On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 16:19 -0500, David VanHorn wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yeah, and some absolutely insist on that.  I did a article for Circuit
> > Cellar on digital power factor correction that came out about a year
> > ago.  I
> > submitted my schematics in nice readable form with the pins on the PIC
> > layed
> > out according to function.  They insisted on changing that so that they
> > were
> > layed out according to pin number.  I objected, but they insisted on doing
> > it their way.  I put the readable version of the schematic on my web site
> > so
> > I wouldn't look quite so stupid.
> 
> 
> Boy, do I know how you feel..
> The job of a schematic is to convey information. NOT to help you find pins.

Hmm, see, that's where there might be a disconnect between an
experienced person, and a lesser experienced person.

First off let me say that grouping pins on a part in a schematic based
on pin numbers is NOT the way I'd go. Grouping pins based on function is
FAR better (i.e. I prefer, when possible, powers on the top, grounds on
the bottom, inputs on the left, outputs on the right, bus bits grouped
together with associated pins (i.e. clocks). I'm not stuck to this
however, for example for a MAX232 I would put TTL levels on one side and
RS232 levels on the other.).

That said, let us consider the readers of a magazine such as Circuit
Cellar. While many of their readers are experienced and would prefer a
schematic with pins being grouped by function, let us consider the
lesser experienced readers.

These are readers new to electronics. They don't fully understand a
schematic. To them, a schematic has NOTHING to do with how the circuit
works, it's simply a recipe for building the circuit. To them, pins
assigned based on pin number is FAR easier to grasp since they are
holding the physical part in their hands. The function of each pin is
less important since they don't understand the circuit much anyways (if
you don't know what MCLR is, why does it matter where it goes on a part,
just connect it to this resistor thing that's connected to this power
supply thing).

Yes, some here will say "well, these beginners should get used to how
things are done properly", and I'd agree with them, to a point. What's
better in a magazine with such a distribution of reader skill sets: a
schematic that's a little harder to read for an experienced person, or a
schematic that's harder to reader for the beginner?

I'd say making the schematic easier for the beginner is the right
choice. The experienced person will be a little annoyed, but it won't
dissuade them very much. The beginner on the other hand will likely quit
VERY quickly if the schematic doesn't match what they are holding in
their hands.

As an author like Olin I would have also been annoyed, but I understand
their choice, and while I may not like it, I do agree it is the better
choice.

Just my opinion. TTYL

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist