PDA

View Full Version : So I ask the Question...What do YOU want in 3.0/Gingerbread/A.F.



eljoker
10-09-2010, 12:29 PM
So what do you want to see in the next Android Version. Some call it 3.0, others call it Gingerbread, all I know is that its A.F. (After Froyo)

Id like to see-
UI polished up
Easy access to Notification bar from any screen or app
More cloud sync threw Chrome to Phone
Chocies for lock screens
Better native apps support (google apps)
Better Media player (music, video)
Updated Camera software
More IT, Exchange support
Mac compatibility (for the isheeps in the room, i kid i kid)
LED notification light native control
Something simlar to the SCENES from the Droid PRO
Ability to chose between OEM launchers (sense, blur, philblur, touchwiz)


Post your thoughts here and maybe we can send it to Google.

rubi22
10-09-2010, 01:55 PM
Well that didn't take long...

plumcrazy
10-09-2010, 04:45 PM
real copy/paste
better contact management/access
sync with outlook

waith
10-10-2010, 12:38 PM
A patch to fix Froyo.

Mudig
10-11-2010, 08:39 PM
I don't want Gingerbread at all. If THIS is the way they release updates then I will refuse to update mine.

gtriever
10-17-2010, 10:47 AM
Direct sync to Outlook via USB or Wi-Fi... a must-have.

BeK
10-17-2010, 09:26 PM
I would like to see scrollable widget support actually.

Emitted from my Droid X via Tapatalk

fused2explod
10-17-2010, 09:37 PM
I would like to see scrollable widget support actually.

Emitted from my Droid X via Tapatalk

Like, different than the launcherpro widgets? This is my "friends" widget that scrolls through all friends facebook updates as well as tweets from those I follow... What else would u need to scroll?

http://184.72.239.143/mu/48691423-b2c6-d951.jpg

F2E
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

DebianDog
10-18-2010, 07:28 AM
The ability to change the notification bar color without having to "HACK" it

wmedina1991
10-18-2010, 07:38 AM
the elimination of oem launchers!!! Like blurr

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

iresq
10-18-2010, 08:16 AM
What ever is in it, I want it after everyone else and before it is ready.

Usquanigo
10-18-2010, 09:15 AM
I'd love to see the stock browser either support frames based web sites, or at least allow one to zoom and scroll around the entire thing. There's a site I tried to visit this week and even through the frame doesn't need to scroll, it's presense freaked out the browser and I couldjn't really use the site. I had to download Dolphin. That worked, but I do prefer the native one.

Speaking of which, I'd also like to "see" improvements on the backend so that OEMs can provide their own unique spin more easily, thus cutting out the delays in updates (and reducing the liklihood of said customization breaking anything).

DebianDog
10-18-2010, 09:44 AM
Sorry FRAME based websites need to DIE a horrible death. Or a least go away. They have been a "no no" for almost a decade.


They add at least one level of unnecessary complexity (http://www.pantos.org/atw/35617.html), both to the design of the page, and to its navigation.
They make it inherently more difficult for readers to establish a reliable set of expectations (http://www.pantos.org/atw/35335.html) about the behavior of the constituent pages.
They increase apparent load time. (And load time is the second most critical consideration (http://www.pantos.org/atw/35542.html) in any site design.)
On some browsers, they override user preferences for image-loading, thus increasing actual load time, as well.

Usquanigo
10-18-2010, 09:49 AM
Your opinion. It doesn't change the fact that there are sites out there that use them. Besides which, your quote is incorrect anyway, if done right, it actually makes navigation easier.

DebianDog
10-18-2010, 09:52 AM
Your opinion. It doesn't change the fact that there are sites out there that use them. Besides which, your quote is incorrect anyway, if done right, it actually makes navigation easier.


Not MY opinion... it is pretty standard guideline if you are doing any type of web based design NOT to use them. When is the last time you saw a new site roll out with FRAMES?!?!?!? LOL wow!

Google "why html frames are bad" and see the 275,000 reasons

Usquanigo
10-18-2010, 12:38 PM
It's still an opinion, and one you happen to share. It is NOT fact, and not at all what you make it out to be. Nor does it seem to have bothered the ones that still use them (and well, I might add), which I'd like to view on my X, but currently need 2 browsers to do, and even then, not well. (btw, Jobs said much the same thing about Flash too, and even if people want to defend those points to the hilt, it's still something that should be supported on a mobile device, this is no different)

DebianDog
10-18-2010, 12:46 PM
Argue with W3C about it. HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frames) It is "bad" plain and simple. If you LIKE it that is YOUR opinion certainly not the consensus of the web community.

It is like people clinging on to IE 6. Let it go... man jezzs That battle is LOST.

Usquanigo
10-18-2010, 02:32 PM
YOU let it go. I'm not holding on to anything other than the sheer fact of reality of web sites, and of vocabulary. It doesn't matter if it's just you, or a whole community, it's still an opinion, no matter how much you want to deny <- and THAT is what I won't let go. Be sure. ;) Ditto the pure and simple fact that there ARE sites still designed that way, they can not simply be ignored because they don't conform to your opnion, and it's a basic feature that remains in PC browsers and should remain in mobile versions touted to "view the real, actual web, not a mobile version of it". Post all the links you want, it won't change any of that. And no, it is not inherently "bad" either, not only can that not be conclusively proven in any emprical way, it also runs counter to aspects that are obvious to open minds.

For the record, I don't give 2 craps if they actually go away or not. Many sites have benefitted from it, and many continue to do so, others could if they adopted them. But that's neither here nor there, I just want to view every page on my phone that I can on my desktop - that's it. However that's achieved is irrelevant.

DebianDog
10-18-2010, 02:53 PM
One of the MANY problems with Frames AKA an antiquated subset of the HTML standard.

People with visual disability's that can't possibly navigate a frames based website. In case you have not guessed... that probably WHY it is not supported in the browser.

I guess Googles programmers agree with my "opinion" ;)

Dor
10-18-2010, 02:54 PM
I would like to be able to create sub folders in my mail client.

Usquanigo
10-18-2010, 03:44 PM
One of the MANY problems with Frames AKA an antiquated subset of the HTML standard.

People with visual disability's that can't possibly navigate a frames based website. In case you have not guessed... that probably WHY it is not supported in the browser.

I guess Googles programmers agree with my "opinion" ;)


Depends on how it's designed. It's still not anything resembling emperical proof. Are you one of those who can't let go with out the last word? I am correct in this matter, and I will not sit here and quietly let someone else tell me I'm wrong - I'm not. This isn't about any preference I may or may not have for frames. Read my last post for that, incase anyone is wondering. You chimed in to take a shot for no reason, and now are trying to pull things our of your orifice to substantiate your false claim. It may be a fact that it is being slowly pulled from the interenet, but good or bad is purely opnion. You voiced it - fine. I'm surprised how much it must have bugged you to be called on that.

Here's another fact - many people hate that google is banned from the Fascinate because it revoked a choice. Well... this is no different. Choice and options are the mantra and by-words for this community. That, combined with the fact (yes, fact) that there are still sites out there that use frames, means that the option, the flexibility, the choice to view those sites properly on these devices should be SUPPORTED by the community.

I suspect this goes back to the Mac/PC debate between you and I. But even if not, must you really continue to drag this off-topic? I'm following your lead here.

DebianDog
10-18-2010, 03:59 PM
There is SO much proof of how misguided you are. Frames fail in so many ways. The information is out there so, I doubt no matter what I say or show you... you won't change your mind about it. Frames are dead. Sorry.

You win. Happy?

Usquanigo
10-18-2010, 04:39 PM
There is SO much proof of how misguided you are. Frames fail in so many ways. The information is out there so, I doubt no matter what I say or show you... you won't change your mind about it. Frames are dead. Sorry.

You win. Happy?

You're missing the point. Which nullifies your shot about being misguided.

But if you let it go, then yes, I'm happy.

fused2explod
10-18-2010, 07:03 PM
By the time you two finish I could have added frame-support for browser.apk...

...if I had the source of course :D

Debian dog, I commend you for letting it go, if you really weren't going to respond again. We are of the type that speak our minds and also like to flood the people with a show of knowledge. Don't say you aren't, the first time I saw one of your posts I knew exactly what type you were. I'm only admitting it because of the very, exhausted and rare mood I'm in. You'll probably never hear me say it again. My point in all this is that people seem to take our forwardness the wrong way. Just shrug it off man. If they can take a d*ck they can take a joke. (THAT WAS NOT AIMED AT ANYONE DON'T FORUM LYNCH ME)
I'm not agreeing with either of you btw ya'll need to go get a life. Jk.

F2E
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Martin030908
10-19-2010, 08:59 AM
Closed.