From paragraph six, "We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see."
It's a psychological thing. A few extra pixels do indeed give the illusion of better network reception, albeit the actual level doesn't change.
Similar to designing progress bars, the actual progress is hidden from the user. Instead, the user is presented with the illusion that the process is progressing faster than it actually is.
good observation. i'm wondering why bars are not equally the same height across. the quantity alone should be enough (1 vs 5) to convey strength. with the height being variable, it seems to make things seem worst in the worst possible way -- 5 will still be 5, but when its a 1, because the height is so much shorter, it seems worst than 1. what is the upside to variable height when you already have variable width in terms of number of bars? it's not as if there's an algorithm that determines the correct height for that particular signal, as there is a (faulty?) algorithm to determine the correct width (bars).
"Bar rendering" debates and the actual signal (yes, a physical quantity!) that the phone sees from the AT&T network are non-issues with a BlackBerry thanks to its wondrous ability to display RSSI directly: http://www.blackberrycool.com/2009/04/22/converting-signal-s...
Yes. I really wish companies would stop stressing me out with pointless things to interpret. What is the effective difference between three or four bars? All I really need/want to know is:
* No connection
* Slow/intermittent connection
On the other hand, all this hype is encouraging people to perform Science, with cameras, posted to YouTube, so maybe there is a purpose to all of this.
