Pause & adjust volume when locked?

[gellfex]

At what point was it actually ridiculed?

With the font and theme options there are usability implications. While they do add a graphical flourish, they also make it possible for the user to customize the player so its playback state and position can be more easily seen (large fonts, high contrast colours, large status icons). They allow the user to accomplish things there is no workaround for.

Meanwhile, your request can simply be worked around by actually making use of the existing pause button.

Cmon, the whole tone has been "why would anyone want that?"  I'm sure you get all sorts of crazy ideas here, but this one has a track record that warrants more than a brush off.  The fact that Rio engineers and a bunch of customers thought it was a good idea is ignored. If someone on the original Rockbox team had used one of these players I'm sure it would have been included, but Rockbox seems to suffer, like almost all player and interface designers, from Ipod obsession. I hate Ipods because they stifle all other ideas, resemble them or die. Rio had a large chunk of the MP3 market at one point, but because they were outmarketed by Apple, now all their ideas are trash.

I don't consider "get used to it, even though there's better way that you prefer" to be a "workaround". The same could have been said about any of the features you made customizable. It's the response one expects from Apple. I laughed at how long it took them to adopt multiple button mice, I've been using a 5 button mouse for years.

[Llorean]

Considering Rockbox's interface was created initially by people who'd never used an iPod, accusing it of suffering from "iPod Obsession" is pretty ridiculous.

The fact that you think the Rockbox interface is anything at all like the iPod interface, beyond the fact that both of them contain menus composed of text, suggests you really haven't looked into things much.

If you just want to insult Rockbox, go do it somewhere else. People have as much right to be critical of your idea as you have to suggest it, and nobody has stopped you from working on it.

Nobody said the idea was trash. It's just been said that it's unlikely to get in Rockbox. In fact, nobody said "Why would anyone want that?" The tone here is "it's not right for Rockbox" not "why would anyone want that."

But seriously, by attempting to claim Rockbox suffers from iPod obsession, you've basically lost any reasonable credibility you have here.

And frankly, it doesn't matter how many people think it's a good idea, if none of the people who do are willing to put in the time to work on it. And considering we've got thousands of users who've never even requested the idea, and one user who has but is unwilling to do the work, I'm not sure it's as hugely popular as you seem to think it is, at least among people interested in using Rockbox. But popularity isn't the important part. The important part is someone who wants the idea actually doing the work in such a way that it's acceptable to enough core developers to get it in. Since you don't even have a patch to show, nobody can even try it to decide for themselves in practical use whether it's a good idea, they can just listen to you describe a feature that sounds like "I can't recognize the pause button by touch, so I want an option to make all the buttons pause buttons." If you produced a patch, people might try it out and see that it's a better idea than it sounds.

Instead, you seem focused on ranting.

[gellfex]

Considering Rockbox's interface was created initially by people who'd never used an iPod, accusing it of suffering from "iPod Obsession" is pretty ridiculous.

That explains a lot. When I was in Industrial Design school at Carnegie-Mellon we were taught that the first step to designing a new product was to study the market and the competition for what worked and what didn't.

And yes, I got the message very early in the thread that this wasn't a suggestion box, rather a place to petition for something you yourself have already developed to be included. Had it just been that, rather than the "why would anyone want that" (which is indistinguishable from "not right for rockbox") I would not have said anything more.

Thanks for your unpaid work on this site and project. Perhaps if the economy continues to crash and burn I'll get the free time to learn how to do it myself. But don't worry, I won't bring it here!

[AlexP]

Considering Rockbox's interface was created initially by people who'd never used an iPod, accusing it of suffering from "iPod Obsession" is pretty ridiculous.

That explains a lot. When I was in Industrial Design school at Carnegie-Mellon we were taught that the first step to designing a new product was to study the market and the competition for what worked and what didn't.

So originally there were things wrong with Rockbox as the developers were obsessed with the ipod, and now what is wrong is that the developers didn't look at the ipod?

It can't be both...

Had it just been that, rather than the "why would anyone want that" (which is indistinguishable from "not right for rockbox") I would not have said anything more.

That just isn't true.  Many people might want a feature, but that doesn't make it a good fit with Rockbox.  I personally wouldn't use this one, but that doesn't mean I don't understand why you might.  Isn't right for Rockbox (not that I'm passing any judgement on this request's suitability) doesn't mean nobody understands why someone wants it.

Thanks for your unpaid work on this site and project. Perhaps if the economy continues to crash and burn I'll get the free time to learn how to do it myself. But don't worry, I won't bring it here!

I'm very sorry about that, extra people are always welcome.  I'm sorry if you feel that way.  I think we all acknowledge that there are many many ways in which Rockbox could be improved - please don't get discouraged because people don't seem to like this idea.

[Llorean]

This is a "suggestion box." But just because you think it's a good idea doesn't mean it IS a good idea for Rockbox.


Remember (or perhaps you haven't realized this): The target audience is very small, being those who actively work on and develop the software. They choose to share it with others, but they don't go out of their way to add features just "to be popular." Instead, they add features they feel makes the software "better" in their view of what it should be.

That's why, as I said previously, if it's clear none of them seem to see the feature as making the software better, you should produce a patch and convince them otherwise.

I understand you seem to feel put upon, but it seems like you're creating this feeling for yourself, and I'm saddened that you're reacting this way. You admit that your interpretation is not indistinguishable from "not right for Rockbox" which means that you clearly decided to choose to interpret it as the more negative meaning from the start, rather than attempting to assume the best until proven otherwise. If you enter into this expecting such things from the start, I really feel there was little point in you attempting to discuss this in the first place.

[gellfex]

So originally there were things wrong with Rockbox as the developers were obsessed with the ipod, and now what is wrong is that the developers didn't look at the ipod?
It can't be both...

Why not? there's more than one way to reach most conclusions, whether right or wrong. In this case neither methods described surveys the field to see what works well or doesn't. Product design history is littered with losing (or even bad) products that had certain great features.  It does stretch the imagination a little to believe that people would develop a new firmware for a device they'd never used, or at least never tried a model by the market leader, but I'll take your word for it.

I find it pretty funny that you both think if I patch it I should come back. Why would I do that when the idea is so "not right for Rockbox"? (whatever that means if not 'we don't like it') Clearly I'm something of a masochist staying this long into this thread, but if I do it, I'll take it to unofficial Rockbox build sites, like the folks at anythingbutipod's rockbox forums.

[Llorean]

At this point it seems like you're willfully trying to misinterpret things.

It's pretty clear it's our opinion it's not right for Rockbox. As I've also quite clearly said, a patch to demonstrate it could change minds.

You're the one assuming it's impossible for minds to change, when one of the people whose minds you might want to change is openly saying he's willing to look at what you've got. When you start behaving like this it just reinforces the image that you're here simply to argue, rather than having any real interest.

As to

It does stretch the imagination a little to believe that people would develop a new firmware for a device they'd never used

if you were at all familiar with the history of Rockbox it was originally developed for old Archos devices. And, very much like many applications, has moved forward to new hardware but is the same application. So the UI principals have been updated and adjusted over time, but their origins and fundamentals lay quite firmly rooted quite some time ago. Nobody ever said that it was developed for hardware never used, nor does having a desire to use the hardware necessitate having used the original firmware (iPodLinux existed before Rockbox came to iPods, and most of the Rockbox devs thoroughly dislike the Apple firmware).

It would pay you to do a little research into the history of the project instead of making sweeping assumptions based off of very limited statements that do not mean nearly as broad a thing as you seem to think they do. Or at least, if you don't feel like looking into the history, stop expanding statements well beyond their bounds.

Frankly, as you've made it clear you have no interest in actually seeing this idea in the official version of Rockbox, though, it's time to close this thread. It can still inspire someone without you jumping to conclusions left and right in it.

[saratoga]

I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to start on doing this myself. The last time I programmed was 25 years ago in an intro to Fortran course!

I find it pretty funny that you both think if I patch it I should come back.

lol.  I don't think anyone expects you to come back with a patch.