Re: galculator should be included in Gnome [OT rant]

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

Owen Taylor wrote:

> Drifting off topic here - (note that I haven't looked at gcalctool)
>
> While the concept of copying a simple 4 function calculator may have
> a bit of merit - people are familiar with that - copying a physical
> calculator really is a entirely broken way of presenting a interface
> for interactive calculations.
>
> Problems with it:
>
> - Retyping numbers; if a number occurs multiple times in 
>   a calculation you have to retype each time, or think ahead
>   and put them in a memory first
> - Lack of symbolic names for variables
> - No ability to correct mistakes
> - Is not obvious how to navigate with the keyboard
> - Is clumsy to keyboard navigate
> - Typically has cryptic abbreviations for the key names
> - Doesn't take advantage of the display area available
>   on a computer
>
> I could go on and on. This problem could use a lot of rethinking.
>
> I'd think it might be better to start off with a command line
> calculation tool (I actually typically use python or gdb when
> I need to calculate stuff) and think how you can improve it
> with a GUI. Random ideas:
>
> - Nice completion on functions and variables. Type s, and
>   dropdown pops down with sin(), etc, in it.
>
> - Every number entered and result gets tagged with some sort
>   of annotation that can be used (think gdb's $4) or DND'ed
>   to a variable bar where a name can be assigned to it.
>
> - If you go back and edit an earlier formula in the buffer,
>   the change takes effect and propagates.
>
> There are a lot of examples of interfaces that could serve as
> prior art - bc, Mathematica, shell-mode in emacs, etc, etc. Many of
> them admittedly, are experts-only or simply hideous.
>
> But I think if one sat down and plan out what you want people to
> be able to do with tool tool - whether it's summing up lists of
> numbers or plugging in numbers in their Physics homework - and
> what is *not* in scope for the tool (it shouldn't try to replace
> gnumeric or mathematic), you should be able to do *so* much better
> than trying to reproduce the details of a physical calculator,
> whether it is Casio, TI, Sharp, or HP. 
>  
Sounds like you are thinking of something similar to the "Power Calc" 
calculator for Windows XP (part of the XP powertoys).  Here is a screenshot:
   http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/wxp_pt_05.gif

It feels a fair bit like the HP graphing calculators I have used.

James.

--
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/