Fixed
Status Update
No update yet.
Comments
sa...@gmail.com
Looks like the feature can be introduced by a community app on Google Play, but it requires the phone to be rooted which I would not have to in the first place if its an inbuilt feature.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=sk.blade.globalvibratetoggle
sa...@gmail.com
Please provide following information which will help us to investigate this further,
* What is the desired behavior of the feature? (Be specific!)
* If relevant, why are current approaches or workarounds insufficient?
* If relevant, what new use cases will this feature will enable?
* What is the desired behavior of the feature? (Be specific!)
* If relevant, why are current approaches or workarounds insufficient?
* If relevant, what new use cases will this feature will enable?
jf...@google.com
* What is the desired behavior of the feature? (Be specific!)
The desired behavior of this feature would be to stop the vibrations system wide irrespective of what the individual apps has to say about it. This vibrations feature would be independent of my sound being turned on or if I have a silent profile setup. If the sound is turned on it will just play the sound (no vibrations) and if the Silent profile is turned on then it effectively would just light up the screen ( as no sound and/or vibrations would be played).
An alternative would be to introduce a separate permission for allowing apps to use the vibration motors on the phone (which I should be able to deny to when installing the app and still be able to use the app unless the app is solely based on use case of controlling the vibrations)
* If relevant, why are current approaches or workarounds insufficient?
There is no current approach to solve this problem unless you root the phone. The only other alternative is to request each individual app maker to provide a setting to disable vibrations for notifications generated from their apps which is never heard to since the apps are mostly free and without any sort of support.
* If relevant, what new use cases will this feature will enable?
This will allow users to control vibrations just like users can currently control the sound level and notification sound in general. It will also benefit the users with giving back some battery life (and charge) when the vibration motors are not used. User, unlike present scenario, would not have to root their phones to get this feature, which can come with problems of warranty of their own.
Hope this helps, and am happy to provide any other details to get this feature to life.
Thanks!
The desired behavior of this feature would be to stop the vibrations system wide irrespective of what the individual apps has to say about it. This vibrations feature would be independent of my sound being turned on or if I have a silent profile setup. If the sound is turned on it will just play the sound (no vibrations) and if the Silent profile is turned on then it effectively would just light up the screen ( as no sound and/or vibrations would be played).
An alternative would be to introduce a separate permission for allowing apps to use the vibration motors on the phone (which I should be able to deny to when installing the app and still be able to use the app unless the app is solely based on use case of controlling the vibrations)
* If relevant, why are current approaches or workarounds insufficient?
There is no current approach to solve this problem unless you root the phone. The only other alternative is to request each individual app maker to provide a setting to disable vibrations for notifications generated from their apps which is never heard to since the apps are mostly free and without any sort of support.
* If relevant, what new use cases will this feature will enable?
This will allow users to control vibrations just like users can currently control the sound level and notification sound in general. It will also benefit the users with giving back some battery life (and charge) when the vibration motors are not used. User, unlike present scenario, would not have to root their phones to get this feature, which can come with problems of warranty of their own.
Hope this helps, and am happy to provide any other details to get this feature to life.
Thanks!
jf...@google.com
We have passed this to the development team and will update this issue with more information as it becomes available.
fi...@gmail.com
Fixed
jf...@google.com
I would LOVE this to be fixed!!! What a pain in the arse
jf...@google.com
Yes, I have vibrate turned off on every app including text and it still vibrates on text. I can't make it stop!
Description
------------------------------------------
I looked at ticket
Background: I am the author of a free WordPress plugin that pulls photos and videos from users' accounts on various photo service providers to display them on websites. Up until this point I have supported Google via the Picasa API, but with the advent of the Google Photos API I am making a switch, mainly because the Picasa API seems spotty with respect to returning shared albums. The switch is mostly fine, except for one area: videos.
The calls to the API that lead to the error. Include the sequence of calls, including request headers and body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have an album, id AF1QipNv-cOl8SdtSIXAdcXKO69vom04N7XffnDFV7-9eYrNgx0g7krK4yzNacZqc-x4yQ. I am able to do the following successfully:
1. Run
2. Run
The second call above returns to me 6 entries from the album, all of which are valid. 4 are photos, 2 are videos. The videos have already been processed, and show up via the Picasa API (demo:
With the Google Photos API I get, as per the documentation, the baseUrl. Now, try as I might, I cannot do anything with it:
1. As per the documentation I don't access it directly. But if I do, or if I pass the w and h values, I just get a JPG representation of it, not the video. Again, this is as per the documentation, so no harm done.
2. However, if I pass the "=dv" parameter, I am taken to a a URL for "video downloads" that is returning a 400 error saying "This page isn't working. If the problem continues, contact the site owner. HTTP ERROR 400".
E.g.
3. Also, since I cannot see the data in the previous link, what I am not sure of is whether this will prompt me to download the video, or if it will automatically start playing the content for me. In other words, what is the "Content Disposition" of the output? If it gives me a download directly, what is the way to get a link without a video download?
Am I missing some information here? Should I be passing some other values? I want to:
a). Be able to get to the video (first priority)
b). Be able to play it directly without downloading (second priority)