Rob Purchase wrote : > > My suggestion would be: > > > > Gold - "top tier" ports, as per Dave's email (eg. iArchos, iHP, X5, F/X > > etc) > > Silver - mature ports, but with some flaws (eg. iPods, maybe Sansa AMS, > > etc) > > Bronze - working ports, but with significant flaws (eg. Gigabeat S, D2, > > m:Robe 500, Ondas?). > > > > Ports that lack even basic functionality shouldn't be mentioned on the > > front page (and will be covered by the link to the TargetStatus page > > anyway). > > > > In this way the user's expectation (and level of support they can > > expect) decreases naturally in each tier. >
I like this classification, but, this is basically the same 3-tiered classification we have now, albeit a bit more vague. I like it because it's just fairer to some of the devices currently classified as being "unusable" as pointed out by Nicolas. But the vagueness comes from the wording not being descriptive enough of the device's state. I guess a user would need to know exactly what Gold, Silver and Bronze mean, which would entail writing a short description beside the label, like "Silver (Devices that run rockbox in an unstable state, or lack some major feature)". "Unstable" is just concise and to the point, despite Silver sounding cooler of course. :) As for adding more classifications, I was a bit put-off because it reminded me of the multiple flavors of the glorious Windows Vista ! This would benefit the developers of course, but at the possible expense of confusing the user. I believe a user just needs to know if it's worth trying to install rockbox on their device or not, an objective well-achieved with the current classification IMHO. So, bottom line is, I believe the current wording is clearer, although it could be enhanced a little - basically switching "Unusable" with a more general word like "Other" (I'm not very good at this obviously!). And I think adding another tier wouldn't be useful for users. Cheers, MT
