Re: HP-41CV layout vs Voyager's, 35s Message #5 Posted by Mike Morrow on 17 Sept 2012, 5:34 p.m., in response to message #4 by Bart (UK)
Quote:
Hey, just because you don't like the landscape format, does not make it 'unfortunate' ;-), there are many of us that actually like the landscape format :-)
I know, Bart. It's just part of my trademark and duties as a landscape layout curmudgeon. I'm not one to back away from beating a dead horse! :-)
I like the HP-15C, I just don't like its layout, which makes it a handsheld calculator rather than a handheld calculator. IMHO the Voyagers are the last attractively-styled calculators that HP has made.
Quote:
I doubt that it was arbitrary, one reason being that if the arithmetic keys were on the left of the numerical keys, the finger would have to jump over them everytime ENTER was to be pressed
I have no issue with Voyager key arrangement. What I was characterizing as an arbitrary decision was not which side the arithmetic keys were located, but rather the new order chosen for the arithmetic keys in the column: / X - + versus the classic - + X /.
Quote:
What was perhaps unfortunate is that HP kept the arithmetic operator keys on the left when returning to the landscape format.
I'm confused here. The Voyagers swapped the arithmetic keys to the right, which I think was correct if the machine just had to be landscape. What I think was unfortunate is that HP kept the arithmetic keys on the right after returning to portrait layout following the Voyager experiment. The arithmetic keys should have been either returned to the left side under the ENTER key, or the ENTER key should have been moved to the right, there once again above the arithmetic keys. Though non-traditional, I think the right-side layout is probably a better human factors layout than the classic left-side arrangement.
Quote:
My 2p worth.
Old pence (still circulating when the HP-35 was introduced) or new?
Edited: 17 Sept 2012, 5:52 p.m.
|