Project

General

Profile

Bug #9374

Don't use powers of 1000 for ISO size on the download page

Added by anonym over 4 years ago. Updated about 4 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
Category:
Installation
Target version:
Start date:
05/12/2015
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
web/9374-iso-size-units
Type of work:
End-user documentation
Blueprint:
Starter:
Affected tool:
Installation Assistant

Description

Since #7417 we show the ISO image size on the download page, and it uses powers of 1000 and the unit "MB", which is completely correct. But it risks confusing users, since reason lost this battle (at least so far) and an inconsistent use of the power vs unit is what users is likely to be exposed to. Here's what I looked at to draw that conclusion:

  • Firefox shows the number in MiB:s but incorrectly uses the unit "MB"
  • Chromium/Google Chrome shows the number in MiB:s but incorrectly uses the unit "MB"
  • Windows 8.1's explorer shows the number in MiB:s but incorrectly uses the unit "MB"
  • KDE's Dolphin shows the number in MiB:s and correctly uses the unit "MiB"
  • GNOME's Nautilus shows the number in MB:s and correctly uses the unit "MB"

So, showing the number in MiB:s but incorrectly using the unit "MB" is what most users will be exposed to, in particular when downloading the file. The difference becomes very noticeable given our ISO image size, e.g. for Tails 1.4 its 971 MB vs 926 MiB (in correct units!). With the current situation users may think they are downloading a Tails containing 45 "MB" worth of NSA backdoors, or whatever.


Related issues

Related to Tails - Feature #7417: Mention the ISO file size on the download page Resolved 06/17/2014
Related to Tails - Feature #15104: Favor consistency over accuracy when displaying ISO size (GB vs GiB) Resolved 12/25/2017
Blocks Tails - Feature #9438: Assistant: Automatically include the size of the ISO image in the router Resolved 05/21/2015

Associated revisions

Revision 08a8de07
Added by sajolida over 4 years ago

Merge branch 'web/9374-iso-size-units' (Closes: #9374)

Revision 22094311
Added by anonym about 4 years ago

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/web/9374-iso-size-units' into testing

Fix-committed: #9374

History

#1 Updated by anonym over 4 years ago

  • Related to Feature #7417: Mention the ISO file size on the download page added

#2 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

  • GNOME's Nautilus shows the number in MB:s and correctly uses the unit "MB"

I should check if that's the case in Ubuntu as well (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnitsPolicy suggests it should use powers of two).

#3 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Assignee set to sajolida

#4 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to tchou

While working on this I checked that Nautilus was consistent with what we are proposing. But now I realize that Nautilus is in the minority here (showing numbers in MB).

Nautilus has been discussed this here https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=695146 and it seems like they're not going to decide something really soon.

I'm actually more concerned about the number which is displayed than the correctness of the unit (seeing how many other project do that wrong). But I'm worried about the fact that we can't find a number that works both in Firefox, Chromium, Windows, and Tails. (Apparently OS X does MB like Nautilus.)

So what about removing that indication and at least not generate more confusion from that?

Tchou, what do you think? As you were the one to propose this initially and we're doing it again in our new design.

#5 Updated by BitingBird over 4 years ago

Could we say "the size is 971 MB (926 MiB)" so that users are confident if hey have either sizes showing?

#6 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Blocks Feature #9438: Assistant: Automatically include the size of the ISO image in the router added

#7 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

So what about removing that indication [...]

I'm not sure I understand what this means exactly.

#8 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

Removing that indication, means stop displaying any ISO image size on the download page. If we don't give that information, the unit can't be wrong :)

#9 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

Removing that indication, means stop displaying any ISO image size on the download page. If we don't give that information, the unit can't be wrong :)

Perhaps stating something like "ca. 1GB" would achieve the initial goal (giving users an idea of the download size), and would not have the problems this ticket is about?

#10 Updated by tchou over 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from tchou to sajolida
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

Maybe we can have "ca. 1GB", and a popover on hover (http://getbootstrap.com/javascript/#popovers-examples) with details.

#11 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

I'm fine with saying "±1GB" (I didn't know what 'ca.' means before asking Wikipedia).

So here is what I'll do:

  • Try displaying both MB and MiB as BitingBird proposed and see how it looks.
  • Try displaying "±1GB".
  • Try to implement a popover with ikiwiki toogle. As doing this with bootstrap is blocked by at least #9314 and #9216 and maybe a wider debate if we want to start usin bootstrap in other places then the Installation Assistant (which is the current compromise).

Marking this as "Dev Needed" now.

#12 Updated by anonym over 4 years ago

sajolida wrote:

  • Try displaying "±1GB".

AFAIK (and Wikipedia too) the meaning of "±" is not "approximately" but "positive or negative", i.e. the Tails image is either 1GB or -1GB, whatever that means. Let's not do that. :)

What about "Approx. 1GB"?

#13 Updated by BitingBird over 4 years ago

Today, a user specifically sent a whisperback report to thank us for adding the iso size. I think it's useful and should not be removed :)

#14 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to web/9374-iso-size-units

Ok, so I tried displaying both MB and MiB. Please, try to build that branch and see how it looks. Tell me if you like it. Otherwise I'll fall back to saying "(about 1 GB)".

#15 Updated by BitingBird over 4 years ago

  • Assignee set to BitingBird

I'll try to review it in time for 1.4.1 but I don't have much time those days.

#16 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

#17 Updated by cypherpunks over 4 years ago

To me, a megabyte will be 2^20 until the day I die.

That said, why not list the file size in bytes instead? I like knowing the exact file size so I can check it before file verification.

#18 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

I agree with you, displaying bytes would remove the ambiguity on the multiplier (mega, mebi). But the problem here is not actually about being technical "right" (other we would put MiB and be done with it), but about matching what people will see in their operating system; and here stuff gets more complicated as anonym pointed out in the description of this ticket.

#19 Updated by cypherpunks over 4 years ago

Listing size in bytes is about precision. When I download something that has a slightly different size than it's supposed to have, I know that something is wrong even before the file verification process.

A kilobyte is 1024 bytes. It doesn't need a new name. Computer scientists have not has it wrong all along.

#20 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

  • Type of work changed from Discuss to End-user documentation

#21 Updated by BitingBird over 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from BitingBird to sajolida
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

You forgot to push the branch, so I can't review :)

#22 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

Listing size in bytes is about precision. When I download something
that has a slightly different size than it's supposed to have, I know
that something is wrong even before the file verification process.

Right, listing size in bytes would be about "precision" but it's not our
goal here. Our goal here is to provide a number that's "good enough"
(not necessarily super precise) for people to:

  • Know if they will have enough space on their disk
  • Know whether the download was interrupted or not
  • Match the number they see in there file browser (on Linux, Windows, or
    MAC).

I think that MB or MiB is precise enough to math the first two goals,
and that displaying the size in bytes fails to match the third goal.

#23 Updated by intrigeri over 4 years ago

  • Target version changed from Tails_1.4.1 to Tails_1.5

#24 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to BitingBird
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

Done now, sorry.

#25 Updated by BitingBird over 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from BitingBird to sajolida
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Looks good, please merge :)

#26 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

#27 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 100 to 70
  • QA Check changed from Pass to Dev Needed

Actually, my CSS layout breaks with "1.4.1" which is longer then "1.4" so I merged this but then reverted my change (through a carefull --force). I need to work on this more ... :(

#28 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • QA Check deleted (Dev Needed)

In the end I fixed it straight away... sorry for the mess :(

#29 Updated by sajolida about 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to In Progress
  • Target version changed from Tails_1.5 to Tails_1.8

While working on the Installation Assistant we reviewed a bit this decision and will inline only the size in MiB and the "MiB" unit (as proposed in the title of this ticket). For several reasons:

  • It will be the duty of the browser extension or the BitTorrent client to check that the download was interrupted and the ISO is complete.
  • We displaying this indication in many more places where it's cumbersome to have both units.
  • We don't believe that this difference is meaningful for most users and is worth the confusion that it will create ("Why are they two different sizes?").

If people still have strong opinions about that. We could try to display both sizes until the user testing sessions and report back any finding.

That's ee0092e. I'll remove the double indication from /inc and the release process once the assistant replaced the old download page.

#30 Updated by sajolida about 4 years ago

  • Assignee set to sajolida
  • Target version changed from Tails_1.8 to Tails_2.0

#31 Updated by sajolida about 4 years ago

  • Affected tool set to Installation Assistant

Assigning this to me as this should be dealt with while working on the installation assistant.

#32 Updated by sajolida about 4 years ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to Low

#33 Updated by sajolida about 4 years ago

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to anonym
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

Done in 34c2940..2072609. This branch should be merged for the first release after the official release of the installation assistant (otherwise there will be some glitches on /download). So I suggest you merge it right before the release but not now.

#34 Updated by anonym about 4 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to 11
  • % Done changed from 70 to 100

#35 Updated by anonym about 4 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (anonym)
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

#36 Updated by sajolida about 4 years ago

  • Assignee: sajolida

#37 Updated by intrigeri about 4 years ago

sajolida, I'm not sure what you tried to do but it seems to have failed.

#38 Updated by sajolida about 4 years ago

  • Assignee set to sajolida

#39 Updated by anonym about 4 years ago

  • Status changed from 11 to Resolved

#40 Updated by sajolida about 2 years ago

  • Related to Feature #15104: Favor consistency over accuracy when displaying ISO size (GB vs GiB) added

Also available in: Atom PDF