There's an idea in this book, that when using a mouse, smaller buttons are harder to click because you need to stop the cursor inside its hitbox, but moving the cursor to the edge of the screen is easy because it's effectively a huge button whose height is infinite (or infinite width for lateral edges). And hitting a corner is even easier because it effectively has both infinite width and height!
This means that if there is an actual, finite button on a corner, the easiest way to click it is to position the cursor on the very corner, rather than attempting to position the cursor in the middle. But this is ruined if this button has padding. So for example, the start button on windows at the bottom left corner had padding in earlier versions of windows like windows 98, but the actual hitbox of the button shouldn't have padding, so that it's easier to click.
This is all to say that I use Firefox maximized, without a titlebar or menubar, so that the "back" button is at the top left corner of the screen, and the hamburguer button is at the top right corner. But those buttons have padding! If I actually move the mouse to the very corner before clicking, I miss the button
Padding is typically part of the hitbox, margin is not. What you are describing sounds like margin to me. Especially for Firefox since their UI is made with web tech.
But besides being overly pedantic I agree with your general point. If their is a small gap between hitbox and edge of the screen it is very annoying.
But the worst thing IMO is Windows 11 windows which you can grab by the titlebar but not the content area. However often there is no visual indication of where the titlebar starts/stops.
Also, more than 90% of the title bar are active UI elements like menus and close buttons, and you have to guess which few pixels are actually inert enough to allow dragging.
Note I am not talking about the title bar (it's hidden here), I am talking about the bar where the address bar is (also back/forward/reload buttons and extension buttons)
>so that the "back" button is at the top left corner of the screen
"Back" is used so frequently that I consider any mouse lacking a side button for "back" to be incomplete. You don't need to put a high value on your time for upgrading your mouse to pay for itself within its service life.
On the other end of that spectrum I cannot _stand_ back button on the mouse and always disable the feature immediately because it is often too easy for me to click those fiddly side buttons without meaning to (either while grabbing or while re-adjusting my hand position on the mouse)
So I usually only map middle click to such a button, as that button is at least 90% of the time relatively safe to accidentally trigger.
Middle mouse button is often mapped to "paste selection", which is dangerous to accidentally trigger. If the side buttons on a mouse are easy to trigger by accident it means they're positioned wrong. My mouse is shaped so that my thumb naturally rests slightly below the side buttons, and I have to raise it slightly to press them.
Fixing this would require whole-system thinking. The corners of a window are nothing special. The corners of a screen are special, and exploiting that requires thinking about the screen, even though as an application developer, your responsibility stops at the window.
Steve Krug's other book, Rocket Surgery Made Easy, got me into usability tests with real users, and how to get it in place in a corporate environment. It's shocking to watch real users use software.
Power electronics shall never be connected to the "Internet".
Any such installations of solar panels, batteries and the like must be interconnected only in a private network without Internet access.
For remote monitoring and control a proxy mini-PC must be used, to which one should use an authenticated and encrypted connection.
For any competent person, this is trivial to do today, to ensure that even if some electronic device includes a backdoor for its vendor that backdoor cannot be accessed.
If there exists any kind of wireless connection provided by the vendor for a device, it must be disabled, e.g. by removing any internal or external antennas. Unlike wired connections that can be filtered externally, wireless connections cannot be secured.
This is awesome. It'd be even more awesome if it was easier to show a power plant's info upon hover / click. ...It's currently too much of a cat-and-mouse game for me.
All good, I appreciate what you built! On desktop with Windows 11. I just tried it again and it was much easier to see the info (thru hover) than before.
> the transfer switch variety switches your house between the inverter and the grid whereas the disconnect just physically disconnects the inverters output
> That simply is a transfer switch that is built in.
Then in this comment:
> but both a transfer switch and a disconnect are the same thing
These statements are false, and the fact that the second one was written even after being corrected once makes me think they still do not understand.
This user appears to blast paragraphs upon paragraphs of irrelevant noise at anyone who responds to them so that either the comment has internal conflicts (as you noticed) or any criticism seems nitpicky.
If you can design and build your own inverter I would take it as read that you know how to read code and know how an actual inverter should function:
If you're grid connected and see valid phase on the input for a certain amount of time of matching phase and measuring voltage you can provisionally connect at exactly that phase and voltage but without injecting power. After that you are allowed to slowly ramp up your output by leading the phase (while raising the voltage within certain limits) as long as you observe the effect that you have on the grid. If the grid phase drops away or there is any other anomaly (such as a voltage drop or rise of more than x V/s you are required to immediately disconnect, there are many other disconnect requirements but that's the main one with respect to line worker safety.
Three disconnects within a short period of time = no reconnect attempts for a much longer time. If the situation persists that's a failure and you are no longer allowed to connect to the grid until there has been an intervention and an inverter reset.
If your inverter is of the islanding variety then the rules are slightly different, then the transfer switch only gets energized when you match voltage and frequency but in the meantime the (usually battery backed up) inverter can supply local consumers.
By the time you come up with the idea of rolling your own inverter you have either become familiar with the requirements (which differ from region to region, and which in a properly designed inverter are mostly a matter of tweaking firmware parameters) or you will have to do so because you realize your responsibilities.
Anybody up for this kind of project will with a high degree of likelihood have the required knowledge because that knowledge is a lot simpler to acquire than the knowledge to build an inverter that isn't going to result in you being laughed out of the room when your EE buddies come look at your creation.
I would expect you to do a better job than 95% of the imported ones that I've taken apart and which all had massive shortcuts taken, good enough to pass first inspection and a year into warranty, not good enough for long term safe deployment. This ranges from unsuitable connectors, low quality inductors, even lower quality relays, undersized FET boards, insufficient cooling, bad cast aluminum housings, in general bad housings (not rodent and/or insect proof) and so on.
Thanks, and I agree that a DIY-inverter designer should be able to meet grid-interconnection requirements (e.g. IEEE 1547-2018). With that said, I think case-by-base evaluation from the AHJ would be prudent without a UL listing... something that AHJs don't want to do.
I'd prefer to just put the DIY inverter behind a transfer switch (with an adequate battery bank and maybe a small propane generator)... with the grid as emergency fallback.
That's exactly the setup that I had in Canada with a windmill thrown in for good measure (which really helped in the winter, after we got the windmill up we never ran the generator again).
Not that this is accepted by insurers or AHJs ("authorities having jurisdiction"), but one can use UL-certified components in an (open-source) _assembly_ that itself isn't UL certified. This at least supports the argument that the overall product is safe if thoughtfully designed and assembled. An example is the OpenEVSE level-2 car charger (which I had a really good experience with).
