? Maybe, because to be blunt, I don't know what the difference is between "Basic" and "Simple" in this context, or what kind of "Basic Rule" there might be on Hubitat that isn't an "Automation Rule".
But, to that point, what really is the difference? How is a user supposed to know which, under what circumstances to use? Why not... make them the same, but show options as the user goes? If a user wants/needs a "required expression", tell them to click a button to show the option, like "If you need a pre-condition for the [sensor] [action] to trigger, click here" (and "if you don't know wtf that means, ignore this option" being left implied 
)
The answer of course is because then the app become expontionally more complex and difficult to debug, at least on the UI side of it.
Which brings us back to my original option.... Provide the developer community the tools to do it.
We do, we can develop the exact same apps if we want, Bruce has even actively encouraged it, happy for anyone else to develop an RM equivalent.
You can create your own rule engine. As I remember @bptworld created his own.
I suspect you are like me and a few other that simply clicked quickly through the intro to the device when you first got it. I believe if you went through the tutorial in the beginning it directs you to Basic rules, or Simple automations. I haven't done it for some time, but as I recall they don't send you to RM at first.
Per Hubitat's Docs
"The Basic Rules app delivers easy to use home automation to anyone just getting started, while at the same time offering features experienced users will find handy."
You may want to check the Docs out at Basic Rules | Hubitat Documentation
I've addressed that claim in my original post. We have the option to make roughly equally bad UI.
However, even that claim is not true, even tho I've also seen the devs make that claim. The #include option appends line numbers in comments. That strongly implies two things: 1) They can use those line numbers for debugging, and 2) They also insert line numbers into normal app files. Even if both assumptions are completely wrong, it still demonstrates they can manipulate code on-the-fly.
Just my two cents ,,
I have to agree with the OP on most everything he said. on this ..
It can be very hard to figure out how to "program" what you want to do.
There are WAY to many options like the "Rule Machine" "Basic Rules" "Simple Automation Rules", "Notifier" ECT ECT ECT ,, And It does take a very long time of brain power testing, testing , testing.
To figure this stuff out .. Let alone what APP I should use to do what ??
Thats not even saying anything about how unstable the hub can be with memory problems
reboots, firm wear updates that break stuff and z-wave being such a pain in the ■■■ to fix - repair - remove - ghosts ect.
To be honest if I had known this before i got the hub. I am not sure I would have picked it.
( I should have done more research before I got it .. Yes I know, I know )
I have MANY years of computer experience, And APP and Programing.
And it took and still takes me way to much time and energy to figure this stuff out.
Now having said that .. this also is a crazy platform to make just about anything do anything !
If you spend the time to learn and test and ask questions !
I use lots of 4-button remotes to do 99% of what I need to do and is WIFE APPROVED!
Makes it really easy for me and her to use the system. ( No Phones or ugly dash boards required! )
Also use ALEXA for lots of voice commands she can and likes to use,
The rest of stuff just works automatically with motion and door sensors and time of day.
The OP may want to look into 4-button remotes < they work great and like I said WFA
You can create your own rule engine. As I remember @bptworld created his own.
See response to sburke781
I suspect you are like me and a few other that simply clicked quickly through the intro to the device when you first got it. I believe if you went through the tutorial in the beginning it directs you to Basic rules, or Simple automations. I haven't done it for some time, but as I recall they don't send you to RM at first.
I genuinely don't know what your point is. Are you suggesting that by putting in a "quick start"
tutorial, there's no benefit to user-friendly apps? Or are you saying that it's my fault for not remembering the tutorial from five years ago, and if I just were to reset my device [to redo the intro], all my issues with Hubitat would be solved? Or are you saying I'm weird because I'm like you, and clicked through it fast, unlike most people who read the terms of service, and they're told what "Required Expression" means, and the difference between state and atomicState?
A quick start tutorial is just that. Having a quick start is good and all that, but in no way is it somehow an alternative to being user friendly. Indeed, the vague recollection that I have of the tutorial, from five years ago, was that is was that the TUTORIAL was not user friendly.
Some pretty helpful videos here for a refresher on basic rules:
I don't think it existed at all five years ago...
A new hub nowadays guides you through adding your first device and steers you towards Basic Rule (which also did not exist five years ago) for you first automation. I'm not saying this solves all your problems, just one example of progress that has been made towards this goal.
This is not anything any regular user needs to know, and it's probably been addressed in the developer documentation (the only place it belongs) since the last time you looked, though those are still being expanded as time allows.
Funny. My first thought was you're pointing out YouTube as being an example of a modern user interface that supports a wide population of community developers.
But, I'm also inclined to think that you providing this because you think it's useful, despite not addressing any single issue I've raised.
I mean, even if there were a video addressing, for instance, state variables not supporting dictionaries, if programmers have to watch YouTube videos, at some point you'd have to ask yourself.... Rather than require an uncountable number of people to watch a bunch of videos, would it not be more efficient for one person to fix the damn problem with state variables?
I know I've seen the tutorial. Don't know if it was with my original Hubitat from 2018.
This is not anything any regular user needs to know, and it's probably been addressed in the developer documentation (the only place it belongs) since the last time you looked, though those are still being expanded as time allows.
So you are making the claim that Hubitat is user friendly. Yet, it needs a tutorial. And you're just going to sweep aside all the issues with usability that I've pointed out by saying "Basic Rules" is somehow more user friendly than RM, despite the fact that it looks and basically works exactly the same?
Many of your requests for changes have centred around changing the placement and phrasing of UI elements, which we would have the ability to produce ourselves, if we wanted to invest the time.
I'm not sure how this relates to my response. These are inserted when you save a driver or app that include a library file, added at that point and left in the code as-is. The Library feature is a really great addition to the toolkit for developers, IMHO.
If what you are referncing is:
All I can say is that is a lazy response. I wouldn't blame Hubitat for the state of my Integration's UI and frankly you shouldn't try to either.
I am also not clear on what you are trying to say with the second part of that post.
My point about clicking through the quick start tutorial is that we probably missed something that may have helped direct you to simpler programs to use to automate. The apps it would of directed you too would have been more user friendly, and it would have maybe got you in a better mindset to understand the logic behind the automation apps.
The fact you want more user friendly apps means you probably should have paid more attention to it.
Yes, from experience assisting users on the forum, most people find Basic Rule eaiser to use, i.e., more user friendly. But their interfaces are quite different, so I'm not sure what the basis for the claim that they look at work the same is.
As a side note, and something that addresses one of your previous points, it's the newest of the three "rule" engines you've mentioned so far, having been created knowing what they know now about the way most users think about automations. But Hubitat is not known for taking away choices. This is why you'll still find the other two. Yes, that may be confusing for new users (and it's probably one of the reasons the getting-started wizard points you to Basic Rule, likely being the best choice for new users among all the options).
Obviously you don't remember what you type. There are videos in there that discuss this. But continue to rant just to rant.
Could things be made easier? Sure. I'd love a dual type rule machine; one as-is and one like Homey. But to say there's nothing out there based on your quote above is just false.
It could be just me with my experience in how to design things (I am EE) but why UI is considered something primary for the creating/designing automations? I am not trying to say the good user friendly UI is something what should not be under looked. Yes, nice UI is a big help but it is not a primary for creating any automations. Each automation requires at least one sensor (could be more than one), at least one actuating mechanism (also could be more than one) and a LOGIC how actuating mechanism(s) should react on sensor(s). The primary thing for each automation is a LOGIC. Once LOGIC is designed/created that it could be implemented with whatever available tool(s). But how user friendly these available tools is a very different story. The same LOGIC could be implemented in very different ways but LOGIC is a primary thing, not tools and/or UI. There is no magic. No Tools/UI will be useful and helpful If user does not really know what LOGIC to create. From the other side if user knows very well what he wants he will find out how to use existing things.
(Just my opinion.)
I'm not sure how this relates to my response.
You stated "we can develop the exact same apps if we want". That is untrue.
These are inserted when you save a driver or app that include a library file, added at that point and left in the code as-is. The Library feature is a really great addition to the toolkit for developers, IMHO.
No, include files are not "added... and left in the code as-is". "Every code line is suffixed by something like "// library marker namespace.name, line #".)" Just read the documentation 
(It's not documented, but it is mentioned in the forums, and I've tested it myself.)
he Library feature is a really great addition to the toolkit for developers, IMHO.
There are several shortcomings, and combined, I personally find includes to be worthless. First, the comments are not without issue. As pointed out to the devs, this prevents multiline code. I have a dictionary that is about 25 lines. It'd be absurd to do all of it in one line. So.... I'm supposed to copy it between apps, but then turn around and use includes?
Second, it has to be the first line of a file, which usually isn't a big deal, but rather defeats the point of shared libraries. I can't say I've checked if include files can include files, but not being able to control when/if files are loaded makes it not a true "library" system. You can't do a conditional include.
Third, you can't test if an include file exists. I haven't tested what happens if it doesn't, but... You can't do error control.
Fourth, the code is appended at the end. Again, probably not a big deal usually, but as per the first point, it should be whereever an include statement is placed. Third, the libraries aren't added with the code files, thereby making the libraries pretty useless, since they can't be installed with an app. At best you save a bit of copying pasting, and even that depends on how you manage code releases.
The last point leads to another issue with hubitat, which isn't a built in app installation system. End users must copy paste, or whatever. If there were some sort of package installer, then it would need to support coping include files.
It's great Hubitat released the otherwise internal functionality to us. But don't confuse the charity and sense of sharing with "promoting development".
But Hubitat is not known for taking away choices. This is why you'll still find the other two. Yes, that may be confusing for new users (and it's probably one of the reasons the getting-started wizard points you to Basic Rule, likely being the best choice for new users among all the options).
Fair enough. But, my example was: between sunset and sunrise, when a door is opened, turn on a light, and turn if off 120 seconds after closing. I don't see how to do the last bit. Ergo, I would need to use Rule Machine, assuming it can do it.
As to your point that it's perfectly fine for Rule Machine is hot garbage because there's something that's somewhat easier... Yes, Basic Rules is very much better. I still have serious issues with it, and largely the same issues. Whether it would pass the spouse test.... No, but I admit it's a helluva lot closer.
And, if that's just the early attempt by Hubitat at user friendly to be refined, fair enough.
Download the Hubitat app
