My Giant Calculator

Have you ever noticed how many people keep a physical calculator next to their computer? The irony is almost palpable. My favorite is the calculator mousepad.

a huge calculator

Jef Raskin, in The Humane Interface, defends the practice of keeping a pocket calculator next to your PC:

It's true. Many of us keep a calculator beside our computers. Why do you need this simple-minded device when you have a whole computer in front of you? You need it because you have to go through contortions worthy of a circus sideshow in order to do simple arithmetic with the computer. There you are, tapping away at your word processor when you want to do a division: 375 packages of Phumuxx cost $248.93; what is the price for one package? On my computer, I have to open up a calculator window. To do this, I move my hand from the keyboard to the mouse, which I use to do a click-and-drag to open the calculator. Transferring my hands back to the keyboard, I type in the numbers I need or tediously cut and paste them from my document. Then I have to press a few more keys and finally copy the results into my document. Sometimes, the calendar window opens right on top of the very numbers I need, just to add insult to injury. In that case, I must use the mouse to move the calculator window out of the way before proceeding. It is much faster to grab a pocket calculator.

So what's wrong with good old calc.exe? Raskin ran a little experiment:

Using an experienced computer and calculator operator as my test subject, with his word processing program open before him, I measured the total time it took for him to pick up a calculator, turn it on, do a simple addition, and return his hands to the keyboard to resume typing. It took about 7 seconds. I then measured the time it took for him to use the built-in calculator. He had to move the cursor to the menu bar at the top of the screen, find the calculator program, open the calculator, enter the sum, and then click back in the word processor so he could resume typing. This took about 16 seconds.

I'm not sure why Raskin is so hell-bent on using the mouse to launch the calculator.

Mac OS calculators

Even on the Mac (where I assume this test was performed), there have to be keyboard shortcuts. On Windows, we'd need the following keystrokes to find the sum of 13 and 14 and paste the result in our word processor:

  • windows key + R to show the Run dialog

  • type calc, then press Enter to launch the calculator

  • type 14 + 13 = to perform the calculation

  • ctrl+c to copy the result

  • alt+f4 or alt+tab to switch back

  • ctrl+v to paste in the result

It's certainly possible to perform calculations without ever moving your hand from the keyboard. Many keyboards now have calculator buttons which would reduce the number of keypresses even further. I guarantee I could beat that 7 second time quoted for the physical calculator. But it's not exactly simple, is it?

Instead of keyboard acrobatics, Raskin proposes a simpler "do it anywhere" facility. Something built into the OS that obviates the need to spawn a seperate window for these kinds of helper functions:

Here's another facility that should be generally available: anywhere a number can be entered, you should be able to enter an arithmetic expression that evaluates to the number. Commands such as ..

  • Check the spelling of the current selection
  • Treat the current selection as an arithmetic expression and evaluate it
  • Transmit the current selection as an e-mail
  • Transmit the current selection as a fax
  • Let's see what's at this URL on the web
  • Execute the current selection as a Java (or whatever) program

.. should be available at all times. It is eminently doable.

I agree that the OS should be providing this kind of non-modal (non-window, even) functionality. The run menu is a (very) limited form of this, while SlickRun and ActiveWords go even further.

Users with calculator mousepads are no laughing matter. Whenever I see users like this, I'm reminded of how far we have to go in GUI design when the simple act of adding numbers together is so complicated.

Related posts

What does Stack Overflow want to be when it grows up?

What does Stack Overflow want to be when it grows up?

I sometimes get asked by regular people in the actual real world what it is that I do for a living, and here’s my 15 second answer: We built a sort of Wikipedia website for computer programmers to post questions and answers. It’s called Stack Overflow. As of

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

Civilized Discourse Construction Kit

Occasionally, startups will ask me for advice. That's a shame, because I am a terrible person to ask for advice. The conversation usually goes something like this: We'd love to get your expert advice on our thing. I probably don't use your thing. Even

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

How to Stop Sucking and Be Awesome Instead

I've been fortunate to have some measure of success in my life, primarily through this very blog over the last eight years, and in creating Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange over the last four years. With the birth of our twin girls, I've had a few

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

Books: Bits vs. Atoms

I adore words, but let's face it: books suck. More specifically, so many beautiful ideas have been helplessly trapped in physical made-of-atoms books for the last few centuries. How do books suck? Let me count the ways: * They are heavy. * They take up too much space. * They have

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments

Recent Posts

Stay Gold, America

Stay Gold, America

We are at an unprecedented point in American history, and I'm concerned we may lose sight of the American Dream.

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments
The Great Filter Comes For Us All

The Great Filter Comes For Us All

With a 13 billion year head start on evolution, why haven’t any other forms of life in the universe contacted us by now? (Arrival is a fantastic movie. Watch it, but don’t stop there – read the Story of Your Life novella it was based on for so much

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments
I Fight For The Users

I Fight For The Users

If you haven’t been able to keep up with my blistering pace of one blog post per year, I don’t blame you. There’s a lot going on right now. It’s a busy time. But let’s pause and take a moment to celebrate that Elon Musk

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments
The 2030 Self-Driving Car Bet

The 2030 Self-Driving Car Bet

It’s my honor to announce that John Carmack and I have initiated a friendly bet of $10,000* to the 501(c)(3) charity of the winner’s choice: By January 1st, 2030, completely autonomous self-driving cars meeting SAE J3016 level 5 will be commercially available for passenger use

By Jeff Atwood ·
Comments