Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: GUI
Dave Hooper wrote:
> Ah - sorry, I meant that users familiar with other devices are conditioned
> into using different scenarios and that it would be good for rockbox to
> provide (at least some) alternatives.. I did not mean to imply that
> rockbox should start specifically adopting the behaviour of particular
> original firmware(s) (it most definitely should not!)
That sounds like pretty much the same thing to me though. If you provide
a full "interface scenario" that mimics another device, you are clearly
trying to make it behave more like the other device. If you provide only
a few alternatives that mimic another device, aren't you just doing the
same thing but in a more limited fashion?
I think Linus' point is that RB should be RB and should not try to mimic
other devices. If a user can learn the interface on another device, they
can surely learn the interface on RB.
A goal of RB has been to provide a superior experience, including that of
the UI. If we're confident that we've succeeded in that respect, then why
should we start bringing in foreign ideas when we already have what we
consider to be superior ones? If we're *not* confident that we've
succeeded with this, then we should look to make improvements. That might
mean borrowing some ideas from elsewhere, but the driving force should not
be "let's make it work more like X", it should be "let's improve RB; what
are the superior ideas?"
So, I'd say that if that's what we're doing here, then fine. But if we're
just trying to placate refugees from inferior products who don't want to
"learn the local language", then we'd be better served by concentrating
our efforts elsewhere.
Received on Wed Mar 8 01:58:43 2006
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew