On 03/21/14 21:19, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 03/21/2014 08:03 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> But, yeah, who looks at these indicators anyway.
If you want to belabor the point... UI progress indicators do one primary task: indicate
progress. that's it. And, as I at least implied, it does not have to be accurate,
but the act of the UI giving progress feedback is important.
First off, I don't wish to belabor the point and if you notice the smiley face what I
wrote was in jest. I didn't expect any reply.
Yes... A progress bar is OK.... The information of 1.6GB/s xfer rate when the link
can't possibly support that seems misleading.
This is why I reacted in this thread to the suggestion of removing it.
Leave the progress bar, remove the xfer rate unless, as you say below, someone can find a
way to make it more meaningful/accurate.
Secondarily, giving an estimate for completion is an added bonus. We can agree that the
estimates given can be wildly inaccurate for a variety of use-cases, but I still argue it
can be useful for many.
Estimated completion time is fine. We are all familiar with downloading files and having
the system telling us there are 30 seconds remaining for the past minute.
As I said, just don't tell me that the *transfer rate* is 1.6GB/sec when my link's
max is 1GB/sec....which is what poc is seeing/saying.
In conclusion, my take is that improving accuracy (and removing inaccuracy) should be the
constructive focus and way forward. Anyone willing to look at the code to improve it?
Yes, no argument there.
FWIW, my levity about "who looks at these indicators anyway" is predicated on
the fact that generally don't use GUI's to transfer files.
Getting tired of non-Fedora discussions and self-serving posts