Poll: What do you prefer? This poll is closed. |
|||
Layout a) | 21 | 50.00% | |
Layout b) | 21 | 50.00% | |
Total | 42 votes | 100% |
* You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
[43S] Let's try a poll on the new forum :-)
|
01-28-2014, 09:29 PM
Post: #69
|
|||
|
|||
RE: [43S] Let's try a poll on the new forum :-)
(01-28-2014 09:03 PM)walter b Wrote: ... Following your arguments, however, why does the layout of the HP-42S look like [ENTER] [x<>y] [+/-] [E] [<-] ? I'd bet we need [+/-] and [E] more often than [x<>y], don't we? TIA for enlightenment. My guess is that they wanted sin/cos/tan on the line above and did not have room to put [x<>y] next to its logically associated keys (sto/rcl/roll). Note that the 42s even put the 'i' (eg their COMPLEX) key as a shifted function -- which makes me think that they did not think it would be used as much as other unshifted keys (despite the nice job they did getting complex functions working). Anyway, I like they way you are proposing: having STO, RCL, X<>Y, Roll all side-by-side on the row above since they are all logically related. My only quibble was that the 'i' key was taking a dominant location (next to the [Enter] key). I do not think that moving X<>Y to next to Enter is an improvement, despite what the 42S did. (I never had a 42s, so it is not that big a deal for me!). So I still think this lineup is an improvement: [Enter] [+/-] [EEX] [ i ] [ <- ] -Jonathan |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)