Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: NEWKEYS v2
Re: NEWKEYS v2
From: c s <rb_dev_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
--- Kjell Ericson <Kjell.Ericson_at_haxx.se> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, c s wrote:
> > --- CombThins <bmnews_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > To me, it is entirely consistent with cancelling
> out of one menu level to
> > > go back, and pressing play is entirely natural
> to "OK" the setting.
> > Not at all.
> Oh, so it isn't entirely consistent to him? Even if
> he writes so?
I didn't say that. You edited out the sentence that I
said "Not at all" to. He made a point about why using
a button labeled STOP for accepting a setting was bad
and I responded about how the labels STOP and PLAY
don't apply to a lot of the functions that we have had
to map to those buttons, but how the user would still
expect those buttons to work consistantly within the
menu screens. The word stop doesn't mean go back a
level, yet users who want to go back a level in the
settings menu just automatically press the STOP button
to do that because they are conditioned to do so by
the fact that we (almost always) consistantly use the
stop button to go back a menu level. Similarly when
users are not prompted to accept or cancel a setting,
they press STOP to keep the setting at what they
changed it to and back out of that menu level since
they are finished there... but oops, the key for
backing out of the menu level that they are finished
with has suddenly been changed to a cancel button.
> I agree that I made it bad when I missed the
> play-button in the
The fact that you think that the mistake you made in
all this was not having an accept button for a volume
setting function tells me that you just don't
understand the basics of good UI design. In all my
years, I have NEVER seen a volume change function that
had a confirm option. I don't think that many Rockbox
users are wondering how to "confirm" the volume change
that they just made. That's not to say it doesn't make
sense to you to have a confirm. If it seems logical to
you, I have no problem with that, but it still doesn't
mean that it follows good UI design principals and
should be in the code that is used by the masses.
As I said before, I'm not arguing this for me... I
fixed my version of the code a long time ago. I am
just trying to point out some basic solid accepted
principals of good UI design in the hope that the
Rockbox UI will be improved for the masses who must
rely on the official builds.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Received on 2003-08-27