From: Peter Lecky <lecky_lists_at_nextra.sk>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:51:24 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 9.11.2010 17:39, Paul Louden wrote:
> 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?
Thanks for ideas. I will change the input format.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2XwLAAoJEKitnP1f3fESnkwH/ioDbydwYoZ1c+M5YM2Ei+Ny
epcVgMk5YSc5iDN0YWlG+fA0tHIp1IZ5xJ5gYLbEsYunfwBlUIZ6oYlHC8RapT4o
etz2q50l66xltgl1Q6UPAgXR2BCrTacW80HYe9mv/omDF3wzy6NsDMc2KtDOAzi2
ERpyahbjROJ9GzIJCYXT7aqzapKwcqIbZt5xdzLwlAoea2i4BO/COT2LpU/3bYBF
1P+Sk9/zerym2s0uBgBTmmxAJT6WOG8miQKiX38xTbe2/jDqMIn3/X+xDk+lW2Pj
lalZokjlUt9qM2kZxEwOLZNMzCQaoaB1xFl2bsP9qq1+vn5i015+hnxyrDWk8MA=
=rEvU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on 2010-11-09