On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 07:37, Rich Burridge wrote: > James Henstridge wrote: > > >Also you should consider comparing against the software calculator that > > >probably most of the world is using - the one that comes with Windows. > > >I just tried 1+2*3 there and it gives 9. > > > > > > > > Even more confusingly, the result from the Windows calculator seems to > > depend on its mode. When in "standard" mode, it returns 9. When > > switched to the scientific mode, it returns 7. Go figure. > > Ugh. It really does. That explains why Anand and I were seeing different > results. To me, that's really bad HCI. Makes good sense to me, since the windows calculator is just a "port" from the physical desk calculator to the computer. The "standard" mode is just a slightly smarter than normal 4-function calculator. All of those don't have enough memory to store an arbitrary length equation, so they do their calculations immediately. In 'scientific' mode, it's expecting to be used by 'science' or perhaps 'engineering' folks, who actually do math on a regular basis, or are used to an advanced physical calculator. They expect the calculator to at least be able to handle normal algebraic order of operations. Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part