HP Forum Archive 14

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

L-form factor Concept Message #1 Posted by Hugh Evans on 26 Oct 2004, 8:46 p.m. I've finally gotten around to producing an initial concept for the L(landscape) or voyager style form factor. It would help me out immensley to hear your thoughts if this were a calculator you were considering purchasing. Don't be afraid to be critical! We are going to start prototyping cases around spring 2005 and your input will have a direct input on the design. I'm working on a new version with proper vertical key spacing to make room for shifted labels. The logic behind the additional row of narrow keys along the top is to allow for menu navigation and some extra blank user assignable keys. Best Regards,

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #2 Posted by hugh steers on 26 Oct 2004, 8:57 p.m., in response to message #1 by Hugh Evans do you envisage possible keyboard overlays, or is this a thing of the past.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #3 Posted by Hugh Evans on 26 Oct 2004, 9:41 p.m., in response to message #2 by hugh steers Yes sir, we're actually going to be molding labels into the keyboard area (not just the keys), but are planning to make keyboard overlay sheets as well. We're all about making custom, one-off keys and overlays using the same process as our normal lines.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #4 Posted by Karl Schneider on 27 Oct 2004, 1:07 a.m., in response to message #3 by Hugh Evans Hugh -- I would like to see a non-graphical, NCEES-compliant calc with all the best features of the HP-32SII and HP-15C, with a few other features of the HP-27S and HP-42S included. I think that's your concept, also. I think that the wider keys for data entry (0-9, .) and arithmetic found in the Pioneer models and the HP-71B was a very good idea, which should be used. The beveled keys with yellow-shift above and and blue-shift or alpha characters below on the bevel (Voyagers, 41C*, 71B) was another good idea, which you are maintaining. Note that blue shows up just as well on light-colored keys as on dark ones (71B). I would stay away from HP-48 mini-keys -- neither durable nor ergonomic. Every menu position on the display should directly correspond to a top-row key. The L-configuration is better for desktop use, and allows for display of longer equations and complete complex numbers. More suggestions for features later. -- KS

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #5 Posted by Chris Woodhouse on 27 Oct 2004, 3:14 a.m., in response to message #4 by Karl Schneider Quote: The L-configuration is better for desktop use It is also better for hand held use! See my page on Keyboard layout on my "Bring Back the HP 15C" site for the reasoning behind that. One thing I didn't mention on that page is the advantage of a longer display. Chris W

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #6 Posted by Thomas Okken on 27 Oct 2004, 8:24 a.m., in response to message #4 by Karl Schneider > The L-configuration is better for desktop use Is that statement based on a survey? I presonally prefer the vertical layout, both when the calculator is in my hand and when it's lying on a desk. Also, I'd worry about the fact that the horizontal layout makes the device less than ideal as a hand-held. (Anything with more than 7 rows or more than 5 columns of keys is very awkward if you're trying to operate it with one hand -- there's only so much ground one thumb can cover, and if you have to shift the calculator in your hand all the time, you're going to drop it eventually, probably into a muddy puddle -- I imagine you may have a tough time selling something like that to civil engineers and such!) Just my $0.02. - Thomas

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #7 Posted by Hugh Evans on 27 Oct 2004, 10:01 a.m., in response to message #6 by Thomas Okken All of our models will be waterproof, so that at least cover the mud scenario. I do anticipate that civil engineers will prefer the P (Portrait) form factor as well as the G (graphing). In situations where it is advantageous to hold the machine in one hand and press keys with the other, vertical layouts are the better choice. The discussion going on in this thread shows exactly why multiple form-factors are necessary. Most people have a pretty strong opinion regarding their favorite layout. My guess is that the P-type would end up slightly (5% or so) ahead of L. P is more traditional and more commonly seen in current designs, but people who got used to the L-type are typically hooked. I see both as being excellent designs.

build it and they will come Message #8 Posted by Ned on 27 Oct 2004, 8:46 p.m., in response to message #7 by Hugh Evans My 2 pennys: On the one side, if this is just an exercise funded by money to burn, I think it looks cool. The soft menu keys are a little too close to the second row down. I find the weight of my 12c makes it easier to do 2 thumbed typing, but I know the 'heft factor' has already been mentioned. On the other side, if plans are to actually *sell* this design or a series based on one chassis, pleeeeaze concentrate instead on designing a cheap single low power chip, and an easy to build snappy keyboard. There is no market for a 'bombproof' calc. A funny coincidence is that a 32s and a casio fx-260 have the same number of keys. Stuff the logic of a 32s or 42s into some modern tiny silicon, give the thing hard keys glued to a silicone membrane, and you get a casioesque rpn calc you could sell for $15-20 in volume. Think 'casio does the 33s sans chevron keypad'. I'd buy 5 of those, but not one of some 'luxury' model for over $100 just to take a PE exam. -ned

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #9 Posted by Ed Look on 26 Oct 2004, 9:43 p.m., in response to message #2 by hugh steers I've had this discussion here once before with someone, but I much strongly more prefer the "portrait" configuration of the Pioneers, Spices, etc. However, this is not to say you didn't do a good job... ... it's just me!

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #10 Posted by Hugh Evans on 26 Oct 2004, 9:56 p.m., in response to message #9 by Ed Look Funny you should mention that. I put together a rough draft of such a beast this evening. Should be ready within the next couple of weeks! Currently, it's using the same ~3"x6" size with a larger screen and some extra keys. The other option is to reduce the size, take out a few extra keys, and shrink the screen. Any thoughts on that? Thanks

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #11 Posted by Jeff O. on 27 Oct 2004, 7:57 a.m., in response to message #10 by Hugh Evans For the portrait format, the 3"x6" (or 7.5 X 15 cm) size, (being essentially the same as the much-loved 42S) should be fine. I think there is a place for a bigger display, I think many users would like to see all four levels of the stack, for example, and some graphing capabilities might be nice also. So rotate your L-form factor 90 degrees, move the display to the top and make it about 3 rows tall. That would leave room for a row of 6 soft keys and seven rows of other keys, which could be 5 or 6 keys wide or some combination. That may not be completely clear, so I made a quick cut and paste depiction of such an arrangement. I have no way to host it, so I'll e-mail it too you. NO60hzSPAMatFORieeedotorgME (remove NO SPAM FOR ME and change the at and dot.)

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #12 Posted by Ed Look on 27 Oct 2004, 11:23 a.m., in response to message #11 by Jeff O. One poster here not too long ago mentioned that if you were an experienced and confident stack user, all you need is to see the X level. With a bit of practice (just a little, in my experience) this should be true for most users. However, another line or two ought to be added and used for other information, as modes, status annunciators, soft buttons, maybe even owner's name, time and date, etc.

Re: Portrait-form factor Concept Message #13 Posted by Jeff O. on 27 Oct 2004, 12:39 p.m., in response to message #12 by Ed Look Quote: One poster here not too long ago mentioned that if you were an experienced and confident stack user, all you need is to see the X level. Well, I guess all you need is the X level. It is certainly not my intention to belittle or denigrate your point of view. As you said in your earlier post, it's just me, but I find the Y-level display of the 42S (and now 33S) to be quite useful, and figure having the Z and T would be helpful also. If a taller display that would allow all four levels, plus status indicators, time, etc., is easily obtainable, why not do it? Hugh indicated that he is working on a portrait style alternative of the same dimensions as his landscape. It sure looks like there would be room for a near 48G-sized display plus 6 softkeys plus 37 to 42 other keys in the same area as shown in his picture of his landscape prototype. Hopefully, the OpenRPN project will allow a variety of preferences to be served. If you want a short, wide display, get the landscape version. If you want a tall and narrow display, get the portrait. Of course, I get the impression you would prefer a portrait-style with a short and narrow display. It's probably asking too much for that much flexibility. Maybe he could include an accessory cover plate to cover the top half of the display for those that don't want to use it (just kidding).

Re: Portrait-form factor Concept Message #14 Posted by Ed Look on 27 Oct 2004, 8:43 p.m., in response to message #13 by Jeff O. LOL! Nah, taping LCD windows leaves ugly glue marks. It would not figure into any buying decision if it showed all four stack levels; it's only an aesthetic preference. I'll readily admit that being able to see X, Y, Z, and T at the same time would be more useful. Of course, I also have a soft spot for red LEDs, and the only thing that deters me from championing them are that they consume so much power!

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #15 Posted by Mike (Stgt) on 27 Oct 2004, 4:10 a.m., in response to message #1 by Hugh Evans Sorry, no. Even HP's line of Voyagers are not the calculators I like to use. I always regarded it as a "design capriole", probably driven by marketing coercion: 'we have to show up with something new'. Well, it worked for HP. If I only need a calculator as a replacement of a slide rule I prefere something like an HP-21 what comes close to a "tamagotchi": you may put it in one hand and type with the thumb (hence a "thumb rule"). An aspect of the man-machine-interface (MMI) is the look-and-feel when you touch it. You won't get the same feeling if you take an HP-42S, it will stay a foreign substance, it's too flat. At most you will put an calculator on a desk to use it. Even then I prefere those machines I may operate with one hand. Now pls do a simple test: put your arm on the desk and move your fingers. What would be best under those fingers -- yes -- of cause -- an HP-41CX!!! With it's slanting keybord, and the best haptics in the keys, it's MMI is second to none. My very personal opinion. Ciao.....Mike

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #16 Posted by Raymond Del Tondo on 27 Oct 2004, 5:50 a.m., in response to message #1 by Hugh Evans Hi, as Mike wrote, the keyboard feel is very important. A big problem with the voyagers is the hard-to-press ENTER bar. This could be resolved by placing only one contact dome under the ENTER key. However, as I wrote earlier in other threads, my favourite layout is that of the Pioneers, at least for the block of control keys, with a horizontal double-wide ENTER bar at the usual location, and the '+' key at the downright edge. The 41 has the best tactile response, not too hard to press, yet still clean contact. Alpha capabilities would be nice, but aren't really important. Maybe reduced Alpha features, lik in the mid-range Pioneers (22S, 32S, ...) would be enough. When an Alpha mode will be included, a dot matrix display seems to be mandatory. If no Alpha is needed, a segmented display would be sufficient. Raymond

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #17 Posted by db(martinez,california) on 27 Oct 2004, 11:14 a.m., in response to message #1 by Hugh Evans It looks great. I will buy two. I have three comments: Someone mentioned the EIT/LSIT exam compliance. It looks like this one will not meet current rules because of alpha capabilitiy. I hope that the battery system is like the new 33s so that there is NO chance of loosing memory when changing them out. That never happened to me with an 11c but it did on a 42 - with 6k of programs in it! There was discussion of a future portrait style and different screen sizes for those of us who work in the field. I like someone's idea of a 4 line screen because it could show things like the entire stack. It could also clearly display northing / easting / elevation OR azimuth / horizontal distance / vertical difference along with the softkey labels. It will/would be useful in any configuration.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #18 Posted by Hugh Evans on 27 Oct 2004, 12:06 p.m., in response to message #17 by db(martinez,california) I stated long ago that exam compliance is not a consideration in the design. I have also said that if anyone wishes to take on the task of getting the final product approved for exams they are welcome to do so. The main battery will be Li-Polymer, which probably won't need to be changed much (if ever). I'll bring this topic up in the OpenRPN forums. Between the fact that everything can be backed up to on-board flash or a computer, as well as having access to external charging pins... I'm not sure there will be a good case for using a backup button cell. I'll play around with it a bit. I don't expect a 4-line display to pose any problem. All models are to use graphical LCDs (highest contrast we can get). Display of the entire traditional stack and graphical capabilities will be great features. Thanks for your input.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #19 Posted by db(martinez,california) on 27 Oct 2004, 11:33 p.m., in response to message #18 by Hugh Evans Exam compliance is not a consideration for me either. It sounds like you have the battery system dialed too. I'm ready, start selling them.

OpenRPN design vs. NCEES Message #20 Posted by Norris on 27 Oct 2004, 1:57 p.m., in response to message #17 by db(martinez,california) The NCEES criteria for banning or approving calculators are not entirely clear. However, alpha capability alone apparently does not disqualify a particular model. NCEES currently lists both the TI-81 and HP-33S as "acceptable", and they are both capable of storing long text strings (as an "equation" in the case of the 33S). It appears that what NCEES really objects to is the combination of (1) text storage capability, plus (2) PC connectivity. Neither the TI-81 nor the HP-33S have any IR or serial ports, so they would pass under the second criterion. The proposed OpenRPN design probably would not be NCEES-compliant, since it appears to fail both (1) and (2). I certainly respect the decision of the OpenRPN team to make the calculator that they want, rather than the calculator that NCEES wants. However, it's worth noting that something like 100,000 people take NCEES exams every year, and that a significant fraction would be very interested in a powerful NCEES-compliant RPN model. If OpenRPN could produce an NCEES-compliant model that was superior to the 33S (which doesn't seem like an impossible challenge), then they might have a good chance of finding a real market and raising some real cash. Which could possibly help fund the development of other, more interesting, models. Edited: 27 Oct 2004, 5:15 p.m.

Re: OpenRPN design vs. NCEES Message #21 Posted by Jonathan Purvis (NZ) on 27 Oct 2004, 9:31 p.m., in response to message #20 by Norris I did attempt to come up with a solution to this on the OpenRPN.org board, but got shot down. You would have to have a "closed" design with a non-flashable ROM and no I/O to meet the NCEES requirements. So you'd have a calculator that is only useful for taking exams. More on my ideas at http://openrpn.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=37&highlight=

Re: OpenRPN design vs. NCEES Message #22 Posted by Norris on 28 Oct 2004, 2:00 a.m., in response to message #21 by Jonathan Purvis (NZ) You are absolutely right. An NCEES-compliant design would have to be completely "closed", and it would therefore be less than ideal for non-exam purposes. My point, however, is that people would still buy it -- even if they never planned to use it again after taking the exam. Passing the PE or PLS exam is a major career milestone; exam candidates (or their employers) routinely pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for exam fees, travel costs, books, and review courses. Many candidates would be willing to pay a premium price for a good NCEES exam calculator, even if that’s the only thing that it would be useful for. That’s why the HP-33S sells. Let’s face it: the 33S is an uninspired design at an uncompetitive price, but it’s still the best available choice for NCEES exams. That one selling point is enough to guarantee a niche market for it. However, the weaknesses of the 33S are pretty clear, and it could easily lose that niche to an better-designed competitor.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #23 Posted by Walter B on 27 Oct 2004, 5:48 p.m., in response to message #1 by Hugh Evans Thx for your design sketch! As others did already, I support a second display line (for soft keys or second stack level or whatever) and sufficient space for annunciators, too. And I propose to either extend the display width or drop the 2 outmost white keys - as soft keys they make sense directly under the display only. By using soft keys, you have to use dot matrix. Please take care for best contrast - imho this is the biggest disadvantage of 42s compared to earlier models. Just my 0.01€, of course.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #24 Posted by bill platt on 28 Oct 2004, 10:31 a.m., in response to message #1 by Hugh Evans Hi Hugh, Thank you for posting your latest progress here. I am very impressed to see this progress. I also agree that it would not be any advantage to force compliance with the "NCEES" exam. For one thing, their requirements are arbitrary and subject to change. For another, they artificially destroy the potential for progress in device design. Let the ChineseHP work that market. I am looking forward to a real machine. (I am tired of being forced to depend on cheezy chinese garbage. I am constantly amazed at the success of this Chinese import revolution--most of the stuff is so bad that using it is terribly UNeconomical---flashlights which work for one day, fiberglass which is so out of spec that it will not mold, and has unpredictable strength characteristics, container unloading cranes made out of pot metal, bolts stamped "grade 8" which fail at less than grade 5 loads, "316L" stainless steel which corrodes and pits.....it is pretty scary. Nobody in China appears to be accountable for anything---but it is the US side with the egregfious errors--accepting this sort of nonsense! And the scariest part is that we, both consumers and industrial users, put up with it! I suspect that it will bust though--just as the Japanese economy did, when it got too "hot". There is a "run on the market" right now--a mass "feeding frenzy" for inexpensive chinese labor. It is an unsustainable activity--I hope). Best regards, Bill

Well said, Bill Message #25 Posted by Garth Wilson on 28 Oct 2004, 1:25 p.m., in response to message #24 by bill platt Well said, Bill! I'm really sick of Chinese garbage.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #26 Posted by Norris on 28 Oct 2004, 3:53 p.m., in response to message #24 by bill platt << I also agree that it would not be any advantage to force compliance with the "NCEES" exam. >> Let's think about this for just a minute. On the one hand, we have the OpenRPN team. They aren't satisfied with modern PCs, PDAs, or HP48s. Instead, they would like to make some really good old-fashioned programmable scientific calculators. On the other hand, we have NCEES exam candidates. They are barred from using modern PCs, PDAs, or HP48s. So they would like to buy some really good old-fashioned programmable scientific calculators. Question: Could these two groups come together for their mutual benefit? Answer: Obviously not. Oh well. No one ever accused RPN advocates of slick marketing skills.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #27 Posted by Hugh Evans on 28 Oct 2004, 6:25 p.m., in response to message #26 by Norris To the contrary, we are satisfied with each, but... Computers are useful only for exceptionally complex work. PDAs are excellent but lack tactile keys (poor MMI) HP48s are fine but are gradually becoming dated technology. Our compromise? Modernize classic designs and embellish upon them by using current embedded technologies and adding to the feature set. I will give it another consideration... If there is sufficient demand I am willing to flex a bit and make an additional machine outside of our standard line for exams. I *will* consider it.

Re: L-form factor Concept Message #28 Posted by . on 28 Oct 2004, 8:43 p.m., in response to message #26 by Norris "Instead, they would like to make some really good old-fashioned programmable scientific calculators." I thought that openRPN were only interested in a powerful device, that was only "old fashioned" in terms of high build quality. Not "old fashioned" as in "very limited functionality"

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall