Issue 3054 - Reduced delay between icon animation starts from 15s to 10s

Issue 3054 - Reduced delay between icon animation starts from 15s to 10s

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-09-10 11:20:35]

On 2015/09/10 11:18:03, Thomas Greiner wrote:

Without having seen it, I wonder if it shouldn't be a bit faster still. 10
seconds is a long time, and still similarly easy to miss. How about 5s as a
compromise between making it noticeable but not epilepsy inducing?

[Thomas Greiner, 2015-09-10 11:28:08]

On 2015/09/10 11:20:35, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> On 2015/09/10 11:18:03, Thomas Greiner wrote:
> 
> Without having seen it, I wonder if it shouldn't be a bit faster still. 10
> seconds is a long time, and still similarly easy to miss. How about 5s as a
> compromise between making it noticeable but not epilepsy inducing?

Note that this is the time between the starts of animation cycles. The cycles
themselves take at least around 3s so the actual time from the end of one
animation to the start of another is less than 7s. I wouldn't go lower than that
since it already felt sufficient during testing.

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-09-10 11:30:43]

On 2015/09/10 11:28:08, Thomas Greiner wrote:
> On 2015/09/10 11:20:35, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> > On 2015/09/10 11:18:03, Thomas Greiner wrote:
> > 
> > Without having seen it, I wonder if it shouldn't be a bit faster still. 10
> > seconds is a long time, and still similarly easy to miss. How about 5s as a
> > compromise between making it noticeable but not epilepsy inducing?
> 
> Note that this is the time between the starts of animation cycles. The cycles
> themselves take at least around 3s so the actual time from the end of one
> animation to the start of another is less than 7s. I wouldn't go lower than
that
> since it already felt sufficient during testing.

Oh I see, yeah then it should be the way I imagine it already.

[Felix Dahlke, 2015-09-10 11:31:09]

On 2015/09/10 11:30:43, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> On 2015/09/10 11:28:08, Thomas Greiner wrote:
> > On 2015/09/10 11:20:35, Felix Dahlke wrote:
> > > On 2015/09/10 11:18:03, Thomas Greiner wrote:
> > > 
> > > Without having seen it, I wonder if it shouldn't be a bit faster still. 10
> > > seconds is a long time, and still similarly easy to miss. How about 5s as
a
> > > compromise between making it noticeable but not epilepsy inducing?
> > 
> > Note that this is the time between the starts of animation cycles. The
cycles
> > themselves take at least around 3s so the actual time from the end of one
> > animation to the start of another is less than 7s. I wouldn't go lower than
> that
> > since it already felt sufficient during testing.
> 
> Oh I see, yeah then it should be the way I imagine it already.

Guess I became a reviewer now - LGTM.

[Sebastian Noack, 2015-09-10 11:41:23]

I think there should be an issue, if it is only to document the improvements we
did to the notification mechanism.

[Thomas Greiner, 2015-09-10 12:36:13]

On 2015/09/10 11:41:23, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> I think there should be an issue, if it is only to document the improvements
we
> did to the notification mechanism.

That's fine with me. I created the ticket #3054 for that.

[Sebastian Noack, 2015-09-10 13:21:30]

Thanks! And.. LGTM