Rockbox Ports are now being developed for various digital audio players!
When people first boot up Rockbox they should be wowed.
...there's a cost involved with attracting more people, and that cost is significantly worse if the software itself is not in a solid position (which to me means "At least a release candidate, if not a release") because you're introducing users to work-in-progress code.
While it's true many people feel it would be nice for the devs to work on UI shinyness ando ther such things, to be honest there's not a compelling reason to do so. Most or all of the developers agree Rockbox could look prettier. But if you're a developer, and you look at Rockbox, and you see audio freeze bugs, voice interface problems that prevent blind people from being able to even use it, battery life issues, tons of not yet implemented hardware, and then you loook in the other direction and you see people saying "You guys should make it prettier" it's somewhat frustrating.
More shiny helps to bring in non-technical users, who flood the tracker with feature requests for things that the software can't already do, ask questions that are answered in the manual, and otherwise increase the support load.
So, to attract people interested in UI design, like you, we should have an already good looking UI?
Anyway, the WPS isn't the UI, it's just a single screen. I assumed by "UI" you meant the full user interface including the interaction with the menus, etc. Those certainly require a programmer.
We're already considering multiple themes as possible default ones, and if I'd know this conversation was solely and entirely about the default theme, I'd have had a lot less to say. When you started mentioning "UI" though, I thought we'd passed into the "Programming time is necessary" category.
Page created in 0.12 seconds with 20 queries.