43S News

[inautilus]

@Walter:
Yes, I agree. The principle ... is the thing. From a guiding principle point of view (in the HP tradition at least) ... I am proposing that cleaner and leaner is the way to go. That means colour only.

Haven't mentioned anything on arrows. However, I suppose one could posit that they might be useful ... if they were to be employed as on the HP 35s. For example, refer to the shifted function label placements above each key of the WP-43S landscape layout below.




But again, even in this case as well (re guiding principles et al) I believe that arrows would be unnecessary redundant clutter. IMHO ...
What say you ... ?

[Walter]

@Walter:
Yes, I agree. The principle ... is the thing. From a guiding principle point of view (in the HP tradition at least) ... I am proposing that cleaner and leaner is the way to go. That means colour only.

Haven't mentioned anything on arrows. However, I suppose one could posit that they might be useful ... if they were to be employed as on the HP 35s. For example, refer to the shifted function label placements above each key of the WP-43S landscape layout below.
...
But again, even in this case as well (re guiding principles et al) I believe that arrows would be unnecessary redundant clutter. IMHO ...
What say you ... ?

Then I must admit I misunderstood your post: I thought you were showing the HP-35S as your example of good shift key design. If not, however, why did you show this calculator at all? This world is enigmatic ...

Anyway, I concur with Tom in this matter: The design of the HP-35S has quite space for improvement, (not only) shift-key-wise.

Regarding f, g, and h: you wrote:

From a guiding principle point of view (in the HP tradition at least) ... I am proposing that cleaner and leaner is the way to go. That means colour only.

Though the HP tradition is simply f, g, and h for calculators with more than one shift key. Pure colours would have done as well - correct - but they chose additional tagging. And I like it this way. YMMV

What think you? (Is this the Scottish way of phrasing a question?)

[Dani R.]

...So CPX and cpx are regarded being different items, CPX and CPX are not. ...

I take very theoretically with me, it might be possible, even if only in a parallel world, that CC can be replaced by cpx.

Please take a long look to the keyboard of the HP-65 (the first scientific pocket calculator with labeled shift keys IIRC) and think about its labels and why they are named the way they are.

Finally, I understand that one can come up with the idea that "f", "g" and "h" are calling functions following mathematical conventions. In a way, I find it a pity that the clear layout from HP-65 to HP-67 has been abandoned, but I understand it too. As a result, I think HP should have given up the names on the color-coded keys in this step.

One more small remark, then I jump into cover: Menus are not functions for me, nothing is done with x. Menus can of course lie on shifted keys .

[inautilus]

Then I must admit I misunderstood your post: I thought you were showing the HP-35S as your example of good shift key design. If not, however, why did you show this calculator at all? This world is enigmatic ...

Though the HP tradition is simply f, g, and h for calculators with more than one shift key. Pure colours would have done as well - correct - but they chose additional tagging.

The HP-35s was offered as a 'recent' shift in how the Gold and Blue keys would henceforth be treated by Hewlett Packard going forward: colours employed, but 'f' and 'g' labels dropped. Hence, the ... HP Tradition ... had already evolved. (the arrow aspect of my example was never considered relevant) Besides the HP-35s though, I might also just as easily have offered the HP Prime as an example where the 'f' and 'g' have been discontinued ... the Prime being a current Hewlett Packard calculator, still in production.

... And I like it this way. YMMV

Seems rather arbitrary to me. Going on the immense amount of interest, care, and sustained effort invested so far ... the WP-43s deserves the very best.

And I agree ... the world is enigmatic ... ! "Three rules of work: Out of the clutter find simplicity; From discord find harmony; in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." - Albert Einstein

[cdmackay]

About CPX and CPX etc.: Principally, you are free to define in mathematics whatever you want but must stick to it thereafter. Conventionally, upper and lower case letters denote different items while I don't remember any general convention covering underlining in mathematics.

not necessarily relevant here, but scalar vs vector?

[H2X]

@Walter:
Yes, I agree. The principle ... is the thing. From a guiding principle point of view (in the HP tradition at least) ... I am proposing that cleaner and leaner is the way to go. That means colour only.

Haven't mentioned anything on arrows. However, I suppose one could posit that they might be useful ... if they were to be employed as on the HP 35s. For example, refer to the shifted function label placements above each key of the WP-43S landscape layout below.




But again, even in this case as well (re guiding principles et al) I believe that arrows would be unnecessary redundant clutter. IMHO ...
What say you ... ?

I say redundant clutter. The placement of the shift buttons are consistent with the placement of the labels. No need for arrows.

With the exception of the "CATALOG" and "OFF" labels. Though "CATALAG" might be abbreviated to "CAT" which might make room for "OFF" also above the key.

[Walter]

I say redundant clutter. The placement of the shift buttons are consistent with the placement of the labels. No need for arrows.

With the exception of the "CATALOG" and "OFF" labels. Though "CATALAG" might be abbreviated to "CAT" which might make room for "OFF" also above the key.

Arrows were never even thought of for the 43S. The only open question concerning the coloured prefixes is whether [f] and [g] shall be just [] and [].

[H2X]

I say redundant clutter. The placement of the shift buttons are consistent with the placement of the labels. No need for arrows.

With the exception of the "CATALOG" and "OFF" labels. Though "CATALAG" might be abbreviated to "CAT" which might make room for "OFF" also above the key.

Arrows were never even thought of for the 43S. The only open question concerning the coloured prefixes is whether [f] and [g] shall be just [] and [].

I just answered inautilus' question, or so at least I intended.

As to the actual open question, my take is as follows: The colours, and the buttons placements vs. the labels are already redundant information. How much redundancy does one need?

[rprosperi]

Though I would agree that simple colored yellow and blue buttons are sufficiently clear for use on the device (or emulator) itself, having [f] and [g] labels on the buttons will make it much easier to document and comment, put into program listings, etc. on which keys to use, for example in this very post. If only colored, then one would have to say something like [yellow] or [blue] which takes more space, is less concise, etc.

The machines with only a single color/shift didn't need this as there could be no confusion, though even for these machines the listings most often appear as [f] [ASIN] or similar, rather than [Shift] [ASIN] because it's easier and arguably more clear; this behavior is no doubt influenced by folks having used machines with true [f] keys.

Just another aspect to consider in the debate.

[H2X]

Though I would agree that simple colored yellow and blue buttons are sufficiently clear for use on the device (or emulator) itself, having [f] and [g] labels on the buttons will make it much easier to document and comment, put into program listings, etc. on which keys to use, for example in this very post. If only colored, then one would have to say something like [yellow] or [blue] which takes more space, is less concise, etc.

The machines with only a single color/shift didn't need this as there could be no confusion, though even for these machines the listings most often appear as [f] [ASIN] or similar, rather than [Shift] [ASIN] because it's easier and arguably more clear; this behavior is no doubt influenced by folks having used machines with true [f] keys.

Just another aspect to consider in the debate.

Interesting! But maybe only [SHIFT] is really needed, as long as yellow and blue label names never clash - which they don't?

Consider [SHIFT]+[LOOP] and [SHIFT]+[TEST] as but one example. You'd still need to locate which button the [LOOP] and [TEST] labels are on, regardless of how you refer to the fact they are shifted.