Page 80 of 118

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:13 pm
by Jaymos
inautilus wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 2:13 am
.
WP43C - Faceplate Layout Update
.
To the WP43 community (and beyond) ... ALL opinions and tire kicking welcome. :D

So please feel free to assess and feedback with your thoughts and criticism. Be brutal, Brutal, BRUTAL ... it can only make the 43C better!
.
Really good work Inautilus. Thank you!

I like your request for BRUTAL response… here goes:

I love the effect of the colouring at the top part with the impact of the white functions. Nicely done.

I love our fonts, the math letters are amazing and also the caps and lower case. Works beautifully.

About the numpad highlighting options you proposed: I think the highlighting highlights not only the numbers, but also emphasizes a group of unrelated f and g menus for no reason. Furthermore, I do not feel there is a need for highlighting the numbers as it is really easy to find, and it is just a pretty aspect. I think there is nothing really going for it, but on the other hand, there is also nothing really NOT going for it, so let us hear more opinions.

About another of your nice features that disappeared: I would much rather get the darkened menu item backgrounds back. That is also pretty but a lot more functional too. These are very effectively done on the 32SII.

General items:

1. I would like to see the very thin lines a little thicker. I am worried about paint not properly showing on the template, i.e. not being sufficiently dense. I indicated in the detailed doc linked, where needed. I am referring to the lower case letters in the top row, specifically: a, b/c, d, ms, the lines of |x|, the lines of the % and Δ% and arrow up/dn can be a little thicker.

2. Not all final tweaking has to be done in CAD using fonts, etc. Once 99% complete, the last few things can easily be adjusted by dragging the vectors once all the fonts are broken up into their constituent parts. I can help.

3. I suspect that all the grey text A through Z and punctuation, could benefit from being shifted to the right by a mere one letter stroke width (line width of the grey letters).

4. Recently 43S changed their SUMS menu name to Σ, but I maintain we should leave it as is “SUMS”, as the text fits well with all the surrounding texts. Comments for or against?

5. See linked 'n document with detailed comments. It is not possible to use this board when interleaving images in a table, so I just made the pdf.
http://cocoon-creations.com/download/Vet1.pdf

6. In analysing the labels, I realised with little harm we can mark the places for the USER mode shift keys, so I did. See the detail file. If we go into USER mode SHIFTS, and COS and TAN changes to f and g that is ok because I marked COS with a yellow half border and TAN with a blue half border. That is ok.

Now follow two questions
6a. [Σ+] is used for USER. Do we mark it maybe with a white half border? Or squeeze in a white USER vertically on the left side?
6b. The yellow shift key in USER works as shift, but is not needed. What do we put on there? Maybe HOME? Maybe leave it configurable?


And again, I like the progress!

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:32 pm
by inautilus
The latest UPDATE for the WP43C
.
UPDATED WP43C Image 2020-03-06
UPDATED WP43C Image 2020-03-06
R-11b5 Hi-Res NHG 60% 0.12 font light taupe border no shade - COMPRESSED - TEST - 2020-03-06.jpg (31.02 KiB) Viewed 2660 times
.
Click on the link for the hi-res version.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-4NAe ... 1b-YUTif5l
.
Feel free to critique and/or make suggestions. ALL Welcome. :)

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:03 pm
by H2X
inautilus wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:32 pm
The latest UPDATE for the WP43C
First impression: To me, this looks like something the HP 42S team could have made. I think I'd need to see a test print before even trying to find anything to fault.

Amazing job!

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:03 pm
by Walter
Very nice graphics, inautilus!

Some questions and remarks (presumably I've missed some crucial of the almost 800 posts here):
  • What's the meaning of the coloured angles at COS and TAN? Certainly no reference to the WP43S...
  • What's the menu PPP?
  • Your little blue alphas look very ... little. You'll notice that (and more) when you draw to scale at latest.
  • That what should be an α at [4] and [-] looks more like an a to me. I'd suggest to choose a different font for it.

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:49 pm
by rprosperi
inautilus wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:32 pm
The latest UPDATE for the WP43C
Very, very nice!

What is the number on the very top-left (white on black 2.718....) ?

And I concur with Walter's comments #3and #4.

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 6:02 am
by Jaymos
Thank you for the comments and suggestions, it does give me the opportunity to expand on issues that were maybe missed in the day to day communication on this forum.
Walter wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:03 pm
What's the meaning of the coloured angles at COS and TAN? Certainly no reference to the WP43S...
Rev 48 of my differences document p20 discusses all the shift related differences, and item 6 in particular deals with the optional USER mode package that changes SIN, COS and TAN buttons to TRIG, f and g respectively.

Fact 1: We are challenged with one shift key only, with various ways to ease operation like double and long presses, etc.
Fact 2: We do not always use trigonometry.

So we came up with the concept of having an optional USER mode, where SIN becomes the TRIG menu, and COS and TAN becomes f and g. This was done and included in the emulator months ago. For long have I pondered the problem of how to indicate the use of f and g as we do not change the actual keys of the DM42. And the solution came when 43S received the borders around the shift keys. I like the concept and as you may remember had positive criticism for those on 43S too.
Walter wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:03 pm
What's the menu PPP?
It stands for "Pre-Packed Profiles", and is applicable in the context of USER mode, where a single menu item makes a complete reconfiguration of settings. Currently my ASN functionality is really basic, and I will depreciate that in the code once your ASN is properly done. What will stay though is my PPP menu, which at the moment has 3 key packages, and importantly a RESET, which cancels the lot of assigned keys.

Rev 48 of my differences document p20 deals with PPP, and this was the best name I could come up after very few public proposals. Of course if a better word is found after this interaction it will find itself going to the keyboard.

I missed this last change on inautilus' graphic. Thank you Walter, I spotted it after considering this reply. The blue labels on 1 and 5 changed and neither inautilus nor me saw it is the old version on the graphic. Do not change it as yet inautilus, g[5] is supposed to be UNIT and g[1] to be BASE. Let the graphic stay like this for now.
Walter wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:03 pm
Your little blue alphas look very ... little. You'll notice that (and more) when you draw to scale at latest.
The stroke thicknesses and glyph sizes are being considered, see my comprehensive comments on this forum yesterday, three posts above yours.

The small blue glyphs are not on the list of comments, because their presence is still debatable, as all of those plus the the ones that I had to remove from your template due to re-arrangements are found on my Alpha-HOME menu. See p7 of Rev 48. Also, as with your hollow arrows, they are reminders really and I do not want them to be standing out on the template.

Either way, glyph size and line and stroke thicknesses are not as urgent as my recent requests for the 43S line thicknesses to be increased, as the intended target is different. When you apply ink to a metal plate as in the 43S case (planned NOW), you have to make sure that during that process enough paint will stick. That is true for whichever process is used to mark the metal plate - thin lines will attract less paint and has the risk of being either blotchy or simply less intense.

My first target now though, is on a non-metal surface of a removable key template, which can be printed at 300 dpi and is not paint based so the line and stroke thicknesses are less of a concern for this first test. There is a priority list and the glyph sizes, thicknesses and size of exponents is at the bottom, to be adjusted before the later attempt to make a metal template for new calculators (with SM).
Walter wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:03 pm
That what should be an α at [4] and [-] looks more like an a to me. I'd suggest to choose a different font for it.[/list]
I purposely looked for an over exaggerated alpha glyph which will show up better when printed that small. Thise glyphs are not literal, i.e. it does not bring up a real alpha, but rather reminds that that is the alphanumeric math menu or whatever. The standard realistic alpha glyph in most fonts do not show up well when small.

It is not a priority to reconsider this glyph, since their future presence is not 100%. If they do stay I will probably make new glyph in a custom font, as I did for the math x et al.
rprosperi wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:49 pm
Very, very nice!
Thank you. Tributes to inautilus, who drives the graphical vector based solution on CAD.
rprosperi wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 11:49 pm
What is the number on the very top-left (white on black 2.718....) ?
That is from the very old emulator graphic from the 43S used as decorative context for the keyboard and is probably last x.
H2X wrote:
Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:03 pm
First impression: To me, this looks like something the HP 42S team could have made. I think I'd need to see a test print before even trying to find anything to fault.
.
Amazing job!
It is beautiful and I fully agree and am thankful for the progress.

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
by Dani R.
inautilus wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 2:13 am
So please feel free to assess and feedback with your thoughts and criticism. Be brutal, Brutal, BRUTAL ... it can only make the 43C better!
Here are a few remarks also from me.


The implementation of xth Rooth of y is insanely beautiful! Perfect!

If I would get the overlays from Swissmicros in exactly the same way, I would probably accept them just like that and not even look for small errors, it looks very, very good!


I hadn't really noticed it until now; I usually find the lettering on the keys a bit too big, as it can't be changed because it remains the same as on the DM42. Specifically, I find Sigma+, the numbers, [BSP/CLX] and the cursor keys a bit too big. And above all I find the '+' a bit too big, and therefore also '/', '*' and '-'; I used to like this better. As already mentioned, in the final WP43C this labeling on the keys cannot be changed compared to the DM42, so this is not a issue.

Apart from that, most of the points have already been mentioned.


On g[1] and g[5] the menu items have still changed.

It remains difficult to judge when you don't have the finished overlay in your hand yet, but I think the line thickness for the frame around the menu label should be one point wider. Apart from that I really like this variant, it is unagitated, extremely discreet, and still gives the hint that you will open a menu.

The new lines around [COS] and [TAN] lack a bit of rounding, i.e. in the lower left corner I would make them rounded, as well as the ends of the lines. Maybe they should be one point narrower, but this is something you just have to try.

The alpha labels in the bottom line have to be reworked again, so that they look more like they are designed on the DM42. The position and size of '?' seems not to be correct yet, and the <blank> does not look like a <space> yet.




Now to the layout itself. Theoretically the "empty" use of the function keys F1..F6 should never happen. Here I have not yet formed a final opinion whether labels are useful here. In the simulator you can of course imagine a dynamic labeling.
But if you keep this innovation, I could imagine the function [CLX/A] on F6. I know, I had not yet commented this point.

Most people who use DROP will probably now do this with a double click on [BSP/CLX]. In theory, there is space to assign another function to g[ENTER]; CC?, FILL?

Do we still need the Caps Lock on [SIN]? The cursor keys work quite well with regard to this functionality.

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:12 pm
by Dani R.
I had also considered for some time whether we should swap the functions on g[1/X] and g[SQRT], but I can't form a final opinion here either.

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:27 pm
by Jaymos
Dani R. wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
I hadn't really noticed it until now; I usually find the lettering on the keys a bit too big, as it can't be changed because it remains the same as on the DM42. Specifically, I find Sigma+, the numbers, [BSP/CLX] and the cursor keys a bit too big. And above all I find the '+' a bit too big, and therefore also '/', '*' and '-'; I used to like this better. As already mentioned, in the final WP43C this labeling on the keys cannot be changed compared to the DM42, so this is not a issue.
As you correctly say, the keys labels are placeholders really, as they are not (yet) in the running to be manufactured. The have not been considered or changed since first edition last year as currently they do not matter. I have some ideas around them, mostly thickening strokes, but that is not for now.

Dani R. wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
It remains difficult to judge when you don't have the finished overlay in your hand yet, but I think the line thickness for the frame around the menu label should be one point wider. Apart from that I really like this variant, it is unagitated, extremely discreet, and still gives the hint that you will open a menu.

The new lines around [COS] and [TAN] lack a bit of rounding, i.e. in the lower left corner I would make them rounded, as well as the ends of the lines. Maybe they should be one point narrower, but this is something you just have to try.

The alpha labels in the bottom line have to be reworked again, so that they look more like they are designed on the DM42. The position and size of '?' seems not to be correct yet, and the <blank> does not look like a <space> yet.
All good points. I will relook at them once I have the test template in hand. I will deliver photos. It might take another week. The graphic file as is, has been given to the printer and I should have it in hand by next weekend.

Dani R. wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
Now to the layout itself. Theoretically the "empty" use of the function keys F1..F6 should never happen. Here I have not yet formed a final opinion whether labels are useful here. In the simulator you can of course imagine a dynamic labeling.
But if you keep this innovation, I could imagine the function [CLX/A] on F6. I know, I had not yet commented this point.
What do you mean with [CLX/A]?
I have removed CLSTK from F6 because I added CLSTK to the long press CLR, and I wanted the top part of the calculator for more direct math.

Dani R. wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
Most people who use DROP will probably now do this with a double click on [BSP/CLX]. In theory, there is space to assign another function to g[ENTER]; CC?, FILL?
Correct! I miss your clear thinking on layout issues!

For programming, DROP and DROPy was added to the STK menu any way, so dropping it from the keyboard releases a key! yay!!
Option 1. I am missing an empty location for CFG. At the moment it sits within MODE and DISP/
Option 2. I like UNIT on g[5] and PPP on g[1], so BASE could to to g[ENTER]?

Dani R. wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
Do we still need the Caps Lock on [SIN]? The cursor keys work quite well with regard to this functionality.
I do not mind either, but I agree both is an overkill. My preference is the caps lock, but what say others?

Re: 43S Alternative key layout --> WP43C

Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:48 pm
by Dani R.
Jaymos wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:27 pm
Dani R. wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
Now to the layout itself. Theoretically the "empty" use of the function keys F1..F6 should never happen. Here I have not yet formed a final opinion whether labels are useful here. In the simulator you can of course imagine a dynamic labeling.
But if you keep this innovation, I could imagine the function [CLX/A] on F6. I know, I had not yet commented this point.
What do you mean with [CLX/A]?
I have removed CLSTK from F6 because I added CLSTK to the long press CLR, and I wanted the top part of the calculator for more direct math.
These are things that we have already mentioned. If you are in NIM you can't call CLX/A just like that ( on the HP-41C this function is on f[BSP]). I had thought that if F6 is free, you can find this function there. But actually I got used to cancel the NIM with EXIT a long time ago and afterwards the key [BSP] has the functionality CLX.
I think it's overkill to have xth root from y on F6. Maybe X! after all. Or there will be more opinions, here have been a lot of ideas implemented soon after arrival.


Jaymos wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 1:27 pm
Dani R. wrote:
Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:08 am
Most people who use DROP will probably now do this with a double click on [BSP/CLX]. In theory, there is space to assign another function to g[ENTER]; CC?, FILL?
Correct! I miss your clear thinking on layout issues!

For programming, DROP and DROPy was added to the STK menu any way, so dropping it from the keyboard releases a key! yay!!
Option 1. I am missing an empty location for CFG. At the moment it sits within MODE and DISP/
Option 2. I like UNIT on g[5] and PPP on g[1], so BASE could to to g[ENTER]?
I would not like to see it on g [ENTER] to find a menu. If at all, the menu CPX would be the best choice for me. This would free the position g[x<>y]. Or there is another direct function besides DROP and FILL which you would like to execute on the stack and which can got to g[ENTER].