<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Dear Amarok-Folks,<br>
<br>
I'm a happy Amarok 1.4 user and I'm terrified when I look at Amarok 2!<br>
<br>
How can you turn a almost perfect program into a terrible Itunes-clone?<br>
The first thing which is really bad is this weird column in the center
of the window, one cannot get rid of. Then there are a thousand
functions missing.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Please take into
account what what Linux-users want and please don't aim at the dumbest
users on earth as the target group for this program.</font><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
I hope there are developers out there who will continue developing
"Amarok 1.4." AS IT IS (which definitely is a program that is a hundred
thousand times better, more extensible and more comfortable).<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Christopher Stark<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
PS </font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I like to quote
this from an ubuntu-forum where I can totally agree:</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">"</font>
<div class="smallfont"> <strong>Re: Amarok 1 vs Amarok 2</strong> </div>
<hr
style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"
size="1"><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
<div class="vbclean_msgtext" id="post_message_7611285">I
just had to add my 2 cents on this. I've been recently investigating
KDE apps, I'm happy with KDE 4.2, and I'll likely switch upon 4.3
release. Anyway, I was simply expecting something along the lines of
1.4 (haven't used 2 at all before today, though saw pics). Was my mind
ever BLOWN!<br>
<br>
To be blunt, Amarok 2 is a terrible GUI for a media player, worst I've
used to date. It's like they're design philosophy was "how can we turn
this into a horrible player" and then just went and did that. I know
it's still in development, but these problems aren't bugs, it's their
design philosophy. As I see it, if their philosophy is this broken, no
GUI they produce with the mindset will be good. A few questions that
came to my mind immediately:<br>
<ul>
<li>Why no columns for quick sort (incidentally, renders ratings
worthless)?</li>
<li>Why the giant context menu in the middle?</li>
<li>Why does the context menu need a lyrics section, when the current
track one has the lyrics at the bottom?</li>
<li>Why do I have to go through playlist > Random/Repeat instead
of just on the GUI (like every other player)?</li>
</ul>
<br>
I'd also like to add, I'm NOT opposed to drastic change. As a long time
MS office user, I got used to the new Office UI (Ribbon) and think it's
nice (even though I griped for a long while about it) this isn't the
case with Amarok.<br>
<br>
Also, I was also reading reddit at the time I was looking at 2 and came
across <a
href="http://briancarper.net/blog/songbird-vs-amarok-how-not-to-design-a-gui"
target="_blank">this article.</a> I think it pretty much points out
all the flaws, Amarok devs need to pay attention.<br>
<br>
I'm still likely to switch to KDE 4.3, I won't be using Amarok 2
though. At present, I'm divided between Amarok 1.4, songbird and Exaile
(though it's GTK, kinda a problem, it is however my current one).<br>
<br>
That's it."</div>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1096880&page=7">http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1096880&page=7</a><br>
<br>
and:<br>
<br>
"</font>...Otherwise just consider this yet another voice in the
wilderness
wishing for a Qt4 version of Amarok 1.4. There was nothing wrong with
it, from a user's perspective. I'm not the first wishing for this, and
won't be the last. If I had a couple years to get good at C++ and a
team of programmers to help, I'd probably try it myself.<br>
Why write an 87-page essay about the GUI of a music player? Because
Amarok 1.4 was a really good program. I'm a programmer and I appreciate
a good program. Songbird has a pretty darned good GUI too. It's painful
to see Amarok 2 going in this direction. <font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">"<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://briancarper.net/blog/songbird-vs-amarok-how-not-to-design-a-gui">http://briancarper.net/blog/songbird-vs-amarok-how-not-to-design-a-gui</a><br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>