Re: I like Roberto's calculator..

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: I like Roberto's calculator..
by uddw on Monday 27/Sep/2004, @14:26

At the moment there is really no reason not to use a physical calculator, since kcalc is just a clone of it.

I wonder why you are asking this question, since your calculator makes much better use of the capabilities of a computer. The only problem I see with it is that it won't work for people with a weak mathematical background. The goal should be to provide a better calculator for those who use nothing more than basic calculators now.

Of course I wouldn't mind any advanced features, but the highest priority must be to make it instantly usable for every kde user.

Related Links

·   Articles on KDE Advocacy, Discussions, and Rumors
·   Also by uddw
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: I like Roberto's calculator..
by Roberto Alsina on Monday 27/Sep/2004, @14:41

Well, here's how I see it.

If the alternative is kcalc/real calculator:

I wouldn't use kcalc.

If the alternative was usecalc/calculator:

I would probably use usecalc

I am not sure making it instantly usable is the main goal for a calculator. I think it should be able to calculate comfortably, too.

And come on! Mathematical background? If you went to school you know what 2+2 and the like means :-)

Sure, maybe allow x as a replacement for * would be nice.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: I like Roberto's calculator..
by Jim on Friday 08/Oct/2004, @06:41

> At the moment there is really no reason not to use a physical calculator, since kcalc is just a clone of it.

So how do you copy & paste between an application on your computer and a physical calculator?

(From the article):

> The supported operators are the usual, plus parenthesis, and ** which is power. If you want a square root, just use **0.5. If you want, I can add something more obvious.

This is a regression from KCalc. If somebody wants a square root in KCalc, they see the square root button and hit it. If somebody wants power in KCalc, they see the button and hit it. Learning new syntax for such a simple application that *already works* is insane. It would work well if normal keyboards had square root and power keys on them, but they don't, so your whole principle of "the keypad already does what we want" is false.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: I like Roberto's calculator..
by Roberto Alsina on Friday 08/Oct/2004, @13:01

Please, *please* PLEASE read the whole freaking article & thread.

I know that´s not good. I also know, and said, that this is just a prototype application. In fact, in another post, I mentioned that some buttons could come handy. The square root one is a good such example.

And yes, there *must* be something that´s easier using kcalc.

Sure, only 1% of the users give a damn, but it´s easier to do square roots.

And you are obviously being argumentative, but the keyboard does have a "1" button. That it doesn´t have a sqrt button doesn´t invalidate the argument I made about number keys, it invalidates the argument I *didn´t* make, about square roots.

That, sir, is called a strawman.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: I like Roberto's calculator..
by Jim on Monday 11/Oct/2004, @03:17

> Please, *please* PLEASE read the whole freaking article & thread.

I already did.

> And you are obviously being argumentative

Actually, it's you that appears to be argumentative. Simply disagreeing with one of your fundamental premises doesn't make me argumentative.

> but the keyboard does have a "1" button. That it doesn´t have a sqrt button doesn´t invalidate the argument I made about number keys

Yes it does, unless you split the interface between the mouse and keyboard. If, as you now suggest, add a graphical sqrt button, it means people making use of it are constantly switching between the keyboard and mouse. It's a basic ergonomics mistake. If you expect people to use the mouse for that task, don't force them to switch back to the keyboard for related tasks unnecessarily. If half the interface is the keyboard and half is the mouse, the application == calculator metaphor is completely broken.

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: I like Roberto's calculator..
by Roberto Alsina on Monday 11/Oct/2004, @07:16

Of course *I* was being argumentative. That{ s the whole point of the article.

But anyway, regarding your comment, I call bullshit. Every application has the interface split between keyboard and mouse: the common tasks are easier to access with the keyboard, the harder ones have both a harder keyboard shortcut, and a mouse access.

Consider a word processor. The text input is done via the keyboard, and there isn´t any way to perform it via the mouse. But switching to bold can be done via the keyboard (not too obvious), and a easily seen mouse interface.

The obvious analogous situation is that number and basic operation in a calculator should tend to be keyboard-based, while not-often used functionality should be mouse-accessible.

So, what you say about usability seems pretty much something you just made up right now. And yes, the point that the application == calculator metaphore is broken is absolutely right. That´s why my interface proposal dumps it.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"It's Friday the 13th, so, I thought it appropriate for me to commit this now." -- Charles Samuels
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.