Given that we have a quite intensive use of schematics, and that often the posted ones don't meet the requirements for the users to answer: shall we add a FAQ section about how to draw/post/explain schematics?

I'm not referring to how to draw a schematic for yourself, which is described by many posts here; I'm specifically addressing the problem of posting them here. (component designators, tips to help readability, eventually tools recommendations...)

| |
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Not the schematic drawing, but component designators is about drawing the schematic, isn't it? Same for readability. \$\endgroup\$ – stevenvh Apr 13 '12 at 13:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @stevenvh yes, but what I mean is not to explain people how to do their schematics for their work/hobby, just some advice for posting them on the site (and avoid people complaining). So it's just focused on this site, and also to eventually refer to when commenting questions \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio Apr 13 '12 at 13:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ Many of the schematics posted were first drawn for work/hobby. If they were a mess then they will appear as a mess in the post (and Olin will comment on it). I don't think people will take the trouble to clean up their schematics, however necessary that may be. \$\endgroup\$ – stevenvh Apr 13 '12 at 13:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ Or are you referring to the schematic in this question? \$\endgroup\$ – stevenvh Apr 13 '12 at 13:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @stevenvh Actually it's this that gave me the idea; it's not so bad by itself, but it lacks designators, and it's something that Olin points out often...with a reason \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio Apr 13 '12 at 13:54

This post(Rules and Guidelines for Drawing Good Schematics) was created to allow a single place to link people to about schematics.

There has been discussion of attempting to find a way to embed a schematic editor in the site but we will have to wait on that. I think many of these schematics are drawn like this because users do not have access to a program to allow them to.

| |
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ it's not all about software; I specifically think to using the right symbols, and designators \$\endgroup\$ – clabacchio Apr 13 '12 at 19:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ A lot of the messy schematics seem to use Eagle. It's possible to make a mess no matter what tool you use. The real problem is too many people thinking that throwing obvious slop at us is somehow acceptable. Would they hand in a assignment like that? Present it at a job interview? Of course not because there would be consequences. The problem with this site is that there are few obvious consequences. The best we can do is close the question since we can't give someone a bad grade or prevent them from being hired. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Apr 13 '12 at 21:19
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop, the worst you can do is downvote, the best you can do is upvote. This is the way of the site. I am suggesting that you note when someone needs a better schematic, but do remember that many people are not well trained on drawing schematics, I was never was trained the the level you expect, it is only through participation that I have learned what I know. Had I been smacked down for not drawing a schematic correctly when I tried my best I would have found it disheartening. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Apr 13 '12 at 22:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ @clabacchio, Do you know of a way that we could teach the proper designators and such in a single faq entry, or should we right a question where we attempt to compile all the designators? The questions seems to be asking about suggesting quality guidelines. We want to enforce quality for future users but we really want to minimize driving off quality users that do not yet know well enough to reach their full potential . \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Apr 13 '12 at 22:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kortuk: I was never trained in schematic drawing either. I doesn't take training in schematics to understand the general principle of neatness counts. Conversely, giving someone sloppy work to look at is a insult "my time to do it right is worth less than your aggrevation to put up with it". None of this requires any specific knowledge of schematics or electronics, so there is no excuse. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Apr 15 '12 at 15:09
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop, that is fine, downvote, if you feel it is bad enough to stop the question from being answered vote to close. Let them know in a comment, but lets try to keep it civil with them also. Dont forget, they have been dealing with an issue for quite a while and might be seeking us out of complete frustration with their situation, the same guy whom is frustrated with a 555 timer might be a great embedded guy or vice versa. \$\endgroup\$ – Kortuk Apr 15 '12 at 22:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .