SwissMicros Calculator Forum

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:10 pm

"Σ" will be done.

Thanks, I think this is an improvement.


Pauli

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:39 pm

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:50 am

H2X wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:37 am

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.

This is not the point. I always have a very up-to-date simulator, because I compile them myself. I have seen the change, I have tried it, I don't like it. It is quite possible that I missed something somewhere, but I can't remember finding a SHIFT function on a HP calculator on a SHIFT key. On other special keys, but not on a SHIFT key itself. I can't see any added value in this innovation, even after thinking about it several times. It cannot be lack of space that led to this solution.
But all this is not a real issue, I was able to express my astonishment. Since I am the only one who is sceptical about such progress, I am probably someone who has got stuck in the last millennium.

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:39 pm

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 10:29 pm

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.

I had the impression that it was regretted that the last presentation of the layout generated so little echo. I just tried to increase the traffic a bit. The attempt seems to have failed. I suppose, and here I can only write about my impressions, that there are some people here who have fallen silent because they don't feel able to convince the PR. Or they have unlimited confidence that the final product will be perfect either way, so that they don't have to comment on the intermediate steps. But I think the interest in WP43S is there, the other thread proves it.

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:29 pm

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?

Sometimes I don't understand myself. To be clear, I'm only referring to the inscription of the keys themselves. What I want is a label with exactly the same font as on the classic HP calculators, like the generation 41C, 16C. Here I find the typeface extremely appealing (habituation effect?) and also the font size is large enough. My many words were an attempt to express my scepticism that the final product hardly will have the exact appearance of the last layout, and that it might be worthwhile to fine-tune the font itself.

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:22 am

... fallen silent because they don't feel able to convince the PR. Or they have unlimited confidence that the final product will be perfect either way, so that they don't have to comment on the intermediate steps.

Or they think it is perfect / good enough / honestly don't care. Those who do not speak up, are not necessarily un-happy (alluding to a previous allusion).

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:22 am

But I think the interest in WP43S is there, the other thread proves it.

Quite!

H2X wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:43 am

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:22 am

... fallen silent because they don't feel able to convince the PR. Or they have unlimited confidence that the final product will be perfect either way, so that they don't have to comment on the intermediate steps.

Or they think it is perfect / good enough / honestly don't care. Those who do not speak up, are not necessarily un-happy (alluding to a previous allusion).

Yes, of course, my list was not exhaustive.

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:23 am

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:29 pm

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?

Sometimes I don't understand myself. To be clear, I'm only referring to the inscription of the keys themselves. What I want is a label with exactly the same font as on the classic HP calculators, like the generation 41C, 16C. Here I find the typeface extremely appealing (habituation effect?) and also the font size is large enough. My many words were an attempt to express my scepticism that the final product hardly will have the exact appearance of the last layout, and that it might be worthwhile to fine-tune the font itself.

Sorry but we won't get "exactly the same font as on the classic HP calculators, like the generation 41C, 16C."
Reasons:

1. That was a font HP designed itself and didn't publish,
2. They made double-shot keys then, and some details of the labels are obviously linked to that production method.
3. Designing "my own" TTF font is beyond my capabilities. With thousands of fonts available on this planet, I combine the best I find ("the best" in my view - feel free to design your best labels to calm your scepticism and experience the fun of fine-tuning fonts yourself.

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:22 am

I had the impression that it was regretted that the last presentation of the layout generated so little echo. I just tried to increase the traffic a bit. The attempt seems to have failed.

I concur with your impression. Actually, I try this continuously. But the audience is either content, confident, patient, bored, analphabetic, non-existent, or simply lazy - hard to tell.

Walter wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:55 am

Sorry but we won't get "exactly the same font as on the classic HP calculators, like the generation 41C, 16C."
Reasons:

1. That was a font HP designed itself and didn't publish,
2. They made double-shot keys then, and some details of the labels are obviously linked to that production method.
3. Designing "my own" TTF font is beyond my capabilities. With thousands of fonts available on this planet, I combine the best I find ("the best" in my view - feel free to design your best labels to calm your scepticism and experience the fun of fine-tuning fonts yourself.

I think Jaco, H2X and/or Michael Steinmann (and further) would like to offer their support here. They are already deeper in the subject than me. So it's not worth for me to get into this topic. I mean, I'm totally counting on Jaco here.


(Not that I am misunderstood, Jaco is of course the PR of branch WP43C. )

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 01, 2020 10:21 am

Walter wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 6:39 pm

Dani R. wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 29, 2020 10:50 am

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.

This is not the point. I always have a very up-to-date simulator, because I compile them myself. I have seen the change, I have tried it, I don't like it. It is quite possible that I missed something somewhere, but I can't remember finding a SHIFT function on a HP calculator on a SHIFT key. On other special keys, but not on a SHIFT key itself. I can't see any added value in this innovation, even after thinking about it several times. It cannot be lack of space that led to this solution.
But all this is not a real issue, I was able to express my astonishment. Since I am the only one who is sceptical about such progress, I am probably someone who has got stuck in the last millennium.

Let me add my opinion before it is assumed that my silence agrees to the status quo.

I think the very benefit of two shift keys lies in the simplicity of two separate shift keys, which is something the 43C does not have. HP and WP34S even went to 3 clean shift keys to increase real estate. With that method there are no forced complications such as double presses and what not.

I FULLY agree with Dani that UNTIL you would be forced by a lack of space on the keyboard for new functions, the additional complication such as f[g] may be clever and creative, but is simply not yet necessary and brings with it unintended fuzziness in an otherwise clean UI.

I saw the shift-shifts on the day that it arrived in the code as I also compile the new emulators and DM42 images on a daily basis. I left the shift-shifts as is, as it is neither relevant in 43C with one shift key only, nor worth an argument with PR as those end the same way. As Dani implied earlier, despite invites many things have for long time been not open for change and I would rather spend my time on my own code than have an argument with a known outcome.