New numbers interface: Your comments please

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:10 pm

So, I've been working pretty hard to come up with an interface for entering your numbers methods that is:
- more intuitive for newbies
- more forgiving of misclicks
- not rampantly exploitable like the current one
Those are tough criteria but I've had my best shot and the new interface is live from today.

I'm expecting a lot of complaints about it, which you're welcome to air in here, but please keep it constructive and resist the urge to reject the unfamiliar. There will no doubt be some teething issues to iron out, and maybe even some radical improvements that I haven't thought of, and I'd love to hear them. That's what this topic is for.

However I should say up front that I will not be changing it back to the old one, and I will not provide the option for you to choose. Please save yourself the time of suggesting that. Instead, direct your thoughts towards improving the new interface, rather than pining for the old one. It'll be worth it in the end.

Innis Carson · Post by **Innis Carson** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:36 pm

I'm getting used to it quickly, can see how this will make it less of a panic. One thing though, the white numbers are pretty hard to read on the buttons. Is there a reason for them not being black? Also if you end the round early with any declaration other than the exact target, it asks you if you're sure you want to end the round without declaring anything.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:42 pm

Innis Carson wrote:I'm getting used to it quickly, can see how this will make it less of a panic. One thing though, the white numbers are pretty hard to read on the buttons. Is there a reason for them not being black?

You just need to log out, the first version I pushed had some weird bug that meant the numbers came up white on some people's system (not mine, obviously.)

Also if you end the round early with any declaration other than the exact target, it asks you if you're sure you want to end the round without declaring anything.

That's been the case for a while, in fact I though I'd fixed it. Will have another go.

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Sun May 03, 2009 12:41 am

At least on my system here, "100" shows as "1.." in the tiles (at least the first time -- the second time, the tiles are wider and the whole thing fits). Probably not a huge deal for normal games, although I hear that hyper has more than one 3-digit number. I haven't seemed to be able to resize the window to make everything bigger either.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 03, 2009 1:37 am

Andrew Feist wrote:At least on my system here, "100" shows as "1.." in the tiles (at least the first time -- the second time, the tiles are wider and the whole thing fits). Probably not a huge deal for normal games, although I hear that hyper has more than one 3-digit number. I haven't seemed to be able to resize the window to make everything bigger either.

Ah, I've made the text smaller which should solve your problem. Let me know if not.

Andrew Feist · Post by **Andrew Feist** » Sun May 03, 2009 2:31 am

It did; thank you very much.

Ross Allatt · Post by **Ross Allatt** » Sun May 03, 2009 7:09 am

Morning Charlie, unfortunately for me, the first time I came across this was in today's Daily Duel which, cruelly imo, featured three numbers games. Because I wasn't expecting what came up, and still don't have the faintest idea what I was supposed to be doing, I failed on all three games (tbf, didn't even try the last one).

I still don't have the faintest idea how I was supposed to enter the answers as well

when I did 9-3 and it then asked you for the answer, there wasn't even a 6 visible for me to proceed.

I'm not a Luddite and I'm happy to embrace change, but feel a bit miffed that I've totally screwed up a Duel because of unfamiliarity with the procedure. I didn't think there was much wrong with what we had before - sure, if you fat fingered the answer then you lost but I always considered that to be my responsiblity to get right.

Steven Tew · Post by **Steven Tew** » Sun May 03, 2009 7:43 am

I totally agree with Ross. I came across the new numbers format on the duel and would have got two out of the three if I knew just how the hell it works. I am going to have to go back and do a numbers attack to see if I can figure it out, but not impressed so far... maybe I'll get it in the end, I'll let you know.

Steven Tew · Post by **Steven Tew** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:09 am

OK, I've tried a numbers attack now, and I think I have figured out how it works. I must admit, I can see the advantages, and it does look pretty cool, what with the whiteboard and everything. So, I was hasty, what can I say? Just a bit of a shock coming across it for the first time in a daily duel...

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:08 am

At first glance I like it. It overcomes the problem I've frequently had, of pressing a button - either a number or an operation - by mistake, and not being able to backtrack.

I've only tried it so far in practice mode, so still have to see how I get on in timed conditions, but at the moment, I'm definitely in favour of the new interface.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:14 am

Just done today's duel - the first numbers game was dead easy but as I didn't have a clue what I was doing with the new numbers interface, I completely screwed it up! But then on the second numbers game I realised what you needed to do and now prefer it.

I think there will be some moaners to start with but once they get used to it they will prefer it.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:56 am

Once again, I pressed the wrong key, this time, I started the duel, rather than a timed numbers game, so my first attempt with the new interface in timed conditions was with the duel.
The time allowed seems a lot more generous than previously, so no doubt you'll be refining that later. And I still cocked up one of the numbers games. However, I did manage to go back and pick the number I should've picked in one of the other numbers games, so got points whereas I'd have missed out with the old interface.
I definitely prefer the new, and am confident that I'll get used to it quickly.

Well done!

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Sun May 03, 2009 10:35 am

Just tried a Numbers Attack with the new system and it all seems pretty cool. One thing I'm not so keen on is the sprawl of it, with numbers all over the place; one thing that was perfect with the old system was the compactness of the interface. But I'm sure that's just the shock of the new.

The only thing I've not figured out yet is the "Restart line" button, as I couldn't get it to do anything at all. For instance, I clicked 75 - 8, but meant 75 + 8, so I thought "restart line" would wipe out the 75 - 8 on the whiteboard, but it didn't - the only options were to commit to the incorrect 75 - 8 or give up. Then that bitch Myleene Klass timed me out, the cow. Am I doing something wrong?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 03, 2009 10:46 am

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. In hindsight I should've
1) made sure that today's Duel didn't have numbers in
2) got the Help file written first (Matt saw the new interface at the same time as everyone else.)
3) remembered to make the Restart Line button do something

(although it seems no one has yet encountered the situation where that button is vital, which surprises me a bit.)

However compared to the shitstorm I was expecting, the feedback has been pretty positive, so thanks for that. More refinements will be rolled out over the next few days.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Sun May 03, 2009 10:55 am

I just did 4 practice rounds before the duel trying to see what the different buttons do (and I couldn't get "restart line" to work either) but one thing that confused me first off was the "first number" and "second number". I had the solution in my head but when there were twice as many numbers displayed on the screen I had forgotten my exact calculation and ended up trying to use a number twice as it was displayed twice. This confused me a bit but I'm sure I'll get used to it.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Sun May 03, 2009 11:11 am

Kirk Bevins wrote:... I had forgotten my exact calculation ...

Me too. It's very likely that I'd forgotten mine because the unfamiliarity of the new interface wiped part of my memory. So, until I, for one, am more practised with the new interface, it's even more important than before to have the solution written down somewhere.

Karen Pearson · Post by **Karen Pearson** » Sun May 03, 2009 1:52 pm

This morning, when I did the Duel, the numbers were black on white. I just played another game and the numbers were white on white. It took me a while to realise they were there at all.

For what it's worth, I think I prefer the numbers just to appear once (i.e. not either side of the equation) as I kept forgetting to click on the right for the second number and kept buggering it up (to use a technical term) but clicking on another number on the left. But I do like the fact that, if I click on + instead of -, I can correct it (that's something I seem to do a fair amount!).

Also, the 'Patience' doesn't seem to start running out until you actually start an equation. Does this not give an advantage to those who just put down the exact target and then give themselves extra time to work it out? Probably doesn't make any difference in a normal game but it might in a speed game. (But, I might have misunderstood the way it works!)

Barry Evans · Post by **Barry Evans** » Sun May 03, 2009 3:22 pm

Just one thought - I'm not a huge fan of the new numbers layout. But I can see how it could be easier when using a more conventional method to solve the game...

A couple of frustrating things are the fact that you cant add three numbers together in one go (I know you can add 2, confirm, then add the third - but it is a little annoying!) and the fact that when u have finished you have to confirm before it accepts it - I keep seeing "give up" when I think i've finished. Probably something can be got used to though.

Just one thought - is there anyway to opt in or out or the new inputs method? Perhaps in the user settings - after chatting to a couple of people on the game this is the consensus from a couple people! Please!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 03, 2009 3:32 pm

Barry Evans wrote:Just one thought - is there anyway to opt in or out or the new inputs method?

Charlie Reams wrote:However I should say up front that I will not be changing it back to the old one, and I will not provide the option for you to choose. Please save yourself the time of suggesting that.

Barry Evans · Post by **Barry Evans** » Sun May 03, 2009 3:45 pm

Ah - I'm very sorry

- I read all the other posts but must have missed that part of your post! To improve this one then, it would be good to be able to do things with more than two numbers at a time. When thinking it through I find myself working out a solution then having to think again as to how I would put it in. Also - could the digits at either side be a bit bigger? I dont know about other ppl but I find myself misclicking as much or perhaps more with the new system!

Once again - very sorry for not properly reading the initial post! Hope these suggestions are more helpful!

Lisa Thomson · Post by **Lisa Thomson** » Sun May 03, 2009 4:50 pm

I havn't been getting on very well with it. I miss the brackets. I was putting in 90 x (3+2) and would normally use the brackets other than clicking 3+2 first. Maybe I'll get used to it.

Lisa Thomson · Post by **Lisa Thomson** » Sun May 03, 2009 5:26 pm

Also, I can't see a restart line button?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 03, 2009 5:46 pm

Some improvements are now up:
1) Slightly larger buttons.
2) You can now do multiple adds/multiplies in a line.
3) Reset button now works.

Give it a whirl.

Lisa Thomson · Post by **Lisa Thomson** » Sun May 03, 2009 6:03 pm

Great, thanks Charlie! Will take some getting used to but I do think it is an improvement.

Lee Simmonds · Post by **Lee Simmonds** » Sun May 03, 2009 7:52 pm

Howard Somerset wrote:
Kirk Bevins wrote:... I had forgotten my exact calculation ...
Me too. It's very likely that I'd forgotten mine because the unfamiliarity of the new interface wiped part of my memory. So, until I, for one, am more practised with the new interface, it's even more important than before to have the solution written down somewhere.

Me three! I think this is because you need to see the numbers showing as they were when you worked out the solution, so the new layout is not conducive to that. However, it is just a case of getting used to I guess.

Lesley Hines · Post by **Lesley Hines** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:09 pm

On the whole I'm really chuffed. Now I've worked out how to work it I really like the way you can retract your misclicks etc. before they're committed to a 'give up' for all time. As a suggestion I do think having two lists of numbers is slightly counter-intuitive (although I can see the logic), and preferred the horizontal layout, although I realise that may be purely personal. I also like the way steps are displayed on notepaper at the top - it's a useful feature.

Don't suppose you could now add some suggestions from Rachel / Carol / Myleene for excuses for my utterly shite maths? I'm fast running out of them!

tonywarren · Post by **tonywarren** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:17 pm

Tripped up first few times I used it. Will eventually get the hang of it. Would like the original numbers in order permanently displayed during solution. I could write them down if only I could use a pen.

Darren Carter · Post by **Darren Carter** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:26 pm

Much better now, thanks.

Steve Rogers · Post by **Steve Rogers** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:43 pm

Liking what I'm seeing. Only comment is that I miss having the brackets available - but getting used to it. Good stuff Charlie.

Howard Somerset · Post by **Howard Somerset** » Sun May 03, 2009 11:42 pm

After a few goes I'm liking this a lot better than previously. I still tend to pick two number from the left column, generally as the last move in a solution. But there's always time to correct it.

Best new facility, IMO, is the ability to change before confirm. And it's usually a mistype that necessitated the change.

Rob Thomas · Post by **Rob Thomas** » Tue May 05, 2009 10:19 am

Yep, the new interface is good. Took me couple of goes to get the general idea, couple more to stop choosing numbers always from the left-hand column, and now I really like it. Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that it more closely mimics the order in which you give your solution on the TV show, and I think the "commit to" idea neatly simulates how far you could get on the show before you wouldn't be allowed to make a correction.

Impressed with the bold step of changing it fairly radically, and I like the approach of "i'm not going to change it" - wish I could get away with that at work!

Rob

Steven Tew · Post by **Steven Tew** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:03 pm

AAARGGGGHHHHH

Just as you get used to the new interface, another comes along. First meeting - Daily Duel. Bombed out again.

Phil Reynolds · Post by **Phil Reynolds** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:37 pm

EXCELLENT. Today's refined version is much more intuitive, clear and flexible. Charlie, were I the kind of linguistically challenged person who uses phrases such as "you rock" and "awesome", I would be loading up my verbal trebuchet and flinging them liberally at you right now.

JimBentley · Post by **JimBentley** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:41 pm

Wow, just tried a few rounds with the revised new interface and it's totally excellent. Changing the number orientation from vertical to horizontal is the biggest plus point, it's all very neat and compact and it all seems to work perfectly. Cheers, Charlie, I can't see how this can be improved.

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Tue May 05, 2009 6:17 pm

Thanks so much for the positive feedback, this cheers me up a lot. I really went "through the wall" (as marathon runners say) yesterday, since getting everything to work was quite remarkably difficult and the final version of the code was pushed out at about 4 o'clock this morning. Thanks to Sid who suggested a lot of the improvements, and to Matt who listened to me saying "oh shit" every few minutes for most of the time I was doing it. There are probably still a few tweaks to make but I'm pretty sure this is the final version (if not the final sub-version) of this particular interface. Phew.

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:13 pm

I don't like it.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:42 pm

Jon Corby wrote:I don't like it.

Yeah, can we go back to the old one? (Or at least have the option to choose?)

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:40 pm

I'm loving the new interface. All it needs now is brackets.

kevin manthorpe · Post by **kevin manthorpe** » Fri May 08, 2009 12:33 am

Tidy!

Just a couple of minor requests to perhaps make it a tad more visually user-friendly...

-Can the declaration target be more prominent or centred?

-Is it possible to (quickly) undo an operation after a slip of the mouse?

-And could the <Give Up> button be a bit further away or off centre from the <Commit to> button at completion?

Think everyone's pretty much agreed that it beats the previous version, unless you're a brackets-o-saurus!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Fri May 08, 2009 2:40 am

kevin manthorpe wrote: -Can the declaration target be more prominent or centred?

Not really without making the window taller, which I understand is a problem for people with small screens.

-Is it possible to (quickly) undo an operation after a slip of the mouse?

Yes, it is...

-And could the <Give Up> button be a bit further away or off centre from the <Commit to> button at completion?

Good idea, it should probably be out of the way on the left since you'd rarely want to click it unless you get timed out anyway.

Think everyone's pretty much agreed that it beats the previous version, unless you're a brackets-o-saurus!

I may restore the brackets at some point, but I'd have to think of some smart way to stop it being totally exploitable.

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Fri May 08, 2009 1:02 pm

Charlie Reams wrote: I may restore the brackets at some point, but I'd have to think of some smart way to stop it being totally exploitable.

Perhaps use a "bracket last operation" button similar to equals, but which doesn't display the result in the new box. This way anyone wanting extra time to check their calculations as they go along doesn't have that luxury, and as now you'd simply for example go 25x7+2 (B) 4+2 (B) 1st sum x 2nd sum = ?

Potentially problematic as long operations won't fit on a button, perhaps only reveal one answer after 2nd sum has been bracketed so that it remains undoable but people don't lose the thread. I think though the best advice for people is to make notes all the time even if not in soln form so they remember their steps, it's particularly easy if you've got a soln early on but tried to get closer by a different method, to forget working, or to scramble to write sth coherent in notes at the end of a close find.

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri May 08, 2009 4:35 pm

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: I may restore the brackets at some point, but I'd have to think of some smart way to stop it being totally exploitable.
Perhaps use a "bracket last operation" button similar to equals, but which doesn't display the result in the new box. This way anyone wanting extra time to check their calculations as they go along doesn't have that luxury, and as now you'd simply for example go 25x7+2 (B) 4+2 (B) 1st sum x 2nd sum = ?

Potentially problematic as long operations won't fit on a button, perhaps only reveal one answer after 2nd sum has been bracketed so that it remains undoable but people don't lose the thread. I think though the best advice for people is to make notes all the time even if not in soln form so they remember their steps, it's particularly easy if you've got a soln early on but tried to get closer by a different method, to forget working, or to scramble to write sth coherent in notes at the end of a close find.

Good idea but this doesn't stop errors such as typing 50x10+2 when you want to do 50x(10+2). As soon as 50 and times is clicked I'd be thinking "shit".

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:27 pm

Tough. The smart apterousite would do
10+2=12
50x12 (B/=)

Kevin Davis · Post by **Kevin Davis** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:50 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
kevin manthorpe wrote: -Can the declaration target be more prominent or centred?
Not really without making the window taller, which I understand is a problem for people with small screens.

Perhaps having the "markerboard" taking up 2/3 of the top of the screen, and the total in the other third?

Kai Laddiman · Post by **Kai Laddiman** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:50 pm

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:Tough. The smart apterousite would do
10+2=12
50x12 (B/=)

Is that a guy with his glasses on his head?

Kirk Bevins · Post by **Kirk Bevins** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:51 pm

Daniel O'Dowd wrote:Tough. The smart apterousite would do
10+2=12
50x12 (B/=)

But sometimes you don't think right when under pressure. Have you thought about going on the show?

Daniel O'Dowd · Post by **Daniel O'Dowd** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:57 pm

I took a failed audition in 2003 and were I to reach a high enough level through le apterous, I would certainly go back on, but being such a perfectionist and devoting a lot more time to chess than regular aptostudy, I'm unsure I have the willpower to get good enough to guarantee myself a (personally) respectable performance.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:13 pm

It was obvious to me how to retract a misclick on the first version of the new interface, but on the current one I just can't see how. Instead of confirming my sum just now, I clicked on the multiply button by accident, and at that point, the only option I appeared to have was to give up. I tried clicking the multiply button again, but it was greyed out, as was everything else.

Is there a way out of this?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:27 pm

Ian Volante wrote:It was obvious to me how to retract a misclick on the first version of the new interface, but on the current one I just can't see how. Instead of confirming my sum just now, I clicked on the multiply button by accident, and at that point, the only option I appeared to have was to give up. I tried clicking the multiply button again, but it was greyed out, as was everything else.

Is there a way out of this?

No, you have to make sure you pick the right number before you pick the operation, and vice versa.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:28 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:It was obvious to me how to retract a misclick on the first version of the new interface, but on the current one I just can't see how. Instead of confirming my sum just now, I clicked on the multiply button by accident, and at that point, the only option I appeared to have was to give up. I tried clicking the multiply button again, but it was greyed out, as was everything else.

Is there a way out of this?
No, you have to make sure you pick the right number before you pick the operation, and vice versa.

Hmm, didn't the earlier version have the ability to unclick any button that was pressed?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:53 pm

Ian Volante wrote:Hmm, didn't the earlier version have the ability to unclick any button that was pressed?

You can unclick any button that's pressed, but you have to do it at the time rather than later. It's clearly exploitable to be able to go "3, times, no, I mean 4 times".

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:56 pm

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:Hmm, didn't the earlier version have the ability to unclick any button that was pressed?
You can unclick any button that's pressed, but you have to do it at the time rather than later. It's clearly exploitable to be able to go "3, times, no, I mean 4 times".

SUrely clicking X instead of = isn't exploitable though, and I couldn't unclick X immediately.

Michael Wallace · Post by **Michael Wallace** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:02 pm

Ian Volante wrote:SUrely clicking X instead of = isn't exploitable though, and I couldn't unclick X immediately.

If you've got an X in a numbers game you've probably got more to worry about than misclicks.

Ian Volante · Post by **Ian Volante** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:04 pm

Michael Wallace wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:SUrely clicking X instead of = isn't exploitable though, and I couldn't unclick X immediately.
If you've got an X in a numbers game you've probably got more to worry about than misclicks.

Bloody raccoons get everywhere!

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Sun May 10, 2009 4:35 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:Hmm, didn't the earlier version have the ability to unclick any button that was pressed?
You can unclick any button that's pressed, but you have to do it at the time rather than later. It's clearly exploitable to be able to go "3, times, no, I mean 4 times".
SUrely clicking X instead of = isn't exploitable though, and I couldn't unclick X immediately.

Really? You should be able to. If it happens again, send me a screenshot.

Alice Moore · Post by **Alice Moore** » Sun May 10, 2009 9:05 pm

I guess I'd make a rubbish cheat cos I can't see how the brackets function is exploitable. Would somebody mind humouring me and explain why brackets are bad?

Although I can see how the new system would be quicker to grasp for someone who'd never played Apterous before, I'm afraid it has made it more likely that I'll get an unjustified fail. I quite often think in terms of "right, I'm multiplying by 8..." so I click 8 x, and then I think "What am I multiplying by 8? Ah yes, 100 + 3"... at which point I'm scuppered, because there's no way for me (I don't think - although I'd love for someone to tell me I'm wrong?) to create the 100 + 3 without using brackets.

Obviously the answer is to do the 100 + 3 first, but my brain just doesn't work that way, particularly under pressure. Seems a bit much for me to have to rewire my brain just so that I can pass the numbers rounds?

Dinos Sfyris · Post by **Dinos Sfyris** » Sun May 10, 2009 9:52 pm

Alice Moore wrote:I guess I'd make a rubbish cheat cos I can't see how the brackets function is exploitable. Would somebody mind humouring me and explain why brackets are bad?

Haven't tried it myself but could you stall by opening several brackets while you think about what to put inside them?

eg ((((((((75-9)x6))))))) or whatever

Jon Corby · Post by **Jon Corby** » Mon May 11, 2009 7:55 am

Dinos Sfyris wrote:
Alice Moore wrote:I guess I'd make a rubbish cheat cos I can't see how the brackets function is exploitable. Would somebody mind humouring me and explain why brackets are bad?
Haven't tried it myself but could you stall by opening several brackets while you think about what to put inside them?

eg ((((((((75-9)x6))))))) or whatever

Couldn't you therefore just make it so that brackets don't reset the timer?

Charlie Reams · Post by **Charlie Reams** » Mon May 11, 2009 12:18 pm

Jon Corby wrote:Couldn't you therefore just make it so that brackets don't reset the timer?

I could do that. Then someone will complain that they don't have enough time to click a bracket and a number. Then I'll tell them to STFU.

So yeah, okay, I'll add some brackets.

tonywarren · Post by **tonywarren** » Mon May 11, 2009 9:33 pm

Been too busy training Carol for 19th to get on every day. Liked and got the hang of most of the developmental versions. Tried today and failed miserably. For me it sucks donkey balls. Nothing is where I expect it to be, can't read the operators without my glasses, can't use my glasses with the computer, in short I really hate it. Can't even say I'll get used to it. Any of the intervening attempts to improve the interface would have been alright, but this