[43S] Let's try a poll on the new forum :-)

[Scottie]

I joined too late to weigh in on your poll.

My vote, FWIW, is always for the less cluttered keyboard, and having trig stuff available on your 'softkeys' above is fine, as much as I would use them. I assume you'd have the softkeys configured when you hit the log menu key, right?

SO, my vote is for layout A. I loved the clean layouts on the early HPs (HP-25, etc.).

Scottie

[hp41cx]

Option A

[Ed Wright]

As long as we're still voting, I vote for b. The worst that can happen is my vote doesn't count. I think going in to menus for something like trig functions is unnecessarily cumbersome. Yes, I could assign the trig function to the numeric keys, but then they're not labeled. I suspect almost everyone will assign something to those keys, they may as well have a default definition. Cluttered keyboard? What about cluttered menus? As much as I love my 42S, my one wish is that I had to go to menus less often. I make full use the custom menu on it, but still have functions I wish were on the keyboard.

[walter b]

(01-25-2014 02:08 PM)Ed Wright Wrote:  As long as we're still voting, I vote for b. The worst that can happen is my vote doesn't count. I think going in to menus for something like trig functions is unnecessarily cumbersome. Yes, I could assign the trig function to the numeric keys, but then they're not labeled. I suspect almost everyone will assign something to those keys, they may as well have a default definition. Cluttered keyboard? What about cluttered menus?

Part 1: This poll is closed. You see the results above. You can read my assessment of the result above in this thread. You need one hand to count the late votes. Even those didn't change the result so far.

Part 2: At the bottom line, the poll leaves the decision to the developers (you can't force us to a certain design anyway ). Seems difficult to imagine a calculator you can't operate yet. Please let me try an example:

Assume you are confronted with a problem containing three trigonometric functions in a row - let's say SIN, COS, and ARCTAN. Making it real simple to follow, assume the problem looks like

ARCTAN (SIN 12° + COS² 34°) ,

for example. Now let me further assume startup default settings (DEG !). How to solve the problem?

With layout a: 34 TRIG cos ENTER × 12 sin + arctan (i.e. 11 keystrokes).

With layout b: 34 f COS ENTER × 12 f SIN + f TAN^-1 (i.e. 13 keystrokes).

As mentioned earlier more than once, TRIG will contain

sin arcsin cos arccos tan arctan

in its unshifted line (and the hyperbolic functions in its f-shifted line, but that's not really important here). The menu TRIG will remain on screen until EXITed explicitly (then its screen space will be taken by MyMenu) or another menu is called. Easy rules, aren't they?

Further information: 1) MyMenu is a user-loadable menu of up to 18 items; it will show up as long as no other menu is called. It's empty at factory default, i.e. when you get your 43S. 2) You are free to assign whatever will make you happy to whatever location on the keyboard except USER. Your assignment will become effective in USER mode. 3) It goes without saying that everything written about the 43S is 100% pure vapourware (TM) so far.

HTH

d:-)

[Ed Wright]

Walter,

Thanks for the example. Yes, it helped to clarify how the 43s will function. Regarding part 1, I realize the poll was closed, but the discussion was ongoing so I thought it fair to express my opinion. Regarding part 2, I don't even pretend to be able to force the design team to do anything. I assumed that by conducting a poll you were interested in peoples opinions and perhaps intended to use the results to influence the design. It appears your mind is already made up, so further discussion is pointless. Thank you again for the clarification, and for all your efforts on this (and the 34s) project.

[walter b]

Ed,

(01-26-2014 01:34 PM)Ed Wright Wrote:  Regarding part 1, I realize the poll was closed, but the discussion was ongoing so I thought it fair to express my opinion. Regarding part 2, I don't even pretend to be able to force the design team to do anything. I assumed that by conducting a poll you were interested in peoples opinions and perhaps intended to use the results to influence the design. It appears your mind is already made up, so further discussion is pointless.

Good grief, writing here is a permanent diplomatic effort! Either people don't comprehend or they are offended. Please, Sir, I'm a German physicist and used to express my thoughts straightforward (no time to waste by pampering). Of course we are interested in people's opinions (else I wouldn't have conducted a poll, would I?). If the result would have been clear it may (probably) have influenced the design (did you see the in my post above?). It was not, however. And with such an ambiguous result: what do you expect? We will decide according to our preferences because somebody has to decide. BTW, "discussion" is no negative word in my environment - and nothing is carved in stone so far.

HTH

d:-I

[Jonathan Cameron]

I realize it is way too late to participate in the poll, but I had one comment about the proposed layouts:

I think that the '+/-' and EEX keys should be shifted over so they are closer to the [Enter] button -- and move the 'i' key to the next to the last button on the right end of the row. After all, aren't we more likely to need +/- and EEX rather than the 'i' key?

-Jonathan

[walter b]

(01-28-2014 08:33 PM)Jonathan Cameron Wrote:  I ((suggest?)) that the '+/-' and EEX keys should be shifted over so they are closer to the [Enter] button -- and move the 'i' key to the next to the last button on the right end of the row. After all, aren't we more likely to need +/- and EEX rather than the 'i' key?

No problem, we're open to good ideas. Following your arguments, however, why does the layout of the HP-42S look like [ENTER] [x<>y] [+/-] [E] [<-] ? I'd bet we need [+/-] and [E] more often than [x<>y], don't we? TIA for enlightenment.

d:-?

[Jonathan Cameron]

(01-28-2014 09:03 PM)walter b Wrote:  ... Following your arguments, however, why does the layout of the HP-42S look like [ENTER] [x<>y] [+/-] [E] [<-] ? I'd bet we need [+/-] and [E] more often than [x<>y], don't we? TIA for enlightenment.

My guess is that they wanted sin/cos/tan on the line above and did not have room to put [x<>y] next to its logically associated keys (sto/rcl/roll). Note that the 42s even put the 'i' (eg their COMPLEX) key as a shifted function -- which makes me think that they did not think it would be used as much as other unshifted keys (despite the nice job they did getting complex functions working).

Anyway, I like they way you are proposing: having STO, RCL, X<>Y, Roll all side-by-side on the row above since they are all logically related. My only quibble was that the 'i' key was taking a dominant location (next to the [Enter] key). I do not think that moving X<>Y to next to Enter is an improvement, despite what the 42S did. (I never had a 42s, so it is not that big a deal for me!).

So I still think this lineup is an improvement: [Enter] [+/-] [EEX] [ i ] [ <- ]

-Jonathan

[walter b]

(01-28-2014 09:29 PM)Jonathan Cameron Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:03 PM)walter b Wrote:  ... Following your arguments, however, why does the layout of the HP-42S look like [ENTER] [x<>y] [+/-] [E] [<-] ? I'd bet we need [+/-] and [E] more often than [x<>y], don't we? TIA for enlightenment.

My guess is that they wanted sin/cos/tan on the line above and did not have room to put [x<>y] next to its logically associated keys (sto/rcl/roll). ...

So I still think this lineup is an improvement: [Enter] [+/-] [EEX] [ i ] [ <- ]

Hmmh. All the scientific RPN Pioneers had the same layout of this row. And the WP 34S has it as well. AFAIK, there were no earlier RPN pocket calculators with a six-key row. So, if the location next to ENTER is so prominent, why didn't anybody stand up and requested the WP 34S labels being reordered [Enter] [+/-] [EEX] [x<>y] [ <- ] ?

d:-?

[Jonathan Cameron]

(01-28-2014 09:54 PM)walter b Wrote:  Hmmh. All the scientific RPN Pioneers had the same layout of this row. And the WP 34S has it as well. AFAIK, there were no earlier RPN pocket calculators with a six-key row. So, if the location next to ENTER is so prominent, why didn't anybody stand up and requested the WP 34S labels being reordered [Enter] [+/-] [EEX] [x<>y] [ <- ] ?

Good question! I don't have a good answer. When I looked at the layouts, it just struck me that it was a minor usability issue. It is cool having a 'i' key, but it does not need to be so prominent (in my naive opinion!)

-Jonathan

[sa-penguin]

Maybe I'm a heretic...

What I want is:
1. Able to dis-assemble the keypad, and move keys around at will.
2. A common "keycode vs function" lookup table
3. someone selling custom keycaps [take my money]

Depending on how you read keys, about the only key "fixed" is the Enter key, due to its shape. [You have have some circuitry doing odd things for the ON key]

You want math functions on left? Right? Across the top? You want a menu of G-functions burned in the top keys, with only plain and F-functions customised? Go for it. Blank caps are 50c each in packets of 100; CNC engraved text filled with paint and covered with clear varnish is extra.

Mind you, it would help if all the key caps were the same size. Just a suggestion.

[walter b]

(01-29-2014 06:34 AM)sa-penguin Wrote:  What I want is:
1. Able to dis-assemble the keypad, and move keys around at will.
2. A common "keycode vs function" lookup table
3. someone selling custom keycaps [take my money]

... Blank caps are 50c each in packets of 100; CNC engraved text filled with paint and covered with clear varnish is extra.

Mind you, it would help if all the key caps were the same size.

No problem with heretics - we just roast them

Your suggestion is crossing the border to HW. Having disassembled (and cracked ) some vintage HPs, I know that individual keycaps were last seen in Voyagers. All the younger calcs had a matrix of keycaps in one piece (or three pieces in the 35S) - for cost reasons, I assume. That won't play a major role if the HW would feature the calculator shells screwed together and the key assembly is "outsourced" to the user. Anyway, HW and assembly questions shall be brought to Eric and Richard.

d:-)

[Didier Lachieze]

(01-29-2014 07:02 AM)walter b Wrote:  [...] individual keycaps were last seen in Voyagers. All the younger calcs had a matrix of keycaps in one piece (or three pieces in the 35S) - for cost reasons, I assume.

I think that the Champions (18C, 28C, 28S, 19B & BII) have also individual keycaps, at least this is what I see in the pictures here.

[Massimo Gnerucci]

(01-29-2014 08:08 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 07:02 AM)walter b Wrote:  [...] individual keycaps were last seen in Voyagers. All the younger calcs had a matrix of keycaps in one piece (or three pieces in the 35S) - for cost reasons, I assume.

I think that the Champions (18C, 28C, 28S, 19B & BII) have also individual keycaps, at least this is what I see in the pictures here.

True. They probably are, however, the hardest serie to tear apart.

[Joe Horn]

(01-29-2014 07:02 AM)walter b Wrote:  I know that individual keycaps were last seen in Voyagers. All the younger calcs had a matrix of keycaps in one piece (or three pieces in the 35S) - for cost reasons, I assume.

I've seen several 49G's with one key installed upside down (different location on the keyboard for each 49G). Photo of an upside down 49G key here. That would seem to indicate that the 49G had individual keycaps.

[sa-penguin]

(01-29-2014 07:02 AM)walter b Wrote:  No problem with heretics - we just roast them
Your suggestion is crossing the border to HW.

Yes, I'd probably be labelled a "Hardware guy". I blame my imperfect eyesight on the fiends who put 0402 SMD components in a hole between top and bottom layer of a board, for stripline impedance matching. But that's another story.

Is there anywhere an interested observer can watch your development? I found some posted photos, and zoom exposed the CPU as "Giant Gecko" [EFM32 GG380 F1024 - QFP100 ]. I also found mention of the LCD screen being 400 x 240, and I'd love to know what part you are using.

I'm sure the development team are a small closed group of professionals. But it never hurts to ask...

[walter b]

(01-31-2014 08:41 AM)sa-penguin Wrote:  Is there anywhere an interested observer can watch your development? I found some posted photos, and zoom exposed the CPU as "Giant Gecko" [EFM32 GG380 F1024 - QFP100 ]. I also found mention of the LCD screen being 400 x 240, and I'd love to know what part you are using.

I'm sure the development team are a small closed group of professionals. But it never hurts to ask...

We planned to handle this hobbyist's project the same way like we did with the WP 34S (i.e. using SourceForge). As mentioned on this very forum and the old one more than once, however, there are two parts now: HW & SW. Overall, we agreed on the dimensions of the new calculator, the keyboard matrix, the size and resolution of the LCD, the presence of an USB connector and a micro-SD slot so far. I hope I didn't miss anything important. Anyway, the SW team is waiting for the HW still (also mentioned more than once). Let me call the day we get the HW "day X". I expect you won't see much on SourceForge before day X since our two HW guys prefer staying quiet while developing (at least that's my experience so far).

Hope that explains a bit.

d:-)

[walter b]

AFAICS, this is the first thread on this forum being viewed more than 5 000 times Other competitors follow in far distance - seems it's the topic moving most of the community's eyes at least.

d:-)

[Bit]

What I'd like to have on the 43S is convenient access to base 2, 8, 10 and 16 integer modes and logic operations. Switching between base 2, 8, 10 and 16 and leaving integer mode would need to be possible with two keypresses at most (whether it's shifted operations like on the 34S or soft keys) in order for the calculator be really useful to people like me.

• If no non-shifted key position is allocated for this, we'd need need four shifted key positions for base 2, 8, 10 and 16, and a fifth for leaving integer mode (it already exists as .d I think). While in integer mode, soft keys would be assigned to logic operations.
• If one non-shifted key position is allocated, it could first display the soft keys for switching between bases, but once in integer mode, the soft keys would automatically switch to logic operations. The same physical key could then be used to switch between soft keys for logic operations and bases.
• If two non-shifted key positions are allocated, one of them could display the soft keys for switching between bases and the other for logic operations.
  

I consider being able to view a number in a given base without switching to that mode (as on the 34S) not essential but very useful.