Sergei Haller writes: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Wolfgang Wegner (WW) wrote: > > WW> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 11:46:24PM -0000, Chris Warren wrote: > WW> > One idea might be in the client software to keep a record of the minimum and > WW> > maximum experienced value and display a percentage/value based on this. So > WW> > you get a scale from 0%-100% for the known limits of the current setup. > WW> > WW> Sorry, I do not think this would be a good idea. > WW> In case of initial startup you get 100% even if there is no signal > WW> at all. > WW> To be honest, I always hate equipment [and software] that lies to me > WW> and hides real values from me, even [or especially] if it tries to > WW> be more intelligent than me... > > this has nothing to do with being more or less intelligent or with hiding > "real" values from the user. > > let's say, the driver tells you that the signal strength is the number 354. > So what? that's the "real" value. but you can't tell if the value is good > or bad. > > you _need_ the information on the possible min/max values. Sorry, please read the whole text (including what I quoted)! I said that it does not make sense to let the application keep track of min/max values it already experienced. I do in fact vote for a proper scaling of the values, such that they are comparable between different frontends. But, as I already said, one should keep in mind that different frontends might have different min/max values that should be handled by the application while IMHO it is desirable for the API to be capable of handling a much broader range of values than the subset that all frontends can handle. (To be able to support real professional hardware, too.) > giving the percentage is just a rescaling (telling you that 0 is the > possible minimum and 100 the possible maximum) Yes, but this does not make the value "portable" between different frontends (or frontend architectures). > c ya > Sergei Regards, Wolfgang
