At a loss for words.

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.

Nitpicking follows:

The Xerox Palo Alto Research Center center is where the mouse and window paradigm was pioneered. They weren't working for Apple.

The windows interface probably has not changed much more than the Mac's, at least, not since Win95. Things move around, yes, but they work basically the same.

I share your gripe with SW nuances changing with each release. I think this is a natural consequence of features maturing after release. One thing is for sure: the Windows style guide is completely inadequate for CAD. SW made up their own paradigm as they went, and did a good enough job that AutoDesk basically lifted it for Inventor. It sure isn't perfect, though.

Since I don't see this evolutionary development model going away, I'd like to see all these little nuances documented much more thoroughly. Surely the devolopers document these things as they work. That documentation needs to make it's way into the help or whatever, so that users can methodically learn about them and how they've changed. The current system of trial-and- error combined with discoveries from other users is just rediculously inefficient.

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.

I see. I read it wrong then.

Exactly right. They need to do some real usability testing. Have you seen the PDC videos for Office 12? They spent a lot of time (and money) researching usability. Say what you want about Microsoft, but investing money in stuff like this just makes sense. The new UI for Office 12 looks pretty darn cool. Check it out:

You really need to watch the videos to see this in action (can't remember where I saw it). The action bars are tailored to show the most common actions related to the task at hand. SW kind of has this already

- which I think was a step in the right direction. I think they are headed in the right direction - they just need to settle down a little and find the sweet spot. Change can be good, but constant change is bad news.

M.

neil wrote:

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.

I'm not aware of any such interface that has really worked well. Not for me, anyway. The command manager and suchlike have always created extra clicks for me.

what an adventurous lot :o) 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 :o)

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 presentati> > what I was thinking is that the more accomplished the user the less the