Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!emory!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!cs.widener.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!bogaha!hoford
From: hoford@bogaha.circ.upenn.edu (John Hoford CIRC)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: HP-28 to HP-48 changes
Message-ID: <39091@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 91 17:16:55 GMT
References: <20898@shlump.nac.dec.com> <25590122@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.> <1991Mar13.140731.11318@schaefer.math.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: bogaha.circ.upenn.edu

In article <1991Mar13.140731.11318@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> mueller@schaefer.UUCP (Carl Mueller) writes:
>This tells me that some thought went into the design of the 48.  (And not
>just thought about what wonderful functions can be crammed into one 
>calculator.)
>Carl Mueller (mueller@math.wisc.edu)

I am always amazed at how well all the functions fit
together and how they have designed this aspect of the 
keyboard.

Was there any formal Process used to improve the user interface?
Or was it just discussed internaly and a decision made?

eg.
Why was Y^X chosen over LOG as the top button? 
Was a survey taken of function usage to determine the choices?

John D. Hoford