Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
Re: discussion regarding adding settings (PLEASE add your 2 cents)
2008/10/27 pondlife <pondlife_at_ntlworld.com>:
> Hi Jonathan,
>>> 1. bin increase
> We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree here. You seem to think
> that a 32MB buffer is lots of memory; I think of it as the most important
> resource we have to keep battery life up. I don't know which device/setup
> you use normally, but perhaps it's because I use a HDD player, not a flash
> one? And I run off battery 90% of the time. And I've seen the buffer size
> drop by about 3MB in the past 2 years...
> [ Maybe "mediocre" features should only be added to flash players... ;-) ]
gigabeast and e200 are my main players atm. and even if they were only
added for flash targets that would be fine for me, they could easily
be added in custom builds with little work
>>> 2. settings bloat (i.e we have too many settings already)
> Personally, I have no objection here (aside from binsize) - however, I do
> little support work on Rockbox. At my day job, we know well that every
> added option (potentially) gives another dimension to the test matrix. But
> I guess it's sensible to tell people with problems to reset their settings
> anyway, hence my position.
> I don't like the simple/advanced menus option; if a setting is worth having,
> it's worth putting in the correct place and won't be an annoyance per se.
> I do think that every setting should be accessible from the menus (where
> reasonable). If a feature is so unwanted or mediocre that it's implemented
> as a second-class citizen then I'd question its inclusion at all.
off the top of my head, settings which should stay but dont need to be
so high up are things like directory/playlist limits, show the title
in the browser, disk and battery options, most of the display
options... bassically anything which are set once options
> Ultimately, I don't think that a general statement can be made here - it
> needs to be considered on a feature-by-feature basis. But IMHO the focus of
> the project should be more on stability, reliability and
> usability/consistency, not just on how many features we can pack in.
I'm not asking for a "add everything" or "add nothing option", I'm
asking for more flexibility so it turn from implicit "prove why
something should go in" to "convince me something shouldn't", and
usability is all about features...
Received on 2008-10-27
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew