Áhugaverður samanburður og eitthvað sem maður hafði ekki velt fyrir sér að gæti haft áhrif.
Komment nr 2 er samt eiginlega enþá áhugaverðara
For the record, the fact that you're using bar charts that don't line up zero means that those charts are in fact very misleading. Because the power consumption charts start at 10 W, differences as little as 5% look like nearly 100% differences. Int the about:blank example alone, it's scaled to show opera consuming over 93% more power, while the raw data and even the accompanying text show that it only consumes a little over 5% more than IE9. In the battery life chart at the end, the origin is 2 hours, which makes a 38% increase in battery life look like closer to a 150% increase in battery life.
Sure, you could make the argument that people should read the accompanying text and data, but the entire point of using charts and graphs is to provide the data in a consumable way that doesn't require the use of the accompanying text. Someone skimming this article and moving on to other things is likely to be completely misinformed by these charts. I'm not sure if it's just a simple oversight, an attempt at making them more "interesting" or deliberate misinformation, but it makes me severely distrust the quality of the rest of the experiment over all. Poor form, Microsoft. Poor form.
Einmitt svona tölfræðibirting sem ég þoli ekki, sérstaklega þar sem IE er nú með forskot í öllum þessum prófum hvort eð er, afhverju þá reyna að ýkja muninn enn frekar?
Svo væri nú gaman að sjá aðra browser smiði gera álíka prófanir eða enþá frekar hlutlausa aðila.
