From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:25:42 -0600

Karl Kurbjun wrote:
>
> We could argue the minor details all day and I am sure that we could
> come up with multiple 'obvious' uses for that button. The fact is (on
> this player) that there is a button for menu along with everything
> else you could do with the ipod buttons (plus some).
The iPod is a bad comparison. How many buttons, exactly, does it have?
The iPod has nearly the least number (the Ondio has the least I believe)
so saying "It can do all the iPod stuff" doesn't really say "It can do
what most Rockbox targets have buttons for."
> No I am not going to monitor the forums, people can ask till their
> blue in the face but it doesn't mean that they get what they want.
So basically, you're perfectly willing to create additional forum noise
and say "it's someone else's job to clean up this mess." I thought it
was a reasonable request - if you want to make this decision, you take
responsibility for the userbase resposne for it.
> I don't see how this is that much of a support burden if it is done
> cleanly and if someone wants to write the code I am not against it.
>
You don't provide support for Rockbox regularly, so I'd be really quite
interested to know on what grounds you think having configurable buttons
would make support easier (or at least, not any more difficult) than
having static buttons? With static buttons, we can tell them what button
to press. With configurable buttons, we have to tell them the function
name, which they will proceed to either not understand, or assume is a
different function if they hadn't noticed it before. It creates
significant new vectors for confusion to enter support requests. I'm not
saying it's impossible, but I stand firmly behind the statement that
non-configurable buttons simplify support in a significant manner.
Received on 2009-03-04