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

[Spectre_Dave]

Great Idea altenbach. 

Another point Why do we need two Boolean constants - one True and One False.  We have one numeric constant that we can format to our wishes but it seems like it is deemed necessary to have two boolean constants - that can be  toggled to the other state.

[tst]

Originally there was one constant. At some point NI created a merge VI with the T constant, presumably to save users some clicks when wanting a T constant. I don't have a problem with it and probably use it occasionally.

[parthabe]

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.

After reading all the comments, I was glued to Altenbach's new Bool constant. Also, from his above lines about the inspiration he got from & from the word "toggles", I also wish that it should be changeable after placing on the BD, like it is currently.

I didnt have the needed interest to read again all the comments to find if this has been already mentioned...

[Rod42]

Brilliant idea... and so simple! For value change, I dislike click to toggle, as it's too easy to do accidentally. On a numeric constant, the left click just selects, without changing and you need to type someting to change the value, so for consistancy, how about Left click selects and type "T" or "F" to choose a value. As for the colour of the false, perhaps grey or a dark green (by analogy with a default coloured LED indicator) but keep the inverse video.

[Wonger]

This is a great idea guys! I am working on implementing this change in 2010.

[WesReynolds]

This is a nice idea.. it allows booleans to show all they need and take up less space which is always good (generally... :)) for diagram clarity..

Message Edited by WesReynolds on 08-27-2009 08:35 PM

[JackDunaway]

Wonger... Does "working on" mean...

1. The idea has been approved, is on the 2010 features list, and you have been assigned to implement the task,

OR

2. You're campaigning R&D from the inside, trying to drum up support like we are?

[Wonger]

Jack: #1! This idea is on the feature list for 2010 and I am currently implementing it. I'm now changing the status to "In Development".

[AristosQueue (NI)]

Oh, Wonger, they're going to hold you to that, you know. In the words of Montogomery Scott to Geordi La Forge: "Aye, laddy, how can ye be known as a miracle worker if ye tell them how long it'll reeeeally take!?"

I wish you luck, and if your feature slips into 2011, may customers have mercy on you. 😉