ER for improved RMB popup.

All,

Although the new RMB is good, there is an issue of consistency and speed
with the RMB menu used throughout.

In particular, "Hide" position on the RMB menu..

For instance, the RMB menu for surfaces, or the "Body" section of the
menu and it's location is not consistent, it's too far down the menu.

Hide (which is used often) should be near the top of the menu.

Shown in the image below is the current menu and, imho, an improved RMB
menu. Also, moving the Rollback and Suppress functions down and adding
a horizontal divided bar below the Body function area.

http://zxys.com/surface_rmb_menu_change.png

I'm submitting this as an ER and if you feel it's something you would
like, please make out a request.


Thanks.

 

Sorry, Paul, I've got to disagree with your suggestion as presented. It
took a couple of days, but I have grown quite fond of the categorization of
the RMB menu into face, features, body, etc. I spend a lot less time
searching, and less time mixing up the properties (face properties, feature
properties). I'd hate to see it get shaken back up like you show in your
images.

A little off topic - the icons are nice, but mixing icons with non-icons
made it hard to find things like parent-child until I made an effort to get
used to where it showed up. Not that the solution is to ditch the icons -
hopefully, we get icons for everything.

What do you think of the round RMB menu that alias uses (or at least used to
use back a few years). It was exactly the same distance to every function,
which was pretty darn fast.

Back on topic - BTW - I use rollback and suppress/unsupress way more
frequently than Hide. Fortunately for you, Hide is the first item under
Body, so once you get used to the categorization you will jump right there
without needing to even really focus your eyes.

 

Ed,

Did you really look at this??
Because, nothing has changed, everything is there, the organization is
slightly different with the position of the categories in a easier and
consistent position relative to the other RMB's.

Other than "getting use too" the interface, I have no problem with
change but I do have a problem with a company forcing the user to drive
a program based on their interface layout which, in this case, is not
consistent.

Hmm. The only problem I have with icons are the space they occupy in
the menu and the unequal spacing.

I hear ya. exactly.
There are quite a few very good interfaces on the market which focus on
consistent gui interfaces and speed.

Who is doing SW Corps interface design???

Well, to be consistent with the interface, hide is the next option on
most of the RMB menus and rollback is the next. When I'm working with
rollback, I'm usually navigating in the Property Manager.

...

 

Here's a crazy idea...

How about making all the menus user customizable? Wow. No one's done that
before. Wake up SolidWorks it's 2004!
I take that back. I'd rather them simplify the program and get the code
right.

-Jeff
"Can I be a Keynote speaker at SWW 2005?

 

Paul,

What you propose in insane . . . for me . . and perfect for you . . .
so . . .

The real problem with both of these menus is that the bottom button on
each does not work well enough to make this a truly "user level"
customisation.

I think the "Customize Menu" button is having delusions of adequacy
and perhaps even grandeur and would be better named "Hide and Show
What We Think You Might Maybe Possibly Want Or Need Here Because We
Don't Really Want To PRogram Or Are Able To Let You Customize This So
That You Can Actually Put ANYTHING You Want Here In The Order You Want
The Way You Can With Autocad LT".

But then again the button would be to big . . . Hmmmmm(?).

Regards,

SMA

P.S. I also found the "categories" (feature,body, etc.) a bit strange
but am growing to like it. Perhaps a body should be above a feature
in the RMB heirarchy as it is a "parental" object. That's part of
what seems to be amiss.

 

Not only did I look at it, but I invite you to look at it again. In the
exisitng that you show, under faetures, there are 10 options. In your
proposed modification, there is one option under features, then you shoehorn
Body stuff in, then you go back to stuff that applies to features without
any heading or organization to let you know that you are back in things for
features.
Is it possible that you didn't catch that the heading at the top of the menu
is organizational, and not only to identify what feature is being edited?
Its actually kind of efficient with space in that way. I have found this
organization helps me out A LOT, once I got used to it.

 

I'm with Ed on this one. I like the RMB popup in 2004. I could be
improved, perhaps. But I don't like Paul's suggestion. I also use
suppress a lot more than hide.

Paul's suggestion splits up the grouped operations (feature operations,
body operations...)

 

Yeah, that is what I'll write a ER for then..

...

 

Hmm, yeah, there are different needs for all of us?

So a true customizing function would be desired?

Maybe workflow themes? Where the user has 4 themes with categories
aimed at certain workflow disciplines?

...

 

Yeah, I agree it is better! I think this is about what people get use
too or having options for the users (like me) which see a menu layout a
issue or tailoring the layout to maximize their timing, consistency and
workflow?

So a ER for true customizing the RMB?

Maybe workflow themes? Where the user or SW creates 4 general themes
with categories aimed at certain workflow disciplines?

...