On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Thomas Martitz <thomas.mart...@fhtw-berlin.de> wrote: > Jonathan Gordon schrieb: >> >> Well, firstly the patch is a half-assed effort (no offense meant to >> kugel there). imo (obviously) it adds nothing to rockbox, it changes 1 >> button in 2 screens (ignoring that its unused because plenty of people >> actually like the fact its unused) on one target (and done in such a >> way that it adds plenty of dead code to the other 27.) >> > > I plan to clean it up if/when it's going in, which is not going to happen > before 3.2 anyway. And I've never heard that people like that it's unused, I > only heard that going to recording accidentally isn't so easy (because you > need a long press). >> >> I don't really care that rec will go to playlist viewer in the WPS. >> its not something I use much but concede that some might find that >> useful, but you have to agree that there will be plenty of people who >> would prefer it go to the eq menu (bad example of course because you >> and I know that people who do want this are probably using the eq >> wrongly), or maybe the bookmark or track info screen, or indeed any of >> the options in the WPS context menu. >> > > I only need the playlist viewer. And I don't need a choice for for other > screens. Not that it matters, but the pitch- and track info screen are > already accessible with combos as of now on the e200. > >> As for the insert action in the browsers, I WANT this sort of feature, >> but I fail to see why it HAS to be the "insert" option, why cant it be >> "insert shuffled" or "insert next"? My favorite option would actually >> be some sort of "repeat previous insert" which would actually be >> useful. >> > > "Repeat previous insert"? What's that? I like/use insert most, so I picked > that. > >> I'm sure I've said it before, and I doubt I'm alone... there is a >> difference between customizable buttons (which everyone agrees will be >> a support nightmare) and allowing the user to choose between a few >> select options for individual buttons when there is a free button to >> do it with. >> >> Jonathan >> > > That reminds me of http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/5555, which is > rejected. > But I'd certainly not be against such a (limited) configurability. Just the > fact, that the aforementioned patch is closed stopped me from doing this > kind. >
I will just throw in my 2c as well: I agree with Jonathan Gordon. Having limited reconfigurability of a spare button would not bother me at all. As long as the main buttons work as expected I don't see a real problem with this and it could make the button much more useful for a variety of people. -Karl
