2008-05-19 12:58 PM
2008-07-19 11:34 PM
Matthew wrote:Matthew,
If GS were to reorganize the program to have the outward clarity and consistency of Revit while retaining all of its sophisticated capabilities and making them more accessible, I think its advantages would be far more evident to more users.
I wonder sometimes if GS were to just make all the existing features more obvious and accessible (adding no new functions) that this might seem to many to be the biggest upgrade ever.
2008-07-22 02:41 AM
Richard wrote:How often do you train new users? If you find this to be easy I'm sure that Link and Karl and I as well as many others would like to know your secret.
I personally think the real problem is one of consistent TRAINING options, rather than consistent menus.
For example, Reviters spend lots of time learning how to create families, and then denigrate GDL as being too difficult to learn. Well, it IS difficult, but only because you have to brace yourself for a lot of self-instruction with boring manuals like the GDL Reference Guide. If GS had a readily available step-by-step GDL training series that could get people up to speed in GDL as quickly as people get up to speed with Revit families, then I think you'd see some interesting competition.I agree that more people should probably learn the basics of making library parts (with and without GDL programming) but this
2008-07-22 04:33 AM
Matthew wrote:This is pretty much what I'm saying -- that what keeps people from easily adopting AC is that they require personal training to learn the intricacies of being productive, and short of finding a personal tutor like you, Link, or Karl, they are pretty much screwed. While making the interface and behaviors more consistent is a good thing, it isn't going to eliminate training needs.
The difficulty comes when you have to explain to someone things like "you can do that in the 3D window, but not in section/elevation view" and "oh, you make ceilings with the slab or roof tool, and in the latter case you can place lights with the skylight tool but in the former you use the chair tool". The quirks and variations in behaviors, interface elements and workarounds start to pile up in the view of new users to the point of absurdity. When I have trained new people I always try to start with the clear, consistent, elegant and highly productive aspects of the program, but since everyone has specific needs and those frequently require workarounds, it is impossible to insulate them from the quirks and complexities for long.
2008-07-22 07:02 AM
2008-07-22 06:33 PM
Richard wrote:The accessibility of ArchiCAD's features is a big advantage. Revit has nothing to match the Pet Palette nor Info Box. Revit's advantage in simple consistency is undermined by the fact that, while it is simple to learn where to find things, it is consistently tedious to do so.
When I've tried to learn Revit, it seems on the face very consistent, but very deep to get down into the intricacies and subtleties. I hate the "spreadsheet" interface where you have to "drill down" to get to what you have to change. I like that Archicad has everything on a fairly superficial level for editing.
So if I were a firm trying to move to BIM, I think the actual choice of software would be more heavily influenced by the issues of getting my employees up to speed and perpetually trained and upgraded, than by which software has a better interface.These are not unrelated issues. A clear and consistent interface makes training and maintenance much more productive and affordable.
2008-09-29 05:48 AM
2009-03-21 03:50 PM
2009-04-30 06:25 PM