Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Proposal for updating/maintenance of iPod Acc. page
Re: Proposal for updating/maintenance of iPod Acc. page
From: Dave Woyciesjes <woyciesjes_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:53:42 -0500
David Hall wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Dave Woyciesjes
> <woyciesjes_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> 3 - Still need to debate the merits of (if not outright do):
>>> A - "Other" feature category in addition to the existing
>>> "Charging", "Audio Out", "Remote", "Audio In". Perhaps "Charging should
>>> be dropped as the answer is always positive or NA - with the exception
>>> of one - that could be replaced with a big "X" in "Other".
>> Well, wouldn't Other features just go under the Comments column? As
>> for the Charging feature, I think it probably should stay, because it may
>> not work for some reason, and it is a slightly important feature...
> re: "Other"
> Having a column for "other" gives the reader of the page a
> quick-glance option to see if all features work or not. If "other" is
> a big red X then the reader knows to read the comments.
> re: "Charging"
> See my argument re: Other. Charging has proven to always be a
> positive answer - except one unverified case. A waste of screen space
> IMHO. IF there proves to be a case where charging does not work - a
> big red X in "other" would point the reader to the comments.
OK, if that's the case.
>>> B - Language needed to emphasize the need to test with and without
>>> Accessory Power enabled - and a column is needed to report IF power is
>>> needed. No use wasting battery runtime if the accessory does not need
>> As a newbie to Rockbox, I didn't know there was an option to fiddle
>> with the iPod providing accessory power. I'll have to look and see what the
>> default behavior is. Are newbies likely to fiddle with it, though?
> They should - it might be needed to run many accessories, and is a
> huge battery drain if not needed.
Then the next question is how to makes us newbies aware of that option.
No, I haven't read the manual completely yet, but this does sound like
something very important. This thread is the first I've heard of that
>>> C - "Verifier" has been filled out twice since I made this table,
>>> both of those times by me. Bloody waste of space, IMHO.
>> Kind of, sort of, yeah. But I can see the point of it. Shows whether
>> or not it is confirmed and not just one person goofing up.
> Devil's Advocate says "If someone finds conflicting data to that
> published on the wiki page they can address the issue then."
-- --- Dave Woyciesjes --- ICQ# 905818 --- AIM - woyciesjes --- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/ --- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/ "From there to here, From here to there, Funny things are everywhere." --- Dr. Seuss ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rockbox FAQ: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GeneralFAQ Etiquette: http://www.rockbox.org/mail/etiquette.htmlReceived on 2009-03-02