"Life it too short to read the manual"

[burkhard]

One of the things I noticed with the 35S manual is that it is that the writers had to support both RPN and Algebraic entry users. I pity their predicament, but as a result, the manual is a bit of a muddled mess that is painful to use. It's no wonder most users don't.

Actual users will tend to be either 100% RPN or 100% Algebraic. Very few are going to be switching modes back and forth as the situation dictates. Nonetheless, that is exactly what the manual does and it seems that the authors pick the method based on whichever it was easier for them to document.

As I tried to work my way through the guide, there are holes all over where the prior mode was assumed, but improperly or ambiguously. I do sympathize with the author(s)' predicament of supporting both, but really it would have been easiest to write the manual for EITHER Algebraic or RPN. Then, once complete, they should have gone back through it, and created a second manual that is a translation of the first into the other system.

No added production cost with PDFs anyhow, but would about in preparation? Yes, it does sound like a whole lot more work, but I don't think it actually would have been and the result would have been a lot more coherent anyhow, with no missing hunks. For the users, everything would have been tighter and shorter as well—they would generally only ever open the manual for the entry system they prefer.

As Garth notes, manuals like that for the 35S are probably why younger people don't bother with the manuals anymore. As one facet of my job, I have to write manuals (for technical users) for software algorithms I develop. They need to be succinct and unambiguous.