Offpage connector symbols
in [Design]
|
Prev: Rules of thumb for power transformer current rating - derivation?
Next: Anyone looking for a NEC uPD7220
From: larwe on 20 Jan 2010 10:17 On Jan 20, 9:16 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Wouldn't it be simpler to have pads for zero ohm resistors to > configure the port? Or two positions to put the connector to chose the > right configuration? The subsystems are designed by different groups, and the adage about design resembling organizational structure is completely true.
From: LittleAlex on 20 Jan 2010 15:23 On Jan 19, 1:17 pm, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...(a)seen.com> wrote: > Hi, > > As a side-comment to the schematic preferences thread > (hopefully not another lengthy thread :> ), I'm curious > as to what folks use as an offpage connector symbol. > > Given that I prefer these to be *at* the edges of the schematic > *and* given that the signal name will be "outboard" of it, > I try to use very narrow symbols. And, since it is common for > other such "offpage" symbols to be located immediately above > and/or below, I try to keep the height of this symbol to > "one intersignal spacing unit" (IsSU? :> ). > > I also like to show direction of signal flow in the symbol. > > This has led me to a set of six (<frown>) symbols: > Output Right > Input Right (blech!) > BiDir Right > and the corollaries for "Left". (I.e., left and right refer > to the edges of the page at which it is most appropriate to > place these symbols). > > For unidirectional signal flow, I use a pair of "concentric" > (wrong word) arrow heads. E.g., >> or <<. These can be spaced > close enough (horizontally) together that they occupy very little > space on the page (i.e., 1 IsSU square). > > For BiDir signals, I use one of each arrow head (< + >). > Since BiDir symbols should occupy the same amount of space > (an arbitrary but desirable condition I impose), I overlap these > together. > > If they don't overlap much (or, at all), you end up with a > diamond (<>) or an X (><). I compromise and end up with > an asymmetrical "stacked pair of X's" -- sort of like a > slice out of a DNA helix. > > This is intentionally asymmetric -- you could shift one or > the other arrow head to obtain better symmetry throughout the > X > X > but then placing two or more of these BiDir symbols above each > other ends up looking like *needlepoint* (can't see where one > signal begins and the previous one ends!) > > Other techniques? I use a CAD program. It has "input", "output", "bidirectional", and "passive" (none of the above, AKA don't care) for off-page and off- sheet. I've never seen a reason to change them from the default. AL
From: D Yuniskis on 20 Jan 2010 20:00 mpm wrote: > Also, try to avoid all nomenclatures that attempt to describe the > function (such as "in" or "out", etc..) when the interpretation > depends on some outside intervention (such as the prespective of the > tech). > > For example, I wouldn't recommend using "Audio Out Right" because that > same term won't make any sense when it gets to where it's going. > Try "Unamplified Audio, R+", or something like that. > > You get the idea. This is, by far, the best idea that this thread has dredged up! I'm not sure that it can be done universally, though. E.g., you may *think* your signals are "the end of the line"... To build on your example, designing a home stereo you would *think* that "left" and "right" are intuitive *and* descriptive. Yet, if someone plugs something else into it, all bets are off. I frequently have to check manuals when hooking up record/playback devices to stereos, for example: is Tape In an input *from* the tape deck or an output *to* the Input on the Tape deck, etc. I'll have to reexamine designs I have done over the years to see how I could have changed things to be less "descriptive" :> Thanks!
From: D Yuniskis on 20 Jan 2010 20:03 Hi AL, LittleAlex wrote: > On Jan 19, 1:17 pm, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...(a)seen.com> wrote: >> >> As a side-comment to the schematic preferences thread >> (hopefully not another lengthy thread :> ), I'm curious >> as to what folks use as an offpage connector symbol. > > I use a CAD program. It has "input", "output", "bidirectional", and > "passive" (none of the above, AKA don't care) for off-page and off- > sheet. > > I've never seen a reason to change them from the default. Yes, all of the tools I use do this. I am just not happy with their symbol choices. And, since I can change them, I have. E.g., I don't like an output on the right side of the page drawn as <
From: krw on 20 Jan 2010 23:24
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:23:21 -0800 (PST), LittleAlex <alex.louie(a)email.com> wrote: >On Jan 19, 1:17 pm, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...(a)seen.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As a side-comment to the schematic preferences thread >> (hopefully not another lengthy thread :> ), I'm curious >> as to what folks use as an offpage connector symbol. >> >> Given that I prefer these to be *at* the edges of the schematic >> *and* given that the signal name will be "outboard" of it, >> I try to use very narrow symbols. And, since it is common for >> other such "offpage" symbols to be located immediately above >> and/or below, I try to keep the height of this symbol to >> "one intersignal spacing unit" (IsSU? :> ). >> >> I also like to show direction of signal flow in the symbol. >> >> This has led me to a set of six (<frown>) symbols: >> Output Right >> Input Right (blech!) >> BiDir Right >> and the corollaries for "Left". (I.e., left and right refer >> to the edges of the page at which it is most appropriate to >> place these symbols). >> >> For unidirectional signal flow, I use a pair of "concentric" >> (wrong word) arrow heads. E.g., >> or <<. These can be spaced >> close enough (horizontally) together that they occupy very little >> space on the page (i.e., 1 IsSU square). >> >> For BiDir signals, I use one of each arrow head (< + >). >> Since BiDir symbols should occupy the same amount of space >> (an arbitrary but desirable condition I impose), I overlap these >> together. >> >> If they don't overlap much (or, at all), you end up with a >> diamond (<>) or an X (><). I compromise and end up with >> an asymmetrical "stacked pair of X's" -- sort of like a >> slice out of a DNA helix. >> >> This is intentionally asymmetric -- you could shift one or >> the other arrow head to obtain better symmetry throughout the >> X >> X >> but then placing two or more of these BiDir symbols above each >> other ends up looking like *needlepoint* (can't see where one >> signal begins and the previous one ends!) >> >> Other techniques? > >I use a CAD program. It has "input", "output", "bidirectional", and >"passive" (none of the above, AKA don't care) for off-page and off- >sheet. > >I've never seen a reason to change them from the default. The canned OrCrap symbols don't include all six varieties. We don't have them in our library (gotta talk to the librarian again...) so I copy them from another schematic when I need them. |