D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Nathaniel Graham]

ngraham updated this revision to Diff 64141.
ngraham added a comment.


  Rename to "Capacity degradation" for extra clarity, and move to the end of 
the Battery section

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270?vs=64062=64141

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

AFFECTED FILES
  Modules/energy/package/contents/ui/main.qml

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Alexander Potashev]

aspotashev added a comment.


  In D23270#515349 , @ngraham wrote:
  
  > "Capacity degradation" is perfectly clear IMO.
  
  
  You may be right, my opinion is biased.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Nathaniel Graham]

ngraham added a comment.


  In D23270#515348 , @aspotashev 
wrote:
  
  > I think you missed my point, the regular "what's this" tool is indeed 
poorly discoverable. Consider this type of "tooltip" for the KCM:
  >  F7264910: Screenshot_20190820_201847.png 

  >  And for the plasmoid we may use an "i" icon instead to make it compact.
  
  
  Ah I see what you mean, thanks. However this isn't a UI that we use in other 
places and I don't think it it's even necessary. "Capacity degradation" is 
perfectly clear IMO. What more would we need to explain? Again I feel like if 
possible it's preferable to use a term that doesn't need explanation rather 
than going to great pains to provide an explanation via a secondary mechanism.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Alexander Potashev]

aspotashev added a comment.


  In D23270#515331 , @ngraham wrote:
  
  > Hmm, both suggestions seem to be designed to explain what "capacity" means 
rather than replacing it with something that doesn't need explanation at all. I 
don't really see the point of  keeping the word "Capacity" visible when we can 
replace it with something that doesn't need additional explanation.
  
  
  Ok, let's go with "degradation: nn%" + a "what's this" link.
  
  > Also, I don't think QML stuff do "What's This?" text, and even if it could 
I wouldn't want to use it because the "What's This?" feature is 
poorly-discoverable and not a substitute for clarity in the user-visible 
strings.
  
  I think you missed my point, the regular "what's this" tool is indeed poorly 
discoverable. Consider this type of "tooltip" for the KCM:
  F7264910: Screenshot_20190820_201847.png 

  And for the plasmoid we may use an "i" icon instead to make it compact.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Nathaniel Graham]

ngraham added a comment.


  If keeping the word "capacity" is a sticking point, I'd like to go with 
@meven's suggestion of "Capacity degredation". Would that be acceptable?

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Nathaniel Graham]

ngraham added a comment.


  In D23270#515330 , @aspotashev 
wrote:
  
  > In D23270#515293 , @ngraham 
wrote:
  >
  > > At least, that's how it was for me. I did not understand what "Capacity:" 
was referring to until I started browsing the code. "Capacity" is an ambiguous 
and non-descriptive term that does not really communicate the concept we're 
trying to get across.
  >
  >
  > How about this: "Capacity: 79% (degraded by 21%)"?
  >  Or keep the label as is and add a link "What's this?" that would show a 
popup with an in-depth description of battery capacity, degradation, why it 
happens and what to do about it.
  
  
  Hmm, both suggestions seem to be designed to explain what "capacity" means 
rather than replacing it with something that doesn't need explanation at all. I 
don't really see the point of  keeping the word "Capacity" visible when we can 
replace it with something that doesn't need additional explanation.
  
  Also, I don't think QML stuff do "What's This?" text, and even if it could I 
wouldn't want to use it because the "What's This?" feature is 
poorly-discoverable and not a substitute for clarity in the user-visible 
strings.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Alexander Potashev]

aspotashev added a comment.


  In D23270#515293 , @ngraham wrote:
  
  > At least, that's how it was for me. I did not understand what "Capacity:" 
was referring to until I started browsing the code. "Capacity" is an ambiguous 
and non-descriptive term that does not really communicate the concept we're 
trying to get across.
  
  
  How about this: "Capacity: 79% (degraded by 21%)"?
  
  Or keep the label as is and add a link "What's this?" that would show a popup 
with an in-depth description of battery capacity, degradation, why it happens 
and what to do about it.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Nathaniel Graham]

ngraham added a comment.


  In D23270#515102 , @aspotashev 
wrote:
  
  > I don't like this change because it introduces a Plasma-specific formula 
and makes the user guess how to match "degradation: 21%" against let's say 
"capacity: 85%" s/he saw when using a different OS or desktop environment. For 
example:
  >
  > 1. User looks at battery status in Plasma 5.16 and remembers battery 
capacity is 85%,
  > 2. User updates to Plasma 5.17 and now there is "degradation 21%". How does 
one know if battery health improved or worsened over time and if the change was 
substantial?
  
  
  I think the more likely scenario is as follows:
  
  1. User looks at battery status in Plasma 5.16, sees "capacity" at 85%, and 
has no idea what this means, because it implies that the battery is 85% charged 
but this can't be the case as other stats conflict with this interpretation
  2. User updates to Plasma 5.17 and now there is "Degradation 21%". User now 
understands that this means their battery capacity is degraded. Maybe the 
string could be even further improved as "Capacity degredation:" as @meven 
suggested.
  
  At least, that's how it was for me. I did not understand what "Capacity:" was 
referring to until I started browsing the code. "Capacity" is an ambiguous and 
non-descriptive term that does not really communicate the concept we're trying 
to get across.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Nathaniel Graham]

ngraham added a comment.


  In D23270#514911 , @meven wrote:
  
  > > To further reduce the confusion, the battery's degradation lavel is 
relocated to the Battery section.
  >
  > I don't think that is necessary.
  >  What is confusing in a degradation value in an energy section ?
  >  It is clearly an energy degradation value.
  
  
  No, energy doesn't degrade, but a battery does. Degradation is  a property of 
the physical battery itself, not its energy.
  
  > If we want to make things clearer we could name "Degradation" "Capacity 
degradation" for instance
  
  That could work.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Alexander Potashev]

aspotashev added a comment.


  I don't like this change because it introduces a Plasma-specific formula and 
makes the user guess how to match "degradation: 21%" against let's say 
"capacity: 85%" s/he saw when using a different OS or desktop environment. For 
example:
  
  1. User looks at battery status in Plasma 5.16 and remembers battery capacity 
is 85%,
  2. User updates to Plasma 5.17 and now there is "degradation 21%". How does 
one know if battery health improved or worsened over time and if the change was 
substantial?

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: aspotashev, filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, 
fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Méven Car]

meven added a comment.


  Well capacity or degradation are expressed in % which differentiates it from 
energy values and makes it more informative.
  So in the end I agree degradation/capacity makes sense in the Battery section.
  
  Two things though, I would add charge level below charging, I feel it is 
really missing, and move degradation at the end of the battery properties as it 
is the less important in this section.
  
  "Rechargeable" property is quite questionable also, since how often do we 
have batteries on computers or peripherals whose batteries are not rechargeable 
?

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, fbampaloukas, 
GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Filip Fila]

filipf accepted this revision.
filipf added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.


  Both changes make sense to me.
  
  "Capacity" really is used elsewhere but I find it ambiguous as well; the same 
can't be said about "degradation" however.
  
  The "Battery" section also makes more sense to me because it's a property of 
the battery.

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

BRANCH
  capacity-to-degradation (branched from master)

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma, filipf
Cc: filipf, plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, fbampaloukas, 
GB_2, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, 
jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart

D23270: [Energy] Put battery capacity info in battery section and call it "degradation"

[Méven Car]

meven added a comment.


  > To further reduce the confusion, the battery's degradation lavel is 
relocated to the Battery section.
  
  I don't think that is necessary.
  What is confusing in a degradation value in an energy section ?
  It is clearly an energy degradation value.
  If we want to make things clearer we could name "Degradation" "Capactiy 
degradation" for instance or rename "Capacity" to "Battery capacity remaining" 
for that matter..

REPOSITORY
  R102 KInfoCenter

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D23270

To: ngraham, meven, broulik, #vdg, #plasma
Cc: plasma-devel, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, jraleigh, fbampaloukas, GB_2, 
ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, 
abetts, sebas, apol, mart