At a loss for words.

I got an invite to meet with someone from the mothership at an upcoming
SW get together. Of course such a meeting will primarily focus on some
new feature(s) that SW has come up with. That is fine, I'm sure
somebody will really think they are neat. But it got me to thinking
about how I deal with new features. Since I'm a veteran user I have had
to relearn SW thirteen times in my career so this won't mean much yet
to those who just have a year or two under their belts. Just this fact
raises the question, When is SW going to get the user interface just
right? It was really easy to use in 1996. It is getting harder with age
due the shear number of little nuances that come and go in the user
interface. The Apple user interface has to come into the picture at
this point. Apple has a consistent, almost never changing user
interface that hasn't changed much down through the ages*. It was the
result of intense study embodied in the so called Park Xerox project.
This allows a user to learn how to use a program interface once and
then to be able to use just about any program that meets Apple's
standards.

So I am at a loss for words. How do I put the conclusion in a form that
people can understand? Why is it so hard to say something about what a
consistent and robust user interface looks like? Please help!

*I'll have to confess I haven't fiddled with an Apple recently. Maybe I
am all wet on this point.

 

IMO SW will get things right when they actively seek meaningful dialogue
with users about things rather than just do pretty stuff they think we want
and dump it in a beta program as being complete so this beam me up sounds
like a good step out for the empire... The main difficulty I see is that
anyone who might want to have a serious attempt at describing whets wrong or
do some fresh thinking about how to best things actually needs some PAID
time to do it. So all very well to discuss things but how about they give
you a weeks pay or maybe two to prepare a decent report about what ever...of
course some people communicate better in different ways so they should be
open to video tapes of running commentaries and copy/paste GUI mock-ups
too...not everything is well expressed in words.

 

Good point. But not entirely true. I got a T-shirt for participating in
Beta.

SW can be compared to New Orleans. We vote on things just like they
did. They voted and supported not repairing the levees. See old copies
of the Time Picayune. Or....listen to Ray Nagin. There probably were
some people in New Orleans who saw a problem in the levees, but their
voice was drowned out by the leadership and majorty who were wrong.

 

As a veteran user, the changes in the interface don't bother me much. I
seem to adapt to them just fine. For the most part I have liked them once I
get use to them.

The most pressing issue in my opinion is the stability problems that arise
with the new features they add. It's making me wanting to avoid new
releases which would normally not be my style.

 

No doubt that Solidworks in the early years was simple cause it didn't
do much. The more options you add, the harder it gets to wade through
all those options. I think most of the interface changes were attempts
(some good, some bad) to make the chaos of options easier to navigate.
The Command Manager which cut down on how many toolbars are visible
(since we keep getting more and more), to the task pane which
consolidated the Feature Pallette and Toolbox into a nice auto flyout,
to the Property Manager which ridded us of the dialogue boxes we came
to love in all Windows programs. The rest of the changes I can think of
are so minor as to not really effect much.

Also, has hardware power increase, you can start adding bells and
whistles that don't seems like much, but sometimes help. Dynamic
highlighting, popup tips, and the task bar providing constant feedback.
Then you get some that don't mean much at all but are marketing
gimicks, skins for instance. Sometimes that gimick makes a sell though,
but veteran users just usually roll there eyes.

I would just like to see Solidworks follow more windows conventions.
It's been falling behind lately but recent comments on the Solidworks
board under User Interface give me hope that something is being done.
Like a better open dialogue that can open multiple files and where you
can customize the left hand "Places" bar, not to mention remembering
your dialogue size and option settings.

Now Solidworks with the number of features and options is getting into
the "high end". I mean there is little you can't do with it that
requires Catia or UG. At the same time those abilities makes it harder
for novice users, then something Alibre becomes appealing because it's
like the Solidworks of old, small and simple.

The question is how does Solidworks cover both ends of the
spectrum......constant user interface chanegs I'm afraid.

 

I didn't say Xerox Parc was done for Apple. Apple used this information
to make Lisa, the forerunner to the Mac.

I agree with documentation and I suspect SW does document what they do
internally. There is a difference between documenting what many
disparate people have done to the interface for their improvements and
having a road map telling you how to do it effectively and
consistently. I can either document what manufacturing makes ( and I
worked in a place like that ) or engineer a part to accepted standards,
make a print and expect manufacturing to build it.

SW has started to do some of this. For example the ICON rework in 2005
comes to mind.

 

Once upon a time I played a video game whose UI was... for lack of a
better word, crappy. Over the years the developers received quite a bit of
grief for it, as they should have.

One or two major releases later, they re-engineered the UI to work from
an XML setup. It was a much improved interface, and, with a few hours of
tinkering, exactly as I wanted it.

I don't see a reason that SW could not move to a similar setup. Among
other things, I don't see a need to display the "sketch" toolbar when you've
begun selecting portions for completing a loft or sweep. Its not difficult
to come up with many, many more scenarios where toolbars are being displayed
unnecessarily. At that time they are useless and just take up real estate.

If someone were to take the time to setup properly, most of the time
half or more of the currently visibly toolbars/icons would not need to be
displayed at any given point. It would also give the ability to load
different XML skins based on your current task,giving an ion/toolbar
environment more appropriate to the task at hand. When I'm working with
sheet metal, only a very few taskbars/icons need displayed. One could hide
each bar and icon, then replace them at a later point with SW currently, but
it would be much easier to simply load the sheet metal skin that I custom
created based on my preferences, not what SW thought I needed.

For some situations, I'd like a mini iconed bar instead of selections
boxes like those for extrude end conditions. I'd also like to be able to
re-size bars/icons at will. I am sure that most, if not all of these items,
could be accomplished through the api, but the programming involved would be
daunting, unlike the simplicity of altering an xml UI skin.

Sorry if it seems that I am ranting. Its not my intention. There are
lots of UI changes that would serve me well, but I don't expect SW to change
their UI for me ( I am 100% sure that the UI I created would be despised by
most others ). However, being able to alter the UI to suit my tastes would
be great.

 

I am sure there are opportunities to explore a self learning GUI that serves
up most likely commands and messages based on your previous work...so it
would after a while it suit you exactly.
How about mouse gestures so moving in one of the primary compass directions
brings up a say sheetmetal toolbar after selection...this would complement
the present right click scheme and a handful of keyboard shortcuts - all
cutting down mouse travel to probably the middle portion of the screen most
of the time...perhaps a ring of icons pops up?? dunno...must be many ideas
to explore...but it needs to be done properly as Markus says - a quick chat
over coffee yielding impressions of what one user thinks they do isn't going
to yield meaningful results- no offence TOP...being at a loss for words
probably is the right response...
neil

 

I think anybody that uses the interface and points and clicks each
command is wasting his time.
Get a spaceball or sidewinder commander, your hand never has to touch
the keyboard except for entering numbers or filenames and your mouse
pointer never has to leave the work area.
Point and click is fine for MAC users, its useless for a CAD guy who
always has more work than there is time for.

 

what an adventurous lot )
it would be interesting to study people who use CAD to see what the reality
of their work day is - I believe I spend much more time waiting for rebuilds
and doing other related tasks like creative thinking, referring to tech
documents, answering the phone etc etc than would be saved here and there
with a spaceball....I find the most irritating aspect of the interface is
being dealt up helpful messages I don't need...or having to delete things
rather then be able to simply change parameters

 

I think the critical points are that SolidWorks stick closely to the Windows
paradigm as it shifts, that they not make change for change's sake or just
for marketing (like skins), and that they make the user interface easily
customizable. That is about as much as we can hope for. The best user
interface is such an intensely personal issue that there is no hope of ever
coming up with the "right" interface. Brian likes graphics space and menus
that go away when not needed; I like menus that don't move, so I like having
everything up at once. Jason likes the command manager; I hate it. Some
people like the flyout feature manager; I would much rather use a split
feature manager. Novices and light users often want fewer choices with
deeper menus; experts usually want flatter menus. Different strokes for
different folks is the only way to go. But the user interface as a whole has
to be cohesive and consistent. It's a tough problem.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

hmmm well I guess I am too radical for most then....I would kind of like to
kick free of adhering to MS global formulas and pursue a direction most
suited to CAD requirements what ever that looks like - if there is a better
way I want to do it...I am afraid I have never really liked the new icon
style/fashion/makeover for that MS conformity reason...to my mind the arty
appearance doesn't suit pro CAD -the attraction I have for open source
Blender is that people can innovate freely in the pursuit of genuine
improvement... but then a lot of folk find that program too quirky at
sight... as you say a tough problem.
an undertaking best not done by committee?

 

I want to stick to the Windows paradigm because it makes it so much easier
to move between programs. This is another case of different strokes for
different folks. If someone uses SolidWorks 8 hours a day, this probably
isn't going to be one of their hot buttons. But our PDM program is only
mildly Windows-like, and it drives me crazy when standard Windows shortcuts
don't work. It's especially frustrating when they work some places and not
others.

I agree completely here. I really don't care if it looks like the latest
version of Windows, but I want it to function in a Windows way. If
functionality requires a change to the appearance, then make the change. If
SW could cram in more buttons by dumping some of the Windows style
guidelines, then I would cheer them on. Unfortunately, my cheering will be
drowned out by the loud "thou shalt not do that!" from Microsoft.

Actually, I think this might be a case where a committee is not such a bad
idea. If the UI is sufficiently and easily customizable, then a lot of
input from a lot of different people helps you allow almost everyone to do
it their own way.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

yes ok I see your point about familiarity and compatibility.
it has to be easy to pick up on.
perhaps now is a good time to ask for 3 modes of operation - learner, std,
expert?
would you allow another presentation style option besides the
1) command manager - for learners - complete with all 'over' help and hints
2) usual toolbars - std - with important messages and reminders
say along the lines of the radical ring idea I ventured - with v.little
help - for the expert mode?
or would you just like to see the present formats refined/streamlined some?
is a form of AI beyond consideration? too complex?
what I was thinking is that the more accomplished the user the less the need
to follow convention so presenting the next or probable tool could be quite
immediate to the cursor rather than in a menu or bar.
users could pack and take their AI experience to another pc like options
presently.

everyone - feel free to join in with your opinion...nothing like a
committee meeting )

 

The problem I have with that is that things keep moving around. If you, per
chance, don't want the "next logical thing" because, well, you don't, then
the one you do want most likely isn't in the same place in the right-click
menu that it was last time. I think they made headway with consistency with
SW2005, but there are still things that move.

WT

 

I think the SolidWorks user interface has generally improved over the
years to make the program increasingly efficient in its management of
menus and dialog boxes.

However, speaking of consistency (or lack thereof), I am disappointed
that after all too long there are still remnants of the original
graphical user interface. Among these are properties dialog boxes which
have not been converted to operate within the Property Manager column.

Some functions do not yet use the Property Manager at all and others
have a combination of Property Manager operation mixed with links to
old style additional, separate sub-property dialogs.

Many other examples of the Mix and Match UI are found within the Tools
Menus. Some such as the Measure Tool have updated dialog box
interfaces, while old style dialogs exist for many as seen with Sketch
Tools/Modify, etc.

These tools in many cases would be easier to use and create less
clutter if they operated within the Manager column (with updated
interfaces) as the Feature creation functions do, instead of being
plastered on top of the open file viewport(s).

A homogenous visual presentation is still sorely lacking...

Per O. Hoel
___________________

 

agreed, it should be finished by now...
I would like to see the inset rounded boxes in the FM go because I think
this makes the dialogue panels somewhat longer than need be, requiring more
scrolling ...

 

Indeed <wince>.

 

Paul, I remember we three Amigos brought up the point of changing the UI
in 2001, but our criticism (mostly your criticism) fell on deaf ears.
Even though you pointed out that the UI changes between 2000 and 2001
presented a disadvantage in one way, the message obviously didn't sink
in (even tho' they pricked up their ears at some of what you said). I
wish you luck getting the point across better this time. I suggest
maybe trying different ears. There are a few like minds at the company
now, you know. Biasotti is probably one (hint, hint).

'Sporky'

 

I'm all for it.

This brings up an interesting question. After we've been using software in
our jobs for some time, we all become expert in certain areas, but we can be
complete novices in many other areas. In the best of all possible user
interfaces we could pick and choose how information is presented for each
function or tool bar.

I certainly wouldn't mind if they would put some work into fixing what we
have right now. I would rather have the existing interface work better than
get a major redesign of it right now.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I've seen this type of approach work
well (context sensitive mouse picks, for example) and I've also seen it done
in ways I disliked. (I-deas moved menu buttons around depending on how often
you picked them. Sometimes it worked out OK, and other times it just led to
frustrating searches every time you hit a function.)

This is a very good point for any kind of scheme that moves stuff around.
You want to be able to take your interface preferences/knowledge easily
along when you switch computers.

Those of us who are hoping to take part in SWW focus groups should be taking
notes and thinking hard about it.


Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"