Re: [Bloat] marketing #102 - giving netperf-wrapper a better name?

[Alex Burr <ajb44.geo@yahoo.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2461 bytes --]

I think we need something that's comprehensible as quickly as possible. I'm no graphic designer, but how about this:
https://imgrush.com/0oPGJ8VHluFy.png

|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
|  |
|  |
| View on imgrush.com | Preview by Yahoo |
|  |
|   |



I used the word 'delay' as it is more familiar than latency. The number is illustrated by a picture of a physical queue; hopefully everyone can identify it instantly, and knows that a longer one is worse. The eye supposed to be drawn to the figure at the back of the queue to emphasise this.
I just made this manually in inkscape, but it should not be too hard to automate the generation of a graphic like this.
Alex 

     On Friday, March 20, 2015 9:08 PM, Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) <versteb@cisco.com> wrote:
   
 

 I was kidding about "sucks-less", and forgot the smiley in my initial note.

We do need a metric with an end-user-friendly name, though. Most people understand "lag", and understand that lower numbers are better. You could probably explain "lag-while-loaded" to most users (particularly people who care, like gamers) in a manner that got the point across.

Bvs


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:chromatix99@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:26 PM
To: Bill Ver Steeg (versteb)
Cc: Rémi Cardona; bloat; cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Bloat] marketing #102 - giving netperf-wrapper a better name?


> On 20 Mar, 2015, at 22:08, Bill Ver Steeg (versteb) <versteb@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> We should call the metric "sucks-less". As in "Box A sucks less than Box B", or "Box C scored a 17 on the sucks less test".

I suspect real marketing drones would get nervous at a negative-sounding name.

My idea - which I’ve floated in the past, more than once - is that the metric should be “responsiveness”, measured in Hertz.  The baseline standard would be 10Hz, corresponding to a dumb 100ms buffer.  Get down into the single-digit millisecond range, as fq_codel does, and the Responsiveness goes up above 100Hz, approaching 1000Hz.

Crucially, that’s a positive sort of term, as well as trending towards bigger numbers with actual improvements in performance, and is thus more potentially marketable.

 - Jonathan Morton

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat


 
   

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12887 bytes --]