On Fri November 21 2008, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Till Maas wrote: > > Also all the differen summaries for media players above do not really > > provide much information that allows to distinguish them, e.g. is the > > gstreamer based media player or the player from Mozilla not feature rich > > or customizable? I don't know, but the summary does not really help here. > > I agree with your other points. This one is tough, though. If all of > the media players are customizable and feature rich then what sets yours > apart? That it comes from a recognizable brand name (Mozilla). That the > goal of the project upstream is to be "customizable". You can't encode > a complete user-experience in the Summary but you can try to encode > enough that someone will read the description to find out more. I don't know which media player was meant by each description, but here are some sample features that may make it easier to distinguish media players: - For commandline usage (mplayer) - lightweight (e.g. an XFCE media player, if there is one) - only for audio (afaik this matches amarok) - support for protable media devices / podcasts (feature of amarok) - frontend for mplayer - manager for audio files (amarok) - is it for GNOME / KDE / XFCE / whatever? - Remote control support - support for DJing, e.g. mixing from one file into another - intended to be used with touchscreens or on home entertainment systems Here are some examples of summaries I would like: amarok: - Audio player and manager for KDE with podcast support mplayer: - commandline audio and video player kmplayer (does it exist?): - KDE frontend for mplayer, an audio and video player Regards, Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
