On Monday 27 September 2010 15:51:10 Jameson Rollins wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:25:21 +0200, Ludwig Hügelschäfer <mlis...@hammernoch.net> wrote: > > Ack. 1.5 seconds is about the limit where a good GUI should issue a > > reaction. This is where the human mind is starting to think there's > > something wrong. > > We should be careful not to overstate the impatience of users too much. > I've seen plenty of people wait many seconds for google maps to load on > phones without giving up on the whole process. I also have an extremely > slow machine were I routinely have to wait a long time (many seconds) > for certain operations to complete. It's certainly not ideal, but I > don't give up on those operations just because they take a little > longer. I get used to it and figure out ways to deal. > > I'm not saying we shouldn't care about operations taking a noticeable > amount of time, but I wouldn't state out-right that users will revolt > and refuse to do something just because it takes more than a second. > > jamie.
There are GUI operations that can routinely take several seconds to complete, such as sending an email via authenticated SMTP over TLS, opening an .ogv file, converting a document to a .PDF, adding a picture to a big presentation, etc. My personal threshold before I think something is wrong is somewhere between 3-4 seconds for when I don't know something is computationally expensive. Encryption using a 4096-bit key is something I /expect/ is computationally expensive, so if there's a few second delay there I wouldn't personally be worried about it. In fact if I was using old or slow hardware and it only took a couple of seconds to complete, I'd be pleased it was that fast. I'm personally pleased at the performance I get from 4096R key encryption. It's a good thing for speed be considered nonetheless, but there's also only so much that can be done about it. There are organizations that have deemed 1024-bit DSA keys not to be secure enough [due to SHA-1 collisions], and some have stated in this thread that encryption using 2048-bit and 4096-bit keys "takes too long". To reconcile this, there are basically two choices in my mind: A) grow patience, or B) tolerate being less secure... because I don't think there's going to suddenly be a wild advance in code efficiency. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
