Terminal images for arrays on block diagram

[RavensFan]

I had always know that the thickness of the wire is representative of the size of the array on the block diagram (Thin wire, scalar, thicker wires, larger dimension arrays)

I never noticed before that the terminal on the block diagram contained the [ ] symbols to indicate it is an array.  But also, the larger the dimension of the array, the thicker the brackets are, up to about 5-D.  (Probably because I rarely need a 3-D array, and large than isn't any practical, logical reason for a 4-D or larger array.)

However, looking at the image of the terminal, the shaded area containing the outgoing or incoming triangle actually obscures one bracket or the other.

While I wouldn't want the terminal to get any larger (which is why I don't like the icon view, it is way too large), it seems like the terminal should show both the opening and closing brackets to indicate an array rather than obscuring one.

Any comments?

Message Edited by Ravens Fan on 08-22-2009 12:59 AM

[muks]

Ravens fan,

Yes I do accept but why dont you post this in the idea section?

[RavensFan]

Thanks for replying Muks.

It is more of an observation, not necessarily an idea that I think needs to be implemented.  I just want to float it out there and see what some other people think.  If some other people agree, then I will go ahead and add it to the idea board.

Taking a close look at the terminals, the current terminals are 32 pixels wide by 16 pixels tall.  That shaded band seems to overlap the text and the bracket by about 8 pixels.  I think if the width of the terminal grew about 4 pixels, the shaded band could still be there and not overlap the text.

Of course all terminals would need to be the same size.  And I was only looking at the Double and Double Array here.  I'm not sure about the other datatypes.

Take a look at the attached image which I worked up in Paint and zoomed in @ 800% so the pixel count can be seen.  I put those black dots in there just for the sake of helping to count the number of pixels.

If a few people agree that this would help the appearance of the block diagrams and the cost of making the terminals 4 pixels wider isn't so bad, then I will go ahead and put the idea in the Ideas board.

Message Edited by Ravens Fan on 08-22-2009 11:08 AM

[altenbach]

You could argue that the second bracket is redundant, because it just mirrors exactly what fully visible bracked already shows. 😉

There is no extra information. 🙂

If I need more detailed information about the array, I hover over the terminal while looking at the context help.

(Instead of showing brackets, it could show the number of dimensions as a digit. Would take about the same (or less) space.)

[Ben]

The arrows are redundent.

How about an ini token to shut-off the arrows?

Although I would tolerate it (i.e.larger icons) there could be a public out-cry over increasing the size. Some diagrams could suffer after upgrade because they really count on those four pixels.

Possible issues:

• Four or less pixel spacing between control and sink >>> Object over-lap
• Control near edge of multiply nested structures set to auto-explodeGrow 

Ben

[tst]

---

Ben wrote:

How about an ini token to shut-off the arrows?

---

I thought there was something in the options screen, but I might be mistaking it for the no-bulge-in-wire-intersections, which definitely exists as an option. Personally, I feel that the arrows are far from redundant and are very useful. Even if all your code is laid out nicely, the arrows still help.

Personally, I also would not want the terminals to grow. Either leave the current situation or do something like Altenbach's suggestion - although I find the number of dimensions to be unnecessay, it might be useful for some users.

[RavensFan]

Definitely keep the arrows. They are what tell me the direction of the terminals.

As I was saying in another post, there is nothing intuitive about the thick border/thin border differences to tell whether the terminal is a source or sink. I like that they are a bit different, but if you put them side by side with no wires and no arrows, I couldn't tell you which was which.

As for array size, as Christian says, if I want to know the type/dimensions of the array, I'll use context help. I just thought it was interesting (and I had never noticed it before) that the array size was encoded in the image as well.

I myself wouldn't mind if the terminal grew 2 or 4 pixels wider, but I can completely understand how it would bother a lot of people.

I think in the current image, too much is obscured by the arrow and its background, even for the scalar type. Actually, why is there a light background behind the arrow at all. That is the real source of the problem. Eliminate the background, and move the arrow over to the edge, and you can see everything without extra shading and without causing the terminal to grow.

See below:

1. Terminal size maintained.

2. Direction arrow maintained, just slightly moved.

3. Goofy shaded background removed.

Message Edited by Ravens Fan on 08-22-2009 09:48 PM

[altenbach]

---

Ravens Fan wrote:

2. Direction arrow maintained, just slightly moved.

---

This might possibly interfere with coercion dots.

[altenbach]

How about....

It might be sufficient to have only four different visuals  (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D+).

Message Edited by altenbach on 08-23-2009 01:33 AM

[muks]

Altenbach,

What abt the arrow?