|
I replaced my cheapo Android smart phone (Galaxy Core Prime) with a newer cheapo Android smart phone (Alcatel OneTouch Flint).
Previous one had Adnroid 4.4.4 and this one has Marshmallow (6.x?) on it.
Now the buttons at the bottom are no longer exactly a part of the screen.
You can see an image of the device at: alcatel flint[^]
Shouldn't matter, right?
Cold Weather / Glove Test
It is cold here in this part of country today and I put my touch-enabled gloves on.
Home, Back, Task List Buttons
The gloves work perfectly well anywhere on the screen of the device but they will not work on the extended part of the screen/device where the home, back, task list buttons are.
I never would've suspected that. And, it is annoying.
It is slightly interesting too, from a physics / materials standpoint. But mostly, it is annoying.
Can anyone here explain this? I'm interested. Less conductive material? Material requires more surface touchpoints? ??
|
|
|
|
|
To answer your question we first would need to know how exactly this particular touch surface works. Not all require physical contact, for example if it is capacitive or inductive. It may also be resistive, optical or acoustic, but I doubt that the last two are used here.
No matter which flavor we have here, it's probably safe to assume that not all areas are equally sensitive. Your gloves dampen whatever it is the surface works with too much to work ove the entire area.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: capacitive or inductive. It may also be resistive
Interesting. I know that the newer screens use capacitive and older ones used that resistive type of tech. So this one is most likely capacitive but of course I'm not sure about it beyond that.
I did very little reading on it and it seems that as you said it may be that if not enough surface area is touched then the device (or software?) may ignore it deciding that it isn't a true touch.
|
|
|
|
|
It can be even more complicated. Your finger probably is one half of the capacitor. The electric field between your finger and the capacitors under the glass probably causes them to charge or discharge and thus we have tiny currents in that capacitor network that can be measured. For example towards the sides the capacitor 'plates' opposite your fingers is smaller, making the total capacity smaller and the touch panel less sensitive there.
Then your glove comes into play. We are talking about very small capacities here and it also gets less when the distance between your finger and the matrix under the glass is increased by the thickness of the fabric of the glove. Ahh, the dielectric properties of any material between the 'plates' of a capacitor also have influence on the capacity.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me? Nah.
My selfie stick can fly and the day when I mistake a phone for a Tamagotchi will hopefully never come. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
These gloves[^] might work.
Maybe.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Creepy. Those fingers look like the Frankenstein monsters. Makes me want to buy them... NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that most network admins are so in love with IE/edge browsers? Every place I have ever worked the network admin was against using chrome as the default browser. Just wondering if anyone out there knew why this is? Because I can't figure out why.
|
|
|
|
|
GateKeeper22 wrote: Just wondering if anyone out there knew why this is?
I do not. I've never worked in a place that was so picky about what software got installed.
Perhaps they have some intranet apps that only/mostly work with IE?
Chrome works way better so you have a good question. You should ask them.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I have asked them and usually get the same bogus answer of Group policy or we aren't ready for it. All of the intranet apps work with chrome. I built them.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like inexperienced (or just lazy) IT Admins.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Group pollicy sounds right for lazy admins. To manage Chrome or Firefox or etc they'd need to use a different tool. As an MS product they can fiddle with all of IE/Edge's settings using the same tools that they use to fiddle with the OS itself.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
|
ie/edge does everything required - admin's not being lazy, they are being smart, and avoiding being called out for complaints resulting from choices made to satisfy a few tech heads. It's not just about what you like for yourself, it's about what is a good, smart and well functioning choice for everybody in the entire company.
Chrome is a poor if not the worst choice, fine for those on new equipment, but being such a cpu/memory hog would cause problems for those on older equipment. No sane admin should endorse chrome unless they are sure no equipment in the entire company is more than 2 years old (and their network can handle the entire org checking/downloading updates every 10 minutes.)
Finally if it's a work machine, why load it with toys?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who's ever been stuck with a dev machine with less than 4GB of RAM in the last couple of years or just stuck with a magnetic hard disk more recently will appreciate that point. If I have to use a low spec machine for a while I'm just happy if I can convince someone to let me have Cygwin and Sublime.
At the end of the day a browser is a browser. It's either compliant with the standards you need or it's not, and for the last couple of years as near as I can tell - IE isn't the least compliant browser around.
|
|
|
|
|
Back in 1995, I bought my OWN dual monitor graphics card for like $1,000 out of my own pocket.
And I simply grabbed a second monitor that was not being used.
Someone complained to my boss that I should not be ALLOWED to do that, and after finding out I paid for the adapter, they suggested I should have to buy my own second monitor as well!
OMG!
It was the BEST decision I made, and I have had dual monitors ever since! although not its cheap and easy!
|
|
|
|
|
I vaguely recall reading the chrome interferes with MS anti virus. Is this still true?
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
It comes preinstalled, less work for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Not just net admins. I've been using IE since Netscape became irrelevant, and have seen no compelling reason to switch in the decade and a half (?) since. It's honestly as simple as that, at least in my case.
I'm not a web developer, so I don't have the deep-seated hatred.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you on this one. I have tried all the others and they have never lasted more than a couple of weeks before going back to IE.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: no compelling reason to switch
Here's a few: Broken Browser – Fun with Browser Vulnerabilities[^]
And yes, I know other browsers have vulnerabilities too. But some of the IE/Edge vulnerabilities that Manuel has found seem ridiculously simple once you see them.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
If there's nothing that prevents me from doing what I'm trying to do, then nothing on that site qualifies as a "compelling reason".
|
|
|
|
|
I can imagine a few reasons. Maybe the truth is a combination of these:
1. IE is available on all PCs and typically preinstalled, requiring no additional work.
2. It's auto-updated with Windows Update, requiring no additional maintenance effort
3. Companies often have some industry-level contract with M$ to support theit Windows, Office, and other M$ products installments. Therefore, even if unexpected problems turn up, they can rely on M$ support, and that of course includes IE.
4. Since more than 20 years, all web developers make sure to be compatible with IE. Unfortunately, even today, the same is not true for any other browser - possibly including Edge.
5. In large companies or holdings consisting of many individual subsidiaries, it's easiest to implement web-based services on IE. Of course you could throw more money at it to make those same services run with Firefox or Chrome, but why would they, when the alternative - to make IE mandatory - costs nothing at all?
6. At the management level deciding on such things, knowledge of browser alternatives is often ... incomplete. Rather than risk a switch for unknown benefits at an unknown cost, they stick with what they know 'just works'.
I've had a lot of contact with IT over these and similar topics, and I've come to believe that the first three are the main reasons. The others could be overcome, if you can convince management that it would be more secure or cost-effective to switch to another browser.
There's also another, newer reason: most modern browsers, except IE, have stopped supporting NPAPI, and that means Java, ActiveX, and Silverlight (among other things). Edge does not support plugins either (except Flash), and - since version 52.0 - Firefox doesn't either, although Firefox ESR is going to hold out for another year or so.
That leaves IE 11 as the only browser fully supporting plugins without a known deadline. Companies relying on Java et al to implement their internal services would need to make a major investment if switching to another browser. Of course, sooner or later, support for IE 11 will run out and they'll need to find another solution anyway.
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan_Lang wrote: ... Java, ActiveX, ...
No browser except IE has ever supported ActiveX.
And that's a good thing. Who in their right mind wants to download and run an unrestricted executable from a random website? 
Java in the browser isn't much better; just look at the long list of security vulnerabilities. But at least it had some semblance of a "sandbox" to try to protect your computer from malicious code.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
