Replies in line On 11 Mar 2013, at 18:33, Dalius wrote:
> Automatic calculations reevaluates the whole equation when new operation is > added - therefore 1 + 2 x 4 will be 9 as it should be. Simple question: do > you have device or possibility to test current implementation? Trying live > thing might get better feeling how it works. Wouldn't that be more confusing though, as then you'd *think* you were multiplying 3 by 4, not 2, because it would be a 3 that you see on the screen? > Another idea: we could do testing with users who have not seen previously > calculator and see how they react because we are guessing now. Preferably we > should do that with non-technical users. Sure, I'll let you know. However most users will have seen a basic calculator in physical form! ;-) Thanks Dalius, this has made such great progress! > Regards, > Dalius > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Calum K Pringle > <calum.prin...@canonical.com> wrote: > Hi everyone hope you’ve had a nice weekend! > > Last week was a bit mad because of UDS, but we have honestly been thinking > about Calculators a lot of the time too! Dalius raised a good point about the > ‘equals’ feature, and as it came up on the blog too, we’ve cc’d the list in > our reply. > > Why have an equals button? > > We don't calculate automatically as it would muddy the order of operations. 1 > + 2 x 4 = 9. However, calculating automatically would result in 1 + 2 = 3 X 4 > = 12. > > Secondly, when two things happen at the same time on screen - displaying > typed entry AND answer - it can be confusing. > > It is common to find yourself pressing the equals button for confirmation at > the end of a calculation which also complements the physical metaphor we have > used for the calculation history. We have also found it to be a common > behaviour of simple calculators that pressing equals multiple times would > repeat the previous operation. > > Why do we need +/ - key > > From last weeks discussion (copy below) we realised that it was not expected > for subtract to be the entry point for making a negative number. For that > reason, and to fit in the layout, we opted to add this button. > > If we follow our own direction, prioritising things like daily budgeting etc, > minus might well be very useful! (Stay out of that overdraft!!!) > > Cheers, > > > Calum > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Ubuntu-touch-coreapps] [Calculator] Numpad layout design > Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 14:57:42 +0200 > From: Dalius <dal...@sandbox.lt> > To: ubuntu-touch-corea...@lists.launchpad.net > > > Hi, > > Here is what design team proposes for simple calculator: > http://design.canonical.com/wp-content/uploads/numpad.png > > Here is our current implementation: > http://i.imgur.com/F2DqWdL.png > > Design team's proposal has two unnecessary buttons: > > = - as I don't see any reason why calculations can't be automatic > > ± - it is simple calculator why we need negative numbers at all? > > Any other opinions? > > Regards, > Dalius > > > > > Calum Pringle > Interaction Designer > > Canonical Design Team > m: 0773 9317055 > e: calum.prin...@canonical.com > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
