PAUL WILLIAMSON Wrote: > >I'd like this do be controlled by software. I have really > no need for a volume knob on this unit, because it > will be connected via optical and the volume will be fixed. > If this form factor is built, I'd probably pick one up for > the bedroom, but still wouldn't use the volume knob. Make sense. But then you would never want the mode to automatatically fall back to 'Volume'. That would just be frustrating.
> How about, if you keep the number of buttons/knobs like in this one: > > http://audiofi.dudehost.com/other/squeezeboxtextured.gif > > and doubling the width of the display? I think we're assuming use of the current display. Which reminds me - the illustrations seem to depict a display that protrudes from the faceplate. I think it's safe to assume that if you used the current display that it would have to be sunk into the back of the faceplate, so the display will actually be slightly recessed. I'm not sure how round the opening in the faceplate could be for the current display - I think you'll end up with a rectangular cutout, with slightly rounded corners. My thing with the simplified button scheme is that if you're going to put buttons on it at all, then why not make them useful? You just can't do much with three buttons and a scroll wheel. For example, how do you play a song or album rather than just adding it to the playlist? Without a 'Play' button, I don't see how. You may as well have no buttons at all and always use the remote if you're going to need the remote to do even basic stuff like skip to the next track. (And we're right back to square one and the current Squeezebox design.) I'd prefer to have most of the functionality of the remote, sans search capability. I'd want something good looking, but it doesn't have to win an abstract design contest. -- JJZolx Jim _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
