ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Sam Bull <sam.hacking@xxxxxxxx>]

On ven, 2014-06-13 at 13:52 +0100, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> You're right, this is a mistake in the design. Just showing zero bars
> is not enough to indicate that you have no signal, regardless of what
> the cause is.

Yep, but 0 bars is actually used to indicate that you DO have a signal
under normal circumstances, which is why is so confusing. When the phone
is working normally, in my house the signal switches between 'No
signal', 0 bars and 1 bar. Both of the latter icons indicate that I have
signal.

It was only when this problem occurred, that the cellular network was
not functioning at all. It was not that I had no signal, but that the
modem or something wasn't functioning at all and it displayed the 0 bar
icon rather than something representing an error.

Edit: Just retested it to see if this had changed recently. The 'No
signal' has been swapped for the 0 bars icon as you've suggested, but
it's also still used for a weak signal too. So, there is actually no way
to distinguish between low signal and no signal. The call button and
send sms button disable when there is no signal, so I just observed that
as I went out of signal, and the buttons became disabled, there was no
change to the network indicator.

> (Various people have suggested I shorten other cellular error cases,
> "SIM error" and "No service", to just icons too. I've maintained that
> an icon alone wouldn't be obvious enough.)

I think an icon only is fine, especially if you highlight it by giving
it a red colour. Additional details about the error can easily be
displayed when the indicator is pulled down.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part