From: <phil_at_x-phobie.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:34:29 +0200

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:22:19 +0200, Björn Stenberg <bjorn_at_haxx.se>
wrote:

>> what is really missing are user assignable key binding schemes. But we
>> need that.
>
>No. Some people will enjoy it, but that's a far cry from "we need it".

Ok, maybe I chose the wrong words - we don't need rockbox at all, but
still I want it to have user definable key schemes very very urgently.

>Name one single consumer electronic device that has completely reconfigurable
>keys. Or just name one single mp3 software, any platform, that has fully
>configurable keys.

The same applies to the whole wps concept, too. If nobody else want's
to improve things that shouldn't stop us - as it is proven by the
existens of wps. :)

>> Please don't tell me "Show me the code", because I won't do any code before
>> this idea has been discussed.
>
>Mapping keys to functions is pretty simple. Making a coherent user interface
>out of it is a *LOT* more complex.

Why is it more complex? Apart from implementing the concept itself I
don't see where that extends or even touches the complexity of a
coherent ui.
But with one fixed ui we're restricted to one general interface that
tries to meet everybodies requirements. We should go this way with
default key maps but there are purposes where specialization makes
sense.

>Without discussing code, this issue will go nowhere. Then it's just another feature
>request, if somewhat more detailed. You must at least provide some idea of how you
>think we could implement this.

I will do soon (maybe next weekend) unless some guru tells me: "Don't
do that, I've been there, done that and those were the problems: ... "
of "You'd better do it that way: ..."
As a proof of concept I thought about integrating a split editor ui
into the wps. I think that it is complex enough to raise about every
problem I don't want to dream about ... :)

Phil
Received on 2002-09-30