On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Dusk Jockeys Android Apps
wrote:
> My point was more that although there is no explicit law requiring
> home screens to support animations, from my reading of the CTD there
> is also no explicit law requiring views in normal Activities to
> support animations, but
Hi Mark,
Yes, I understand that this is the position I am in, and I have to
adapt to that.
My point was more that although there is no explicit law requiring
home screens to support animations, from my reading of the CTD there
is also no explicit law requiring views in normal Activities to
suppor
Hi Diane!
From your response I sense that I must have touched a nerve. Please
don't misunderstand my intentions in making these assertions. I'm not an
Android hater, I'm a disillusioned believer. I'm not the only one though:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/14/ok-mg-i-take-it-back/
http://www.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Dusk Jockeys Android Apps
wrote:
> from my point of view the animation is part
> of the functionality, as it is the raison d'etre of the app...
As Ms. Hackborn pointed out, there is no law requiring home screens to
support animations. *Any* home screen, whether wr
Thanks Dianne, for such a detailed answer.
I understand the limitations you describe, both of the Compatibility
process and AppWidgets themselves.
The use case of animations here could be considered trivial, but I do
think it adds tremendous perceived value to an app. Consider a simple
Gallery wi
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Dusk Jockeys Android Apps <
duskjock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dianne, for this infomation on Compatibility Testing.
>
> Couuld you clarify the exact scope? Is it the devices core API that
> have to pass or their implementation of it?
>
It is everything covere
Thanks Dianne, for this infomation on Compatibility Testing.
Couuld you clarify the exact scope? Is it the devices core API that
have to pass or their implementation of it?
My query is a little bit of a grey area:
On the latest Samsung Tablets (e.g. Tab 7 Plus) the LayoutAnimation on
AppWidgets
Focusing on the OS/API evolution here, as brought into play by the OP.
Out of all areas that cause developers headaches, the evolution of the
API along the succession of OS releases must be the least of our
worries. Through wrapper classes and reflection, newer features like
TTS or ActionBar are
If you find devices that are behaving inconsistently with the standard
platform, please please at least file a bug so this is known, and supplying
a test case is a great way to get in to CTS so it never happens again.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Stephan Wiesner wrote:
> I agree and actually
I agree and actually profit from it. As a private developer I hate
that I have to write Bugfixes for single devices/Android versions
(just thinking of the Galaxy SI lagfix thing gets me goosebumbs) but
in my professional life I am a software tester and we actually earn
our money by offering our cli
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Christopher Van Kirk <
christopher.vank...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Making software is a business. An investment. To reap maximum rewards on
> that investment the product has to have as much reach as possible, meaning
> the OP is absolutely on point about OS upgrades. W
Yeah, I would respectfully disagree with your assessment.
Making software is a business. An investment. To reap maximum rewards on
that investment the product has to have as much reach as possible,
meaning the OP is absolutely on point about OS upgrades. Who is going to
spend 10k, 100k, 1m, et
sir, I would like to visit with you about this -- off record please as I
just nailed the wall really hard in front of several people and I can tell
you this can get really nasty in a few tenths of a second with powerful
"players" ready to play hard ball with soft-heads
--
You received this me
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Zsolt Vasvari wrote:
> I don't have a problem with it, and if I did, I'd just develop for
> iOS.
I do, and am.
> I'd suggest you should consider the same instead of whining about
> something you cannot change.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20126706-1/frida
I don't have a problem with it, and if I did, I'd just develop for
iOS.
I'd suggest you should consider the same instead of whining about
something you cannot change.
On Oct 28, 1:35 am, Greg Donald wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:29 AM, b0b wrote:
> > You can make an app work great on 2.x,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:29 AM, b0b wrote:
> You can make an app work great on 2.x, 3.x and 4.x taking advantage of each
> version.
Of course you CAN, but that doesn't mean you have the resources to do
so. It's simply easier to go with the lowest common SDK version.
--
Greg Donald
--
You
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Studio LFP wrote:
> If you look at the history of developers, we're already use to having to
> deal with a lot worse fragmentation issues than Android. Anyone that's ever
> developed a website correctly knows that supporting the available web
> browsers is a lot m
Fragmentation is in good shape to become the most overused word of this
tech decade...
Did PC developpers complained about fragmentation every 2h on the interwebs
in the 90's and the 00's?
You can make an app work great on 2.x, 3.x and 4.x taking advantage of each
version.
--
You received
Eh, it's not that bad.
If you look at the history of developers, we're already use to having to
deal with a lot worse fragmentation issues than Android. Anyone that's ever
developed a website correctly knows that supporting the available web
browsers is a lot more of a challenge than with Andro
19 matches
Mail list logo
