cwa-website: FAQ - Revise articles about incompatibility warning card

I don’t expect there to be too much technical information for our new entries. I agree that we should be able to fit them in the end like has been suggested.

Ich habe Android 6 Eine App die 60.000.000€ in der Entwicklung gekostet hat zeigt nun an,das mein älteres Snartphone wofür es keine Updates mehr gibt inkompatibele Probleme hat. Eine App für diese Wichtigkeit sollte auf jeden Smartphone funktionieren egal wie alt Android auch ist. Da versagen staatliche Programmierer.

It is sad to hear that people are judging the app based on such inaccurate assumptions.

[…] Bis zu diese Version [sic] kamen keine Meldungen. Bitte korrigieren.

Can’t exactly fix the older versions to also show the warning, can we? 😦

Seit dem letzten Update v. 10.05. ist mein Bluetooth Chip plötzlich inkompatibel.

I think this one also includes a misunderstanding about whether the part with the full incompatibility applies to them. I’m glad we’ll be able to fix this for the next version!

Maybe it should be “XY not available” where XY is something that describes peripheral mode.

Sounds like a good idea. I’d have thought of the word “broadcasting” for this but it doesn’t have a nice German translation and also doesn’t fit too well…

The alerty warning triangle could be replaced with an “info” exclamation mark.

I’m assuming you meant an “(i)” icon here?

I have opened a new Android issue to discuss these two items further: https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android/issues/3260

@Ein-Tim @fynngodau @MikeMcC399 @vaubaehn @dsarkar

I’ve added a few reviews from the store, so we can better judge where the problems with the current message are. Most of them are misinterpretations of the warning card.

@MikeMcC399 @fynngodau

IMO recommending getting a new device wouldn’t come across well because it is a very expensive solution. It will sound out of touch. Of course it depends how it’s worded, but I would also not be in favour of putting it in.

I think a blog article would be good, combined with a mention in the new features section of the next version of the Android app. It’s unfortunate that this didn’t happen with the 2.2 Android release, which might have prepared users for the added warning. Probably most users will have automatically updated by now, so there will not be many new occurrences of the error message. Even so, it would be good to put out a message and make the reasoning clear to affected users (in addition to any changes to the FAQ article.)

It would be great if the reaction from users was that they are grateful for the additional tests done by the app, and grateful for the additional information, instead of just being annoyed.

Perhaps we could have a description of the problem:

• why didn’t the Google Play Store detect the missing BLE functionality and prevent installation or provide a warning?
• why didn’t the app check in earlier releases?

How was this solved in the 2.2 Android app versions?

What is the recommended course of action for a user getting an incompatibility message?

I have some ideas about how the app could be made more appealing, and I will post these soon to https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android/issues/3260.

@fynngodau

In corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android#3101 I actually linked to part_incompat and full_incompat because those are a bit more readable.

Fixed it in my initial post

I, too, would like to have an additional, more technical description them somewhere. Do you think it would be a good idea to create an additional article for users who want to know more, like this?: “What is the technical reason that my device is only partially compatible?”

We can maybe keep the information in the same entry, but only have the technical information at the end like @MikeMcC399 suggested. I don’t see a problem with that as long as it is sectioned off properly and the entry doesn’t get too long. However, if it does get very technical or there are too many details, a separate markdown file in https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-documentation would be better. We can then link to this file.

I think this is a good idea. Does anybody have any suggestion? We could also come up with a new icon that is less alert-y than the red warning triangle.

I though about something like “eingeschränkte Sendefähigkeit/limited usage”, but that is even longer and probably too vague 😄 Maybe it should be “XY not available” where XY is something that describes peripheral mode.

The alerty warning triangle could be replaced with an “info” exclamation mark.

Anyway, good luck for your exams 😃

Also from my side! Good luck!

@fynngodau Fingers crossed!

@fynngodau It would be great to have an explanation of how the checks are done, just for a better understanding.

Also good luck from me for your Abi exams! ☘️ 🤞🏻

From looking at the code again, we reconstructed a more precise definition when this happens: if Android version < 8.0 and Bluetooth is turned off, detection doesn’t work – then, no warning card is shown in any case.

@fynngodau and still all the best for the final exams! 😄

In the community slack, @vaubaehn shared a review by a user who was confused because the incompatibility warning was only sometimes showing. We should add that this can happen when the status cannot reliably be detected.

I assume you would want to write or draft the articles? 😃

Gladly so, but maybe only after my last Abiturprüfung before the holidays on Friday 😉

part_incomp should explain partial incompatability full_incomp should explain full incompatibility

In https://github.com/corona-warn-app/cwa-app-android/pull/3101 I actually linked to part_incompat and full_incompat because those are a bit more readable.

We may need to drop most technical terms

If the article is spilt, you could try structuring them so that the introduction is less technical (like the text you proposed) then further down the article provide more technical details for those who would like to know

I, too, would like to have an additional, more technical description them somewhere. Do you think it would be a good idea to create an additional article for users who want to know more, like this?: “What is the technical reason that my device is only partially compatible?”

We don’t know the total number of users that are affected, but the numbers are indeed very low.

Maybe this would be something that could be analyzed through the PPA system?

The term “incompatibility” can also be a bit problematic IMO, so we maybe have to choose a more “tame” term in the app and the FAQ.

I think this is a good idea. Does anybody have any suggestion? We could also come up with a new icon that is less alert-y than the red warning triangle.

Another point here is that “Inkompatibilitätswarnung” is a very long term that needs to be line-wrapped, which doesn’t look great.

They only recently fixed this with their Android 9 update.

Thanks for the info, will add it to CCTG FAQ. (Done, but not without typo)

@MikeMcC399 We don’t know the total number of users that are affected, but the numbers are indeed very low. However, they are not low enough to be insignificant because a few older but popular devices did not receive updates to support peripheral mode.

For the FP2, we know that peripheral mode was not supported with Android 7 as the OS. They only recently fixed this with their Android 9 update. A Samsung device with Android 7 was also reported to have an incompatibility warning in the Play Store.