From: David Hall <dmhall_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:35:50 -0500

On 12/15/2010 03:10 PM, Paul Louden wrote:

> Depends on how you're interpreting that rule, I may not have phrased it
> *quite* right. For example, I don't see that rule as conflicting with
> shuffled playback, but it might be interpreted as such. Obviously A-B
> repeat could also be termed to conflict with it, but A-B repeat is
> initiated on a user action and is a playback mode similar to "repeat 1"
> except it's "repeat less than 1." To me "A-B" seems a much more explicit
> situation than me listening to a book, stopping at chapter three, coming
> back months later, starting at chapter one, and then when I get to the
> file containing chapter three skipping over 20 minutes of content suddenly.
>

I wasn't trying to catch you in a "gotcha!"

> But as I said this isn't my key focus. In-playlist resuming might be
> reasonable, I just think it's enough of an edge case that I'm not sure
> it's warranted as being important enough for another option. I really
> think this can be stripped down to something that needs minimal or no
> configuration and still support the vast majority of use cases. While
> it's unreasonable to expect someone to remember where they were in
> seventeen different long files, it's I don't think it's too unreasonable
> to ask them if they have several incomplete podcasts to play one, then
> play the next when finished (or even just "queue for resume" the whole
> folder or multiple files). Especially if the queue-for-resume feature is
> implemented, as then that will work even for people who want to queue up
> 3 or 4 podcasts and have them all resume.

Which is why I think simply replicating what Sansa does (podcast
specific "special" folder) is the best solution. No additional
configurations / options, and one can not place files from said folder
into a mixed playlist w/o explicitly choosing to do so. It's a 80%
solution, but with (I'd like to think) a minimal "cost".
Received on 2010-12-15