> Actually the official twitter application has a big "sign out" option in its > menu, right next to settings.
But what if a user just wants no updates temporarily until the app's restarted, like he's used to by any other OS? And not have to sign on again after the restart? > Also it is important to understand that the app isn't always "running". Technically, that might be true. But for the user, all that matters is "this app's doing something when I don't expect it to". He doesn't care if it's done by an unstopped service, AlarmManager, or system broadcasts. (Well, aside from those hordes who can't differ between "is in memory" and "running" due to the misleading "task managers".) > Anyway the point is that for app which are monitoring/retrieving data in the > background for the user, there is a standard way to control this behavior, > but turning off background updates. Sure, most developers should know this by now. But Joe Average will just launch the app, "close" it (leave it with Home/Back) and wonder why the "closed" app is still doing something. Then his next reaction is "hey, if keeps running in background after leaving it with buttons, I need an 'exit' button that actually closes it!". (Translate "keeps running" with "doing things" and "closes" with "stops background jobs" for Android. ;)) Preferences became somewhat "nerdy stuff" esp. since the iPhone. Users often don't like to open them at all, of course with the exception of nerds that try each and every option. > This is not the same as "quiting" the app, though. No, but it's usually what users expect from "quitting". "Quitting" = it doesn't do anything anymore. Opposed to hiding/minimizing an app, which keeps it "running" (doing something in background). > This main problem that task managers have helped with is apps that keep > services running in the background forever (consuming memory memory that > could be used by others). As of 2.2 they can't impact these (or alarms) > anyway. Probably causing "why can't your buggy app be killed!?" mails/comments for some developers... > And there is growing system UI to help the user control these apps > in a way that actually correctly represents what is going on. Later > releases will be improving this UI. I'm really excited to see those. (No irony) > But I think it is a false argument that *most* users are using task managers > because they actually help. Well, at least that's what's coming up again and again in several threads in user forums when it comes to the sense or nonsense of task managers. > (...) People have a natural > nearly crazy tendency to latch on to these kinds of things -- "hm I'm told > pressing this button will make things go faster, let me press it, gosh I > think I can tell things are faster!" True, this psychology factor might be the case with several users. But then there are those who even actually stop the time required for doing certain tasks... > So anyway, we are continuing to work on the platform to: > (...) > (2) Present better more appropriate UI for users, who want to, to see what > is running on their phone and manage it. Please also regard that many users want a "task manager" for task switching, like Alt-Tab or the "cards" on Palm Pre, including the option to remove tasks from that "switch list". "Recent tasks" (long Home) really isn't much help there, and probably one of the most unknown features of Android anyway... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
