New Boolean Diagram constant design!

[altenbach]

The current boolean diagram constant is potentially confusing and too elaborate.

Confusing, because it almost looks like a toggle switch, so the new user might click on the right half, expecing an unconditional FALSE. However, there are no active areas, and an inversion of the current value occurs no matter where we click.

Too elaborate. All we need to see is the current value! Why do we need to see the "other" value greyed out??? We can guess that by simple elimination. 😉 There is too much redundant information, wasting twice as much diagram space than actually needed to display relevant information. The current design also makes e.g. 2D boolean diagram constant very confusing. Have a look at the image. Can you immediately tell that the 2D array on the left is only true on the diagonal? (I did not think so!). Now look at the suggestion on the right. Ahh... much better! 😄

 Suggestion:

The boolean diagram constant should be smaller, simpler, and cleaner.

The image shows the current design on the left and the suggested design on the right.

What a difference in clarity and economy!!

Message Edited by altenbach on 07-03-2009 02:39 PM

[Intaris]

xD

Always the efficiency with Altenbach....

I have to agree though.  Not that the current design actually ever annoyed me.  I appreciate the line of thought.

[JackDunaway]

The tweak that we never knew we wanted!!!!

Your array is an excellent illustration. There is a dramatic increase in readability. Muchos Kudos.

[LabBEAN]

I was perfectly happy with the Boolean constant until now...  Your example on the left is actually not "only true on the diagonal", but we get the point.  Wish I could give you 2!

[altenbach]

> Your example on the left is actually not "only true on the diagonal", but we get the point.

See, that's the problem!!! I probably accidentally switched that one and it's almost impossible to tell by just glacing at it. 😉

Also the single above the array in the middle should be switched for symmetry. (I noticed that right after posting, but decided to leave it). 😄

[JackDunaway]

Good grief, I didn't even realize your two errors until pointed out. Ergo, your elegant solution!!!

Like BEAN, this is one of the few ideas I would like to give +2 Kudos.

[altenbach]

Another thing that should be pointed out is that the current design has virtually the same "color weight" for TRUE and FALSE, i.e. the area percentage of green pixels is nearly identical for the two states, forcing the user to actually read the text to recognize the state. This can lead to errors with bad monotors and poor eye sight.

My new design is much better in this respect: the TRUE has significantly more green pixels, giving a better visual contrast to the FALSE.

(We could enhance the contrast even more, by e.g. making the F red (or some other contrasting color), however, I am not sure if this would improve things further. It probably also would need some usability testing with colorblind programmers.)

[JackDunaway]

Easy now, altenbach, you're out of control! You have completely beat down what we should all begin referring to as "the old boolean constant" - no need to kick it while it's down!

The comment about color weighting is great. I don't like turning F red though - it would violate the "this color=this datatype" convention we all know in LabVIEW.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Good idea right up until the part about turning it red. Red is a no-no. No red allowed on diagrams unless it is something that ought to be removed in a working/finished VI -- broken wires, breakpoints, and coercion dots. There are a handful of VIs that violate this in their VI icons, but we try to supress those.

Crimson, ok. Pink, ok. Dried blood on a wilted rose against a maroon background, ok. But scarlet is only for when you give a damn. 😉

[altenbach]

> No red allowed on diagrams

The red idea was inspired by the conditional terminal of loops: "continue if true" is green, "stop if true" is red, and clicking on it toggles. So, yes, there are some red elements that make sense and probably will stay. 😄

Are you saying we will see red broken wires in the future? Interesting idea.

I agree with you. Unlike the design in the original image, the red was not meant as a serious suggestion, just trying to to stimulate thinking outside the box. Maybe we can do something with more colors.. 😉 

[rolfk]

Go for it!!

I can only agree with all earlier comments. I didn't know I wanted this until I saw it, but from now on I will probably start to swear at the old boolean constant :-).