At 09:34 AM 8/22/2006, W0UN -- John Brosnahan wrote: >What I want in an SDR is the ultimate in operator convenience and efficiency >for the task at hand along with something that is aesthetically pleasing. > >I am certainly NOT wanting to emulate a "regular" radio for the sake of >copying the "traditional" look. > >To me "pull downs" are just fine for SOME of the less-frequently >used functions. >Push buttons and sliders seem better for the more often used functions though. >But just MAYBE there is something even better out there that no one >has thought >of yet! > >And part of me likes my definition of the current "techno-geek" >(gee-whiz) look. >But I think there can be a console that is more efficient, very >functional, and >has a more artistic appearance -- while paying homage in some respects to the >long tradition of the familiar "radio" look. > >Here is an example of efficiency vs. tradition in a radio >look. The current crop >of analog radios sit low on the table with the freq display at the >top which makes >it more convenient for the eyes. It is natural to make the least used knobs >along the bottom where they are less accessible and may even be >partially blocked >by the computer keyboard. But an SDR radio console is on the computer screen >and to me the freq display should be LOW on the screen to minimize the amount >of head-raising to go from the keyboard to the screen. (I am just >an OK typist, >not a total touch typist, and need to look at the keyboard for the less common >keys.) And the least-used controls of an SDR should be on the TOP >of the display, >out of the way more. > >Clearly, at this point, the functionality and performance of the SDR >is of prime >importance. All I am saying is that separating the console from the "radio" >is the way to allow the console to be improved without writing a whole new >radio. And I am glad this is being done. > >So my list of priorities is: > >1) Performance >2) Functionality >3) Appearance > >I like the ability to "assemble" the console in a way that works for >me. And I like >the artistic look of Beppe's designs. > >Performance programers are probably NOT the people you want designing >the ergonomic and artistic parts of the radio, in the same way that artistic >designers may not be all that great with the design of algorithms needed for >performance. > >73 John W0UN John,
To move various major portions of the console around has merit. I use MixW and major portions of it's console can be moved to where ever you want. However, I disagree on placing the display at the bottom of the screen for several reasons, one which is that I place MixW on the bottom of the screen and with the display near the top and I can see both displays at the same time. Some of the other reasons involve economy of mouse movement. You don't move the mouse to the top of the screen now but to the bottom of the screen where most of the controls are. We should keep most used controls near the center of the screen, both for mouse movement and for vision. If we had to ability to move major parts of the console around, then both of us would be happy. Yes, you need a "human factors" group of designers to design the console. A degree from RISD is helpful in this regard. Chas _______________________________________________ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
