dev builds
themes manual
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
dev guide

Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: NEWKEYS v2


From: Daniel Stenberg <>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:42:05 +0200 (CEST)

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, c s wrote:

> I said "it's not stated in the goals section AND NOTHING ELSE IN THE NEWKEYS

No need to shout. I still maintain that my attempt is not to fix every single
UI flaw at once.

> I don't know why that would that elicit a smart-aleck response about me only
> reading the goals section, when I was clearly talking about the whole
> document.

Because you were telling me about missing goals and I thought I was pretty
clear on what my goals with this document are.

Also, I would like to clarify again that my document describes UI
functionality for the Recorder models only. The Player is a different beast,
and as I don't have one and don't use one I'll refrain from too many comments
on that.

> Since lack of consistency is currently a problem in the Rockbox user
> interface, and it should be one of the top priorities of any good user
> interface design, not making it one of the goals of a major remapping effort
> is a glaring omission.

In that case I'll reserve the right to do a "glaring omission", because I want
to do the remapping this way.

> > Besides all that, the document is not meant to cover everything in regard
> > to what keys that do what,
> Fair enough, but this poorly implemented element of our UI still should be
> corrected under the guise of what should be one of the goals of any major UI
> change... consistency.

I don't think our current UI is as bad as you seem to think it is. Then again,
I don't use the player version.

> Since the player has such a limited number of keys, (and the recorder does
> too... just not quite as bad), perhaps it’s time to come up with a new
> concept of additional possible key combos such as two quick presses of the
> ON button within N milliseconds followed by another button press within 1 or
> 2 seconds. Then ON, ON, STOP could be cancel... or ON, ON sequences could be
> used for custom macros, freeing up the ON+STOP for cancel.

I think it would be a loss if we need to implement such a complex way to do
input. One of the goals of my document is "less keys (and combos) to
remember", which your suggestion kind of contradicts.

That said, I'm not completely against the idea in case no other means can
provide the functionality.

> I still contend that removing the cancel function is an option that should
> be considered since it is of very limited value

I agree.

 Daniel Stenberg -- --
Received on 2003-08-25

Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy