As designed Incorrect phrasing for attachment size limits

[Kirby]

Affected version

2.1.10

Provide the maximum attachment file size in kilobytes (KB)

You should also provide the maximum video file size in kilobytes (KB).

Those phrases do not seem to be correct.

According to the code in
\XF\Repository\Attachment::getDefaultAttachmentConstraints() and \XF\Repository\Attachment ::applyVideoAttachmentConstraints()
the values entered for thoes options are multiplied by 1024 so entering 10000 does result in allowing files up to 10240000 bytes = 10000 kibibytes = 10240 kilobytes.

So either the phrasing should be changed or the code be modified to multiply by 1000 instead of 1024.

Byte - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DragonByte Tech]

While I love the "technically correct" meme as much as the next internet dweller, this is one of those cases where common usage trumps technical correctness.

Does Windows show "gB" and "tB" when it shows you free space? I don't think so. macOS doesn't. Yet, both those OSes will show you the formatted space, e.g. the "gibibytes".

It would cause a massive amount of confusion to change it now, so I would be strongly opposed to this being changed.

 

[Kirby]

I don't think smth. like

Provide the maximum attachment file size in kibibytes (KiB), previously referred to as kilobytes (KB = 1024 bytes)

would be too confusing - and technically correct.

 

[DragonByte Tech]

I don't think smth. like would be too confusing - and technically correct.

I can tell you've never worked in customer support

Is there a single solitary benefit to making this change?

Relevant KnowYourMeme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ackchyually

 

[Kirby]

Yes, it would no longer be incorrect

 

[DragonByte Tech]

Yes, it would no longer be incorrect

No, I said a benefit, not "something that makes tech nerds feel good".

You've also completely neglected to counter the point I made about customer support. If you think that people would not be confused by the description you provided, then let me assure you that you are one hundred percent wrong.

The description is the way it is because that is how it is across the entire internet and on every single Windows and macOS computer. People want to see the same terms used uniformly.

If you still think "technically correct" is actually relevant in any way, shape or form, then please provide me with evidence that you have pursued a change in Windows with the same amount of vigour. Feel free to let me know if you hear back from Tim Cook or Satya Nadella.

 

[Mike]

While it might be slightly more correct or marginally less ambiguous, it's also far less accessible for an average customer. There is very little upside and more potential for downside.

Plus as noted, KB = 1024 bytes is still a known and very commonly used pattern. Windows specifically does exactly this everywhere.

Thus I think this is acceptable/correct as is.

 

[Kirby]

No, I said a benefit, not "something that makes tech nerds feel good".

Changing smth. that is wrong is always a benefit.

Anyway, this is not going to be changed, I think this is wrong and makes me angry but it isn't smth. we can't change on our own.
I noticed this because users were able to post attachments larger than they should have been allowed to do (according to settings).

 

[PaulB]

Changing smth. that is wrong is always a benefit.

This is the classic description vs. prescription debate. Historically, in the Western world, the prescriptive approach was favored. Over the past century or so, prescriptive linguistics fell out of favor and were partially replaced by descriptive linguistics. You may want to research the history behind that transition; it's pretty interesting, and it remains controversial.

That being said:

1. Most people don't even know what "kilobytes" or "kibibytes" means. At best, they just have a rough relative idea of how much data that is.
2. Most people who think they know what's "technically" correct are at least partially mistaken, but what's important is that we understand what they mean. There are several examples of that in this thread. For example, given the context, I know that "tB" refers to "TiB" in another context, I might assume they were typo-ing "Tb", would would terabits.
3. We can get ridiculously pedantic if we really want to: a byte doesn't need to be exactly eight bits. How about kibioctets?
4. K isn't the SI prefix for 1000, so you shouldn't be assuming that KB means 1000 bytes anyway.
5. KB remains a lot more common than KiB, and I say that as someone who almost always types "KiB" instead of "KB".
6. There's really no ambiguity here. And even if there were, it's such a small difference that it doesn't really matter.

 

[FTL]

Just to confuse things a little more, the "i" versions of the units were only created relatively recently, so originally, KB did mean 1024 bytes, same as KiB. To differentiate between base 2 and base 10 representation, the new version was created.

It really doesn't help that HDD mfrs decided to specify the old units to now mean base 10 to make their binary capacities seem larger for marketing purposes. Arguably, they should have been prevented from doing this. Problem is, there was no regulatory body to enforce this.