After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 685412 - Timer for "Last Benchmarked" in benchmark results is needlessly precise
Timer for "Last Benchmarked" in benchmark results is needlessly precise
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-disk-utility
Classification: Core
Component: Disks UI
3.6.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-disk-utility-maint
gnome-disk-utility-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-10-03 16:34 UTC by Dylan McCall
Modified: 2012-11-15 18:24 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Screenshot of the benchmark dialog with the "last benchmarked" label showing exactly how long ago the benchmark finished (106.41 KB, image/png)
2012-10-03 16:34 UTC, Dylan McCall
Details

Description Dylan McCall 2012-10-03 16:34:05 UTC
Created attachment 225691 [details]
Screenshot of the benchmark dialog with the "last benchmarked" label showing exactly how long ago the benchmark finished

In the Benchmark results dialog, there is a label with the time since the last benchmark:
"Wed 03 Oct 2012 09:24:24 AM PDT (2 minutes and 22 seconds ago)"

The level of precision here seems unnecessary, and it is very distracting because the label actually changes every second. When I look at the benchmark results, my eyes are attracted to that motion, making it seem particularly important to the benchmark results. Initially, when that label first appeared after running a benchmark, I saw the timer and assumed some operation was still ongoing. It took me a surprising amount of time to notice the timer was actually counting up, to be very confused, and then (finally) to read the text around the timer to figure out it was actually just telling me when it had finished.
Comment 1 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2012-11-15 18:24:55 UTC
Good point. This problem has been fixed in the development version. The fix will be available in the next major software release. Thank you for your bug report.