You are missing overly complicated artsy fartsy logo of the maker, that one spent 10x more time to draw that the schematic itself.
It's a solid effort but you missed an opportunity by using clear and standardized symbols for the logic functions. Drawing the chip as a block, with the pins in order, can do wonders for illegibility. Pin names are optional. This works especially well in op-amp circuits, using dual or quad parts. Makes even the most basic and well known circuit topologies unrecognizable without redrawing them from scratch.
It's a solid effort but you missed an opportunity by using clear and standardized symbols for the logic functions. Drawing the chip as a block, with the pins in order, can do wonders for illegibility. Pin names are optional. This works especially well in op-amp circuits, using dual or quad parts. Makes even the most basic and well known circuit topologies unrecognizable without redrawing them from scratch.
You are missing overly complicated artsy fartsy logo of the maker, that one spent 10x more time to draw that the schematic itself.
You are missing overly complicated artsy fartsy logo of the maker, that one spent 10x more time to draw that the schematic itself.
Which must be replicated in the solder mask at all cost. Preferably in colour.
Excellent (not!) pin description for the ATTiny85. Forgot about that "style".In my defense, I didn't draw it myself; it's what EasyEda provides for ATtiny85-20PU. Should've drawn my own; I hate those extra-long pin descriptions.
I think the isolated R1/10k technique has been mentioned elsewhere.I originally had a reset button there, but I realized it wasn't needed, so simplified to a single pull-up resistor instead. Should've moved it, though.
In my defense, I didn't draw it myself; it's what EasyEda provides for ATtiny85-20PU. Should've drawn my own; I hate those extra-long pin descriptions.
In my defense, I didn't draw it myself; it's what EasyEda provides for ATtiny85-20PU. Should've drawn my own; I hate those extra-long pin descriptions.
Excellent (not!) pin description for the ATTiny85. Forgot about that "style".In my defense, I didn't draw it myself; it's what EasyEda provides for ATtiny85-20PU. Should've drawn my own; I hate those extra-long pin descriptions.
Symbol colors (including pin legs) cannot be changed except by creating a copy of the symbol. All symbols are public and discoverable. Wire colors are my fault; they default to green. I use red for power rails and black for grounds. In this one, green indicates max. 12V signals, blue max. 5V signals.
I think the isolated R1/10k technique has been mentioned elsewhere.I originally had a reset button there, but I realized it wasn't needed, so simplified to a single pull-up resistor instead. Should've moved it, though.
Also, R6 should really be on the +5V side instead of the wiper. It's purpose is to ensure an accidental short between any of the three pins is not dangerous, because the pot is remote, connected using a 3-pin JST PH2.0 connector.
So, it's partially an issue with the symbols LCSC has provided for EasyEda, and partially newbies like myself trying to create modular, easily modified schematics. It's not about trying to be annoying; we just don't know how to do better, yet!
Besides, now you know exactly how Linux developers feel when long-time Windows users are asking why doing X in Linux is so hard, what is the best program to replace Y, and why nothing makes much sense in Linux. >:D
I've long suspected that EasyEDA is the instigatorAs with most software siso applies
It's not a particularly new phenomenon either - see attached example from mid-2000s.They were not sending the best and the brightest to be apps engineers back then either.
Which is very easy to do in EasyEda. :)Yes – see documentation example (https://docs.easyeda.com/en/SchematicLib/SchLib-Create/) (HTML guide).
I would have deleted all the irrelevant possible uses of each pin. If it being used as MISO, then it cannot also be AIN1.That requires editing the symbol, essentially making your own private copy of it. The pin name texts are not editable in the EasyEda schematic editor, only in the symbol editor. It is less work to just redraw ones own symbol, and I do often do, both symbols and footprints.
Using EasyEDA isn't an excuse :)I didn't intend any of it as such; only as an explanation.
I would have deleted all the irrelevant possible uses of each pin. If it being used as MISO, then it cannot also be AIN1.That requires editing the symbol, essentially making your own private copy of it. The pin name texts are not editable in the EasyEda schematic editor, only in the symbol editor. It is less work to just redraw ones own symbol, and I do often do, both symbols and footprints.
...
but routing the wires in the schematic was hard; I tried a couple of component layouts, but they all became spaghetti.
Again, colors indicate signal type (blue is analog, cyan is digital, green is almost-DC –– except for EXTCLOCK, which either isn't used or is 32 MHz).
Because of this, I do claim that this kind of splitting is done because properly connecting the wires is way harder (without creating an even more horrible mess), when you don't have the experience yet in placing the components so the wires fall at least halfway neatly. Using net labels like I have here is simpler; I just didn't know how deeply annoying this is to more experienced people.
Is that just your convention, or the tool convention - and how is a new reader meant to know that?Not a convention, something I'm experimenting with, to make it easier to understand how the parts interact. The colors are only informative; nothing of significance would be lost if all were the same color. I describe the colors in the post where I explain each part of the circuit.
The software equivalent is code using "goto name", instead of if-the-else, while, exceptions. That has been deprecated for half a century.No, it is not. goto is still useful in structured cleanup, when nested do { ... } while(0) "loops" would require extra state variables or excessive nesting.
.... schematic ....
Wow, lively discussion here. The topic seems to have struck a nerve (which is why I started it).
Professional engineers (yes, I'm one) hate dealing with bad documentation. We're paid by the hour, and the "Little Boxes" schematics are total time-wasters.
Anyway, I promised the original schematic and here it is (feel free to comment on that as well).
I repeat the "modern" version for easy comparison.
Cheers.
Wow, lively discussion here. The topic seems to have struck a nerve (which is why I started it).
Page 13:
-MOSFET symbols. The what?
-The person who made this drawing placed the pin numbers on the inside and the description on the outside of the symbols... Honey, this shit doesn't generate a netlist, must call the help desk.
What would make drawing your schematic with wires easier, is when you use the proper logic symbol for inverters and buffers like the 74125 you used in different forms. (single gate, quad gate) Then you can have the left to right signal flow and place the gate in series with the wires, instead of having to bend around the rectangle with pins on either one or two or even four sides.This situation seems analogous to comments in source code. To me, source code and schematics are the implementation of the desired logic. Source code comments describe the intent. For schematics, that is in external documentation, like the posts here where I describe the ideas and reasoning behind each part of the schematic.
What would make drawing your schematic with wires easier, is when you use the proper logic symbol for inverters and buffers like the 74125 you used in different forms. (single gate, quad gate) Then you can have the left to right signal flow and place the gate in series with the wires, instead of having to bend around the rectangle with pins on either one or two or even four sides.This situation seems analogous to comments in source code. To me, source code and schematics are the implementation of the desired logic. Source code comments describe the intent. For schematics, that is in external documentation, like the posts here where I describe the ideas and reasoning behind each part of the schematic.
However, this is a lot of extra work that does not help whoever created the schematic, when their main purpose is to create the PCB.
...
Doing it the stupid way is not wrong per se, just less useful and less clear than it could be; incomplete as a product, but understandable for hobby stuff.
(Me, I'm starting to think I might want to create my own schematic editor, because it would definitely be possible to construct a graphical UI that encouraged "good taste" more than EasyEda and KiCad do. In particular, combining and splitting symbols into packages and vice versa would make this easier, and also solve the pin selection issues. EasyEda already shows browsers are fully featured enough and fast enough so HTML+JavaScript should suffice, even without a network connection... :-/O)
You don't seem to know much about KiCAD, but this is what your much-quoted 74125 looks like there. No boxes in sight.You don't seem to understand the difference between an user interface and a symbol library.
You seem to have quite a big mouth, Benta, but very little to show to back that up. I am starting to believe you have very little to contribute, only a lot of complaints.
However, this is a lot of extra work that does not help whoever created the schematic, when their main purpose is to create the PCB. Splitting the ICs into the logical components they implement shows some, but not all, the reasons for picking specific ICs. It is like having the source code properly commented, explaining the algorithms and choices made for each function: good to have, but not necessary when most users will simply compile it without any modifications, or extend its functionality without changing any of the choices made. Doing it the stupid way is not wrong per se, just less useful and less clear than it could be; incomplete as a product, but understandable for hobby stuff.
It of course also depends on the intent of the schematic. If it is just for personal use to get to an error checked PCB, who gives a f***. When the intention is it to be for service and has to be read by a wider audience, than yes, you better make sure it is a good readable schematic. But there is a learning curve, and with new technology come new methods and options.
Wow, lively discussion here. The topic seems to have struck a nerve (which is why I started it).
Professional engineers (yes, I'm one) hate dealing with bad documentation. We're paid by the hour, and the "Little Boxes" schematics are total time-wasters.
Just so. Life is too short to waste time wondering whether someone creating a circuit and schematic is ignorant or lazy - or has worthwhile ideas. Nowadays there is so much stuff clamouring for our attention that it is necessary to quickly decide what to ignore. An incompetent schematic is a good reason to ignore something.
Just so. Life is too short to waste time wondering whether someone creating a circuit and schematic is ignorant or lazy - or has worthwhile ideas. Nowadays there is so much stuff clamouring for our attention that it is necessary to quickly decide what to ignore. An incompetent schematic is a good reason to ignore something.
No one is forcing us to be on the forum and review other peoples work. If someone asks for a bit of help and the schematic is crap, than the options are to either walk away and ignore it completely, or just get over your own personal preferences and do a bit of work to understand the intent and give some guidance. Maybe a hint to how a schematic can be drawn better, but the full on bashing and pounding I have seen from some of the members is over the top.
Unless the recipient is "asking" for it of course. Some art and robot springs to mind :-DD
Just so. Life is too short to waste time wondering whether someone creating a circuit and schematic is ignorant or lazy - or has worthwhile ideas. Nowadays there is so much stuff clamouring for our attention that it is necessary to quickly decide what to ignore. An incompetent schematic is a good reason to ignore something.
No one is forcing us to be on the forum and review other peoples work. If someone asks for a bit of help and the schematic is crap, than the options are to either walk away and ignore it completely, or just get over your own personal preferences and do a bit of work to understand the intent and give some guidance. Maybe a hint to how a schematic can be drawn better, but the full on bashing and pounding I have seen from some of the members is over the top.
Unless the recipient is "asking" for it of course. Some art and robot springs to mind :-DD
On a forum, I tend to agree. Unfortunately it occurs more widely that that.
I see it associated with things people are trying to sell, or where they are using the schematic to illustrate their coolness/competence/etc and/or I am trying to work out the crux of what they are claiming.
What would make drawing your schematic with wires easier, is when you use the proper logic symbol for inverters and buffers like the 74125 you used in different forms. (single gate, quad gate) Then you can have the left to right signal flow and place the gate in series with the wires, instead of having to bend around the rectangle with pins on either one or two or even four sides.This situation seems analogous to comments in source code. To me, source code and schematics are the implementation of the desired logic. Source code comments describe the intent. For schematics, that is in external documentation, like the posts here where I describe the ideas and reasoning behind each part of the schematic.
There is a programming fashion that code should be written in ways that make it self-explanatory, and that comments are unnecessary. While it is true that code should be self-explanatory, it is religious dogma to believe comments are superfluous. Comments are necessary, just as good naming and traditional formatting is necessary - not for the machine but for the humans.
Because of this, I do claim that this kind of splitting is done because properly connecting the wires is way harder (without creating an even more horrible mess), when you don't have the experience yet in placing the components so the wires fall at least halfway neatly. Using net labels like I have here is simpler; I just didn't know how deeply annoying this is to more experienced people.
Because of this, I do claim that this kind of splitting is done because properly connecting the wires is way harder (without creating an even more horrible mess), when you don't have the experience yet in placing the components so the wires fall at least halfway neatly. Using net labels like I have here is simpler; I just didn't know how deeply annoying this is to more experienced people.
It's not annoying per se, it's just that schematics like that are essentially unreadable to a human brain, thus leading to frustration.
Unless the recipient is "asking" for it of course. Some art and robot springs to mind :-DD
Talking about crappy schematics that one holds the crown.
I attach my "modern" schematic. Comments appreciated.
Just a quick note regarding all those schematics made with EasyEDA.
Yes, many are made by people who don't actually have any background in EE, so for sure you won't get common engineering practice there.
But there's another factor: many of these schematics - in particular those often cited as an example of excessive splitting into small blocks - are pretty much the wiring of off-the-shelf dev/breakout boards. So that would explain the schematics: people are effectively just showing how they wired some boards together rather than make a proper, full schematic. And I think those people tend to get into this habit even once they start making their full own PCBs.
After that, the "right" amount of splitting and hierarchy just... depends. On the complexity of the design, on whether some blocks can reasonably be reusable or not, your own preferences, and other factors.
Some people just freak out at the first sight of a label, others will just put them everywhere. Extremes. As often, reason is in a "healthy" middle ground which depends on the project at hand.
One thing that irks me with labels is people stubbornly not willing to use the direction property (in/out/bidir/or none) appropriately. Many seem to be oblivious to direction and feel like the right thing to do is connect the wire to the pointy end of the label. Properly using the direction of labels (when appropriate, that is when there is a clear signal "flow") helps readability a lot. (Just like placing schematic blocks in a logical flow.) Not doing so makes labels a huge mess.
EasyEDA does not have this as a feature. The "net port" is just a single entity that does not have an option to select signal direction.
EasyEDA does not have this as a feature. The "net port" is just a single entity that does not have an option to select signal direction.
Well, I don't use EasyEDA but I just checked and it appears that you have "IN", "OUT" and "BI" for net ports.
I'm always on the lookout for what to do and what not to do after getting into the design work for my company. Been doing design for about a year so far. Here are a few points I have picked up from our old engineer. Still going strong at 80. Lots of analog wizardry.The reviewers on r/PrintedCircuitBoard have been setting some of these people straight!
- The schematic design should be printable in black and white.
- Only use labels/off page connections for input/output signals and power, voltage, current sources.
- While not necessary, output calculations and formulas, and select datasheet information can improve schematic readability.
- Schematic pages are a much better separator of function then simply boxing the circuit section.
- I have received feedback from the mechanical engineers that items like a block diagram included on the schematic makes it easier to understand the overall function.
I'm always on the lookout for what to do and what not to do after getting into the design work for my company. Been doing design for about a year so far. Here are a few points I have picked up from our old engineer. Still going strong at 80. Lots of analog wizardry.This list seems quite sensible, a good guideline. I'm also in the camp "chip with net names are hideous".The reviewers on r/PrintedCircuitBoard have been setting some of these people straight!
- The schematic design should be printable in black and white.
- Only use labels/off page connections for input/output signals and power, voltage, current sources.
- While not necessary, output calculations and formulas, and select datasheet information can improve schematic readability.
- Schematic pages are a much better separator of function then simply boxing the circuit section.
- I have received feedback from the mechanical engineers that items like a block diagram included on the schematic makes it easier to understand the overall function.
I am going to focus on what I did like: that you created a symbol for the shields.Thanks, the shield symbol is already part of Kicad library specifically: "Device:RFShield_TwoPieces".
I'm always on the lookout for what to do and what not to do after getting into the design work for my company. Been doing design for about a year so far. Here are a few points I have picked up from our old engineer. Still going strong at 80. Lots of analog wizardry.I have to disagree on most of these points.The reviewers on r/PrintedCircuitBoard have been setting some of these people straight!
- The schematic design should be printable in black and white.
- Only use labels/off page connections for input/output signals and power, voltage, current sources.
- While not necessary, output calculations and formulas, and select datasheet information can improve schematic readability.
- Schematic pages are a much better separator of function then simply boxing the circuit section.
- I have received feedback from the mechanical engineers that items like a block diagram included on the schematic makes it easier to understand the overall function.
Comments are welcome, just consider this is a hobby project.
I'm always on the lookout for what to do and what not to do after getting into the design work for my company. Been doing design for about a year so far. Here are a few points I have picked up from our old engineer. Still going strong at 80. Lots of analog wizardry.I have to disagree on most of these points.The reviewers on r/PrintedCircuitBoard have been setting some of these people straight!
- The schematic design should be printable in black and white.
- Only use labels/off page connections for input/output signals and power, voltage, current sources.
- While not necessary, output calculations and formulas, and select datasheet information can improve schematic readability.
- Schematic pages are a much better separator of function then simply boxing the circuit section.
- I have received feedback from the mechanical engineers that items like a block diagram included on the schematic makes it easier to understand the overall function.
1) color can convey information more effectively. You can mark digital and analog netlabels with different color just to be able to quickly tell them apart.
2) Labels are practically necessary to tell software like Altium to work with differential signals. I also name all RF signals, or data bus, all on the same page.
3) You don't want to place that on a schematic, because you don't calculate it on a schematic. And it's a duplication of information. I mean you can write there that "gain = 10" but more complex formulas? No, you want to change the schematic as little as possible, and duplicate info as little as possible, otherwise you have to change it everywhere.
5) I like to place it in a separate project, as if I place a symbol of a component there, then that will get the same designators, and leads to errors.
1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
Mod: seriously, what hell. We make movies in color, and you cannot convince me that it would be better in black an white. What sort of twisted inner mind do you need to have to think this way. Geez. Go out and touch some grass.
This list seems quite sensible, a good guideline. I'm also in the camp "chip with net names are hideous".
Since the title of the thread is "Please Rate my Design/Schematic", I'll take part, on the receiving side.
Here attached is the schematic I made for a ham receiver.
Comments are welcome, just consider this is a hobby project.
Note that I'm not asking to review the design (I'm sure I made some newbie blunder, hints are of course accepted!) just the schematic style.
There was a time where I joked with fake woke jokes, but it doesn't work through the internet, because those people managed to write things that surpassed every imagination on the stupidity front.1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
Mod: seriously, what hell. We make movies in color, and you cannot convince me that it would be better in black an white. What sort of twisted inner mind do you need to have to think this way. Geez. Go out and touch some grass.
I wondered if that word would provoke a knee-jerk reaction :)
Choosing to adopt an unnecessary practice which makes your designs less comprehensible is not, IMHO, a good choice.
Personally I try to make it easy to understand my designs. Why don't you?
I don't force myself to color my schematics. I do it when it serves a purpose.Which is a good idea, if it adds something to a well-drawn schematic.
I don't force myself to color my schematics. I do it when it serves a purpose. Say you have a microcontroller with a bunch of pins, some of them analog, you can get a good overview which one is which.
I almost never use colors in my schematics. Color is not necesarily needed to convey information. A good example is books. Try to read a crazy colored book (heck, just a colored datasheet for that matter), you'll get tired pretty quick. A schematic that looks like a lit Cristmas tree creates nothing but a childish impression. Same applies to overuse of thickness of wires on a scematic. Even worse are thick wires drawn in color. Reserve thick lines to draw signal busses.1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
Mod: seriously, what hell. We make movies in color, and you cannot convince me that it would be better in black an white. What sort of twisted inner mind do you need to have to think this way. Geez. Go out and touch some grass.
I don't force myself to color my schematics. I do it when it serves a purpose.Which is a good idea, if it adds something to a well-drawn schematic.
If it's to make a lousy schematic better, it's the wrong way to go.
In the end, it will appear B/W on paper, screen candy or not.
On a personal note, I find your pulling the "woke" card on disabled people (in this case colour blind) toxic and repulsive.
I almost never use colors in my schematics. Color is not necesarily needed to convey information. A good example is books. Try to read a crazy colored book (heck, just a colored datasheet for that matter), you'll get tired pretty quick. A schematic that looks like a lit Cristmas tree creates nothing but a childish impression. Same applies to overuse of thickness of wires on a scematic. Even worse are thick wires drawn in color. Reserve thick lines to draw signal busses.1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
Mod: seriously, what hell. We make movies in color, and you cannot convince me that it would be better in black an white. What sort of twisted inner mind do you need to have to think this way. Geez. Go out and touch some grass.
1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
I tried drawing a better version of this analog video switch schematic, but routing the wires in the schematic was hard; I tried a couple of component layouts, but they all became spaghetti.When you submit a schematic like this for public review, you are asking every interested party to perform the same difficult routing in their heads, every time they view the schematic. For each signal, they must scan the entire page for connections. They must then maintain all of these relationships in their mind's eye to achieve an understanding of how the circuit functions, and to identify any errors.
Since when is it "woke" to give serious consideration to the fact that a significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?There is no need for language implying bias or prejudice. If the design cannot convey critical information to its target audience due to predictable variation in their printers, their displays, their software, their eyesight or their neurology, then it fails at its purpose. I suggest "malfunctional".
In this instance I think the term "ableist" is perfectly appropriate. If it triggers some reaction in you because it ends in "ist", well, that's strictly your problem, pal.
In the end, it will appear B/W on paper, screen candy or not.
1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do
Since when is it "woke" to give serious consideration to the fact that a significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?
1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
Since when is it "woke" to give serious consideration to the fact that a significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?
In this instance I think the term "ableist" is perfectly appropriate. If it triggers some reaction in you because it ends in "ist", well, that's strictly your problem, pal.
Quote1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do
That nobody tripped on the "men" in this feminist world of today. :-DD
Quote1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do
That nobody tripped on the "men" in this feminist world of today. :-DD
He meant what he said. The gene for red-green colorblindness is on the Y chromosome.
I'm sorry; but if you can't bother to document your circuit, then I can't bother to review it.
There is no need for language implying bias or prejudice. If the design cannot convey critical information to its target audience due to predictable variation in their printers, their displays, their software, their eyesight or their neurology, then it fails at its purpose. I suggest "malfunctional".
In the end, it will appear B/W on paper, screen candy or not.
Ever heard of color printers. :-//
How many schematics even do end up on paper these days, with digital distribution to save the planet.
Quote1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do
That nobody tripped on the "men" in this feminist world of today. :-DD
But as an argument against using color it is not to valid. The people with troubled color vision will still be able to see something and with the colors chosen carefully they might not even miss that much of the intent
QuoteSince when is it "woke" to give serious consideration to the fact that a significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?
Calling 8% significant, nah not in my book. >30 or 40% I call significant. Sure it is a lot of people of the world population, but how many of them are in electronics? It is al relative, and it is typical how things always flow into this "woke" debate.
Technical evolution brought us color computers, so why not use them to serve some purpose. Let go of the archaic thoughts of how things used to be.
Quote1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you do
That nobody tripped on the "men" in this feminist world of today. :-DD
He meant what he said. The gene for red-green colorblindness is on the Y chromosome.
But according to some research I did, it does also affect woman, only far less. ~0.5%.
significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?
Exactly. If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic. Especially since it's an addition of information. And considering that I also have something called "Anomalous Trichromacy", and somehow I can just suck it up without complaining about it all the time. If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.1) colour is ableist. 8% of men won't be able to see colours that you doI honestly don't care, and there is nothing you can achieve with this woke crap with me.
Since when is it "woke" to give serious consideration to the fact that a significant portion of your audience won't be able to correctly perceive color, and therefore that using color is a bad idea?
In this instance I think the term "ableist" is perfectly appropriate. If it triggers some reaction in you because it ends in "ist", well, that's strictly your problem, pal.
Well sure, but did that go a little overboard maybe?
Just because some people can't perceive colors correctly means that nobody should use colors? Sorry, but *that* would be BS and yes, could be qualified "woke".
Now if there are alternate ways to enhance your schematics than using colors and you are going to share them (which may not necessarily be the case), then sure, consider that. That's nice. And especially if said schematics become significantly less readable precisely without the help of colors (in which case, you may have another problem anyway).
But otherwise, I'd be almost like, wtf.
The point is always the complaining.
What would make drawing your schematic with wires easier, is when you use the proper logic symbol for inverters and buffers like the 74125 you used in different forms. (single gate, quad gate) Then you can have the left to right signal flow and place the gate in series with the wires, instead of having to bend around the rectangle with pins on either one or two or even four sides.This situation seems analogous to comments in source code. To me, source code and schematics are the implementation of the desired logic. Source code comments describe the intent. For schematics, that is in external documentation, like the posts here where I describe the ideas and reasoning behind each part of the schematic.
There is a programming fashion that code should be written in ways that make it self-explanatory, and that comments are unnecessary. While it is true that code should be self-explanatory, it is religious dogma to believe comments are superfluous. Comments are necessary, just as good naming and traditional formatting is necessary - not for the machine but for the humans.
The dual is that schematics should be drawn on a way that makes it easy to read them, using traditional design patterns for components in a subcircuit.
What would make drawing your schematic with wires easier, is when you use the proper logic symbol for inverters and buffers like the 74125 you used in different forms. (single gate, quad gate) Then you can have the left to right signal flow and place the gate in series with the wires, instead of having to bend around the rectangle with pins on either one or two or even four sides.This situation seems analogous to comments in source code. To me, source code and schematics are the implementation of the desired logic. Source code comments describe the intent. For schematics, that is in external documentation, like the posts here where I describe the ideas and reasoning behind each part of the schematic.
There is a programming fashion that code should be written in ways that make it self-explanatory, and that comments are unnecessary. While it is true that code should be self-explanatory, it is religious dogma to believe comments are superfluous. Comments are necessary, just as good naming and traditional formatting is necessary - not for the machine but for the humans.
The dual is that schematics should be drawn on a way that makes it easy to read them, using traditional design patterns for components in a subcircuit.
I took some COBOL classes way back in college. COBOL was supposed to be "self-documenting". :-DD
If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic.
Can you read blue text on a white paper?If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic.
Can you explain that in words of one syllable, because that makes no sense to me.
And considering that I also have something called "Anomalous Trichromacy", and somehow I can just suck it up without complaining about it all the time. If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.
Can you read blue text on a white paper?If you can tell blue and white apart, then what gives you the right to complain about my schematic.
Can you explain that in words of one syllable, because that makes no sense to me.
I don't make claims on how difficult it is. I am stating that I don't care that it's difficult for you.And considering that I also have something called "Anomalous Trichromacy", and somehow I can just suck it up without complaining about it all the time. If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.
Apparently "Anomalous Trichromacy" means "The effects of anomalous trichromatic vision can range from almost normal colour perception to almost total absence of perception of red, green or blue light."
https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/ (https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/)
So you know don't perceive colours in schematics as other people do, and still make claims about how easy/difficult it is for other people. Hmmm.
Viewing in grayscale is difficult on the screen.
As I've already pointed out, some colours reproduce very differently on screen and paper. It is unclear to me whether you could perceive that; nonetheless it is true.
... I am stating that I don't care that it's difficult for you.
Nobody is going to lower the bar for every people to be able to do anything they want. Especially that it will make the life for 99% harder.
If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.
If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.
Why would anyone use yellow or any other light colors for a schematics?If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.
Of course you can keep your schematics however you like. I certainly do. But if you supply this documentation to other people, including claimed enhancements which actually degrade the document for the viewer and prevent critical information from being communicated, they are equally entitled to complain or to reject it entirely.
This is all fun and games between friends. Manufacturers who include colored or rastered information in their datasheets--I've seen this, and you know who you are--deserve marketplace oblivion.
Why would anyone use yellow or any other light colors for a schematics?If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.
Of course you can keep your schematics however you like. I certainly do. But if you supply this documentation to other people, including claimed enhancements which actually degrade the document for the viewer and prevent critical information from being communicated, they are equally entitled to complain or to reject it entirely.
This is all fun and games between friends. Manufacturers who include colored or rastered information in their datasheets--I've seen this, and you know who you are--deserve marketplace oblivion.
Do you think that I don't know how colors work?
Is this the argument? Yellow on white is hard to read therefore all colors are bad?
What makes the entire argument retarded ja that the very next thing in the software, PCB layout is going to use 30 different colors for every layer, and nobody is going to complain about that.
Look at the example in the first post. Unfortunately that isn't unique, and yellow isn't the only problematic colour.
I also attended ergonomics class at University where they give you amongst other things what colors to use. But that's fine, I guess in your worldview only lived experience is valid, unimaginable that they actually teach this. Or that someone would actually say things that they have some idea about.Why would anyone use yellow or any other light colors for a schematics?If you don't like it, print it in grayscale.Color is typically dithered by monochrome printer drivers. Lighter colors like yellow or cyan may disappear entirely. Unless the schematic is available in a scalable vector format like PDF, it can be very difficult to get a distinct printout. Scaling for print also degrades line art in raster image formats, and color makes this much worse.
Of course you can keep your schematics however you like. I certainly do. But if you supply this documentation to other people, including claimed enhancements which actually degrade the document for the viewer and prevent critical information from being communicated, they are equally entitled to complain or to reject it entirely.
This is all fun and games between friends. Manufacturers who include colored or rastered information in their datasheets--I've seen this, and you know who you are--deserve marketplace oblivion.
Do you think that I don't know how colors work?
Is this the argument? Yellow on white is hard to read therefore all colors are bad?
What makes the entire argument retarded ja that the very next thing in the software, PCB layout is going to use 30 different colors for every layer, and nobody is going to complain about that.
You have told us you cannot perceive colours "normally", so it wouldn't be surprising if you had some difficulty understanding how they work and are perceived.
Apart from that, your statements lead people to believe you don't understand printing.
Look at the example in the first post. Unfortunately that isn't unique, and yellow isn't the only problematic colour.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/please-rate-my-designschematic-ltrantgt/?action=dlattach;attach=2460253)
I took some COBOL classes way back in college. COBOL was supposed to be "self-documenting". :-DD
It is interesting how basically every electronics CAD package has used colored texts, lines and boxes by default since 1990's if not even earlier.
I also attended ergonomics class at University where they give you amongst other things what colors to use. But that's fine, I guess in your worldview only lived experience is valid, unimaginable that they actually teach this. Or that someone would actually say things that they have some idea about.
I fear we are getting too polarized over this, and one extreme is taking issue with the other extreme (and vice versa, of course). My view is that colours shouldn't be necessary - print the schematic in black and white and you've not lost anything. But use of colours can add something, much like datasheets (yes!) use bold and larger fonts for topic heading, table headers, etc. They just make it easier to differentiate important things. Of course, one can go overboard just as one can inappropriately use any tool.
All right, onto my ignore list you go. Bye.I also attended ergonomics class at University where they give you amongst other things what colors to use. But that's fine, I guess in your worldview only lived experience is valid, unimaginable that they actually teach this. Or that someone would actually say things that they have some idea about.
Interesting.
What did the course teach about
- colour in schematics
- colour where black and white has been shown to be sufficient
- colour on print processes
- colour with small characters, especially w.r.t. print processes
- the purpose and objectives of schematics
- when to use and when to avoid using specific techniques, e.g. colour or fancy fonts
Everyone, take a deep breath and count to 100, please.
As OP on this thread I feel I'm allowed to say that.
Everyone, take a deep breath and count to 100, please.
As OP on this thread I feel I'm allowed to say that.
Well, you can say that all you want if it makes you feel better.
Ain't gonna stop me, nor many other people either, from "nitpicking".
We likes to do that!
Everyone, take a deep breath and count to 100, please.
As OP on this thread I feel I'm allowed to say that.
Well, you can say that all you want if it makes you feel better.
Ain't gonna stop me, nor many other people either, from "nitpicking".
We likes to do that!
I'm fine with that as long as it's on a technical/engineering level.
Not when it's shouting "woke!"
That belongs on X/Telegram/whatever.
Woke people are extremely toxic. You better get used to this, people had enough, there is zero tolerance left for that ideology. Look at how this discussion went. I disagreed with some technical points, they personally attack me.Everyone, take a deep breath and count to 100, please.
As OP on this thread I feel I'm allowed to say that.
Well, you can say that all you want if it makes you feel better.
Ain't gonna stop me, nor many other people either, from "nitpicking".
We likes to do that!
I'm fine with that as long as it's on a technical/engineering level.
Not when it's shouting "woke!"
That belongs on X/Telegram/whatever.
Woke people are extremely toxic.Everyone, take a deep breath and count to 100, please.
As OP on this thread I feel I'm allowed to say that.
Well, you can say that all you want if it makes you feel better.
Ain't gonna stop me, nor many other people either, from "nitpicking".
We likes to do that!
I'm fine with that as long as it's on a technical/engineering level.
Not when it's shouting "woke!"
That belongs on X/Telegram/whatever.
That's the sound of the criticism you were responding flying right over your head.Because when you disagree with someone, you always start your sentence with that.
He wasn't saying that "woke!" is toxic; in fact, probably the opposite ("shouting 'woke!'").
Woke people are extremely toxic.
You better get used to this, people had enough, there is zero tolerance left for that ideology. Look at how this discussion went. I disagreed with some technical points, they personally attack me.
Every single time, it's the only tactics of the woke. Strawman and misdirection.
I fear we are getting too polarized over this
Thanks for your comments - answering only now since I'm on a skiing week with almost no internet.QuoteComments are welcome, just consider this is a hobby project.
Why is +9V an air wire? I think it should chain from the 12V regulator since that's what it actually does. You can take a tap off that connection for global 9V, but as it is your eye misses where it's connected because you don't expect to look right next to it - it would surely have a wire if it were that close!
The 12V I an not sure about. I think if you can't attach the regulator input to the connector then they should be on separate sheets: a PSU sheet and perhaps a connections sheet (or, better, shove it on the overview sheet like the two coaxs). But if you put the connector on the left (the SDA/SCL are inputs, after all) then a wire from +12V on the connector to the regulator surely wouldn't be that messy.
C508-C510 should be on a single power bus rather than separate air wires for each. If they are meant to be close to U503/5/7 then either put them there or have all such caps on the power bus (C501-C503). And since it's a preview and not a modded production schematic, the caps should be annotated in a consistent way (I prefer top to bottom, left to right, but consistency is key).
(Non-ICs are annotated that way, whereas ICs are annotated top to bottom, left to right (or whatever the preference is) on the PCB. Reason being on a decently complex board board you'll spend forever trying to find R78 on the PCB so you make it easy to find on the schematic. ICs are pretty obvious, on the PCB by may be spread over more than one sheet of schematic (or in several parts on the same sheet). So knowing from the schematic R78 is on a U15 pin, you know whereabouts on the PCB it is likely to be. Admittedly, the way ICs are annotated isn't that important nowadays - it mainly came about due to the tons of 74 series DIL chips in neat rows.)
The colour scheme... I found Fout hard to look at, and because it's so different from other wires my eye keeps thinking it's part of a border or box or something. I think this is a personal thing and colours are not bad per se, just that particular one. Of course, I could print it in mono if necessary, so this is just a comment without an aye or nay component :)
Hope the skiing was good. I guess it's a bit of a shock to come back and see the remains of this thread :)
A good technician builds, documents, and tests these sections that have clear inputs and outputs.
We could see these problems as people stepping out of the Maker pre-built mostly plug and play modules and into something they have little reference for.