Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: GUI
From: Gabriel Meier <gabriel.meier_at_gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:33:38 +0100
Am Mittwoch, den 08.03.2006, 01:27 +0100 schrieb Jochen Schulz:
> Dave Hooper:
> > >Jochen Schulz :
> >> What I like about your proposal is the focus on usage scenarios. This
> >> cleans up the root menu and helps the user find what he is looking for.
> >> I am using Rockbox on my Iriver H120 for almost half a year now and I
> >> still have to search for some settings now and then. And there are some
> >> menus that I would like to reorder or move somewhere else entirely.
> > Totally agree. Different users use their devices in different ways. In
> > particular, the habits for "ex iRiver users" are different from the habits
> > for "ex iPod users", "ex Archos users", etc.
> I agree with Linus here, that the system the user has used before
> Rockbox should not be the basis for these design decisions.
Not necessarily the basis, but if it is possible to offer the option to
configure rockbox that way, it would fit all needs.
> >> Another topic which I think should be at least thought about in the
> >> same process is the mapping of keys. I cannot come up with
> >> irregularities that are annoying me at the moment, but I guess if I
> >> go searching for them, I will find some. ;-)
> > There's definitely two camps of thought already: some argue that Stop or
> > Left (on an iRiver device) should always "back out" of any menu and
> > eventually return you to the WPS. some argue that Stop in a menu should
> > stop playback and that Play should always back out of any menu and return
> > you to the WPS. But I think the current behaviour is somewhere in between
> Generally agree. To add my proposal: play (or more correctly: "ON")
> should always go to the WPS, stop should act as a "cancel button" in the
> menus while left and "PLAY" (center joystick press) accept the input. I
> really don't know why but I hate having to push the joystick centre.
Personally, I don't like the idea that play goes to the wps, but this is
really a logical concept.
> > >- "Radio" and "Recorder" are just fine, IMHO. "Plugins" is ok, too,
> > > although I ask myself whether someone may think it may be a good idea
> > > to seperate "Games" from the rest of the plugins.
> > That would be neat (not necessary, but some users could find that useful,
> > and so it would be nice to make such a behavioural option available)
> I don't think such things should be configurable. But an idea that just
> struck me: why don't plugins have tags or at least a category? There
> could be Games, Applications, Screensavers, Techdemos and all other
> kinds of stuff. That would help recognizing what a Plugin does more
> easily, too. The easiest solution would be to use different filename
> extensions for every category. That way, you could still use the file
> browser to display plugins.
This would add the possibility to sort plugins in virtual folders, so
the Plugins menu would be
Received on 2006-03-08