Rob Purchase wrote :
> > My suggestion would be:
> > Gold - "top tier" ports, as per Dave's email (eg. iArchos, iHP, X5, F/X
> > etc)
> > Silver - mature ports, but with some flaws (eg. iPods, maybe Sansa AMS,
> > etc)
> > Bronze - working ports, but with significant flaws (eg. Gigabeat S, D2,
> > m:Robe 500, Ondas?).
> > Ports that lack even basic functionality shouldn't be mentioned on the
> > front page (and will be covered by the link to the TargetStatus page
> > anyway).
> > In this way the user's expectation (and level of support they can
> > expect) decreases naturally in each tier.
I like this classification, but, this is basically the same 3-tiered
classification we have now, albeit a bit more vague.
I like it because it's just fairer to some of the devices currently
classified as being "unusable" as pointed out by Nicolas.
But the vagueness comes from the wording not being descriptive enough of the
device's state. I guess a user would need to know exactly what Gold, Silver
and Bronze mean, which would entail writing a short description beside the
label, like "Silver (Devices that run rockbox in an unstable state, or lack
some major feature)".
"Unstable" is just concise and to the point, despite Silver sounding cooler
of course. :)
As for adding more classifications, I was a bit put-off because it reminded
me of the multiple flavors of the glorious Windows Vista !
This would benefit the developers of course, but at the possible expense of
confusing the user. I believe a user just needs to know if it's worth trying
to install rockbox on their device or not, an objective well-achieved with
the current classification IMHO.
So, bottom line is, I believe the current wording is clearer, although it
could be enhanced a little - basically switching "Unusable" with a more
general word like "Other" (I'm not very good at this obviously!). And I
think adding another tier wouldn't be useful for users.
Received on 2009-10-12