Periodic table redesign

On Monday 17 May 2010 04:11:14 you wrote:

17.05.10, 00:55, “Marcus D. Hanwell” marcus@cryos.org:

On Friday 14 May 2010 16:45:27 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Have anybody noticed change of periodic table design? Do you like it?

Some of the colors don’t work on my monitor very well. Using LCD screens
with Qt 4.6.2 on Linux. Carbon is unreadable now, a few have poor
contrast.

As for carbon, strange. Maybe you like high lightness of monitor? This
version can explain why you like old dark design :slight_smile: Of course, algorithm
of color transformation can be changed to achieve better contrast

I don’t, and have looked at this on three monitors made by three
manufacturers. May be it would help to compare old and new side by side.

Not
sure why the bottom right has clickable black boxes (117/118).

I’m not sure what do you mean. I don’t see anything like this.

I will get some screenshots…

I prefered non-
bold (in my typeface at least), and it makes the three letter symbols
worse.

Oh, didn’t thought about it. Probably we need to set font family explicitly

I am guessing a lot of this is taste, and I designed the original layout
and quite liked it. Hence, I am probably quite biased towards the
original layout, but open to ideas for improvement. When you were
making the changes, what bothered you about the previous layout? I am
very interested from an interface design point of view - I was going
for compact and readable.

I didn’t like how colors looked on my monitors, especially on CRT one :slight_smile:
I wanted selected item to be more visible in table.
Black letters are not well readable on dark backgrounds
Bold font is more readable than thin

I am going to go out on a limb and say CRTs are a minority now, although I
have fond memories of them myself. I received no negative feedback about the
previous scheme, aside from you recently, so that might indicate it wasn’t
terrible. I think there are some regressions here, for me at least.

Theming could be an answer, I just never had time. I am willing to accept
there are some issues with the code (or me using a released OpenBabel, but
many others will do that too. At least it is contained in master where these
things can be tried.

Marcus

Have anybody noticed change of periodic table design? Do you like it?


Regards,
Konstantin

On Friday 14 May 2010 16:45:27 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Have anybody noticed change of periodic table design? Do you like it?

Some of the colors don’t work on my monitor very well. Using LCD screens with
Qt 4.6.2 on Linux. Carbon is unreadable now, a few have poor contrast. Not
sure why the bottom right has clickable black boxes (117/118). I prefered non-
bold (in my typeface at least), and it makes the three letter symbols worse.

I am guessing a lot of this is taste, and I designed the original layout and
quite liked it. Hence, I am probably quite biased towards the original layout,
but open to ideas for improvement. When you were making the changes, what
bothered you about the previous layout? I am very interested from an interface
design point of view - I was going for compact and readable.

Thanks,

Marcus

17.05.10, 00:55, “Marcus D. Hanwell” marcus@cryos.org:

On Friday 14 May 2010 16:45:27 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Have anybody noticed change of periodic table design? Do you like it?

Some of the colors don’t work on my monitor very well. Using LCD screens with
Qt 4.6.2 on Linux. Carbon is unreadable now, a few have poor contrast.

As for carbon, strange. Maybe you like high lightness of monitor? This version can explain why you like old dark design :slight_smile:
Of course, algorithm of color transformation can be changed to achieve better contrast

Not
sure why the bottom right has clickable black boxes (117/118).

I’m not sure what do you mean. I don’t see anything like this.

I prefered non-
bold (in my typeface at least), and it makes the three letter symbols worse.

Oh, didn’t thought about it. Probably we need to set font family explicitly

I am guessing a lot of this is taste, and I designed the original layout and
quite liked it. Hence, I am probably quite biased towards the original layout,
but open to ideas for improvement. When you were making the changes, what
bothered you about the previous layout? I am very interested from an interface
design point of view - I was going for compact and readable.

I didn’t like how colors looked on my monitors, especially on CRT one :slight_smile:
I wanted selected item to be more visible in table.
Black letters are not well readable on dark backgrounds
Bold font is more readable than thin


Regards,
Konstantin

Look at gelemental in “color by element” mode (View->color by)
It seems to use the same color scheme as we do, but element on dark background are made white. I thought that gradual change of font color could seem even better if font color is contrast enough. Maybe you could device better algorithm for color choice?

17.05.10, 00:55, “Marcus D. Hanwell” marcus@cryos.org:

On Friday 14 May 2010 16:45:27 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Have anybody noticed change of periodic table design? Do you like it?

Some of the colors don’t work on my monitor very well. Using LCD screens with
Qt 4.6.2 on Linux. Carbon is unreadable now, a few have poor contrast. Not
sure why the bottom right has clickable black boxes (117/118). I prefered non-
bold (in my typeface at least), and it makes the three letter symbols worse.

I am guessing a lot of this is taste, and I designed the original layout and
quite liked it. Hence, I am probably quite biased towards the original layout,
but open to ideas for improvement. When you were making the changes, what
bothered you about the previous layout? I am very interested from an interface
design point of view - I was going for compact and readable.

Thanks,

Marcus


Regards,
Konstantin

Здесь спама нет http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign

It seems to use the same color scheme as we do, but element on dark background are made white. I thought that gradual change of font color could seem even better if font color is contrast enough. Maybe you could device better algorithm for color choice?

I just got trunk working. I don’t like this gradual change of font color. I am not a graphic designer, but borrowing from some graphic design books, they say if you’re going to make a change, make a big one. So I think we should stick to black/white font colors.

-Geoff

I just got trunk working. I don’t like this gradual change of font color. I am not a graphic designer, but borrowing from some graphic design books, they say if you’re going to make a change, make a big one. So I think we should stick to black/white font colors.

OK. Checkout new version. Not sure about formal rule of black or white, but all black is surely not appropriate.


Regards,
Konstantin

Not sure why the bottom right has clickable black
boxes (117/118).

I’ve found why you got them - you had not-up-to-date OB with missing
117 and 118. I’ve made periodic table proof for such situations in
future, element without symbol is marked as invalid and not drawn
anymore


Regards,
Konstantin

On Saturday 22 May 2010 10:44:14 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Not sure why the bottom right has clickable black
boxes (117/118).

I’ve found why you got them - you had not-up-to-date OB with missing
117 and 118. I’ve made periodic table proof for such situations in
future, element without symbol is marked as invalid and not drawn
anymore

For reference, here are the two I see at present.

http://avogadro.openmolecules.net/wiki/PeriodicTableWidget

The carbon is not visible on either monitor here - both LCDs with default
settings of contrast/brightness etc. One LG 17", one Samsung 24".

Marcus

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:23:15 -0400
"Marcus D. Hanwell" marcus@cryos.org wrote:

http://avogadro.openmolecules.net/wiki/PeriodicTableWidget

Please, pull new version. I’ve reverted gradual color of fonts and bold
font.

But I didn’t see such invisible carbon on my devices


Regards,
Konstantin

On Saturday 22 May 2010 11:23:15 Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:

On Saturday 22 May 2010 10:44:14 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Not sure why the bottom right has clickable black
boxes (117/118).

I’ve found why you got them - you had not-up-to-date OB with missing
117 and 118. I’ve made periodic table proof for such situations in
future, element without symbol is marked as invalid and not drawn
anymore

For reference, here are the two I see at present.

http://avogadro.openmolecules.net/wiki/PeriodicTableWidget

The carbon is not visible on either monitor here - both LCDs with default
settings of contrast/brightness etc. One LG 17", one Samsung 24".

Looking at that again, I thought I added some code to make the darkest
elements use white text, but may be that did not make it in/got lost at some
stage. That is the approach I would favor.

Marcus