21 replies to this topic

[Andy Crim]

Accordance is in good company, at least.
Amazon's Kindle app and the Stanza reader (as does Logos' app) go all the way around. I can keep turning and turning and turning.
It looks to me like it's the choice of the app (and its programmers).

Logos version 1.6.1 for the iPhone has taken the screen lock that Kindle uses and Bible Reader used to employ. Rotate the iPhone and an on screen lock will momentarily appear.

Since the beginning in June of 2007 Apple's approach for the iPhone has been a screen rotation stop on all of their apps instead of a screen lock. Only last fall in 4.2 did they add the ability to lock the screen in portrait mode system wide. At this point they haven't added a landscape lock as the on the iPad, but they do continue to use the 90 degree stop on all iPhone apps. Bible Reader adapted the 90 degree stop a year or two ago. I have never used Stanza reader.

The screen lock adds another touch command that seems unnecessary when all one wants to do is either lock in portrait mode or undo the system lock and have the screen stop in landscape mode.

Thanks again.

Edited by Andy Crim, 22 January 2011 - 04:17 PM.

[Robert Holmstedt]

Logos version 1.6.1 for the iPhone has taken the screen lock that Kindle uses and Bible Reader used to employ. Rotate the iPhone and an on screen lock will momentarily appear.

Since the beginning in June of 2007 Apple's approach for the iPhone has been a screen rotation stop on all of their apps instead of a screen lock. Only last fall in 4.2 did they add the ability to lock the screen in portrait mode system wide. At this point they haven't added a landscape lock as the on the iPad, but they do continue to use the 90 degree stop on all iPhone apps. Bible Reader adapted the 90 degree stop a year or two ago. I have never used Stanza reader.

The screen lock adds another touch command that seems unnecessary when all one wants to do is either lock in portrait mode or undo the system lock and have the screen stop in landscape mode.

Thanks again.

I certainly don't disagree that such a lock would be convenient for some.
My point, of course, was that it wasn't a programming error by Accordance, in which they were somehow ignoring Apple's guidelines, which your initial posts suggested.