On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Dimi Paun wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 02:20 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Min power Default Max performance
So a blinking cursor indicates higher performance than a non-blinking
one? You can't represent power management on a one dimensional scale.
That's poor UI.
Whatever. This can be worked around.
Somehow on this forum saying that "90%+ of users use Windows" is a
"made up statistic" whereas saying that turning off blinking on a cursor
is going to save millions of trees is self evident. Yay!
Changing defaults like this is just a way to shoot ourselves in the
foot. Real customers/users are very finicky about the tiniest of
details. Dealing with them directly is a great learning experience.
Besides, we seem to enjoy pain: nobody will appreciate a non-blinking
cursor,
Wrong.
yet we know _some_ will have a big problem with it. The only
people benefiting from it is the ones doing mental calculations about
trees saved. That's a tiny minority.
Ignore the power savings aspect just for a second.
My television has a power on led below the screen. It blinks when the tv
is starting up and when the remote control is used, both cases have a very
clear and sane purpose. It does NOT blink while you're watching the tv,
and for a good reason too.
Blinking things tend to draw attention, and in the case of Blinky the
Cursor it's drawing your attention to the fact that there is nothing at
all to attend to. It can also cause seizures for people with epilepsy or
other disorders.
Now, somebody please tell me: what is the grande justification of
consuming a few extra wats per every computer in the world to attempt to
draw the users attention to exactly nothing, despite being known to cause
health issues to some people while doing so? And "it's always done that"
is not an answer.
- Panu -
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
