From ffa568d23fa728eac0444c54bfb8a9a5778aaa5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Geoffrey Challen <challen@buffalo.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:48:36 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] New.

---
 figures/tables/tableALL.tex |  4 ++--
 results.tex                 | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/figures/tables/tableALL.tex b/figures/tables/tableALL.tex
index e29282b..3555905 100644
--- a/figures/tables/tableALL.tex
+++ b/figures/tables/tableALL.tex
@@ -137,9 +137,9 @@
 \end{tabularx}
 }
 
-\label{table-content}
-
 \caption{\small \textbf{Apps sorted by content energy efficiency.}}
+
+\label{table-content}
 \end{subtable}
 
 \caption{\small \textbf{Evaluating Components of a Value Measure.}
diff --git a/results.tex b/results.tex
index dd52e5b..1d62119 100644
--- a/results.tex
+++ b/results.tex
@@ -82,6 +82,31 @@ looked better when their foreground usage was considered.
 
 \subsection{Content Energy Efficiency}
 
+Finally, we the data we collected by instrumenting the
+\texttt{SurfaceFlinger} and \texttt{AudioFlinger} components to compute a
+simple measure of content delivery. We measure the audio and video frame
+rates and combine them into a single measure by using bitrates corresponding
+to a 30~fps YouTube-encoded video and 128~kbps two-channel audio, with the
+weights representing the fact that a single frame of video contains much more
+content than a single sample of audio. We use this combined metric as the
+value measure and again use it to weight the energy consumption of each app,
+with the results shown in Table~\ref{table-content}.
+
+Comparing with the foreground energy efficiency again shows several
+interesting changes. Yahoo Mail, which foreground energy efficiency marked as
+inefficiency, looks more efficient when content delivery is considered. While
+it is possible that one \PhoneLab{} participant uses it to read email very
+quickly, it may be more likely that it uses a ``spinner'' or other fancy UI
+elements that generate artificially high frame rates without delivering much
+information. The inability to distinguish between meaningless and meaningful
+video frame content is a significant weakness of this simple approach.
+YouTube and Candy Crush Saga both earn high marks, which is encouraging given
+that they are very different apps but also might be a result of overweighting
+screen refreshes. The Android Clock is also an unsurprising result, as it
+requires almost no energy to generate a relatively-large number of screen
+redraws.
+
+\subsection{Survey Results and Discussion}
 
 \begin{figure*}[t]
 \centering
--
libgit2 0.22.2