Printable View
I've been wondering this for a while... why is it that most apps don't use the active frames at all? Even for BlackBerry created apps (facebook)they aren't used and don't understand why. If there's a thread on this already my apologies I did do a search.
Posted via CB10
More work to implement for very little gain/usefulness.
Posted via CB10
1. Devs are lazy
2. Facebook sucks.
Join the Surge Co. BBM Channel! C001213C9
It's up to the dev. Hub ++ uses it. BBM does too (shows you updates). So just depends on the app.
Posted via CB 10 on my naked Z10 ;)
BlackBerry created apps? They suck,
facebook cant input emoticons and stickers in message, google talks still not yet update to hangout
Up to the dev's implementation. I'm guessing not every application has a use for the active frames. Say like a calculator.
funny cuz dummy models of the q5 show FB with an active frame... also wish bbm had different options for the active frame like whatsapp does
remember you cant use headless apps yet technically. Once 10.2 and headless app support is there you will see less apps needing active frames
It might help you to understand if you have the proper terminology. What every one calls an Active Frame is really an Application Cover. Like a book cover it is what you see when you close a book but leave it on your desk for ready access because you know you will be looking in it again shortly. In this analogy the Icon would be the spine of the book.
An application developer can let the OS provide the Application Cover, in which case you get a miniature version of the last screen shown, or provide a custom Application Cover. If the developer provides a cover, there is the option of providing a static cover, like the application icon image, or some other image. There is also the option of providing an active cover or so called Active Frame. CB10 is a good example of this as it cycles through current news items showing the picture and headline for each.
I provide an Active Frame or Application Cover with my applications whenever it makes sense to do so. There are a number of factors that the developer must take into account. What resources are going to be consumed to provide the Active Frame, is the information provided worth the resource consumption to the user. An application that does not provide an Active Frame can go completely dormant in that state and only consume memory. The operating system takes care of most of this. An application providing an active frame must remain active to do so, but should curtail most activities that are wasteful of resources in that state. The operating system provides what help it can with this, but it isn't very much.
So there is more work in creating an Active Frame than in not. So, there may be some laziness involved. On the other hand sometimes the developer doesn't know that users want access to some information from the Application Cover. Implementing an Active Frame can result in a non-trivial amount of work. For example I find the CB10 Active Frame to be more distracting than useful, but I'm sure some users find it helpful.
And finally Howard is right, as the headless application trigger set matures you will see fewer applications that you need to leave in the thumbnail (Active Frame) state because they will be able to do their work when in the icon state. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) currently there are some significant limitations on what headless applications can do.