fluid-work Digest, Vol 16, Issue 9

Eli Cochran eli at media.berkeley.edu
Thu Jun 5 03:57:52 UTC 2008


Well, the 0K files were really a rounding error. Adding the decimals  
would have fixed that problem.

But thanks for the vote of confidence.

- Eli

On Jun 4, 2008, at 8:25 PM, Justin Obara wrote:

> I would agree with that. This would also solve the issue of why
> four 0KB files might equal 2KB in the total section.
> Justin
> ----- Original Message ----
> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:51:38 -0700
> From: Eli Cochran <eli at media.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: bytes, kbytes, megabytes, and gigabytes
> To: fluid-work <fluid-work at fluidproject.org>
> Message-ID: <F4A27F75-0BDC-4302-99C3-C119A2D7FDAA at media.berkeley.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> We've been talking here at Berkeley about how best to represent file
> sizes in the Uploader. Most OSs display the unit of measure for a file
> depending on the file size, similar to how we would measure a pickle
> in centimeters, a tree in meters and a football field in, well,
> football fields.
>
> So a file that is 465 bytes would be represented as 465 bytes*, a
> 40,650 byte file is shown as being 40 kb, and a 4020650 byte file as
> 4MB (or maybe 3.8MB).
>
> This works when all the files are similar sizes; big files compare
> well with other big files, small to small. But when you start having
> big and little files in the same list then the different units of
> measure are potentially confusing. Is a 465 byte file smaller or
> larger than a 40 kb file?
>
> Many users understand this stuff because, rightly or wrongly, this is
> just the way computers work. But many users may never have noticed or
> never cared (and may still not care.)
>
> So should we use one consistent measure? I think not.
>
> There are a number of good arguments for following the OS scheme. But
> the one that tips it over the edge for me is consistency. And not the
> "let's be wrong for consistencies sake" consistency. But more because
> users need to map their files in the OS, with the files that they are
> uploading. And if a user loads up a 2.3MB file (by the OS measure) in
> the Uploader that is then displayed as being 2355.2kb, they might
> think we grabbed the wrong file.
>
> My plan is to represent all files less than 1kb in bytes, between 1kb
> and 1024kb in kilobytes (kb) and those files 1024 kb and above in
> megabytes (MB). With 2 decimal places... seems fine.
>
> Should I also display files over 1024MB (those very rare files that we
> would have a hard time handling anyway) in GB?
>
> Thanks for reading through this long post.
>
> - Eli
>
>
> * 1k (or 4k) which is partly for clarity and partly because of the
> amount of space that small files take up on hard disks.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . .  .  .  .    .      .        .              .                    .
>
> Eli Cochran
> user interaction developer
> ETS, UC Berkeley
>
>
>
>

. . . . . . . . . . .  .  .   .    .      .         .              .                     .

Eli Cochran
user interaction developer
ETS, UC Berkeley


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20080604/395642b7/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list