There is absolutely nothing wrong with a particular selection remaining selected until changed. It's not playing in the background or otherwise in any wise inconveniencing the user.
On 12-Jun-2012, at 2:31 AM, Otto Nikolaus <otto.nikolaus@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 11 June 2012 21:46, Jim Saklad <jimdoc@me.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > Case 1 -- your way.
> > You stop playing something. The hated "selection" is de-selected.
> > Later you want to play something.
> > You go back into playlists, or artists, or songs, search or scroll until
> > you find YOUR CHOICE (even if it's the SAME choice), and tap to play.
> >
> > Case 2 -- Apple's way.
> > You stop playing something. The "selection" remains selected.
> > Later you want to play something.
> > You go back into playlists, or artists, or songs, search or scroll until
> > you find YOUR CHOICE (unless it's the SAME choice, which is still selected)
> > and tap to play.
> >
> > I fail to see how your method is easier, quicker, or better in any way
> > than Apple's method. In fact, if you choose to play something different,
> > Apple's method IS your method.
> >
> > No one is forcing you here.
> >
>
> I agree. I can see *no disadvantage whatsoever* in a track/podcast
> remaining selected until it finishes or I want to select a different one.
> What is the value of having *nothing* selected?
>
> Otto
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire