1. 11

If anyone has a better title for this story, please comment.


  2. 25

    Great comment on that article.

    1. 4

      Yes, wow. No kidding. I had absolutely no idea this was a recurrent gripe… That commenter must have been pretty frustrated over the years.

    2. 19

      This design is inferior to a traditional calculator keypad layout.

      • Changing interfaces is inherently bad. This is almost certainly why Bell found the circular layout was accurately used by their test subjects: they were used to rotary dial phones! Since the last time I used a rotary dial was close to two decades ago and I suspect that’s unusually recent, I think it’s safe to say that result no longer applies.
      • With this layout, the buttons are much smaller than they could be in a grid layout. Did you know that humans operate touch screens by smushing at them with giant pudgy sausage fingers, and they can’t accurately judge the depth of what they’re poking at so they’re always off by a bit? It’s true! And so touchscreen interfaces need to be as large as possible.
      • Gestures are completely non-discoverable.

      An editable calculation history is a great idea, but the author didn’t invent it; not even close. It’s been a standard feature in graphing and computer calculators for decades. It doesn’t frequently show up in phone interfaces because of the huge amount of space used by the giant-finger-supporting interface, but I’m sure a little poking into the depths of the advanced calculators in various app stores would reveal a bunch that support it in some form or another.

      On the other hand, it’s just a calculator app, so the cost is absolutely minimal. If my criticism doesn’t hold, then I guess people will use it and like it, and it’ll be pretty straightforward to prove me wrong. It’s when changes to non-optional interfaces are made with flagrant disregard for user expectation and habit and poor consideration of the consequence that real problems arise.

      1. 5

        Link to the paper discussed in the article.

        1. 3

          I won’t be using it. I can type very fast on traditional keypads thank you very much.

          Is it just me or do I see a lot of articles starting with “Why I …” that all seem to sound the same?

          1. 2
            • Square in the Round.
            • Don’t Be Such a Square!

            or my personal favorite:

            • Why Round Numbers Win
            1. 2