SwissMicros Calculator Forum

H2X wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:37 am

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:30 am

There are now double assignments on the f- and g-key. This is something I am not used to from the 16C.

Do you mean g[CPX] and f[USER]?

I am not used to that either, but I absolutely think I could become that. I thought it was creative, and clever. Certainly overt.

I mean, the positions on 7, 8 and 9 are all free. I'm not generally against to have double assignments on the f- and g-key, personally I would only do this as a last step when I'm completely out of space.

If I mistype on the 16C, which can happen because the function I am looking for is assumed to be on the other level, I can now simply press the other function key, the problem is solved.

But yes, you can have double assignments on the f- and g-key. But I don't think that all potential users have noticed this change. I think the circle of those who at least try the emulator is quite small.

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:50 am

H2X wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:37 am

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:30 am

There are now double assignments on the f- and g-key. This is something I am not used to from the 16C.

Do you mean g[CPX] and f[USER]?

I am not used to that either, but I absolutely think I could become that. I thought it was creative, and clever. Certainly overt.

If I mistype on the 16C, which can happen because the function I am looking for is assumed to be on the other level, I can now simply press the other function key, the problem is solved.

But yes, you can have double assignments on the f- and g-key. But I don't think that all potential users have noticed this change. I think the circle of those who at least try the emulator is quite small.

If you mistype [f] (or [g]) on the 43S, you can simply press the same key again and the mistyped [f] (or [g]) is canceled. Verify with the simulator.

And about "all potential users": I'm afraid that people who don't read information available in time are sentenced to take the product as it turns out - like in the good old times when there weren't any development chats in public. Such is life.

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:39 pm

Such is life.

Quite!

But are there no plans for the space above 7, 8, and 9?

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:39 pm

And about "all potential users": I'm afraid that people who don't read information available in time are sentenced to take the product as it turns out - like in the good old times when there weren't any development chats in public. Such is life.

Yeah, HP didn't go though all this rubbish. Nobody asked me for my opinion. They just designed the thing and sold it. I was very happy with the outcome.

Jaymos wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:49 pm

I think the lines of “|x|” could tighten up and a point or two closer to one another, and the whole |x| could then move a point or two to the right to balance with the blue glyph on the other side.

Can be done - I'll check what to do exactly.

Jaymos wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:49 pm

I think the 2 in [x^2] should be the same size as the x in [e^x] (and [y^x]) - whether the x's increase size or the 2 decreases, it matters not, as the differently sized exponents visually deter being directly next to one another.

They are of the same size font but x is a lower case letter.

Jaymos wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:49 pm

Does the ! of x ! have to be italic, or what about: x ! ?

I prefer x !.

Pirx wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 2:00 am

... are you saying you're looking for people to buy a pre-series 43S? If so, I'm in. Just let me know where I can sign up.

You might have seen meanwhile - please 'sign' here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2374

rprosperi wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 2:43 am

Do you think it's really necessary to include the plural in "Σ's" (which actually isn't plural, it's possessive, but I get why you chose this)? Probably the simple "Σ" would be just as clear, have less possibility of being confused with the Σs variable, and simplify the keyboard a bit.

Thanks. "Σ" will be done.

H2X wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 7:14 am

The vertical space between the blue > and its underline (on the right side of the [-] key) looks a tad larger to my eye than on the other underlined labels.

Maybe. But it's just the normal distance between < (sic!) and its underline.

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:30 am

I think the font size and typeface you find on a 41C, 16C etc. are ideal. ... The font on the last draft of the WP43S is a bit narrower, but the font size is even bigger than on the 41C, 16C. ... it looks very good to highlight the digits, the cursor keys and BSP/CLX more bold. I don't see any practical use for this ...

Now what is it what you want? What you really, really want?

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:30 am

I'm not sure, and so it will be for many, on which points the future users of the WP43S can still comment. I mean, a lot of points are fixed ...

As you see, you can comment everything.

If you want changes, however, you have to convince us - and since I do the PR for this project (since noone else wanted to do it since 2012) you have to convince me first. Though that's no news: I told this in this thread more than once.

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:02 pm

Jaymos wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:49 pm

I think the 2 in [x^2] should be the same size as the x in [e^x] (and [y^x]) - whether the x's increase size or the 2 decreases, it matters not, as the differently sized exponents visually deter being directly next to one another.

They are of the same size font but x is a lower case letter.

Balance does not necessarily follow matching font point size, especially with digits and lower case. It would be easy to change and compare the impact. Do adjust, and critically compare and convince yourself that you choose right.