I’m interested in the thread, I don’t want any changes that will keep a static queue.
I just lose interest in replying when Roon are accused of wilfully obtuse behaviour, that’s a sign for me to stop debating as it is no longer a debate.
.sjb
Hmm, if we’re in hair splitting mode, I was referring to the queue behaviour design, not Roon as an entity.
definition: of wilfully and obtuse.
with a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand
as play queues are not sentient beings in their own right, it can only be the makers or coders of these queues that can be wilfully obtuse.
but this is childish and I should stop.
.sjb
HTH your reading comprehension.
Can the design element of one part of the software be described as I put it: (imo) yes, given the set of compromises it imposes on its users, may of whom have asked what they consider to be Ux best practice to be followed.
Is Roon as an entity or its employees willfully obtuse: no, of course not. Quite the opposite.
And on that note, topic muted…
We’re closing this thread down as it has served its purpose and degenerated. The suggestions in it have been heard but may not be adopted.
At least some of the concerns expressed appear to reduce to dislike of Pawmasher and a preference for one click play rather than any missing functionality.
A new thread can be opened after 1.3 is released. Use cases demonstrating a lack of existing functionality are likely to get more traction than a general preference that Roon do things the same way as other software.
4 Likes
DONE.
2 Likes