On Friday 26 July 2002 13:33, Chris Baird wrote:
>  > Actually, gmplayer is more attractive!
> 
> In a 'retarded windows-user who doesn't have a clue about usability'
> kind of way. "Ooh--ahh--it looks just like a stereo system! Too bad
> the pretense doesn't follow closely enough for an intuitive
> interface." :p

That's a pretty cynical viewpoint to take. There's a certain fallacy about 
extreme utilitarianism. Would you prefer it if Goya's "Saturn" were a simple 
chalk sketch with no colour and no depth, texture, or emotion?

If someone is very used to a certain kind of interface, it becomes easier for 
them to use what's similar to them than it is to learn a brand new graphical 
interface (Windows' Sonique comes to mind as an example.)

MPlayer, having NO graphical interface by default (and the alias you have 
suggests you don't have any wrapping GUI) would be the utilitarian's extreme 
case for those willing to memorize the keystrokes rather than the icons. Why 
fill your brain with endless tables to translate what each keystroke means 
within each program when you can more visually grok an icon?

Personally, I think in MPlayer "z and x" have no relation whatsoever to 
subtitle display and the various numbered keys are *far* less memorable than 
learning what an icon looks like.

Functionality comments aside, I think you're being a little unfair to our 
fellow poster.

-sudog
p.s. I use MPlayer exclusively and will until I can get Xine's 
quicktime/sorenson stuff working.