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.
