arturo182Is this easy enough to understand?
بلبل@arturo182 @xabean I like this version for clarity better, i think it looks better too!
Philipp@arturo182 @xabean I like this version better. I think it better communicates that GND and 3.3V span two pins.
concretedog@arturo182 @xabean I got it off the first but that's even more unambiguous.
Eric Klein@arturo182 @xabean option b
RC2014@arturo182
@xabean
That's better, although I would be tempted to split the Gnd and 3v3 so it says
Gnd Gnd
3v3 3v3
@xabean
That's better, although I would be tempted to split the Gnd and 3v3 so it says
Gnd Gnd
3v3 3v3
Christian Walther@arturo182 B is better, but the lines still look overcomplicated. How about this?
one of a number of patricks@arturo182 definitely prefer B
Mäh W.@arturo182 @xabean Option B is even better. 😄
@arturo182 sure, pin numbers from row to row, the two bottom rows have the same power signals.
trilader@arturo182 I read this as saying: The top eight pins are 36-43. 36-39 going down in the left column, 40-43 in the right column, below is a row (left and right) of GND below that a row of 3.3V.
autoiue
Brian Swetland@arturo182 I think it'd be more readable if the bar separating the number pairs looked less like a 1 or I -- maybe if it was taller or just split the inverted region entirely.
Electronic Eel@arturo182 yes, this is good.
Just make sure the silkscreen process your fab is using is actually capable of properly printing this. Some fabs have quite low resolution for silkscreen.
geedotk@arturo182 yeah, option B for sure