Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
im sory, i forgot to mention im using a droid.
Original comment by aamza...@gmail.com
on 7 Jan 2010 at 7:32
This behavior is addressed in the FAQ to a degree. Thanks for opening the issue
report. The CPU load will have an
impact on how well the lockscreen skip is able to work in the current versions.
I have noticed that the most often
behavior is you don't see the lockscreen except during a brief flash when
myLock authenticates a full exit -when
you first wake the screen the app is requesting to hide the lockscreen and to
meet security requirements has to
wait a tiny delay before the OS will allow a full dismissal of it. I don't
think the additional things you are
running would cause different behavior normally unless they are impacting your
CPU load.
As an additional option, we will be adding a lite mode which does not do the
2nd step of the full exit, instead
allowing the lockscreen to remain in "pause" until the user presses home. The
disadvantage to that is you cannot
use home long press or the search key till that home press happens to finish
the clear of the lockscreen (which
keeps those functions locked as part of its overall gatekeeper role). The
benefit however is a slightly smoother
experience on wakeup since only the pause request is needed. We've found the
recent app switcher and search
functions are still easy to access since all it takes is Home, Home or Home,
Search - it is not a significant
interruption in the user experience, especially for those who keep their
primary apps as their main home screen
shortcuts
Original comment by myLockan...@gmail.com
on 8 Jan 2010 at 3:49
2b & 2c also have identical standard mode code to do a full immediate
lockscreen bypass. 2a used
alpha 1 implementation- soon to be an option as lite mode, a mere pause of the
lockscreen that has a
slight performance edge since it is not forced to insert the 50 ms delay
required for a safe lockscreen
bypass. and 2 used welcome screen mode that auto-exited itself. So it seems to
me odd that the issue
you experience surfaced only in 2c. Were you using 2b or an earlier version
prior to install?
Original comment by myLockan...@gmail.com
on 8 Jan 2010 at 3:17
i dont know which version i was using before. i think it was 2b. But i have
gone through
all the versions, so i may just be confused on which ones occured.
Original comment by aamza...@gmail.com
on 8 Jan 2010 at 6:10
These consistency issues have been fixed with the implementation of 2.0
lockscreen
disable code starting in r1 (v1.0) released to the market
Original comment by myLockan...@gmail.com
on 30 Mar 2010 at 3:51
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
aamza...@gmail.com
on 7 Jan 2010 at 7:31