On May 4, 2007, at 6:59 AM, Rick, NJ0IP / DJ0IP wrote:
I don't think I will like the display on the K3.
It seems to be the same as the K2 and I never cared for it much,
except that
its current drain was low (which was great).
This is rather odd. The K2 and K3 displays are rather different.
The K2 display was/is a simple 7 segment LCDs with a handful of
slightly cheesey chevrons for indicating features along with a couple
of extra 7 segments pressed into service as annunciators.
<http://www.elecraft.com/ft/2002/k2100med.jpg>
The K3 display from the prototype pictures is a larger and more
readable with better indicators (and more graphics) and annunciators
made from words or icons.
<http://www.elecraft.com/K3/K3_640_v2.jpg>
If the K3 is to be viewed as a main rig for home use, then I would
appreciate a better display.
Better in what way? I'm curious how you define better?
The K3 seems to be using a variation of the standard display we've
seen since LCDs appeared on xcvrs in the last decade or so.
What would you prefer? 1/4 VGA (or larger) color LCD in the middle?
Very different UI? A computer controlled UI like Pegasus?
One of the design goals for the K3 is "still portable with top of the
range performance" which is a different goal than the top-end TT
"furniture that speaks" approach for a radio to be installed in one
location. Depending on your usage one is better than the other. The
big radio makes it easier to put other stuff into it or on it's front
panel.
Of course we are now at the point were rigs and front panels don't
have to be in the same place or even have a one to one correspondence.
Engineering is all about trades offs. As they say "an engineer does
for a dime what any damn fool can do for a dollar". The same is true
of the person who designs the interaction with the radio. And Wayne
is one of those odd guys with a background both in RF engineering and
cognitive science.
Of course until we've played with one we won't actually know how it
"feels".
--
Kevin Purcell
kevinpurcell@pobox.com
| 
