I wonder if the author considered an input method where keypresses translate directly into a rendered equation? Symbolab kind of does this, so instead of writing an expression in some functional style and seeing its rendered output, I can directly manipulate the rendered equation with the keyboard. This calculator takes a point in the design space with text input, equation rendering, a grapher, and Big Int/Floats for number representation. Great work! I like how well considered the design is. Now my own opinion: an RPN calculator with a visible stack is more than enough to solve the problems that motivate points 1 + 2. The calculator should display the expression that has actually been evaluated. The calculator should display the expression during input, and allow you to correct any typing error you notice.
#Download free42 for imac full#
The calculator should not compute until you validate the full expression.
#Download free42 for imac software#
The other alternative is using the mouse to click every button, which is also slow.Īnd three of the requirements the author lists for a "good" software calculator: Software calculators force you to trust yourself to type the exact numbers/operations you want, or look back and forth between your keyboard and the screen, which is slow. Physical calculators keep the keys and the display in the same small visual space: you can see the buttons you're pressing and the screen at the same time, and you have good haptic feedback. Software calculators don't often give good feedback of what digits/buttons are being pressed. You don't need buttons on the screen, your keyboard already has the buttons. Most software calculators take up too much space. sort of, kind of, but also no - that's very not a root cause analysis. Because "nobody really cares" that it succeeds.
Much of science education dysfunction is like that. But we collectively don't get to it, for all the diverse reasons things aren't gotten to.
And it's possible to imagine interventions with broader impacts. Individually, it's not too hard to flip their state. Not teachers, professors, authors, publishers, reviewers, parents or students. In some sense, "nobody really cares" is an excellent description. It can be a wonderful fit for observations, and predictive of further observations of the undisturbed system, while also being a very poor model for planning and predicting interventions.įor example, from kindergarten to undergraduate, introductory astronomy content tells students the simply wrong color for the Sun. I emphasize this because the "nobody really cares" model can be very attractive, but also very misleading. Or recursively, a part might not have been built, because its multiple potential uses have not been gathered to incentivize it, or a part it in turn needs - an economic communication failure. For example, one can lack a part to build upon, because there are lots and lots of similar parts available, but all are variously not fit for purpose, or are collectively hiding the existence of a part that is - a prohibitive discovery cost (also effort dissipation). Yay patents./s But there are others, and subtleties. The "few parts to build upon" is indeed a mechanism for "large amount of work". Being impoverished (eg "Any cost, including attention, is an insurmountable cost barrier", or as in education, a chain-of-care disaster triage). Being unaware (eg "I didn't realize how bad it was until it stopped"). Some things resemble "nobody really cares", but are distinct. If these features are not available, this is because nobody really cares, and there are few pre-existing parts to build upon. Some much needed features are difficult to implement and require a large amount of work.
0 kommentar(er)
