ChemBro wrote:

markey wrote:

ChemBro wrote:My problem is still present (and ignored). What about the behaviour of internetstreams (as stated in the first post)?

We are already thinking about solutions for this problem. We might simply "special-case" these types of media that cannot be paused, and then stop them instead.

This would pretty much solve this issue, I think.

Yes, would be, in my opinion.

Good news: I've just fixed this problem. See here:

http://gitorious.org/amarok/amarok/comm ... 3e2939d048

Thanks!

Mamarok wrote:Just as a reminder: there is a global shortcut for stopping: Meta+V, why not use that?

@Annew: what difference does that make if you pause a track and then switch to another one or stop it and swtich then? AFAIAC I can't see any difference.

From a usability point of view: it's confusing. The effect is probably the same, whether I "pause" or "stop" a track - but from the wording alone, this is not intuitive - at all!

Here's the use case from Annew in a little more detail
1.) User listens to new music (doesn't really matter if (s)he got a new album from a friend or listening to a music store stream or ...)
2.) User doesn't like the new music, but does not have anything else loaded in the playlist
3.) User wants to stop the currently played song
4.) User cannot find a Stop button
5.) User is confused.

Of course, you are correct that from a technical point of view, there is no difference in 'pausing and switching' and 'stopping and switching' - there is however a difference in concepts.
I agree with Annew that "Pause" has the meaning of "I want to restart listening at exactly this point later" (e.g. after I finished a phone call).
"Stop" has the meaning of "don't bother me with this track any more, stop it!"

Best

Martin

If you must have a stop as well as a pause, there is always the Slim Toolbar. View > Slim Toolbar.

Valorie

What user's steps are in developers' mind for, say, starting current song from the beginning (similar to 'Stop, Play')?

My lord. 20 posts to define the difference between "stop" and "pause".

Please, listen to your users.

jglen490 wrote:My lord. 20 posts to define the difference between "stop" and "pause".

Defining the difference was never an issue.

The issue was defining a use case where the difference between stop and pause actually makes a difference.

As far as I can tell the only usage difference would be if it's paused and you decide you want to start the track from the beginning again you double click the highlighted track in the playlist instead of hitting the pause/play button. Not really enough to justify having an extra button.

Later, Seeker

I think it could be called more accurately - "suspend" instead of "pause" or "stop", as in the end the result is the same - sound goes away. Its just that a users are more used to terms 'pause" or stop...

A few users care. Most use the new way without a question or complaint. For those few who don't like the new way, we have the old slim toolbar.

Valorie

..And the keyboard shortcut

In a user-centric development universe, the use cases for "stop" and "pause" would indeed be different. It has nothing to do with "user confusion", but everything to do with usage and process.

Yes, the solutions for each are different by a very few, inconvenient lines of code, or instructions, or configuration; but that's a developer-centric view.

Your choice

One question: Why doesn't a song stay paused, after a "restart" of amarok?

Possibly because in settings "resume playback on start" is checked and takes precedence

It is, but that is not the behaviour I expected. There is no stop-button in the default design, why doesn't the song stay paused? Shouldn't the song only be played, if I didn't pause it?

Switch to the slim toolbar. Here's another reason to prefer stop to pause: pausing causes huge amounts of cpu wake ups according to powertop, and this isn't the case when amarok is paused. Here's a bug report: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=235165.

So stopping rather than pausing causes potential battery savings.