Equation Editor 2.8 breaks up

Hi Will,

The Equation Editor 2.8 breaks up and obliterates the graphic interface for constructing equations when clicking the common equations buttons. It doesn't recover unless closed and opened again.

If I may be brutally honest and this is given with respect...

I'm not so sure that the common equations are necessary in the form they are being presented. The normally neat and clean presentation of the editor doesn't present the results in a attractive fashion; even if in working order.

I'm wondering if a separate dedicated editor for preformed common equation wouldn't be a better approach.

This would not only keep the normal editor cleaner but would give you the flexibility to dedicate a special layout for the common equations more suited for their presentation and allow them to grow in their own direction. Over time they could grow in number far greater than the normal editor could keep up with, and could become a valuable resource of standard equations that may find a completely different market from the do it yourself editor.

All that withstanding I feel that experimenting online with the standard editor with bugs in it is not good public relations. Changes shouldn't be made to the online version unless it is completely free of bugs. It should present itself in a professional manner which will give the users complete confidence in its unchanging reliability.

Keep in mind this is only my opinion and again, it is given the the greatest respect.

Regards, Morris

Dear Morris,

You've raised a number of good points and I'm disappointed we managed to mess up the editor for you.

You are right on all fronts and I'll bare in mind your thoughts about the common (or example) equations buttons. This should now be fixed, please let me know immediately if it isn't and i'll remove it permanently. Its entirely my fault, since I've been excited to push out the new version with an enlarged selection of button panels.

Now this project has grown in popularity we should (as you illustrate) have alpha, then beta version before releasing a final version. We should also allow people to go back in time to older renditions. For all of these reasons, we're moving the whole hosting of the editor to latex.codecogs.com. Over the coming weeks we'll design this site as a dedicated location for the editor and in turn put in more detailed (multipage) instructions on how to set it up and install it, etc, etc.

As for the common equations. The selection within these is very basic. I'm actually looking for suggestions. i.e. what equations do you reasonably often type?. What equations have you found structurally very hard to create? The chemistry example equations are perhaps the best examples of equations forms that weren't obvious when I needed them.

The rational for having them at all, is to help people construct more unusual and complex equations - i.e. in cases where the structure of the LaTeX is critical to getting what you need.

I think if enough other people find these buttons annoying (and you aren't the first); then we can pull them, and have as you suggest a demonstration page into which anyone can submit examples. I could also make them more discrete, i.e. just have written initially 'examples', which when pressed displays these buttons. There is very little overhead, as all the images are loaded dynamically when needed - so you wouldn't notice a decrease in performance.

Or as you say; just drop all this into a dedicated common equations/examples page, which anyone can submit equations into.

In the mean time; I promise not to release any new versions without thorough testing!

Thanks for your comments, Will.

Hi Will,

As of Tuesday 1235 GMT the editor is still broken as before. My opinion is that buttons should go. The Render button needs fixed as it seems only clicking 'enter' in text box will make it render if something makes it stop rendering as the incrementally entered equation. Also a client pointed out that button says 'Render Equation' but text says 'Render Expression'. Also the Clipboard button has never worked for me.

Am looking forward to the Equation Editor being impeccable in looks and operation. I fully support the idea of a separate common equation editor. It could grow to include a whole host of specialist equations and tap a different market all together. Once they are both working satisfactorily it may be possible that they could access one another in the future.

Regards, Morris

I update the editor and I'm bombarded with emails and concerns.

Ok. I think I understand some of the problems now.

1. The editor wasn't crashing, only people didn't notice the close button in the top right. This has been replace with a large red 'x'. (Don't much like the current button, has anyone something better?).
2. I've removed all the common/example equation buttons and now have a single 'examples' button on the top row that opens up these example panels. Hopefully this is minimalist solution.
3. The options to change the font sizes has returned.
4. Various errors with the positioning of the carret have been fixed.
5. The rendered equation automatically works now - hopefully.
6. Changed some text (Still need help from a French and Spanish speaker)
7. And finally, the copy to clipboard buttons now (maybe, pray!) works. The work around for this is enormous and is basically down to security feature within Firefox and Safari (MS seem less concerned about security) in particular, who have stoped javascript copying to the system clipboard. However that don't matter, since Adobe flash can. So we have a complex route of pushing data to the clipboard that way. Clearly not much of a security solution, but I guess now its Adobe's problem. Please try this out on as many systems as possible.

Everyone. Please make sure you flush your cache, or do right click reload (or refresh etc) if anything on the editor doesn't.

Baring any minor errors, any major changes will now be released for all to see as a beta first. i.e. I promise not to mess with the working version:)

The latest developments version can be found here: http://codecogs.izyba.com/components/eqneditor/editor.php

Enjoy.

Hi Will,

AnomaliesI have noticed.

In the graphics for functions for example: the fraction normally a/b is only square boxes. In the mouseover all dropdown functions from fractions to prod and others only have boxes where letters used to be.

Dropdowns for Styles, Foreign and Symbols are now gone. Hopefully this is not deliberate:-)

Upon loading and before doing anything the rendering area shows a missing image square where the rendered image will be.

The Render Equation and the text below it, Render Expression, still disagree.

It might be a good idea to revert back to version 2.6 or so to keep people happy and to show a professional face while you perfect changes in beta. Hopefully you didn't overwrite 2.6 :-)

I used to date an opera singer and sometimes went to the rehearsals. They were chaos. She said that's why they had rehearsals so it wasn't chaos in front of an audience:-) There is a lesson for everyone there somewhere:-)

For you information the rehearsal at http://codecogs.izyba.com/components/eqneditor/editor.php is devoid of any graphics for functions at all.

And while you aren't doing anything else:-) You might look at the problem with square brackets I mentioned in the thread Square bracket incompatibility in TiddlyWiki code.

P.S. I forgot to mention that the Clipboard button is missing so I couldn't check it.

Good luck, Morris

Thanks for your further feedback.

Ok. Firing through your list above, one is a bugs, the rest are design changes.

1. The fraction function, originally was written as but now its shown as . The reason for this change is we've been carrying out some usability tests on people completely new to the system (yes, surprising we did test this aspect before going live :) ). What we did was wrote down a dozen different equations and asked them to write these using the editor and in doing so, we noticed how they worked. For those familiar with maths, the original symbols worked fine, in fact they preferred , however those not strong in maths couldn't immediately find the fraction button. However when shown , everyone recognized this for a fraction. Thus to keep all sides happy, we show in the yellow popup the equation in the original form of a/b, but show by default . We've repeated this for other symbols, like integral etc. the hardest was with subscripts like . Interestingly if you following Microsofts lead on things, then they typically write subscripts as , but in the equation editor (by MathType), they use squares everywhere. What does anyone else prefer? Of those that have written to me, they prefer the original, but is that just because they're used to that now?
2. Dropdowns for Styles, Foreign, Symbols etc are now all represented by graphical panels which show exactly what you get. For Foreign and Symbols in particular this is much more logical and as I hope you'll appreciate the selection is much much greater. The ordering (and indeed the breakdown) of symbols within each panel is I admit a subject of much debate. For the most part we have adopted the grouping laid down within various LaTeX manuals, i.e. 'Foreign', 'Binary', 'Styles', 'Greek letters' etc.
3. The 'Render Equation' text should be right now; I forgot to copy over a language file.
4. Would rather solder on with 2.85, rather than drop back to 2.6. I appreciate your annoyance and after this version this won't happen again; however many of the bugs you've raised are actually feature changes (therefore technically not bugs) or they are bugs in 2.6 also.

Coming back to the drop down panels. The major difference between 2.6 and 2.8, is that these panels are now automatically generated on the server. There are a collection of xml files that define all the buttons within each panel, for example, uppercase greek letters panel is defined by:

<panel>
<col>
<eq><latex>\Gamma</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Theta</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Xi</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Sigma</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Phi</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Omega</latex></eq>
</col>
<col>
<eq><latex>\Delta</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Lambda</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Pi</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Upsilon</latex></eq>
<eq><latex>\Psi</latex></eq>
</col>
</panel>

As a result we can (and eventually you will be able to) change the panels or add any new symbols that anyone might wish for. Creating whole new panels is also very easy, so please send me suggestions. One objective for the future is to have hundreds of different looks for the editor with cut down panels that focus on different realms of engineering, science and mathematics.

I'll get back to the TiddlyWiki code as soon as your happy with the above :)

Will.

Ok a new 'rehearsals', version 2.86 are available here:

http://codecogs.izyba.com/components/eqneditor/editor.php

http://codecogs.izyba.com/components/equationeditor/equationeditor.php

Changes:

1. Have returned by to writing fraction as , and similarly change to to etc
2. Were tidied up the integral and sum operators also, then now insert just the minimum required code.
3. With is now written as f. This is to be more inline with established conventions in word, excel etc.
4. When you click an icon on a panel it will automatically close after about 1 second. This is help avoid confusion when people click an icon, but don't see the new code entered in the panel below, because the panel is obscured the main box.

Thanks for the continued suggestions. Will

Hi Will,

You've saved me from writing a thousand word essay to you on using letters instead of square boxes in equations:-)

I applaud your decision to return to the algebraic convention of using letters that has been in use since Euclid's days.

I believe the online editor should be upgraded to reflect at least this change immediately, lest I get in trouble for breaking into my Tourette's syndrome every time I see empty boxes where letters should be:-)

P.S. The escape you used above for square bracket solution does not work; but, I have replied in the appropriate thread with a solution.

Regards, Morris

Can you can still write the essay, but send it to MathType who write the Equation Editor incorporated into Word.

Personally, I think they're approach is logical also. The only negative for this is that it doesn't give you a real feel for how an equation will really look. Ultimately we can all learn to use either, in our new system you're merely looking for examples of what you want; while with MathType you're looking at symbols that illustrate relative arrangement.

The real test though is with someone who has never used the application before. Try this as a test:

Write out several equations by hand, like , and ask your friends to use the editor and reproduce the equations. You'll be surprise at how they operate it and find their way around.

If they don't produce the first equation in under 1 minute. Then we've failed. And we must review our approach.

Will

I feel following the lead of Microsoft is a cul de sac off the road of progress. They ignored world standards as a business decision to make things look good in their browser and not in others. There have been, literally, millions of man-hours wasted in the world trying to find work-arounds their non-standard decisions.

".....in our new system you're merely looking for examples of what you want; while with MathType you're looking at symbols that illustrate relative arrangement."

The whole object of the exercise is to find "examples of what you want". It is a logical fallacy that using the same symbol to "illustrate relative arrangement" is better than using different symbols for the same purpose.

As a conceptual metaphor |=|/| is not as clear as x=a/b or my course in cognitive linguistics has been wasted and my engineering degree nonplussed. In the 40 some years since my first algebra course I have never once seen an equation represented using anything but letters.

Letters used in place of numbers is what algebra is and always has been since 300 BC. To use empty boxes in place of all letters is obfuscation at it's finest.

All that not withstanding we are going to have letters in our editor, which I applaud, and which I think most people would agree:-)

Regards, Morris

Morris,

I do actually agree with you.

However we're going to great pains here to step out of my world of engineering, mathematics and software and produce a system Jooe-Blogs can use and perhaps his dog. Despite popular belief very often you should design your program for the minority not the majority. For example, if I put large clear buttons on my calculator you and my grand-mother can use it. It I put smaller buttons on it, only you can use it. Functionally it does the same, and you can learn to live with large buttons; however by designing for my grandma rather than you, everyone is happy.

I appreciate you need to consider the market and the audience for any product; however in our current case, the sizable minority are not people not like you or me. I suspect they are users who infrequently type out mathematics (perhaps once a month or so), very possible don't even understand mathematics, and almost certainly don't program. They therefore want a system thats intuitive and requires little to no initial reading to master. They will experiment with this system for perhaps 1 minute before giving up.

For us, however, the benefits are clear, great looking equations, so we'll blunder through virtually any interface even if we had to learn braille.

Don't worry I won't dumb down this system, but I will try to understand everyones needs and where-ever possible implement small change that make it even easier to use. Otherwise I run the danger of being as arrogant as MS!

A must read for everyone in software dev: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum-High-tech/dp/0672316498

Recent feedback from the dog include:

• Tab to move from set of curly brackets,{}, to the next.
• Button for
• Clear should remove the rendered image.
• Downloading a pdf should trigger a new window (as most companies have virus checkers that run and mess up the display).
• When moving the mouse over the rendered image a popup should display saying that they can drag this image to Word etc, but do little else
• The drop downs panels should only open when you click on them - not at all sure about this one personally!

I'll keep asking.

Will

I like the new format but I would comment on the "feedback as follows. I am numbering them 1 to 6

1. A waste of time. It is very easy to use the cursor keys.

2. Yes could be helpful . The problem with the old system was that the two numbers appeared on top of each other which is not how you would write them and they looked a bit crowded.

3. Why bother? Actually the present arrangement is a slight check as to whether I have actually done the last equation.

4. No comment

5. No comment

6.Sounds good but I rather think that it is not a good idea. I agree that the drop down can get in the way BUT if I am not sure where an infrequently used item is, the last think I want is to have to go clicking all over the place to see each drop down in turn.

I would like to suggest that any changes from here on are only to correct bugs ( If any) and that we should all take a little time to get used to the new format. I like it and I think that Will has done a great job.

Taking lodmore's format...

1: I think this would be an improvement as long as it doesn't get confused with nested brackets.

2: Yes could be helpful

3: Lodemore does have a point however this could just be an unintended feature for some people. I'm not sure but possibly clear should mean 'clear' and not 'clear part' of the display.

4: Can't comment from experience. However it might not be good practice to try to program around an array of firewalls and virus checkers lest you make a rod for your own back.

5: I never drag anything so I'm not the person to decide. However if it this is decided in the affirmative it shouldn't overlap any part of the image and interfere with right click and copy.

6: I think the present 'mouseover' dropdown is better. See below.

Additional:

I wonder about 4: in the previous post. "When you click an icon on a panel it will automatically close after about 1 second"

I am not so sure the one second delay is best. One second could seem longer and longer looking at some multiple selections for some users depending on their self-confidence level.

Perhaps zero delay and closing on 'mouseoff' might be better. This would allow multiple selections with plenty of time to think in between each selection; but, still give the user a instant view of what they have just created.

Perhaps a trial on the 'rehearsals' version might be in order for this one to see how it feels with closing on mouseoff with no delay.

I too think Will is doing a good job and his willingness to seek advice and his open mindedness to implement suggestions is refreshing.

Morris

Hi, All changes except (6) gave been implemented. I've all spaced out the operator drop down panel and added in a few extra buttons (just because there was space).

The insertion of text should now also be more logicial, particularly when you have text selected.

I've also made the rehearsal the final! Please make sure you refresh your browsers.

I'm aware of one bug which I haven't yet fixed. In theory it shouldn't matter, however Firefox and IE will log it as an error and you might see a debug box appear in IE if you have debugging turning on. Will resolve this once I remember how to write regular-expressions!

Will

Great! I am really happy with the result. Please everybody let us have time to get to know the new format. Will has done a fantastic job. This editor is used by all sorts of people doing all sorts of work and we must realise that it is difficult to cater for all the exact requirements of everybody. For my purposes the editor has made huge strides since I first used it. The automatic rendering has saved me hours since I can now see errors as they occur and not at the end of a long equation. I am sure that if, after a period of time, a particular requirement develops, then further improvements will be made but for now I would like stability