Hey Catherine, I prefer the symmetry as well, although we may find that having too many moving objects in play complicates things for some viewers (something I wouldn't expect, but that is the joy of exploring new disciplines). My favourite transition right now is the superimposed + object, seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG8yt5UAYP0&feature=player_embedded The previous sparkle felt like it was a bit much, although some may find the pyrotechnics enjoyable. :0
I am looking forward to usability testing as well; I think we have a good range of choices (although there is always room for a different approach, if someone will describe it for me). I think I'll spend some time today on Conjugate (+). The monadic representation brings on a slightly different approach since it is less symmetrical, but that is where Skip's recent suggestions have opened up more possibilities. Cheers, bob On -Mar10-2010, at -Mar10-20106:46 AM, Catherine Lathwell wrote: > For me, the previous version was easier to understand. > > It doesn't make visual sense (for me) when your right argument covers up > your left argument. > > Then when the totals happen on the left side, they total and the drop down > so quickly, I can't follow. It made MUCH more sense to have the numbers > come together in the middle over the plus operation itself. And the > symmetry of the movement to centre around the plus operation was > aesthetically more satisfying to my taste. > > I like the visual clues of the previous version much better as well. The > look of it was a little tacky (the sparkle part, I mean) but the idea is > excellent. > > Can't wait to see the results of your usability testing. > > Catherine > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:49 PM, bob therriault <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Skip, >> >> I came to the same conclusion as you suggested below. I just posted the >> results on Jwiki Plus (+) NuVoc: >> http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Vocabulary/plus >> It's the last video in the list. The only changes that I would make is that >> I would reduce the 3X3 matirix to 2X2, but let me know what you think the >> next iteration should look like! :) >> >> Cheers, bob >> >> On -Mar9-2010, at -Mar9-20102:36 PM, Skip Cave wrote: >> >>> Don Guinn wrote: >>>> Wouldn't sliding the right argument over the left and leaving a result >> there >>>> imply that the left argument is replaced with the result? >>> Skip replies: >>> >>> I did not mean to imply that the final result sum would remain on the >>> left side of the plus. The left and right arrays don't move at all in >>> the animation. The two original arrays should never move or change >>> throughout the whole process. This shows that the original variables >>> were not altered or destroyed. >>> >>> I intended that a "ghost image" of the right array would move to the >>> left and slide over the left array, implying the "lining up" of the left >>> and right array values. Only the ghost image of the right array moves to >>> line up with the left array. The right array stays where it began. Ghost >>> implies "transparent". This "lining up" is a key concept in J and needs >>> to be clearly shown. >>> >>> Once the right ghost array is moved and aligned with the left array, the >>> values of the ghost array should change to the sum result array, and the >>> transparent ghost sum array should become "real" (non-transparent, or >>> solid). This is the visual action that indicates the addition has been >>> performed. >>> >>> Only the ghost array values gets changed from the left array values to >>> the summed values when it is moved over the right array and becomes >>> solid. The underlying right array doesn't change at all. >>> >>> Once the ghost sum array had been solidified, it should be moved down >>> below the two original arrays. The two original arrays will be left as >>> they were when the process started. >>> >>> The variable-width font messed up the display I was trying to show. >>> Hopefully, this second cut ill look better. >>> >>> so you start with 2 + 3 >>> >>> and you end: 2 + 3 >>> >>> 5 NB. The 5 is the ghost array that started >>> on the right, moved to the left, changed >>> to the sum and solidified, and then >>> moved below the original two numbers. >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> you start 1 + 2 3 4 >>> >>> NB. In this example it might be good to >>> use a middle step to show how the >>> left arg is replicated: >>> >>> middle step 1 1 1 + 2 3 4 NB. The replicated ones could be "ghosted" >>> to indicate their temporary status. >>> >>> you end 1 + 2 3 4 NB. The replicated ones disappear as the >>> answer array is solidified and moved >>> 3 4 5 under the original equation >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> you start 1 2 3 + 4 5 6 >>> >>> you end: 1 2 3 + 4 5 6 >>> >>> 5 7 9 >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> you start 1 2 3 1 2 3 >>> 4 5 6 + 4 5 6 >>> 7 8 9 7 8 9 >>> >>> you end 1 2 3 1 2 3 >>> 4 5 6 + 4 5 6 >>> 7 8 9 7 8 9 >>> >>> 2 4 6 >>> 8 10 12 >>> 4 16 18 >>> >>> >>> Skip Cave >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> > > > > -- > Catherine Lathwell > http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
