Feature #1541

Feature Request: Rename "extra priority" to "additional cost"

Added by Prof Yaffle over 8 years ago. Updated almost 7 years ago.

User Interface
Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Estimated time:


Just a thought... there's been intermittent debate about how people interpret the priority of adapters, and the fact that the mechanism is upside-down (i.e. increasing the "extra priority" actually decreases the priority of that adapter).

Why not just rename it in the WebUI (and maybe config files, but less important) to something like "additional cost to use" or similar? Might make more sense then...



Updated by Adam Sutton over 7 years ago

I agree with this, I just don't like "additional cost". We need some succinct way of describing the fact its the inverse of what people expect.

De-priotise? still not good



Updated by Prof Yaffle over 7 years ago

I asked SWMBO for a view from a non-technical perspective, and simply had "why don't you add a note that says '0=highest priority, 10000=lowest?'".

If we want to keep it as a checkbox with a simple description, then I suppose you're into "cost" instead of "priority", since that's effectively what you're doing ("Increase adapter cost by..."). Dredging other euphemisms, all I can think of otherwise is something around "adapter queue position" or "serving position" - kind of take-a-ticket style.


Updated by Sam Stenvall almost 7 years ago

I believe this has been fixed?


Updated by Prof Yaffle almost 7 years ago

Sam Stenvall wrote:

I believe this has been fixed?

Agree. Current model is apparently:

Streaming Priority
The tuner priority value for streamed channels through HTTP or HTSP (higher value = higher priority to use this tuner). If not set (zero), the standard priority value is used.

Updated by Mark Clarkstone almost 7 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Fixed

Also available in: Atom PDF