(In reply to Jan Honza Odvarko [:Honza] (always need-info? me) from comment #16) > Harald's twitter poll showed that people expect 1024 and in such case we would have to use "KiB/MiB" and those labels could be confusing to users. I'd argue the current "KB" labeling is way more confusing, because it's ambiguous. Upon seeing KB as a user, I always have to guess: did you mean "kB" (1000 bytes) or KiB (1024 bytes)? Turns out that in this case you meant KiB. As a user, I don't have a strong preference w.r.t. using 1000- or 1024-based units (although I would love alignment between all browser DevTools!). Using precise labels seems uncontroversial though.
Bug 1621919 Comment 17 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Jan Honza Odvarko [:Honza] (always need-info? me) from comment #16) > Harald's twitter poll showed that people expect 1024 and in such case we would have to use "KiB/MiB" and those labels could be confusing to users. I'd argue the current "KB" labeling is way more confusing, because it's ambiguous. Upon seeing KB as a user, I always have to guess: did you mean "kB" (1000 bytes) or KiB (1024 bytes)? Turns out that in this case you meant KiB (but e.g. the macOS Finder uses the same "KB" label to mean "kB"). As a user, I don't have a strong preference w.r.t. using 1000- or 1024-based units (although I would love alignment between all browser DevTools!). Using precise labels seems uncontroversial though.