I really hate to say this but give it a break.
You can clearly see in the graphs the time it takes to accelerate, followed by a max feed followed by a decelerate.
The times are all there.
Who cares if the overall time is 1 sec or 5 sec?

I care. I never got the the point of tuning since I assumed the times were clearly wrong (that the ramp up and down would happen over a 4 second period).  It might be debatable if it is a "bug" but don't put information in place if it is known to be wrong. 

There are two types of companies - those that beg their customers to tell them what is wrong or how to improve their products and then they take those suggestions to heart and then there are companies that think every time a customer "complains" they should dismiss the feedback because only they know best.

I run a company in which we actively reach out to customers, asking for feedback and complaints - even our CS person sends an email after every order asking if there were any problems to be 100% sure there isn't a problem we could solve.  Thank God our competitors don't do that.  Maybe we shouldn't decide for Newfangled which company they want to be.

It is not wrong.
The time shown to accelerate and decelerate is right there.
The time at constant speed is irrelevant.

It is not wrong.
The time shown to accelerate and decelerate is right there.
The time at constant speed is irrelevant.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Bill. 

The slew speed time is irrelevant and simply meant just to give a visual representation of the trajectory.  I think the time IS expanded if the acceleration and deceleration portions of the trajectory exceed the default time of the graph. 

The time it takes for the acceleration and deceleration is the only thing that will ever change on that graph, time wise.  The max velocity will determine the height range of the graph.  But otherwise, the <slew time> =  <default graph time> - <acceleration time> + <deceleration time>.

What should we do?  Have a constant slew time?  1 second?  2 seconds? And always shrink or expand the total graph time to the the sum of <acceleration time> + <deceleration time> + <slew time constant>?

I think it is just semantics as to what portion of the graph is constant.  And I'll be the first to admit it doesn't work like Mach 3.  But I always say Mach 4 is not Mach 3.  It is Mach 4. 

But anyway, we have a time portion on the graph simply because it is part of the little graph widget that we used.  And you can see your accel and decel times, as they are relevant.

Steve