>>>> Frequency readouts are probably more accessible to the latter. >>> >>> The frequency domain more accessible to laypersons? I have my doubts ;) >> >> Gamers, at least, are familiar with “frames per second” and how that >> corresponds to their monitor’s refresh rate. > > I am sure they can easily transform back into time domain to get the > frame period ;) . I am partly kidding, I think your idea is great in that it > is a truly positive value which could lend itself to being used in ISP/router > manufacturer advertising, and hence might work in the real work; on the other > hand I like to keep data as “raw” as possible (not that ^(-1) is a > transformation worthy of being called data massage). > >> The desirable range of latencies, when converted to Hz, happens to be >> roughly the same as the range of desirable frame rates. > > Just to play devils advocate, the interesting part is time or saving > time so seconds or milliseconds are also intuitively understandable and can > be easily added ;)
Such readouts are certainly interesting to people like us. I have no objection to them being reported alongside a frequency readout. But I think most people are not interested in “time savings” measured in milliseconds; they’re much more aware of the minute- and hour-level time savings associated with greater bandwidth. - Jonathan Morton _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
