Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #33037 > unrolled thread

Battery usage

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 13:51 -0700
    Re: Battery usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-08-02 22:05 +0100
      Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 17:24 -0700
    Re: Battery usage tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-02 22:52 -0400
      Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-02 23:06 -0400
        Re: Battery usage tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-04 04:07 -0400
      Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 21:38 -0700
        Re: Battery usage tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-04 04:13 -0400
          Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-04 13:02 -0400
            Re: Battery usage mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-08-04 14:14 -0700
              Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-04 17:33 -0400
                Re: Battery usage mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-08-05 01:07 -0700
            Re: Battery usage tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-05 01:38 -0400
              Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-05 01:40 -0400
              Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 14:46 -0700
                Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-05 17:48 -0400
                  Re: Battery usage tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-06 04:22 -0400
                    Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-06 10:36 -0400
                    Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:59 -0700
                      Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-06 16:02 -0400
          Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 14:45 -0700
      Re: Battery usage Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:47 +0000
        Re: Battery usage tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-04 04:18 -0400
      Re: Battery usage Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-09 13:43 +0100
        Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 09:32 -0400
        Re: Battery usage tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-08-09 21:33 -0400
          Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 21:46 -0400
            Re: Battery usage AL <noemail@none.com> - 2016-08-09 21:07 -0700
          Re: Battery usage Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-11 13:30 +0100
            Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-11 09:32 -0400
              Re: Battery usage Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-12 13:14 +0100
                Re: Battery usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-12 17:54 +0000
                  Re: Battery usage Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-13 12:00 +0100
                    Re: Battery usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-13 19:01 +0000
                      Re: Battery usage Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-14 12:34 +0100
                        Re: Battery usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-14 15:28 +0000
                          Flying in circles (Was: Battery usage) Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-15 11:08 +0100
                            Re: Flying in circles Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-15 11:43 +0000
                      Re: Battery usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-08-14 15:31 +0000
                Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-12 13:59 -0400
                  Re: Battery usage Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-08-13 12:00 +0100
    Re: Battery usage Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:37 +0000
      Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:27 -0700
        Re: Battery usage Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 17:51 +0000
          Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 10:58 -0700
            Re: Battery usage Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 06:25 +0000
              Re: Battery usage crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:56 -0600
                Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-05 11:14 -0400
          Re: Battery usage nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-03 14:47 -0400
    Re: Battery usage crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:43 -0600
      Re: Battery usage The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 14:43 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#33135

On 08/04/2016 01:13 AM, tlvp wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 21:38:02 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/2016 07:52 PM, tlvp wrote:
>>> ...
>>> PS: these cautionary anecdotes illustrate why I won't have a phone whose
>>> battery is not *easily* accessed, removed, replaced :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
>>
>> Tradeoffs... There are always tradeoffs :-(
>
> You mean there's no software-specific Android way to do an electrical
> disconnect and reconnect of an Android phone, analogous to pulling and
> reinserting its battery? Is that true of Apple iPhones as well?

Well, there's an OFF switch.  Aside from that, I'm clueless.

> (Shameful, to the extent it's so :-{ .) Cheers, -- tlvp


-- 
Cheers, Bev
==================================================
Segal's Law:  A man with one watch knows the time.
               A man with two is never sure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33058

tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:51:58 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> 
>> I charged it (Motorola Moto G Gen#2) fully and put it in airplane mode. 
>> Shut all apps and turned off the screen.  Now 14 hours later the 
>> battery is down to 62% but the only usage noted is 3% "Phone idle" and 
>> 1% "Screen".
>> 
>> ???
> 
> No answer, sorry, but three anecdotes about two phones: a Moto Droid X2
> (two tales) and a Sony Experia tipo dual (just one).
> 
> 1) Moto Droid X2 in airplane mode but with wi-fi on, browsing the web --
> battery BH5X manufactured 2011-01-21 -- drains from 100% to 20% in 90 min.
> Repeatably.
> 
> 2) Moto Droid X2 in airplane mode but with wi-fi on, browsing the web --
> battery BH5X manufactured 2013-04-19 -- drains from 100% to 20% in 8 hours.
> Repeatably as well.
> 
> 3) Sony Experia tipo dual. In normal use, usually, after overnight charge,
> ends the next day with battery about 80%-95% full. One day recently,
> though, it ran to empty and shut itself down before the day was half over.
> Would not restart. Would not accept a charge. ... OK ... surgery called for
> ... removed battery cover, removed battery, waited the scripted 45 seconds,
> put battery back in, replaced battery cover, attached charger, began
> charging. Waited the scripted 45 minutes, attempted to power the phone on,
> saw it power on, let everything finish charging. Now all is back to normal.
> 
> Morals I draw from these anecdotes: (i) you may have a moribund battery. Or
> (ii) your handset may have had a transient ischemic or psychotic attack:
> cure it by removing and (after a substantial pause) replacing its battery.
> 
> HTH. YMMV (IGw/oS). Cheers, -- tlvp
> 
> PS: these cautionary anecdotes illustrate why I won't have a phone whose
> battery is not *easily* accessed, removed, replaced :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

My counter anecdote ;)

Currently moving house and found all my old mobile phones - 7 of them -
spanning 16 years. All bar the last had removable batteries, but not one
had I reason to replace or need to remove other than to get to the SIM.

My observation is that modern rechargeable batteries are fantastic pieces
of engineering. The only battery failure I've had was with a laptop battery
which started expanding. To be fair it was 5-6 years old and had been used
a lot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33098

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:47:30 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Currently moving house and found all my old mobile phones - 7 of them -
> spanning 16 years. All bar the last had removable batteries, but not one
> had I reason to replace or need to remove other than to get to the SIM.
> 
> My observation is that modern rechargeable batteries are fantastic pieces
> of engineering. The only battery failure I've had was with a laptop battery
> which started expanding. To be fair it was 5-6 years old and had been used
> a lot.

To paraphrase Kipling: "You've had better luck than I've had, Gunga Din."

 :-) .  Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33243

In article <dgc4k6wkit1s$.18pj3jtndxdne.dlg@40tude.net>, Tlvp wrote:
> 1) Moto Droid X2 in airplane mode but with wi-fi on, browsing the web 
--

Surely "airplane mode" implies that the WiFi is OFF?

My phone turns WiFi off when entering airplane mode. It's true that it 
also lets me turn the WiFi back on when in airplane mode and still shows 
the airplane icon, but I wouldn't say that it was really in airplane 
mode in that state.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, here, but I would say that the 
requirement for airplane mode was that all/any radio transmitters in the 
device must be OFF.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33245

In article <VA.00000bb1.0037fce0@me.invalid>, Daniel James
<daniel@me.invalid> wrote:

> 
> Surely "airplane mode" implies that the WiFi is OFF?
> 
> My phone turns WiFi off when entering airplane mode. It's true that it 
> also lets me turn the WiFi back on when in airplane mode and still shows 
> the airplane icon, but I wouldn't say that it was really in airplane 
> mode in that state.
> 
> Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, here, but I would say that the 
> requirement for airplane mode was that all/any radio transmitters in the 
> device must be OFF.

airplanes have offered inflight wifi for nearly a decade and there is
no longer a ban on wireless devices anymore anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33261

On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:43:55 +0100, Daniel James wrote:

> Surely "airplane mode" implies that the WiFi is OFF?

So one might expect, Daniel, based on the usual, garden-variety
understanding of the words used in that phrase.

And indeed, at the moment of having entered airplane mode, all radios are
off, the 802.11 ones for wi-fi not excepted. *But*: one can then activate
wi-fi (leaving all *other* radio activity off), and that's the state I had
in mind with the expression 

: ... Moto Droid X2 in airplane mode but with wi-fi on ...

that you question, above. HTH. Can Androids other than Moto Droid X2 on
v.2.3.5 do that? I don't know, I've no experience there. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33262

In article <yo63dngzbrpq.1uyp9woxzj45p.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> : ... Moto Droid X2 in airplane mode but with wi-fi on ...
> 
> that you question, above. HTH. Can Androids other than Moto Droid X2 on
> v.2.3.5 do that? I don't know, I've no experience there. Cheers, -- tlvp

yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33265

On 8/9/2016 6:46 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <yo63dngzbrpq.1uyp9woxzj45p.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
> <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> : ... Moto Droid X2 in airplane mode but with wi-fi on ...
>>
>> that you question, above. HTH. Can Androids other than Moto Droid X2 on
>> v.2.3.5 do that? I don't know, I've no experience there. Cheers, -- tlvp
>
> yes.
>
Indeed. I found an AT&T Go Phone (ZTE smartphone) on the Target 
clearance rack for $11.99. I don't use AT&T but at that price couldn't 
resist it. Brought it home and put it in airplane mode with the WiFi on. 
Essentially an Android iPod Touch at about 188 bucks cheaper. I use it 
mainly for streaming radio while working around the house. Also makes a 
great mp3 player.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33279

In article <yo63dngzbrpq.1uyp9woxzj45p.dlg@40tude.net>, Tlvp wrote:
> Can Androids other than Moto Droid X2 on v.2.3.5 do that?

Yes, as I said, my Sony (Z1 Compact on Android 5.1.1) can do that. I'd 
regard the fact that the airplane icon (denoting airplane mode) remains 
visible after the WiFi is turned back on as a bug, though. If selecting 
airplane mode turns the WiFi off then turning the WiFi on again should 
mean that you're no longer in airplane mode.

Airplane mode historically means "no radios transmitting" (regardless 
of the fact that airlines no longer require this state except at 
take-off and landing), and it's useful to have a term for that state.

.. and, back to the original point, if WiFi is on then obviously WiFi 
will be using the battery. The fact that one has previously selected 
airplane mode doesn't alter that.
-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33281

In article <VA.00000bb3.002ed1f2@me.invalid>, Daniel James
<daniel@me.invalid> wrote:

> > Can Androids other than Moto Droid X2 on v.2.3.5 do that?
> 
> Yes, as I said, my Sony (Z1 Compact on Android 5.1.1) can do that. I'd 
> regard the fact that the airplane icon (denoting airplane mode) remains 
> visible after the WiFi is turned back on as a bug, though. If selecting 
> airplane mode turns the WiFi off then turning the WiFi on again should 
> mean that you're no longer in airplane mode.

it's not a bug. other radios are off, namely cellular.

> Airplane mode historically means "no radios transmitting" (regardless 
> of the fact that airlines no longer require this state except at 
> take-off and landing), and it's useful to have a term for that state.

they don't require that at all anymore. you can use a phone or tablet
gate to gate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33306

In article <110820160932576171%nospam@nospam.invalid>, Nospam wrote:
>> I'd regard the fact that the airplane icon (denoting airplane mode)
>> remains visible after the WiFi is turned back on as a bug, though.
>> If selecting airplane mode turns the WiFi off then turning the WiFi
>> on again should mean that you're no longer in airplane mode.
> 
> it's not a bug. other radios are off, namely cellular.

<shrug> It's inconsistent behaviour.

Forget that it's called "airplane mode" and that many airlines now allow 
WiFi in flight. I'm talking about the logic of the UI.

If selecting a certain mode turns off the Wifi (among other things), 
then when you turn the WiFi on again you can no longer be said to be in 
that mode. 

In the case of my Sony selecting the "all radios off" mode causes the 
display of an aircraft-like icon, but turning WiFi back on -- so NOT all 
radios are off -- leaves the icon displayed. That's inconsistent 
behaviour that is likely to confuse or mislead the user, and I call that 
a bug.

>> Airplane mode historically means "no radios transmitting" (regardless 
>> of the fact that airlines no longer require this state except at 
>> take-off and landing), and it's useful to have a term for that state.
> 
> they don't require that at all anymore. you can use a phone or tablet
> gate to gate.

You've said that already and I acknowledged that you are correct, but it 
was not always so -- hence my use of the word "historically".

"Airplane mode" is the name that Sony have given to their "all radios 
off" mode, that name has been used by a lot of handsets for longer than 
the airlines have allowed the use of WiFi in flight.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33312

Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> In the case of my Sony selecting the "all radios off" mode causes the 
> display of an aircraft-like icon, but turning WiFi back on -- so NOT all 
> radios are off -- leaves the icon displayed. That's inconsistent 
> behaviour that is likely to confuse or mislead the user, and I call that 
> a bug.

  The aircraft icon is indeed still displayed, but the WiFi icon is
*also* displayed. So if a user sees one, (s)he should also see the other
and there should not be any confusion.

  Anyway, if you consider it a 'bug', then how do you propose to fix
that 'bug', without introducing other inconsistencies/confusion?

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33318

In article <e16graFbousU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The aircraft icon is indeed still displayed, but the WiFi icon is
> *also* displayed. So if a user sees one, (s)he should also see the
> other and there should not be any confusion.

If you know to look for both, that's true.

> Anyway, if you consider it a 'bug', then how do you propose to fix
> that 'bug', without introducing other inconsistencies/confusion?

Were I in a position to do anything about it, I would disable the 
"airplane" icon when the WiFi was turned back on. There are separate 
icons for "Mobile data" and for "Bluetooth" so that shouldn't confuse 
anyone.

Better still, I'd remove "airplane mode" altogether and replace it with 
a "no radios" mode, with an icon the didn't look like a plane.

[Do airlines permit bluetooth in flight? I'm not sure.]

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33320

Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
> In article <e16graFbousU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > The aircraft icon is indeed still displayed, but the WiFi icon is
> > *also* displayed. So if a user sees one, (s)he should also see the
> > other and there should not be any confusion.
> 
> If you know to look for both, that's true.
> 
> > Anyway, if you consider it a 'bug', then how do you propose to fix
> > that 'bug', without introducing other inconsistencies/confusion?
> 
> Were I in a position to do anything about it, I would disable the 
> "airplane" icon when the WiFi was turned back on.

  But - as has been mentioned - nowadays 'airplane mode' with WiFi on is
an allowed combination on many flights. In this scenario, turning off
the airplane icon would only confuse Joe User ("I'm on an airplane, but
I don't see the icon! Am I violating the rules?"). That's why I said
"fix that 'bug', *without* introducing *other* inconsistencies/confusion".

  So when told so, Joe User sets 'airplane mode' and when told it's OK,
he switches WiFi on. No confusion for Joe User. That *we* the technical
'geeks' are confused/annoyed by the 'wrong' terminolgy/icons/<whatever>
is of no particular concern to Google and the device makers.

[Repetitions for completeness:]

>						    There are separate 
> icons for "Mobile data" and for "Bluetooth" so that shouldn't confuse 
> anyone.

  Yes, it would confuse Joe User (see above).

> Better still, I'd remove "airplane mode" altogether and replace it with 
> a "no radios" mode, with an icon the didn't look like a plane.

  'geek' approach. Not acceptable. See above.

> [Do airlines permit bluetooth in flight? I'm not sure.]

  I'm not sure either, but I think they do, because - AFAIK - they
permit Bluetooth headsets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33335

In article <e1994cF18qhU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> But - as has been mentioned - nowadays 'airplane mode' with WiFi on
> is an allowed combination on many flights.

Yes, I got that ...

> In this scenario, turning off the airplane icon would only confuse
> Joe User ("I'm on an airplane, but I don't see the icon! Am I
> violating the rules?").

.. but when Mr.User travels on a flight on which WiFi is NOT permitted 
he is as likely to be tricked into believing that he is obeying the 
rules because the aeroplane icon is still visible even though he has 
turned his WiFi back on, in violation of the regulations.

>> Better still, I'd remove "airplane mode" altogether and replace it
>> with a "no radios" mode, with an icon the didn't look like a plane.
> 
>  'geek' approach. Not acceptable. See above.

It's a 'geek' problem. 

Unless the phone itself knows what the regulations are for the 
particular flight that its owner is taking then it shouldn't attempt to 
tell the user whether or not it is in a safe or legal mode for that 
flight. Unless and until the phone can do that it is not a "user 
friendly" problem, but must remain in the realm of geekdom.

"no radios" may not be the best word for it, but some name that draws 
attention to the geek-nature of the setting rather than making it a 
source of false reassurance seems to me to required.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33339

Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
> In article <e1994cF18qhU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > But - as has been mentioned - nowadays 'airplane mode' with WiFi on
> > is an allowed combination on many flights.
> 
> Yes, I got that ...
> 
> > In this scenario, turning off the airplane icon would only confuse
> > Joe User ("I'm on an airplane, but I don't see the icon! Am I
> > violating the rules?").
> 
> .. but when Mr.User travels on a flight on which WiFi is NOT permitted 
> he is as likely to be tricked into believing that he is obeying the 
> rules because the aeroplane icon is still visible even though he has 
> turned his WiFi back on, in violation of the regulations.

  BUT - as I said in the part you snipped - Mr. User WAS told to switch
on 'airplane mode' and he was NOT told to switch WiFi back on. So this
Mr. User is a naugthty boy and hence all bets are off.

[Left for completeness:]

> >> Better still, I'd remove "airplane mode" altogether and replace it
> >> with a "no radios" mode, with an icon the didn't look like a plane.
> > 
> >  'geek' approach. Not acceptable. See above.
> 
> It's a 'geek' problem. 
> 
> Unless the phone itself knows what the regulations are for the 
> particular flight that its owner is taking then it shouldn't attempt to 
> tell the user whether or not it is in a safe or legal mode for that 
> flight. Unless and until the phone can do that it is not a "user 
> friendly" problem, but must remain in the realm of geekdom.
> 
> "no radios" may not be the best word for it, but some name that draws 
> attention to the geek-nature of the setting rather than making it a 
> source of false reassurance seems to me to required.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33375 — Flying in circles (Was: Battery usage)

In article <e1bh10Fhd10U1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> .. but when Mr.User travels on a flight on which WiFi is NOT
>> permitted he is as likely to be tricked into believing that he is
>> obeying the rules because the aeroplane icon is still visible even
>> though he has turned his WiFi back on, in violation of the
>> regulations.
> 
> BUT - as I said in the part you snipped - Mr. User WAS told to switch
> on 'airplane mode' and he was NOT told to switch WiFi back on. So this
> Mr. User is a naugthty boy and hence all bets are off.

What I snipped was:

>>> So when told so, Joe User sets 'airplane mode' and when told
>>> it's OK, he switches WiFi on. No confusion for Joe User. 

So, at risk of this becoming something of a circular discussion ...

My point was that Mr. User may have discovered that after selecting 
airplane mode a little aeroplane icon appears, and that if he then turns 
WiFi on that icon remains.

If the airline tells him to put his device into "flight mode" (as they 
seem to like to call it, possibly causing still more confusion) for 
take-off (and most (all?) airlines still don't allow the use of WiFi 
during take-off and landing) he may mistakenly think that the display of 
the aeroplane icon means that his device is still in a state that is 
acceptable.

He's not intentionally a naughty boy, he's just confused.

>>> That *we* the technical 'geeks' are confused/annoyed by the 'wrong'
>>> terminolgy/icons/<whatever> is of no particular concern to
>>> Google and the device makers.

It's not the possibility of confusion among self-confessed geeks that 
concerns me -- we're old enough and ugly enough (as the saying goes) to 
understand, after a little thought -- it's the possibility of confusion 
among the great unwashed and the (admittedly very small) chance that 
that confusion might bring down an airliner.

That probably should be a concern to the device makers ...

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33376 — Re: Flying in circles

Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> So, at risk of this becoming something of a circular discussion ...

[...]

  Yeah, we've probably covered all sides. Thanks for your viewpoints.

  It's a tad sad that we don't disagree. A Usenet thread without
disagreement? What *is* the world coming to!? :-)

  Anyway, it serves Joe User right for being confused! That's what you
get for being a non-geek! :-)

  (AFAIC,) EOD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33340

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
> >                     No confusion for Joe User. That *we* the technical
> >'geeks' are confused/annoyed by the 'wrong' terminolgy/icons/<whatever>
> >is of no particular concern to Google and the device makers.
> 
>   Do you have any proof that this is »no confusion for Joe User«?

  One can't prove a negative. Having said that, the 'proof' is that - as
reported sofar - all Android devices have this behaviour and nobody has
come up with something better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33313

In article <VA.00000bb6.054603fb@me.invalid>, Daniel James
<daniel@me.invalid> wrote:

> >> I'd regard the fact that the airplane icon (denoting airplane mode)
> >> remains visible after the WiFi is turned back on as a bug, though.
> >> If selecting airplane mode turns the WiFi off then turning the WiFi
> >> on again should mean that you're no longer in airplane mode.
> > 
> > it's not a bug. other radios are off, namely cellular.
> 
> <shrug> It's inconsistent behaviour.
> 
> Forget that it's called "airplane mode" and that many airlines now allow 
> WiFi in flight. I'm talking about the logic of the UI.
> 
> If selecting a certain mode turns off the Wifi (among other things), 
> then when you turn the WiFi on again you can no longer be said to be in 
> that mode. 
> 
> In the case of my Sony selecting the "all radios off" mode causes the 
> display of an aircraft-like icon, but turning WiFi back on -- so NOT all 
> radios are off -- leaves the icon displayed. That's inconsistent 
> behaviour that is likely to confuse or mislead the user, and I call that 
> a bug.

changing the name is going to confuse the user even more. what do you
propose to call it?

airplane mode came to be before phones had wifi and all it did was
disable the cellular radios.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web