--- al_lorona@agilent.com wrote:
> I have a theory on digital clocks. Whenever I see
> one, I have to imagine an analog clock face to get a
> 'feel' for what time it is. Sometimes you don't need
> to know that it's 7:38:17, but it may be very useful
> to know that you have about twenty minutes left to
> get where you're going before you're late, and you
> know this by merely glancing at the big hand.
> Digital clocks actually require an extra translation
> cycle in my head to tell the time.
Why do you need to try imagine anything? It simply
says what it says, I really don't understand this need
to convert things?? Would it then make more sense to
drawn pictures of clock hands on paper rather than
writing time out in numbers?? After all doesn't it
require conversion steps to translate a written time
to hand positions as well? If the clock says 7:38:17
and need to be somewhere by 8:00 it?s just simple
mental subtraction, and you don't need to be
particularly accurate either. I don't own a single
dial clock, and don't miss them a bit.
> So think about this for a second... the typical ham
> says, I don't want S-meters because they're passé. I
> want graphics that *look* like analog S-meters
> because they have more pizazz. A manufacturer does
> this because it's cheaper. But hams just eat up
> "innovations" like this. They embrace and then
> prefer them. In the limit, the virtual S-meter is
> preferred over the actual S-meter.
Actually I get the impression hams in general don't
want to give up their analog/mechanical S-meters for
anything. I'm actually annoyed with analog S-meters,
they typically have hair thin needles with lots of
little hard to read numbers and really don't tell me
much of anything meaningful. For most signal strength
"measuring" situations a simple 3 color, 10 - 15
segment bar graph tells me all that I need to know for
a QUICK signal report. It is also far easier to see at
a glance if there is any activity or not when you are
herding 3-4 radios around different bands at the same
time, analog S-meters make you stop, focus, and then
analyze to interpret anything. And if I'm really
interested in achieving detailed and accurate signal
measurements I want a radio to be able to capture, and
then integrate 1, 5, 10, or more seconds of a signal.
I would then have it tell me the maximum strength,
minimum strength, and average strength of the signal
for the chosen length of my measuring period. The
analog S-meter makes you try to do this in your head,
- talk about having a lot of translation and
interpretation to do...
> We now have radios with no controls whatsoever --the
> PC-controlled transceiver.
The few computer only control transceivers to date
have only achieved 10% of what is already possible to
achieve technically and relatively inexpensively. Not
enough hams are able to grasp the possibilities of the
concept; they seem to only want radios that pretty
much look, work, and feel like all the ones they?ve
had before have.
> Big LCD displays with
> graphics of knobs, buttons, and readouts, and a
> mouse to manipulate the controls. That's cool, but
> think about this for a second... the typical ham
> says, I don't want to have to actually *turn* knobs
> on a front panel, I'd rather use a mouse to turn the
> same knobs on a virtual front panel!
I agree with the "I don't want to have to actually
*turn* knobs..." sentiment, however I TOTALLY disagree
with using a mouse to turn a "virtual" knob on a
virtual panel. There really is no point in doing this,
- the point of a "no panel" radio is to use graphic
user interface designs that are optimized for use with
a computer mouse or other pointing device AND are
capable of showing us much more information about our
band(s) of interest. Trying to emulate or "virtualize"
a traditional radio panel on a computer screen is
generally counter-productive.
> Virtual reality is now preferable to actual reality.
> Of *course* virtuality buys you some things, but it
> adds a level of abstraction in the process which,
> instead of merely tolerated, is embraced by hams.
> It's preferred now. From here on out, all
> "innovation" in radio design is simply the effort to
> make virtual reality more like what we had in the
> first place: actual reality.
No virtual reality is not preferable. Having and using
NEW tools to LESSEN the mental abstraction that
"visualizing" the radio spectrum is would be
preferable. When you think about it a digital radio
frequency readout debate is very similar to the analog
clock vs. digital debate, but yet I do not hear much
clamoring by hams to give up their digital displays
anymore. It's funny, but back in the mid to late 70's
when I was SWL?ing the ham bands much of the general
sentiment was quite different, many were then saying
that there was no point to having digital readouts.
It's a similar situation today with spectrum displays,
- hmmm I wonder???
Unlike the clock analogy the radio spectrum is in
reality a continuum that we want to be able have as
much information about as possible, - at least for
contesters and DX'ers. That's why the spectrum scopes
on the recent Ten Tec and Icom radio models have
considerable appeal, but again they are only achieving
10-20% or so of what we should really be looking and
clamoring for.
Ironically the slide rule dials that were quite
popular throughout the 50's and 60's actually did a
better job of allowing us to visualize the radio
spectrum than the finely graduated circular dials and
digital readouts do. Today however we now have the
inexpensive technology to paint the slide rule with
both real-time AND historical band condition plus
signal presence data simultaneously. The trusty PSK31
waterfall is perhaps the most readily recognizable
example of this basic concept, - but on an audio
spectrum level.
> Our hardware is harder to visualize. A PC board with
> resistors and transistors might easily be identified
> as, say, a product detector, but a surface mount
> board with a DSP chip doesn't necessarily connote
> the same.
So now we are just increasingly confined to only
knowing/understanding the theory of circuit boards vs.
the components themselves on the circuit boards. This
is really the same old dilemma, - it's just at a
higher level than before. But is it truly any
different than not knowing the inner workings (beyond
theory) of a tube or transistor on a deep
chemical/molecular level?
> As most of you know, an old gimmick of mine is to
> assign 'homework'. So here's today's homework: Visit
> your local consumer electronics supermarket, and
> then compare and contrast the current trend in boom
> box design to the current trend in amateur radio
> transceiver ergonomics.
I've noticed a similar trend by comparing general
radio styling to automobile dash boards. They too seem
to track quite closely as well.
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|