Correct screensaver
In this post, I want to propose to the public a fundamentally new and quite viable, in my opinion, idea for improving the mechanism of screensavers at workstations (without reference to specific operating systems).
From time immemorial, screensavers are an integral part of typical desktop software. In the past few years, they have partly lost their original function, to save the resource of a monitor, but they have acquired a new one. Various services respond to the screensaver activation event. Often, when a screensaver is activated, the current user is automatically logged in so that no one can get into his work in his absence. When the screensaver is turned on, the online messenger can change its status from online to away, and the document indexer, antivirus and file system defragmenter can begin its work.
The screensaver launch algorithm has not changed in principle for more than 20 years, since its first implementation (or one of the first implementations among the most common software) in Norton Commander. This algorithm for determining user inactivity is a simple check for the absence of any manipulations with HMI devices. Until now, it is taken de facto and implemented in all common operating systems. However, this approach has its drawbacks.
')
Anyone who is actively working at the computer, most likely known the following scenarios:
Trifle, but unpleasant. Annoying. Every now and again. Similar scenarios can list mass. I myself come across this several times a day. The situation may be aggravated by the need to enter your password if a temporary exit from the system occurs when the screensaver is turned on. As well as the inability or undesirability to change the settings of the screensaver or disable it altogether. The computer may be someone else's, in addition, for security reasons, there may be a real need for the screensaver to turn on the faster the better, protecting the machine from unauthorized access during the absence of the user in the workplace.
The classic way of tracking the presence of the user, in my opinion, has long outlived itself and requires revision. A replacement can be made on the basis of a fairly inexpensive hardware solution - a presence sensor. I want to specifically emphasize - not the motion sensor, which is used in security systems, namely the presence sensor. There are many ways to solve this problem (sensors based on IR or ultrasonic emitters, capacitive relays, etc.). The user is a rather large object, which in one way or another is not a very difficult problem to trace.
The most important point to consider is the usability of the technology. First, the sensor should not be a separate device that takes up additional space on the table or requires a separate USB port. It is best to make it built into the monitor or keyboard. Secondly, the software must function in such a way that device calibration is not required. However, it should remain possible to customize the nuances of the sensor, in accordance with the user's personal preferences and the conditions of the particular workplace.
If desired, the verification of the presence of the user in this way can be combined with the classical approach: if after the sensor has ceased to feel the user has passed a specified amount of idle time, the screensaver is activated. At the same time, the screensaver will never turn on if the user is sitting at the computer. Even if at the same time he is in a deep trance and does not move. But it costs him to leave - and after a while the screen will turn off. And if you just get closer to your workplace (do not touch the mouse, and do not poke your finger on the keyboard, but only get close , sit at the table) - everything is activated back. If desired, it is also possible to make optional the output of the signal from the sensor from the power saving mode, so as not to pull the monitor down after particularly long downtimes.
If we go back to the issue of resource saving, I think, it is not worth reminding that in most cases this is far from being such an urgent problem as it was several years ago. In addition, the possible increase in the intervals of the monitor will not be so great. The average user during the working day does not sit at the computer continuously, and the working day itself is not 24 hours a day. Modern monitors have a resource that is enough for so many hours of work that the monitor has time to become morally obsolete before this resource is really used up.
From time immemorial, screensavers are an integral part of typical desktop software. In the past few years, they have partly lost their original function, to save the resource of a monitor, but they have acquired a new one. Various services respond to the screensaver activation event. Often, when a screensaver is activated, the current user is automatically logged in so that no one can get into his work in his absence. When the screensaver is turned on, the online messenger can change its status from online to away, and the document indexer, antivirus and file system defragmenter can begin its work.
The screensaver launch algorithm has not changed in principle for more than 20 years, since its first implementation (or one of the first implementations among the most common software) in Norton Commander. This algorithm for determining user inactivity is a simple check for the absence of any manipulations with HMI devices. Until now, it is taken de facto and implemented in all common operating systems. However, this approach has its drawbacks.
')
Anyone who is actively working at the computer, most likely known the following scenarios:
- The screen displays a large text, a complex scheme or some other large amount of information that requires time to study. While we thoughtfully review or read this content, the predefined 5 minutes pass and the screensaver turns on inappropriately.
- We watch the video in some exotic (or not very exotic) player. For example, on Youtube directly in the browser. 5 minutes pass, the screen goes out at the most interesting place of the presentation of a megaproduct.
- We work at the computer and suddenly someone calls. The conversation takes 4 minutes and 58 seconds. So we hung up, turned to the keyboard, like this ...
Trifle, but unpleasant. Annoying. Every now and again. Similar scenarios can list mass. I myself come across this several times a day. The situation may be aggravated by the need to enter your password if a temporary exit from the system occurs when the screensaver is turned on. As well as the inability or undesirability to change the settings of the screensaver or disable it altogether. The computer may be someone else's, in addition, for security reasons, there may be a real need for the screensaver to turn on the faster the better, protecting the machine from unauthorized access during the absence of the user in the workplace.
The classic way of tracking the presence of the user, in my opinion, has long outlived itself and requires revision. A replacement can be made on the basis of a fairly inexpensive hardware solution - a presence sensor. I want to specifically emphasize - not the motion sensor, which is used in security systems, namely the presence sensor. There are many ways to solve this problem (sensors based on IR or ultrasonic emitters, capacitive relays, etc.). The user is a rather large object, which in one way or another is not a very difficult problem to trace.
The most important point to consider is the usability of the technology. First, the sensor should not be a separate device that takes up additional space on the table or requires a separate USB port. It is best to make it built into the monitor or keyboard. Secondly, the software must function in such a way that device calibration is not required. However, it should remain possible to customize the nuances of the sensor, in accordance with the user's personal preferences and the conditions of the particular workplace.
If desired, the verification of the presence of the user in this way can be combined with the classical approach: if after the sensor has ceased to feel the user has passed a specified amount of idle time, the screensaver is activated. At the same time, the screensaver will never turn on if the user is sitting at the computer. Even if at the same time he is in a deep trance and does not move. But it costs him to leave - and after a while the screen will turn off. And if you just get closer to your workplace (do not touch the mouse, and do not poke your finger on the keyboard, but only get close , sit at the table) - everything is activated back. If desired, it is also possible to make optional the output of the signal from the sensor from the power saving mode, so as not to pull the monitor down after particularly long downtimes.
If we go back to the issue of resource saving, I think, it is not worth reminding that in most cases this is far from being such an urgent problem as it was several years ago. In addition, the possible increase in the intervals of the monitor will not be so great. The average user during the working day does not sit at the computer continuously, and the working day itself is not 24 hours a day. Modern monitors have a resource that is enough for so many hours of work that the monitor has time to become morally obsolete before this resource is really used up.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/7143/
All Articles