Strange: UNI-10 Scalable UI Compliance even when it a is WLAN issue

[kiran10182]

Hi,

Following reason we got from Test House.

UNI-10 Fail
---------------
Scalable UI Compliance (S60 3rd Edition or UIQ3.x)
The application should function and render its display as specified, regardless of the device screen resolution and format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application requires a WiFi connection. However, the application's PKG file identifies the UID for the entire S60 3rd Edition platform (0x101F7961). The Nokia N71, 3250 and 5500 do not support WiFi so the application must be limited from installing to unsupported devices.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So my question is how to restrict it with supported devices only?

If you say that i can check it against Product ID for each supported devices in .pkg file while installing, then the list is long. Would you please help me in this situation?

Regards,
Kiran.

[Sorcery-ltd]

Hi,

Is this a failure on Scalable UI because you don't support the 176x208 resolution? It just happens to be the case that there are currently no WiFi enabled phones with that resolution? If that's the case I can understand the failure to a certain extent - what if a phone came out for 3rd FP2 with WiFi and that resolution? In theory your application ought to work on it. It seems rather unlikely and not a good case for a failure though.

If it really is just a case of the test house telling you that you've got to restrict installation to phones with WiFi then they couldn't be more wrong! That should just be something in the user guide and marketing material. We can't treat end users like complete idiots. Plus a new phone is very likely to support WiFi and it wouldn't be on your list although the same installation package could work just fine.

Sorcery

[kiran10182]

Thanks Mark,

I am surprised too with Wi-fi connection with Scalable UI. Anyways if i would restrict/allow installation to particular devices then what if in future phones come with Wi-fi enabled and where my application is most likely to work with?

Kiran.

[Sorcery-ltd]

Hi,

Does your application support 176x208 resolution though?

Mark

[kiran10182]

Thanks again Mark,

Actually our customer wants only for N95 and E61 originally but we have developed according to all S60 3rd edition devices. Anyways we have also sent a waiver for these "limited devices(N95 and E61)" and unfortunately waiver got rejected. So pathetic!!!

Kiran.

[Sorcery-ltd]

Hi,

As the system currently stands though, if you want a waiver for limited devices then you have to restrict installation to those devices in the pkg file.

As you can probably see from my recent blog posts I don't agree with the current rules but that's how they are at the moment.

If you want to leave open the possibility of future device support you have to support all current resolutions. Stupid really because there's nothing to stop future devices being released with other resolutions which are then not supported. At that point, the same application taking the same tests would then fail.

Sorcery

[kiran10182]

...
If you want to leave open the possibility of future device support you have to support all current resolutions. Stupid really because there's nothing to stop future devices being released with other resolutions which are then not supported. At that point, the same application taking the same tests would then fail.

Sorcery

You are very true on this point.
Anyways that's why we have developed our application which works on wide range of devices even if it was originally said for 2 devices.

By the way, the question is still the same. How would i restrict installation to Wi-Fi enabled devices?

And yes, i have just submitted a blog on FN too.
http://blogs.forum.nokia.com/blog/ki...symbian-signed

Kiran.

[Sorcery-ltd]

Hi,

Sorry, yes I realise you also need practical help to deal with this now.

As far as I know there isn't a sensible way to do what you are asking. WiFi is not one of the variables you can test according to appendix B of:
http://developer.symbian.com/main/do...installsis.pdf

It may be that there is a component present in all WiFi enabled phones that isn't in others which has a unique (and if you're lucky) consistent UID. Then you could set that as a dependency. I'd suggest that's a bad solution though as it isn't guaranteed to be there on future devices.

My suggestion is that you simply restrict the installation to the current devices with WiFi for now just to get it to your customer. Then you can deal with complaints about the signing process later.

Mark

[kiran10182]

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, i have already done that way(not wifi component way) but it will just say "Application not compatible with phone. Continue anyway?". And my question is shouldn't this be a stupid thing? Because what if in future a new phone comes on which my application will work and right now i am not giving its MachineUID in .pkg file.

You know that this is not a clever way. Anyways really thanks for sharing your views.

Kiran.

[Sorcery-ltd]

Yes Kiran, I agree with you completely.

I don't think Scalable UI (and several other things) should be in Symbian Signed at all. Your WiFi issue is just an example of a whole mass of cases that really need to be resolved before download - not blocking installation. If the user downloads the wrong application over the air and has paid for the privilege they'll be very upset. It doesn't really matter if the install warns them that it won't work on their device or not.

Also, if you were, for example, developing an application specifically for an enterprise customer and not for general release then surely the only thing that matters is whether they are happy with it - all these cases in Symbian Signed are irrelevant to you and them. There might be some general good practice in there but it shouldn't be blocking your ability to release a finished product to them.

Mark

[kiran10182]

Really thanks for your in-depth comments. Apart from all these mess-up, they should understand for whom they are testing application? Who are the parties involved? How much they contribute in overall Symbian Signing process?

Anyways as you can see from my blog, it should be motivating rather than discouraging.

Thanks again,
Kiran.

[ltomuta]

Which test house was this? They should be awarded for the creativity of their test case interpretation.

[kiran10182]

Which test house was this? They should be awarded for the creativity of their test case interpretation.

Thanks Lucian,

Should i name it here or rather i should PM you? Because i do not want if anything goes wrong with its reputation by declaring on public forums.

Kiran.

[ltomuta]

I apreciate your concerns for the reputation of this company, despite of the annoyance (to say the least) they've been causing you.

I would also expect that anyone reading this understands that mistakes can happen, we all do them, and also mistakes can be fixed.

That said, I would still post the name of the company here. If you do not do it I hope that the test house notices that and sends you a Thank you! card.

[kiran10182]

I apreciate your concerns for the reputation of this company, despite of the annoyance (to say the least) they've been causing you.

I would also expect that anyone reading this understands that mistakes can happen, we all do them, and also mistakes can be fixed.

That said, I would still post the name of the company here. If you do not do it I hope that the test house notices that and sends you a Thank you! card.

Hi Lucian,

Still i am feeling uncomfortable with declaring name publicly. I do not know whether they are watching this thread or not. I have mailed you its name.

And thanks for your concern.
Kiran.