switch startup warnings should ideally be three-state for each off/fwd/rev

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The switch startup warnings:

- It would be nice if three-state setting were used for each switch 
(ignore/forward/reverse), so that some do not need to be in any particular 
position, for example a backlight switch.

This could be designated with a three-state check box, containing either 
nothing, an up-arrow, or down-arrow, or "--"/ " "/ "+", or simply 
"Off"/"Fwd"/"Rev")

And as mentioned on the forum, I also find the check-box settings difficult to 
see, so would also prefer that if graphics are used, they should be easy to see 
and differentiate.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sch...@comcast.net on 26 May 2012 at 6:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Not so ideally considering eeprom and flash usage :)
Also on screen it will take two rows and more flash, and it will be very 
difficult to be set using autoswitches...

Original comment by romolo.m...@gmail.com on 26 May 2012 at 8:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It would require 1 more byte of eeprom, and no more screen real estate if 
indicating a switch warning is disabled by displaying its name as a lower case 
letter.

Which could be implemented such that upon the first menu key press, only the 
switches in their forward position will be activated, and upon the second menu 
key press, these active switch positions will be recorded as the desired 
default .  (But do acknowledge that more flash memory would be required, but 
possibly not much more, as much already exists to implement the current 
functionality.)

As just a thought.

Original comment by sch...@comcast.net on 26 May 2012 at 10:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 4 Jun 2012 at 12:53

• Changed state: Accepted
• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 4 Jun 2012 at 2:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I would also appreciate three-state checks of switches as schille suggested. 
But the method described by schile seems to me to be too complicated. 
Autodetection is very good working as is. I think we only need to be able to 
disable switches we dont want to be checked by regular method using arrow keys 
and MENU key. And yes, using lower/upper case letters is not bad idea.

Original comment by mho...@gmail.com on 4 Jun 2012 at 9:29

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Re: " I think we only need to be able to disable switches we dont want to be 
checked by regular method using arrow keys and MENU key."

Fine by me, the simpler the better.

Original comment by sch...@comcast.net on 4 Jun 2012 at 10:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

One way to implement the user interface would be ...

Have all switches default to "don't care" mode. Then, when the Switch Warning 
box is ticked (or if already ticked and [MENU] pressed on that line) activate 
switches as they are toggled, only. Hmmm. Let me try to explain that more 
simply ...

So, you go to the switch warning field. Initially, there'd be a row of dots 
perhaps, like so ...

------------------------
...
T-Warning  [ ]
S-Warning  [v]  ......   <=== here
Beep Ctr   RETA123ab
...
------------------------

Not the user toggles the switches that they want to have warnings for. This 
would either be a toggle to opposite position and back or simply one position 
-- in other words, change the switch at least once and leave it resting in the 
"safe"/ non-warning position. As this is being done, the display would light up 
the switches being toggled/changed, like so ...

------------------------
...
T-Warning  [ ]
S-Warning  [v]  T..0..
Beep Ctr   RETA123ab
...
------------------------

In that case above, the throttle hold and idle-0 switches are activated for 
warning. Of course, the existing system of making the switch display inversed 
for "safe = on" could apply -- and naturally, the display would update in real 
time as the switch was toggled back and forth.

(Settings would be saved to EEPROM in the usual manner, after a time of no 
changes being made or if that's too hard, then simply when the field or screen 
is exited.)

[MENU long] could reset all switches back to dots -- "no warning" mode. 
Removing the tick and setting it back again should NOT reset the switches to 
dots, to prevent frustration if [MENU] (not long) is pressed by accident.

Lots of words here, but I think quite intuitive to use, in practice. It should 
be easier to use than using buttons with a three-state toggle or something of 
that nature -- though I see no reason that could not also work. :-P (Dots make 
less sense then, so best use lower case or strike-through or something for 
non-warning state.)

Comments?

Original comment by gru...@gmail.com on 8 Aug 2012 at 8:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I suppose simply adding a feature to use button to display a strike-through 
letter (or a dot '.' in its place) for switch warning deactivation would also 
suffice. Some folks might think that is more intuitive. I just like the idea of 
being able to use the actual switches themselves to make the setting, so we 
don't need to think so hard about which switches the letter stand for, if that 
makes sense. Kind of how it is now -- actual switches set, rather than using 
buttons to select and program them.

Original comment by gru...@gmail.com on 8 Aug 2012 at 8:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The only down side to not using some form of the switches initial letter if its 
setup remains much like today, is that it may not be obvious which switch is 
deactivated if presented as a string. A strike-through we be fine if legible at 
the low resolution of the display, an underline or whatever might be better.  I 
just believe it would be nice to disable a few of switches from the startup 
warning on a model-by-model basis, however it's easiest and most intuitively 
accomplished is fine by me.

Original comment by sch...@comcast.net on 8 Aug 2012 at 1:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'd have thought it obvious that a switch is inactive if its letter does not 
appear.

Original comment by gru...@gmail.com on 9 Aug 2012 at 12:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Re:
> Comment 10 by gruvin@gmail.com , Today (29 minutes ago)
> I'd have thought it obvious that a switch is inactive if its letter does not 
appear.

You may be correct (after giving it more thought)?

Original comment by sch...@comcast.net on 9 Aug 2012 at 12:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Maybe. I think we'd need to actually experience it, to be sure. Thanks for the 
vote of confidence(?) though. :-D

Original comment by gru...@gmail.com on 9 Aug 2012 at 4:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 185 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by bson...@gmail.com on 27 Jan 2013 at 7:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'd really appreciate this one. I make the ELE switch my backlight and I don't 
want to get warnings if my light is on. I already know my light is on :-).

Original comment by arkrand...@gmail.com on 19 Jul 2013 at 10:02