Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Rockbox Documentation and UI compared to ORGINAL FIRMWARE
Re: Rockbox Documentation and UI compared to ORGINAL FIRMWARE
From: Filip <fille_at_nibewege.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:55:50 +0100
ye , one has to be careful not to end up with a massive slow and unclear
program .. when people start asking for a rockbox Lite version you guys
went too far ;)
btw this build of 20030321 bugs as hell ..
when i try to play a playlist (of 900 songs , allover the disk) it stops
playing sound at the end of each song (the moment where it starts dealing
with the next song , i guess)
and i mentioned the recording panic in an earlier mail too
btw , on the site it is said to be normal that daily builds contain errors
. is it necessary to report about errors init like i described ? or are
those unnecessary actions as you already know all these things ?
At 17:21 24/03/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>From: "Greg Haerr"
> >Is the issue here that Rockbox is getting too hard to use,
> >too many features hard to find, or that you just can't remember
> >how to use it?
>Features are too hard to find!
>Inconsistent use of the buttons to accomplish things in the different
>screens, do you tap, press or press and hold? Do you have to press another
>button at the same time?
> >I'm interested in whether the simpler features offered in the
> >original firmware result in the unit being easier-to-use, or,
> >whether the UI layout in Rockbox is harder, regardless
> >of feature set size...?
>The UI of the original Rockbox was far easier to use! Hands down!
>That is why when I get frustrated and need a feature fast I load the old
>firmware. I would rather have a structured well thought out tree menu that
>you can intuitively navigate without a manual to activate each feature as
Received on 2003-03-24