Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
GTalkSMS reports the battery updates every 1% only if it's charging, otherwise
it reports in 5% steps. IMHO the reporting process is lightweight and the
additional cycles can be neglected because they are minimal and only used when
on AC.
If this is a feature request to make this behaviour configurable, please think
twice if it's really needed. GTalkSMS has already many settings, adding even
more may result in a bad UX.
Original comment by fschm...@gmail.com
on 11 Aug 2012 at 9:09
Got it and agree with the UX point and the "cycles don't matter since it's
charging" argument but...
- could it be kept at 5%? I'll add a screenie later but essentially in the chat
client on the computer it shows every time the gtalk acc't sets it's status
(ie. every time it goes up 1% I can see it in the chat window and it draws my
gaze).
Additionally, while it may be negligent power wise since it's charging, it
makes the overall charging process take longer / become less efficient which is
especially crucial when charging via USB and charging is already quite slow.
So, yeah, I agree that "it's a niche feature, let's not get bloated" so I'm
lobbying that the value when charging = 5% intervals and the value when
discharging (selectable) is defaulted to 10% intervals (personally, I use 20%).
Thanks again for a great product,
Mike
Original comment by mike.ra...@gmail.com
on 11 Aug 2012 at 7:24
For the record, here's how the notifications look client side
Original comment by mike.ra...@gmail.com
on 20 Aug 2012 at 2:27
Attachments:
Original comment by fschm...@gmail.com
on 26 Nov 2012 at 9:36
what about disabling status message notifications in your client instead? would
you remove gtalk friends who update their status message excessively too?
Original comment by saiv...@gmail.com
on 22 Jan 2013 at 5:37
Sorry, I don't follow the question. My client's not actively alerting/notifying
me to the changed status, I see the notifications because I keep the gtalk sms
window open.
Original comment by mike.ra...@gmail.com
on 22 Jan 2013 at 6:06
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
mike.ra...@gmail.com
on 10 Aug 2012 at 7:30