Clip / Clip+: allow lock in FMS and record + single key lock

[HornetMaX]

Hi all,

a couple of quirks in Rockbox for Sansa Clip+ (I guess same applies to Clip v1/v2), both already suggested a long ago in this forum (kind of a UP hence):

1. Not possible to lock the buttons in FMS (radio) mode and Record mode. That's very unexpected.

2. In WPS mode, lock happens pressing SELECT + HOME, two buttons.
Orignal Sandisk firmware (latest version) locks with long HOME (one button).
In Rockbox long HOME has already another function, fine, but it would be possible for example to use the DOWN button. Currently short DOWn does noting, long DOWN goes to playlist screen. Would be OK to have short DOWN = playlist, long DOWN = lock.

MaX.

P.S.
That said, I freakin' love Rockbox ! Sandisk should ship the Clip with rockbox already installed !

[AlexP]

Long down does things like scroll through lists no?  We don't want different buttons to lock in different screens.  We don't care what the OF does - Rockbox runs on many different players that all do different things in their OFs.

As for the first point, that sounds like a bug.

[HornetMaX]

Long down does things like scroll through lists no?  We don't want different buttons to lock in different screens.  We don't care what the OF does - Rockbox runs on many different players that all do different things in their OFs.

I do agree that different buttons to lock in different screens may not be a good idea (despite the fact that naturally a button has different actions depending on the screen you're on), however the single-button lock is a great feature, independently if it is or is not implemented in the OF.

On the clip+ with Rockbox almost everything (*) can be done with a single hand, except locking. It's a pity.

MaX.

(*) Actually changing the volume with a single hand is hard, but that's because the hardware button is really bad, not much can be done.

[Llorean]

I think there's a strong case for not making it easy to lock, honestly.

Since you're going to need two hands to unlock it (a single button to unlock would basically defeat the purpose) making it possible to accidentally lock it during one-handed use (when you may not be able to free up a second hand to unlock, such as while driving) seems a bit unsafe, honestly. If it were possible to also unlock it with one hand, this might be different.

[HornetMaX]

I think there's a strong case for not making it easy to lock, honestly.

Since you're going to need two hands to unlock it (a single button to unlock would basically defeat the purpose) making it possible to accidentally lock it during one-handed use (when you may not be able to free up a second hand to unlock, such as while driving) seems a bit unsafe, honestly. If it were possible to also unlock it with one hand, this might be different.

Hmm ... not so sure, as single button lock/unlock should require (and actually requires in OF) a long pression on button (press & hold).

MaX.

[[Saint]]

A "soft hold" button that only requires one key to be held defeats the purpose of hold, in my opinion. It seems pretty foolish to me to have a hold implementation that can be applied accidentally so easily.


[St.]

[HornetMaX]

A "soft hold" button that only requires one key to be held defeats the purpose of hold, in my opinion. It seems pretty foolish to me to have a hold implementation that can be applied accidentally so easily.

Do you mean that it may happen more often to accidentally go into lock/unlock with a single button to be pressed for (let's say) 2 secs compared to with a instant pression of 2 buttons ? I would think the exact opposite.

MaX.

[[Saint]]

A "soft hold" button that only requires one key to be held defeats the purpose of hold, in my opinion. It seems pretty foolish to me to have a hold implementation that can be applied accidentally so easily.

Do you mean that it may happen more often to accidentally go into lock/unlock with a single button to be pressed for (let's say) 2 secs compared to with a instant pression of 2 buttons ? I would think the exact opposite.

MaX.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Requiring only one button for soft hold is stupid, for lack of a better word, in my opinion.

EDIT:
That comes of a little strong...
"If it can be avoided, it should be, in all circumstances"
...there, that better sums up my opinion I believe.

[St.]

[HornetMaX]

Do you mean that it may happen more often to accidentally go into lock/unlock with a single button to be pressed for (let's say) 2 secs compared to with a instant pression of 2 buttons ? I would think the exact opposite.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Requiring only one button for soft hold is stupid, for lack of a better word, in my opinion.

Well, following your reasoning, why don't we have two buttons "power on" ?
All the portable devices I've ever seen have "power on" on a single button.
I don't see why we should be more cautious with the lock function than with the "power on/off" function.

As already stated in a past post, one hand opration is very useful when, for example, you use your device while running.

Anyway, that's just a suggestion, I won't argue any longer. However in your replies there's no need to be dumb, for a lack of a better word.

MaX.

[Llorean]

Locking a device should, for many devices, prevent accidental power down. Meaning that lock being more complex than power off makes sense as a means of preventing this as well.

There's also a button labelled "power" or a visual symbolic equivalent. If the device had two buttons and said "press these simultaneously for power" on the hardware, I imagine we'd quite seriously consider using both of them. That's not the case. On devices with a physical hold button/switch, we make use of it without combos. But combos add an intentional degree of complexity. A sharp edge can very easily hold a single button down in a purse or pocket, but is not so likely to press the two exact buttons for hold, without other buttons, at the same time.

[HornetMaX]

Locking a device should, for many devices, prevent accidental power down. Meaning that lock being more complex than power off makes sense as a means of preventing this as well.
There's also a button labelled "power" or a visual symbolic equivalent. If the device had two buttons and said "press these simultaneously for power" on the hardware, I imagine we'd quite seriously consider using both of them. That's not the case.

But it's not the case for the lock combo neither (there's no button labelled "lock" on the Clip+).

Anyway, it seems to me you are over-concerned with accidental unlock (which are rare anyway IMO, with a single button or with two buttons), especially compared to the fact that once you switch the player off and you slam it in your bag, a single button is needed to switch it on.

No big deal anyway, the day I get really annoyed I can always try to patch it my own  way.
Unless anybody is willing to make this a configurable thing (would make sense to me given there seems to be people for and people against each approach).

Concerning the other issue (cannot lock in recording and FM screen), is it a known one ? Worth opening a bug ?

MaX.