![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:23
|
Posts: 27 |
Thanked: 18 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#1011
|
The Following User Says Thank You to poleepkwa For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:28
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#1012
|
It may not be easy, but it ain't impossible, is it? I have full faith in the CSSU team and in this community.
Impossible is nothing,
This is not proper "portrait for N900" and many apps will have problems (including built-in ones and those designed for the system to respect the "this program supports portrait" flags).
The point of forcerotation is to make it easier to identify the apps which are:
- Closed source but work well. A "white-list" will be developed and included in a future CSSU so that these rotate out-of-the-box.
- Open source but work well. These will have the appropriate flags added to their source in the git repos.
- Open source but nearly work. These will have the appropriate flags and changes added to their source in the git repos.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:34
|
Posts: 111 |
Thanked: 27 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
|
#1013
|
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:34
|
Posts: 291 |
Thanked: 134 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ North-west, UK
|
#1014
|
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:36
|
Posts: 2,225 |
Thanked: 3,822 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ Florida
|
#1015
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mentalist Traceur For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:38
|
|
Posts: 4,365 |
Thanked: 2,467 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Australia Mate
|
#1016
|
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:44
|
|
Posts: 381 |
Thanked: 847 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
@ Helsinki
|
#1017
|
The Following User Says Thank You to bergie For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:51
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#1018
|
Anyway, back to this: if forcedrotation is only meant to be a tool, you'll still leave it in as a usable option, right? Or will it eventually be pulled out?
The fact that apps that were built before portrait auto-rotation was common and thus don't support it, in my mind, isn't a good reason to throw out the newer and better model, or to hold back portrait support when at the end of the day, there's no reason most of those apps didn't have portrait support to begin with other than the fact that portrait mode wasn't an option at first.
I guess the point of this sleep deprived rant is that it sounds like the future plan is something of a reversion to a default-rotation-off-unless-pre-programmed-that-way-with-an-auto-rotate-on-flag-in-the-code approach.
And I just don't see a good reason for that. It is far more effective, I think, to make non-auto-rotation a conscious choice for developers if they wish to hard-code non-auto-rotation into the program...
and barring that, let things auto rotate, and give users some built-in 'lock' system built in to Hildon Desktop itself to force specific apps into one orientation or the other only if they so chose.
Seems that my changes were in the wiki page originally made, not the one Jaffa placed under development. Personally, I think it should've been outside there, but linked to from CSSU development, actually, because whether or not an app works well in portrait seems to me to be a more general thing, than just the CSSU specifically. (Though they obviously are significantly linked.)
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 11:52
|
Posts: 9 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
|
#1019
|
![]() |
2011-02-23
, 12:12
|
Posts: 133 |
Thanked: 138 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#1020
|
![]() |
Tags |
community ssu, f**k nokia, fremantle, maemo 5, nokia-who?, portrait mode, rotate, task-switcher, update, upgrade |
|