Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:24:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4934 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> <mostly snipped>
>
> I agree pretty much with everything Steve wrote here. As I said before, as a
> USER I'd rather have a multiattribute shape/connectivity based system rather
> than "pirate hull" and "destroyer droid" based names.
Thanks for the support.
Except for the sailing ship hulls, I feel it will be better (ie, better
for users) to go with the intuitive name. "Boat Bow X x Y x Z", "Boat
Stern X x Y x Z".[1] Possibly with a modifier somewhere, to indicate
that these are the SPUD hulls, not brick- or plate-style.
> > But here's an example of a usage-based name that's un-useful: "Train
> > Catenary Holder". People have asked time and time again where to find
> > this part, when they're modeling their space robots, or dragons, or Town
> > creation.
>
> Your example is wrong! If it were "Catenary" maybe I'd have a prayer of
> finding it (because I know Trains better than some) but it isn't.
So sorry. I was too lazy to make sure I was using the right(wrong)
speeling. :\
> It's "CaNtenary" (which is spelled wrong), or at least it was, and that has
> gotten propagated into many other places, so even if I *knew* the incorrect
> association (this part is a PANTOGRAPH SHOE not a catenary holder... A
> catenary holder would be a thing that bolts onto poles and holds the power
> wire (that is, it holds catenary), not a thing mounted on trains that
> contacts wires, for goodness sake!) I *still* might not find it.
I was using this part: <http://guide.lugnet.com/parts/search.cgi?q=2880>
for the example. This part gets used in a wide variety of contexts, in
Train, Town, and Space. Hence my comment about "robot claws" (see
<http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6889>).
From your description, you were talking about
<http://guide.lugnet.com/parts/search.cgi?q=2881>. Which suffers from
similiar name-challenges, but is a much less common part.
> So please don't go with theme based names or even worse set based names.
> This CAD user implores those arguing against logical names to reconsider
> their position. That way lies madness.
I will generally go for attribute/geometric names, except when that
approach gives much worse results than usage/theme/intuitive names.
And parts authors are encouraged to make extensive use of KEYWORDS
entries, to help people when they are searching for parts.
--
Steve
1) I realize these are *ship* parts, but we've already got the Boat
thing going.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
56 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
