Doing things deliberately wrong/incorrect would make me feel dumb, how about you?
First I make sure it's actually "wrong", noting that slavishness to one form of error is not "right".
When the error is below the noise level of somebody's idea of "right", that's how insubstantially small their claim is.
I'd feel dumb claiming either way to be right when both ways yield errors when used to convert ADC to analog values.
I'd feel even more dumb if I couldn't see that as fact and then decide which one serves my app best.
If you want your results to read 0 to Vref and are willing to live with less error than you can measure, divide by 1023.
If you can't stand knowing that the hardware has 1024 steps and you have a need to keep that from abstraction then you should know that you have not improved accuracy and now can't get any result showing signal in either the 1st Vref/1024 or the last Vref/1024 part of the range regardless of the voltage measured, which seems a bit funny for "right" doesn't it?
When I compare the two, I prefer the first since the error is less than noise and at least near 0 gives me 0 and near Vref gives me Vref.
Purity to hardware that is supposed to be approximating something else, it's the something else that I want. If the way I get that does not cause actual as opposed to supposed bad data and that way covers a GAP in the supposed right way at the same time, no I don't feel dumb taking that bit of win at all. I wonder at the ones who don't! Perhaps 3 factors at once confuse them?
PS -- I get a big laugh at people who go on about preserving the "purity" of what is not pure.
So my question for those is: Why does analog oversampling work?
1/1024 = 0.000976562
1/1023 = 0.000977517
Difference when Vref is 5V is less than 5 microvolts.
THINK