Rockbox Development > Feature Ideas

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

<< < (2/3) > >>

[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:

--- Quote from: [St.] on April 09, 2011, 01:45:21 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---
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]:

--- Quote from: HornetMaX on April 09, 2011, 03:56:02 PM ---
--- Quote from: [St.] on April 09, 2011, 01:45:21 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: [St.] on April 09, 2011, 11:48:49 PM ---
--- Quote from: HornetMaX on April 09, 2011, 03:56:02 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---
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.

--- End quote ---
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page