On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 16:54, Thomas Lunde wrote: > Please count me down as someone to is 95% happy with iTunes and wants to > switch to Linux full time. Rb looks pretty darn good. I've played with > it off and on since .40something. The speed improvements have helped > greatly, and it is a really wonderful program, IMHO. Thanks :) > Please, please don't lose sight of the "fact" (?) that most folks who > will come to GNOME will have the intuition that there is one application > that should be able to handle their music playing needs. Colin said: > "Well I think having two totally separate music players for the two > kinds of people kind of sucks." (I think) he was talking about > Playlist'ers vs. Random'ers, but the same sort of intuition applies to > listening to music from my iPod vs. from a CD vs. from net.radio vs. > from my hard drive. I realize that this cuts against the UNIX > philosophy of small, specialized tools. But there is a lot in common in > all of these listening scenarios: select, play, pause, volume, upcoming > choice, etc. That's true. I do think that if we're going to keep Sources, it makes sense to include iPod, CD, and Radio. > I dug a bit in the archives, but could not find the answer: > Colin - why do you want to get rid of Sources? Well two reasons. The first reason is because I want more freedom to experiment and think about what a UI would be like that could support queuing well in addition to browsing. The second reason should be obvious... > I didn't realize that, in RB, I'd lose the Browser and the ability to > sort by clicking on the column heads while looking at a playlist instead > of my Library. Ugh. In iTunes, the rest of the app's functionality is > the same whether you have selected the Library or a particular playlist > as the Source. The sorting is just a bug. The browser - I guess I can kind of see an argument for it in automatic playlists where you have a lot of data. It just seemed like interface complexity to me initially though. Also it's presently kind of hard to implement a browser for the playlists due to internal Rhythmbox implementation details. > Do y'all take feature requests via bugzilla? ;-) Yes...both requests are already there... > As for a Jukebox (aka Party Shuffle) feature, I was all set to cheer on > Gisli's prototype -- until I read Dan8827's proposal. A four vertical > pane approach: > a. Controls and status > b. Jukebox > c. Browser > d. Library > > is, again IMHO, ideal. (b), (c), and even (d) can be optionally turned > off to save screen real estate. I have an old laptop with an 800x600 > display. I'd be perfect for parties showing (a) and (b) most of the > time and, when I want to add more music, either (c) or (d) to add songs > to (b). I think that most of the time you'd either be browsing your music to add to the queue, or reordering/deleting things in the queue. That's why I think it makes sense to have the queue replace/hide the browser. > Like Jorge, I started using Party Shuffle very heavily as soon as it was > available -- it makes so much sense, even flawed as it is to add songs t > -- and I'd really love to see such a feature added to RB. Let's see if we can solve it without Sources. > This echo's Seth's concern (and mine) that having the option of a very > small window is HUGE. Having a Rating widget would allow the user to > continue rating songs while the Small Display is active. This seems like a good candidate for a right-click menu item to me...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part