On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, wolfgang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx () wrote:
> 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>
> > WW> > One idea might be in the client software to keep a record of the
> > WW> > minimum and maximum experienced value and display a
> > WW> > percentage/value based on this. So you get a scale from 0%-100%
> > WW> > for the known limits of the current setup.
> > WW>
> > WW> Sorry, I do not think this would be a good idea. In case of
> > WW> initial startup you get 100% even if there is no signal at all. To
> > WW> 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.
sorry I missed the word "experienced". It doesn't make sense to keep track
of _experienced_ maximal/minimal values. What is necessary are max/min
_possible_ values.
Sergei
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -?)
eMail: Sergei.Haller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /\\
-------------------------------------------------------------------- _\_V
Be careful of reading health books, you might die of a misprint.
-- Mark Twain
