From: Mike Holden <rockbox_at_mikeholden.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:45:14 +0100

Thomas Martitz wrote:
> Am 31.03.2010 14:00, schrieb Mike Holden:
>> Forcing me to press "No" isn't keeping current behaviour, it's
>> adding an extra buttonpress.
>
> And this is really so bad? Quickly selecting no is *way* faster than
> waiting 2s (yes, this is its timeout) for the splash to end. And a
> lot
> of users would benefit from the choice even if you don't

Well let me turn that round - is waiting 2s so bad?

Not looked in detail at the code recently, but the splash code used
to have 2 variants - one was a fixed period wait, the other was
interruptable, and I believe this is still the case. Could the
splash be set as interruptable so those that want it can get
straight in and not have to wait 2 seconds?

Can you quantify the "a lot of users" that would benefit? Or do you
just mean you?

>> Doesn't interest me though, and I don't have a flash based player,
>> it's HDD.
>
> But we want to try to make everyone happy not only the HDD guys.

Sorry, but your arguments so far all amount to "this change is
better for me, so I don't care if it's worse for you".

I feel we need better justification for an increase in code size,
complexity and possibly extra settings before this can be
considered.

-- 
Mike Holden
http://www.by-ang.com - the place to shop
for all manner of hand crafted items,
including Jewellery, Greetings Cards and Gifts

Received on 2010-03-31