rubber band "bug" in update 10 [duplicate]
Found the first "bug" :-b In Settings app (only on the first page) when you do a flick up gesture for scrolling (although it's just one page), the screen now has the rubber band behaviour known from ahum other big OSes. (Which, presumably, can't be used by Jolla because of patents owned by Apple - I remember Apple sueing Samsung a while back over those) Personally I like that behaviour very much, but I understand it's a patent issue, and the turning black of the screen that Jolla chose is alright as well. Hey - can't anyone make a patch for that?
Just to make sure I get this right: You want someone to make patch that would remove a feature you like?
Software patents are valid only in US, and even there they are ridiculous. Jolla is not sold there so don't need to worry about patents. I think this is not a first SW patent Jolla is breaking, I wonder what happens when the first tablets hit the US soil :)
TemeV ( 2014-12-18 21:30:00 +0200 )editI'm still in 1.0.8.21 / Tahkalampi and it has the same behaviour. First settings page has "rubber band", so this is not related to update 10 only...
skuke ( 2014-12-18 21:49:39 +0200 )edit@TemeV: Nah, I like Jolla's solution, I just like the rubber band better! The rubber band's still somewhere deep in the code - when flicking downwards at the end of a list (or the launcher) a 100 times, the 101st will do the rubber bounce. It's hard to reproduce, but it happens at some point when the software is confused enough by the frequent inputs. @skuke: Interesting! Never realised it there.
Bimberle ( 2014-12-18 21:58:43 +0200 )edithmm.. why I don't see this behaviour, I wonder? Maybe I'm not getting what you mean (rubber band = page "srecthed" over the "edge")? I have the usual fadeout effect when hitting the bottom / top of the page in settings app. The "rubber band" is also in the basic qml in Flickables too, just not used in Silica by default.. So I guess it would more like Digia's problem if the patent were of any concern?
Acce ( 2014-12-18 22:34:19 +0200 )edit@Bimberle: Ok, I got a bit different impression from your first post :)
TemeV ( 2014-12-18 22:36:34 +0200 )edit