Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: New Bookmark Diff
RE: New Bookmark Diff
From: Matthew P. OReilly <moreilly_at_moreilly.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:13:41 -0500
Ok guys, I've been following this bookmark discussion, and I'm not sure I
understand the contention.
Here are the three biggest things I expect to use bookmarks for (in an ideal
world ;-) :
1: Marking each spot in a song or speech that is important to be able to
come right back to for some reason.
2: Marking two spots in a song that are close together so I can have it
auto-repeat between the bookmarks while I practice a lick on the piano or
guitar or what not.
3: Marking several spots in a long recording for later file splitting.
(That would be *wonderful* - mark the break points in a concert recording,
for instance, and just run a routine on the file later on that splits the
file into multiple mp3s based on the bookmarks.)
From a user's perspective, it seems that bookmarks should be user-created
specifically for the purpose of being able to return to a specific spot in a
file at any time. This is particularly useful in long files such as radio
recordings and speeches. This necessitates the creation of multiple
bookmarks for each file played, but preferrably within a single file, at
least for each mp3, but possibly for all files. I am not yet convinced that
it's a great idea to link bookmark files to mp3 files 1:1 - it seems we're
back to the old "let the user decide", as Gerald pointed out. :-) [Oh, I
just read Benjamin's email - I like the one .bmark/directory idea instead of
a 1:1 for each mp3.]
I don't understand the requirement for auto-bookmarking - can someone
elucidate the reason for this to me? This seems to be identical
functionality as resume.
Bookmarking a playlist seems to be something of a different beast. I can
see the possible ROI for auto-bookmarking a playlist - that way if you're in
the middle of listening to a series, it will bookmark the series and you can
return to it at a much later time and know where you left off.
Thanks for the clarification -
Received on 2003-01-18