Ask / Submit

How to interpret the call history?

asked 2016-10-08 00:27:34 +0300

poddl gravatar image

updated 2016-10-14 15:22:03 +0300

could anyone explain, how to interpret the call list?

  • number 1 Is colored, why?
  • number 2 Is not colored, why?
  • number 3 I always misinterpret, because the arrows direction <-- leave my phone, but this calls are received. In my understanding, recieved calls need to come in -->

call list

edit retag flag offensive close delete



yeah it is a bit confusing

Mariusmssj ( 2016-10-08 10:34:23 +0300 )edit

You are literally too stupid to insult.

-Dr. Stuart Price

Satvik Chaudhary ( 2016-10-14 17:47:48 +0300 )edit

The color just shwos that you have not seen it before this. Like sometimes in fb messenger even after you see a message, it shows in unread messages. It's like that.

Satvik Chaudhary ( 2016-10-14 17:49:12 +0300 )edit

nope. some yellow,some white....all not seen. Thank you for helping.

poddl ( 2016-10-14 18:11:23 +0300 )edit

6 Answers

Sort by » oldest newest most voted

answered 2016-10-08 10:24:16 +0300

pichlo gravatar image

I absolutely agree, the arrows are definitely the wrong way. I have learned to think of them as pointing out of the number, not out of the phone. But it is something I have to consciously remind myself every time, not something that would come intuitively.

Sorry, I have no idea about the coloured numbers. Can't say I've ever seen them.

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


coloured arrows, I'm interested in.

poddl ( 2016-10-08 15:57:24 +0300 )edit

answered 2016-10-08 10:57:31 +0300

till gravatar image

updated 2016-10-08 10:57:44 +0300

On my phone, a contact appears white if if has a surname and a family name set, and less white if only one field is filled

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


yes here also, the surname is less white, but I mean the arrow, sometimes wite, sometimes in my ambience color (yellow), as you can see on the screenshot

poddl ( 2016-10-08 15:56:33 +0300 )edit

then you should ask about arrows and not numbers :)

till ( 2016-10-08 16:42:31 +0300 )edit

ok. its not clear to see on the smartphone, better on the desktop. I put there 3 numbers in, that are the questions for.

poddl ( 2016-10-09 15:29:44 +0300 )edit

answered 2016-10-08 14:38:21 +0300

Twinklestar1792 gravatar image

Alsi we need date and time should be available at call log. there is a patch in openrepos but it will be good to have from official update.

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


in telephone settings, you deactivate the "spped calling", then after clicking a entry in the phone log, the address book entry opens, on the end you can see the activities and there is the date, time and the type of number for each entry. No need a patch for it.

poddl ( 2016-10-08 15:55:10 +0300 )edit

A bit long-winded way to get to such a common thing though, don't you think?

Especially since "speed calling" is set by default (why?).

pichlo ( 2016-10-08 16:58:52 +0300 )edit

"speed calling" by default is just a kind of bug, since the detailed call log depends to the contact. Yes the way is bit different, but has logic if the speed dialing deactivated.

Date is most time not need, since people see missed calls on the same day, the time of the last try is shown, so they could argue for that uncommon way.

poddl ( 2016-10-12 00:13:39 +0300 )edit

answered 2016-10-09 16:05:38 +0300

The color of the arrow might be because of ignoring / hanging up, so it isn't a real missed call.

edit flag offensive delete publish link more

answered 2016-10-14 12:53:21 +0300

cemoi71 gravatar image

An Idea/suggestion would be to represent a simcard in which direction point the arrow.
Incoming call would done like this:
Sim(x) Icon < nnnnn
And Outgoing calls:
Sim(x) Icon > nnn

Noticed that the sim Card icon with a different Drawing permit to understand with which the operation is done.
Reference to this problem:

what do you think about it?

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


Would be just a perfect solution in my opinion!

poddl ( 2016-10-14 13:27:09 +0300 )edit

I just retag this question, because it is also a kind of a bug

poddl ( 2016-10-14 13:28:42 +0300 )edit

not a bug, but a feature. the wrong one....
you may use the idea tag too. or not?

cemoi71 ( 2016-10-14 14:21:46 +0300 )edit

answered 2016-10-10 10:52:25 +0300

cemoi71 gravatar image

I gave a look on it and seems to be really confused at this point.
Currently it seems to be that a call that you give has no arrow, and some given to the phone has the arrow from contact to you (which should be correct).
The u-turn arrow seems to be if you call back after the contact calls you, or reversely if he call back to you after your call.

Normally, i would say, that is just a definition of referential.
Where are we represented on the phone? where the OS may represent ourself as reference? quite difficult right?
But for a contact, its reference is its number or name.
then for a received call from a contact it comes from the contact to phone owner.
Then, the arrow begin from the contact to a side.
It could points to the right or to the left side, important is that the Arrow beginning starts from contact.
For the other case, if we call a contact the arrow points TO the contact.
It comes from owner to him. The arrow may be placed to the left or to the right, important is that it points to the contact. That is one scheme. As you can see, we could have merely scheme for this.
But the current one bring some confusion.
A long text to tell that, I think too that it need to be reviewed....

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


I don't know about you but on my Jolla the calls that I made have no arrow at all.

Either way, your view is valid and this is how it is implemented, with a small modification. No arrow for outgoing calls, arrow pointing out from the contact for incoming calls.

What I find confusing about that is that it is too contact centric. It is my phone and I tend to think of calls made and received from my perspective, not the contact's. So the arrows should point towards or away from me, not the contact. The contact is for me just a tag.

Clearly not for whoever designed the Phone UI though.

pichlo ( 2016-10-11 08:31:48 +0300 )edit

???? the result is not the same? if we think contact centric (as you told) or phone centric, the arrow direction would be quite the same.
I'm pretty sure that we both we think the same, but the reference for each is different. don't you think so?

cemoi71 ( 2016-10-11 10:58:25 +0300 )edit

Yes the same. But I feel to hold a phone in my hand. The other case I have to feel to hold an contact in my hand, or the phone from the other party. For me is the contact not a tag, it is an entry in my phone book, I'm calling to with my phone, so for me it just feels the wrong direction, because I seem to be hardware centric

Crazy, just a small arrow, and no clear way in which way to point it :-)

Let's think on real life, I think on a sign "emergency exit with running man" points to left. Is it left for me, or from the view of the running man? We can make things more complicated, depends of the producer of the sign, one using the perspective of the running man, one that one who looks at it.

poddl ( 2016-10-11 11:52:24 +0300 )edit

you just miss the running man? in both case the arrow goes in the same direction.
If a running man representation solve the situation... i don't understand why all could not represent the running by himself....
Please take a paper sheet and draw the arrow for different situations, for each cases.
I guess the arrow have the same direction to the contact, or running man (represented or not)...

I'll suggest now not to represent a running man but a safety buoy. (I think i'll give up soon)

cemoi71 ( 2016-10-11 12:39:12 +0300 )edit

Very funny, talking about an arrow, not even 1cm big. I like this discussion, it makes me feeling, like the OS is just perfect, only one tiny arrow not :-)

poddl ( 2016-10-11 13:05:17 +0300 )edit
Login/Signup to Answer

Question tools



Asked: 2016-10-08 00:27:34 +0300

Seen: 983 times

Last updated: Oct 14 '16