If you're looking to design a new table for people who are already very familiar with the existing one, what you need to do is identify a function that your table will perform better for.

What it looks like your orientation of the table would be better at is for electron orbitals, because having the hydrogen and the helium on the innermost ring naturally makes sense that way.

I think you should expand and emphasis on that feature somehow, instead of it just being a flipped and rolled table.

Xeofreestyler

Belgium6776 Posts

October 20 2009 00:04 GMT

#22

Oh but its not only that. This is just the 'main' form of the table.
Its going to be interactive and feature data & stats through the shape of the groups I, II, III, IV, etc. when you click an element. Or immediately switch to an image of a model of the atom, animated form the main form or whatever. We're still working on that. But first we need to make up our minds about the general shape.

Plutonium

United States2217 Posts

October 20 2009 00:05 GMT

#23

If the people grading your project aren't going to be extensively familiar with the table, you should do what you need to do to get that A.

I'd think it would be pretty rad, however, if you had the table designed in a way where the "rings" of the circle were more clearly corresponding to the "rings" of the electron orbitals.

The periodic table's designed the way it is for a reason. If you don't have a specific purpose in mind to make it look like the way you're making it, it will just seems flashy and counter-intuitive.

Xeofreestyler

Belgium6776 Posts

October 20 2009 00:06 GMT

#24

(excuse me if some things arent clear from the start, its kinda late, im kinda baked and design ideas are generally hard to pour into words when you're in the early phases lol)

Pluto how about adding a button that switches between a view of outer electrons and a view of just the element names? I'm also thinking about adding a little box where you can just enter the short notation and it immediately opens

And I dont know exactly what you mean with your idea, perhaps you could make a sketch of what you have in mind? Not so easy to visualise other people's thoughts via internet :D

synapse

China13814 Posts

October 20 2009 00:13 GMT

#25

wow, very cool...

I think there should be a small space between the noble gases and the halogens, just to make so that it makes finding the anions a tiny bit easier

- and there's really no difference between A and B, i cant see why flipping it would matter

Xeofreestyler

Belgium6776 Posts

October 20 2009 00:20 GMT

#26

I've been discussing with zXk3

differences are pretty much:
A is a more logical reading environment, since its clockwise, so its a nice structure to look at
B is a more logical twisted version of the original periodic table, so there is a pattern of recognition for experts (which is still our main target group) and they'll easily find their way in it

Plutonium

United States2217 Posts

October 20 2009 00:23 GMT

#27

This is sort of what I had in mind. The dashed lines just represent the rest of the table extending outwards. It would be an easy way to determine the ground state orbital configuration just by looking, instead of counting across all sorts of lanthanide groups or whatnot, memorizing P's and D's and F's.

Xeofreestyler

Belgium6776 Posts

October 20 2009 00:30 GMT

#28

alright cool I see, thanks for the idea, I'll discuss with my friend

BanZu

United States3329 Posts

October 20 2009 00:33 GMT

#29

omfg this is SO COOL

akevin

Canada120 Posts

October 20 2009 01:26 GMT

#30

While I think that making an interactive periodic table would be useful, is it mandatory that you change its format? Because I believe the current format is the most logical, and arranged better than either of those circle options. Like is it not possible to just make it an interactive normal version? ie. with facts/orbital diagrams/oxidation states/etc. In terms of Pluto's idea, what do you with Cr and Cu? and other discrepancies. It just seems as if it would be too confusing to anyone (chemists) to alter the format since it really is organized based on number of electrons already.

Xeofreestyler

Belgium6776 Posts

October 20 2009 01:30 GMT

#31

While we COULD do that, its still somewhere a plus when we arrange the format in a way that is functional for the way we want to arange data (plus the shape looks pretty cool this way, so its aesthetically pleasing too imo)

The current table is indeed very well organized, but I feel we can use this shape to make it show more complex information when interactivity is added. It just seems like a more concentrated bundle of data.

We can easily add controls to manipulate how things are shown- for example we could break up the different groups with the push of a button

akevin

Canada120 Posts

October 20 2009 01:39 GMT

#32

Hmm, I'm not sure how the shape helps you show more complex info so I can't really comment on that. But one suggestion would be to initially have the standard periodic table, and then when someone clicks on an element to get this certain data, the table circularizes and the info pops up in the middle or however it was going to work. Thus in terms of picking an element, it is done using the normal table (so it is easy to locate), but then it changes form to display info.

Anyways, good luck with the project

fanatacist

10319 Posts

October 20 2009 01:58 GMT

#33

On October 20 2009 08:56 Xeofreestyler wrote:
fana: Well, the reason we put lighter elements on the inside is because this way, it gives the global shape a connection to the atom it represents. So when you've got Mg for example, you'll get it on the 3 circle from the inside, since thats where the reactive electrons on the atom of Mg are too.
And yeah this one is for experts. The explanatory one is going to be something completely different. Nothing shown here yet, still being sketched etc.

plutonium: this is an assignment on information design. im in my 3d year now, so basically everything you summed up will be looked at. Form and function must be symbiotic.

Ah, that makes sense. My b.