From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:39:06 -0600

On 11/9/2010 10:22 AM, Alex Parker wrote:
>
>
> I like the general idea, but the way it switches between what the
> numbers mean depending on how many digits you use seems like it could
> be confusing to me. Having 90 = 130 is a little odd, and if I see I
> can type 90 to have 1 minute 30, I would expect e.g. 600 to be 10
> minutes, not 6 minutes. I think sticking to one method would be better.
>
>
I definitely agree with this: If there's no separator in the numbers
(such as 600 as opposed to 6:00) I expect all digits to represent the
same unit (in this case, presumably, seconds) initially, and could find
myself surprised the first time seeking. Having it so that 90 = 130 is
even more surprising and confusing. Ideally there would be a separator
character or multiple fields to make it explicit.

  I'm not even sure what one should expect from 170 under "HHMMSS" digit
allocation. Rejection, or 2 minutes 10 seconds? Under the current
hybrid system would that be 170 seconds or 130 seconds?
Received on 2010-11-09