Igor Stoppa wrote:
fwiw I took a look (but don't get excited, I'm not really into UI stuff)
and my comment is that although i personally agree and have suffered
from the same problem, your bug is basically againist UI design, so it's
harder to prove that it's a bug, compared to, for example:
"when I ask for offline mode, the device remains online"
You are questioning the specs, not their implementation.
Hi Igor
I assume you are referring to bug #959 - "Lock screen behaviour is different when
Brightness != Switch Off period". Currently the screen responds in two ways when it
is locked, dependent on the user input for the two time out periods. To me, that's a bug
as it's not consistent/obvious behaviour, nor is it documented. If the intention is to
disable the screen under certain circumstances, this requires a GUI checkbox to make it
explicit behaviour. Since we have inconsistent and non-obvious behaviour, that's a bug;
the lack of the GUI checkbox to enforce explicit behaviour is a GUI design error. So
maybe it's both a bug AND a GUI design error. :)
Either way the distinction is fairly irrelevant as it needs addressing in the next firmware release (hence Severity==Major, this is an obvious and embarrassing - Nokia QA, where are you?! - flaw).
It's causing a lot of confusion and teeth gnashing, and running down the battery unnecessarily for a proportion of users.
If you have time and the knowledge, I would recommend to try to do your
fix and submit it as a patch that, without compromiising the original
functionality, improves it, for example adding an option to the power
menu.
Sadly I don't have the skills/knowledge. I wouldn't know where to start! The
problem highlighted by bug #959 is probably rooted deep in the bowels of the
(non-open source) power management, and I don't even know if the Display applet
is open sourced.
As for the "cover-on" functionality discussed in bug #943, I'm looking for ideas that could be
implemented - again I don't have the skills to implement these ideas, I'm just a humble end user that doesn't
fit in with the Nokia "always on" philosophy (well actually, my employer doesn't agree with the
Nokia stance either!) A number of end users also disagree about the inability to rapidly put the N800 into a
770-type "cover-on" state - Nokia really have goofed here. :(
Then it will be probably easier to have your request satisfied.
In the worst case i can assure you that you'll have at least one user
(me =) for the patch.
Trust me, we're not alone - there are many who have complained (if only were
voting were enabled against N800 bugs in Bugzilla we may even have some stats
to back that up!)
Unfortunately I won't be able to submit patches for these two bugs, but if
they're not addressed in future firmware - particularly the lack of a cover-on
shortcut, bug #943 - then I think I will have to begin questioning the motives
and outlook of Nokia when it so clearly flies in the face of their customers.
_______________________________________________
maemo-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
