Rockbox Development > Feature Ideas

User Experience and Rockbox- A rethink required?

<< < (9/13) > >>

JdGordon:
is the "fiew file type" option still on the default QS?

torne:
Yes, it's still there. Is there something better to replace it with? :)

Llorean:
Anything really. If the up/down directions are correct for it, maybe simply "volume." If it would be inversed, something else. Things with less confusing behavior than "show files" would be great.

It's caused no end of confusion for users over the years.

BdN3504:
i find the sort files setting very useful in the quickscreen, because when you transferred music to your player recently and know the name of the folder/file you transferred and it's not easy to find in the alphabetical view, then using the "sort by newest date" setting is helping a lot.
you all suggested removing the show filetype item from the quickscreen but didn't comment on my suggestion of including this setting in the default sbs. removing this setting is the "cheap" way of addressing this problem, so what do you think of the inclusion?

[Saint]:
Since this is still "User Experience and Rockbox- A rethink required?"

How the f**k did you get:

So you're saying that technically illiterate people could possibly never want to use an open source product?

From:

Just a *weeeee* bit of an underestimate saying there "may" be other such users out there, in my opinion it seems pretty obvious that there's a rather large percentage of the "technically illiterate" that use rockbox and even after having gui/feature related requests shot down continue to do so, because of the simple fact that it may not be pretty, but it just plain does more...

I'd rather an "ugly" player that did a shit-load of stuff than a "pretty" one that just does the basics that all the other DAP's do....otherwise, what's the need to switch to RockBox?



The point I was trying to make at the time was (and this had been explained to you before but you conveniently ignored it) that Rockbox is in no way a "streamlined product", nor is it intended for the "general population"....if the general public can use it and get a kick out of it....great....all the better.
But it's designed by Devs FOR Devs and with continued development in mind, which is the reason (I presume) that there are quite a few things that "don't look nice".

I was trying to point out that every single user has the option of either sticking with Rockbox or reverting back to their OFW, and by "Have you read the forums?" I was trying to convey the fact that it's apparent that even with the fact that Rockbox " 'aint pretty ", it just plain does more than the OFW so despite it's apparent "downsides" for inexperienced users...it's an informed choice that they've made to continue using it.

Requests for support in the forums/irc support the fact that even as a "work in progress" users would still rather work out the kinks they have with Rockbox than revert back to the OFW (a "streamlined" "product")...so is refinement at this stage really necessary?

Without a clear view of the end stage "product" is it even possible to achieve?

What's the point in "streamlining" (which lets face it, often doesn't actually involve streamlining anything, but rather simply removing features/information from the user) a "product" that could well change drastically in the forseeable future?


[St.]

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page