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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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