micky <
NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
<extraneous info stripped from attribution line>
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
On more than one phone I've had, sometimes the image on the screen gets >>>>> twice as big, so one can only see part of it, and it's outlined in red. >>>>> Useless.
I can get rid of this by using the power button to make the screen dark, >>>>> and when I light it up again, the screen is normal. And maybe I had >>>>> some other better way???
But what is this called, what am I doing to cause it, and how can I
avoid it?
Only you, as yet, know what app you are using to view images, and from >>>> what source. Probably more important is the image viewer app,
I often don't look at who is writing, but I knew it was you because you always ask for such information, even when it varies or when it's
irrelevant.
Other respondents have asked for details, too. Yet even after I or
others ask for details, you still refuse to provide them as though you
are a troll pretending to ask for help but deliberately trying to waste
the time of respondents. We've had those trolls before. In fact,
originally trolls appeared as normal posters asking for help but their
intent was to disrupt the newsgroup or waste the responders efforts.
Trolls don't identify themselves as such. They aren't flamers, foul
mouthed, or in any way obviously a troll. They were subtle, like, ahem, someone issuing nebulous queries that make impossible focused replies.
You really think we are there watching over your shoulder to see what
you try to describe on your phone we can't see and you don't identify?
Sorry, the battery died in my telescopic crystal ball that can bend
around the curvature of the Earth, and the battery is 2 months, or more,
on backorder.
Reread your post before submit to make sure OTHERS have enough info to
even grasp your situation instead of having to guess at it. The
infinite monkey theorem states that if you let a monkey hit the keys of
a typewriter at random an infinite amount of times, eventually the
monkey will type out the entire works of Shakespeare. Is that the
quality you want for the multitude of replies trying to guess your
situation? Yes, I ask for details, but you deliberately omit them!
I don't think he's viewing images as such, just the display of the app
itself is what he called "an image"?
Yes.
But we still don't know which app, or it a multitude of apps, that
are afflicted with the display problem.
And yet Andy got it right.
When many people have to guess, one might get it right. What is the
color of the coaster on my desk? Well, given enough replies, someone
might get it right.
If Andy was wrong on his guess, we're back to my guess you're asking
about display some image in some app, but there are possibly even more scenarios where what you described could happen.
Reread your original message. Did it seem obvious even to you what you
meant to say versus what you actually said? Read it as someone OTHER
than yourself to see if it makes sense to OTHERS. You need to proof
read as though someone else (that is not there with you) reads your
message.
If you don't want respondents to be off-target with their guesses based
on your vague description then provide the details whether you think
they are relevant, or not. As been evident by your history here,
respondents do need more details. If you don't want them to guess, give details. If you still want to submit nebulous inquiries, expect
off-target guesses, and don't whine about getting FREE help. You could
ask for a refund on my suggestion that was off-target when blind folded
by you regarding your actual scenario.
When I see it's you, my first reaction is, "Oh joy, another nebulous
inquiry, and wasting time guessing while trying to zero in". Then I
decide if I'm going to waste time composing a huge all-encompassing
diagnosis of all causes that are candidates for a badly described
scenario, or just pick one possibility to offer, and move on to more
lower hanging fruit. With your initial post, you didn't give enough to
even pounce on one, and only one, possible solution. When you are
deliberately vague, why are you suprised when asked for more details?
You really don't know what phone brand and model you are using, and it
is an onerous task to find out?
You go into a tire shop to request 4 new tires be mounted on your car.
That's all you say. It's really that much of a surprise or nuisance the
rep asks you for the make and model of your car, or what is currently
mounted on your car, to figure what size tires to mount? Even after the
rep asks, you remain furtive in indentifying your tires, and instead
berate the rep for asking for details. If I forget to identify my
phone, and someone asks, it really isn't a onus to reply with "LG V20",
and perhaps even add "Android 8.0.0", especially since that criteria
really should've been at the head of my message to identify the
scenario. I forgot, I add, but I don't keep refusing to identify.
Being ostreperous indicates a troll, not someone asking for help.
sounds to me accidentally triggering magnify mode for visually impaired? >>>
<https://mcmw.abilitynet.org.uk/how-to-magnify-the-screen-in-android-13>
I'm sure I didn't set it**, but under magnification there was a shortcut enabled, just 3 taps. Something pretty easy to do even when not
trying.
Quickly tapping the screen 3 times in the same spot is something easy
for you to do? Could happen for those with a nervous disorder. The OS (customized in branded phones other than Google) had to pick some number
of quick taps in succession, but whatever count they picked could be "accidentally" performed by some users. For someone that wanted to use
the feature, they would complain that it took 6 taps in quick succesion
at the same screen spot, because someone else complained 3 was too few.
Those who want the feature would complain it wasn't enabled by default
because other users that didn't want the feature complained it was
enabled by default. Impossible to satisfy the expectations of all
users. Sometimes a double-tap doesn't work, because it was too long
between the taps, or you didn't manage to tap twice in the sam spot.
In the smartphones I've had, none had the 3-tap shortcut enabled, or
perhaps it was enabled but I never fluttered my finger on the screen to "accidentally" hit 3 taps in quick succession at the same spot. Perhaps
your phone maker choose a different set of defaults. For example, some
users like gesture input in the virtual keyboard (sliding your finger to
the different characters instead of lifting and tapping on characters),
so they'd probably like to have gesture input enabled by default.
Others don't want gesture input, so they would prefer the default was
disabled. Not sure how you're going to satisfy everyone that wants
every feature, some that want some features, and some that want few
features to eliminate the fluff. Without a sampling of other users of
your same phone, no way to tell which default the phone or app maker
might've chosen.
All these features whether disabled or enabled by default are to
compensate for a crappy user input method.
I don't know how that shortcut got turned on.
Maybe that fluttering finger again. Or rolling on your phone while
trying to listen to audio in bed using ear buds somewhat similar to a
butt dial.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)