Am 31.03.2010 14:45, schrieb Mike Holden:
> Thomas Martitz wrote:
>> Am 31.03.2010 14:00, schrieb Mike Holden:
>>> Forcing me to press "No" isn't keeping current behaviour, it's
>>> adding an extra buttonpress.
>> And this is really so bad? Quickly selecting no is *way* faster than
>> waiting 2s (yes, this is its timeout) for the splash to end. And a
>> of users would benefit from the choice even if you don't
> Well let me turn that round - is waiting 2s so bad?
Because I got the point of the message after 0.5s.
> Not looked in detail at the code recently, but the splash code used
> to have 2 variants - one was a fixed period wait, the other was
> interruptable, and I believe this is still the case. Could the
> splash be set as interruptable so those that want it can get
> straight in and not have to wait 2 seconds?
It didn't, and it still doesn't, have 2 variants with 1 being interruptable.
> Can you quantify the "a lot of users" that would benefit? Or do you
> just mean you?
>>> Doesn't interest me though, and I don't have a flash based player,
>>> it's HDD.
>> But we want to try to make everyone happy not only the HDD guys.
> Sorry, but your arguments so far all amount to "this change is
> better for me, so I don't care if it's worse for you".
Except you completely ignore the fact that I proposed the confirmation
screen so that HDD people can live good with it.
> I feel we need better justification for an increase in code size,
> complexity and possibly extra settings before this can be
Haha good one, did you copy&paste that sentence from one of various
other mails or did you actually experiment with it to see how much
"complexity" and "code size" it adds?
Received on 2010-03-31