 |
|
|
COFES Blog
Apr
26
Written by:
Rachael Dalton-Taggart
4/26/2006 3:14 AM
There is a growth of concern about the continued usability - or lack thereof - of CAD software. Steve Wolfe hosted a briefing session about it and I am impatient to get the audio recording of it for reference. Martyn Day was intended to host a briefing about this at the event too, but unfortunately missed his plane and turned up late.
One of Alan Cooper's main complaints (our keynoter BTW) in his book 'The Inmates are Running the Asylum" is that interfaces on almost any product, anywhere, are not given the attention they need to make a product usable. This doesn't only refer to CAD products, but also to simple things like VCRs, microwaves etc. CAD products are incredibly powerful tools. But for some reason, we have to spend months learning to use one. Why is that? Why isn't it obvious what button to press to make a shape? Why doesn't this powerful tool show me what I am doing, and make it easy?
While I had a quick whinge about this during COFES, Shyamal Roy from Geomate asked me a very interesting question: "Should CAD software make a dumb guy smarter, or a smart guy smarter still?" Good question. My answer: Yes. It should do both. And it should be usable enough for anyone to do what's needed, up to his level of need or IQ.
Now, SketchUp is, I think, the easiest CAD product I have ever used. (Only problem - it is really a sketching/concept design product, not CAD in the true sense.) It took me simply 15 minutes of watching the intro video, and I had the idea. Alibre took my associate at the office about 25 minutes to get the hang of and he's enjoying using it. But even the easy ones need an instructional video. There again, so does my DVD player.
My iPOD, however, was up and running with a single, and very simple, instructional page from Apple. My 7 year old kid was using the iPOD, and switching between videos, within 5 minutes of me showing him how it works. Now that is usability. Word has it that Rick Chin's research work (Swift) is potentially leading in the direction of better usability in complex CAD systems. About time. It's time to think out of the box. It's time to do an 'iPOD' on CAD software. Are we up to it? I am not sure.
6 comment(s) so far...
Re: Why CAD software sucks
Of course I agree that CAD software has a long way to go in terms of improving its ease of use, but it's unrealistic to expect a 7 year-old to be able to learn the interface of a new CAD application in 5 minutes (but, boy would it be cool to be wrong about that!)
An iPod is beautiful because it’s designed for a set of very specific tasks; to store, select, and play music. It works very well for those tasks, but if Apple had meant for it to accomplish more tasks, its interface would likely have suffered as a result.
SketchUp is beautiful because it too was designed for some very specific tasks; to help architects design more easily in 3D. It does that very well. But I doubt even SketchUp's designers would claim it does a very good job as a mechanical design tool. The requirements of mechanical design differ from architecture, and therefore different toolsets are required. It's no coincidence that CAD products are becoming more industry-specific in their focus.
SolidWorks' Swift technology is indeed representative of a more iPod-like CAD. It tries to address the specific problems faced in mechanical design. It even goes so far as to anticipate the user's intent based on their actions, and respond or adjust accordingly. This follows Alan Cooper's philosophy. Instead of forcing engineers to use generic tools tools to 'create profiles', 'extrude shapes', or 'sweep surfaces' in order to produce mechanical parts; Swift understands mechanical parts and works to facilitate their design. Mechanical designers should not have to learn obscure tools or vocabularies to do their job.
To address your question: Are we up to the challenge of producing an iPod of CAD today? SketchUp and SolidWorks' Swift prove we (the industry) are indeed up for it. But if you're expecting a 7 year-old to pick it up and design mechanical assemblies in 5 minutes, you're going to be disappointed. I'm guessing it'll be more comparable to the job a 7 year-old could do designing a house with SketchUp today.
By Stavanja on
4/26/2006 6:10 AM
|
Re: Why CAD software sucks
Gosh, Kyle is seven now!?
By Randall Newton on
4/27/2006 8:03 AM
|
Re: Why CAD software sucks
The iPod has to store, find and play a file. Simple really, but many others have managed to make that needlessly complex. Wait till Kyle has to wrestle with DRM isssues...
Unfortunately I suspect CAD is complex because the world is such a complex place :)
By Robin Capper on
4/27/2006 10:24 PM
|
Re: Why CAD software sucks
Cadd is complex because very little thought was orginally given to how it work. They just wanted to make it work. Good example is printing/plotting of cadd files. It has always been an after thought. CADD was suppose to replace paper, so what was on the screen was the most important, thing, Not worrying about how to go from the screen to paper.
By Rande Robinson on
4/28/2006 11:19 AM
|
Re: Why CAD software sucks
When you talk to younger users about usability of CAD software, the normal response is to look at you as if you are from Mars. I think, especially with the newer generation of CAD products (Rhino / SolidWorks / Inventor / SketchUp / Revit/ others) younger users in general "get it" rather quickly. Usability is rather low on the list of gripes.
By randallnewton on
4/30/2006 9:39 PM
|
Re: Why CAD software sucks
I own Soild Works 2007 it works fine, I am not a pro, but the swift technolodgy makes a big diffrence. Because I also own SW 2006
By JT on
3/25/2007 1:32 PM
|
DISCLOSURE:
The US Federal Trade Commission mandated in December of 2009 that bloggers must disclose any material connection and compensation received for blog posts to inform consumers of paid endorsements.
The blog published here is completely my own and Cyon Research receives no compensation for its content. However, readers should assume that Cyon Research currently has, has had in the past and is likely to seek a business relationship with any company mentioned here.
Likewise, Cyon Research employees may not directly own shares in any company reported on here. However, it is likely that mutual funds or other investment vehicles contain shares that are not under the direct control of company employees.
|
|
|
|