On 11/09/2012 08:26 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 19:29 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
>> On 11/09/2012 07:17 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 23:38 +0100, poljar (Damir Jeli?) wrote:
>>>> + if (hasNo && !hasYes && !hasOther)
>>>> + desc += " (unplugged)";
>>>> + else if (hasYes && !hasNo && !hasOther)
>>>> + desc += " (plugged in)";
>>>
>>> I think profiles should be "plugged in" if any port is available.
>>
>> The reason I did it for profiles in the first place, were just to make
>> the user get a hint about which one of the four HDMIs to select on the
>> configuration tab, and there is just one port per profile in that scenario.
>>
>> I also think that if one port is available and another is not, we
>> shouldn't say that the entire profile is "plugged in". It really only
>> makes sense to write something when all of the ports have the same
>> value. I e, the current code is correct IMO.
>
> What about laptop speakers that are always available (let's ignore the
> fact that it looks like the analog-output-speaker port never reports
> itself as "available", only "unknown" or "unavailable")? If headphones
> are not plugged in, I think the output:analog-stereo profile is still
> very much available ("plugged in" is not the best phrase in this case).
>
> I think the distinction between "all ports available" and "some ports
> available" is confusing to the user,
I don't think that is confusing, and...
> and it would be better to drop that
> distinction altogether. I would actually prefer not using any status
> specifier for profiles, except if all ports are unavailable, in which
> case I think "unplugged" is fine to signal to the user that this profile
> is pretty useless.
...I think that this last proposal would be more confusing as it treats
the states of "plugged in" and "unplugged" differently.
--
David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd.
https://launchpad.net/~diwic
