• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Finder File Size discrepancy..
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Finder File Size discrepancy..


  • Subject: Re: Finder File Size discrepancy..
  • From: Conrad Shultz <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:46:35 -0800

On 12/27/11 2:38 PM, Robert Monaghan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I was aware of the inflated numbers for marketing hard drives. But I
> wasn't aware that Apple jumped on the marketing bandwagon. (Apple
> adopt marketing terms? Never..)

While *we* understand the distinction between base-2 and base-10, the
overwhelming majority of users don't know, don't care, and *shouldn't*
have to care.

Using base-10 isn't going to cause any problems (other than for software
developers who, let's face it, make a career out of handling problems),
so in this case it gives a better user experience to just use base-10.

(And, as has been pointed out, the SI prefixes are reserved for base-10
anyway, so this isn't really even consistency at the sake of accuracy.)

I would actually take this a step further: for most (but perhaps not an
"overwhelming majority") users and situations, displaying file size at
all degrades user experience.  Rarely do I want to know "how large is a
file?"  More often I want to know something like:

* Will a file fit on a storage medium?
* How long will it take a file to download?
* What percentage of a file do I already have?
* (Implicitly) can I manipulate the contents of the file without slowing
my computer down?

Even on this mailing list I suspect that there are a number of people
who couldn't say - without checking - how much free disk space they have
or what their network throughput to some arbitrary remote host is.
Without knowing these other data then file size is basically useless.

So: in most cases, I would argue it is better to display the pertinent
information, not the file size.

(I needn't get into the conversation about whether we (read: users)
should even be still thinking in terms of a 1980s office metaphor with
files, folders, and desktops.)

--
Conrad Shultz

Synthetiq Solutions
www.synthetiqsolutions.com
_______________________________________________

Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)

Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com

Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

References: 
 >Finder File Size discrepancy.. (From: Robert Monaghan <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Finder File Size discrepancy.. (From: Mikkel Islay <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Finder File Size discrepancy.. (From: Robert Monaghan <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Finder File Size discrepancy.. (From: Scott Ribe <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Finder File Size discrepancy.. (From: Robert Monaghan <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Finder File Size discrepancy..
  • Next by Date: Re: viewWillAppear not called with UINavigationController containment
  • Previous by thread: Re: Finder File Size discrepancy..
  • Next by thread: Re: Finder File Size discrepancy..
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread