 | | Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
|
(...) I think that by usability you actually mean learnability which is somewhat different. I agree that most of the Ldraw CAD tools are not that easy to learn. They do not have dedicated teams to make them so. I think that, at heart, CAD is a (...) (19 years ago, 31-Aug-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
|
(...) Learnability is one aspect of usability. If you want to use Jakob Nielsen's definition: (URL) others, such as efficiency, memorability or satisfaction, I cannot comment on, I couldn't get past the first one. Error correction I have to say (...) (19 years ago, 1-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
|
(...) Addressing each of these points (for MLCad as that's what I'm most used to): Learnability: Low Efficiency: Very high (that's where features comes in) Memorability: Decent Errors: Very low (none really) Satisfaction: Highish However the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
|
(...) I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I would have to ask the question if efficiency and memorability were that important for this CAD system. If you're building the next Airbus 380 or industrial automation, then sure, speed for the (...) (19 years ago, 2-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
|
(...) For whom LDD is, as you've pointed out, probably going to be the better option. (...) For whom the LDraw suite is definitely the better option. (...) Different tools for different tasks (...) Some Open Source software would have UI analysis (...) (19 years ago, 2-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
