Subject:
|
Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:47:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
770 times
|
| |
|
|
> Learnability is one aspect of usability. If you want to use Jakob Nielsen's
> definition:
>
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html
>
> The 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 didn't
> work very well for me either.
>
> The scope of features doesn't really seem to fit into the usability equation.
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 weighting for each of these points is different for different
software aims. In the case of a CAD system, Efficiency and Memorability are
probably the most important aspects in the long run. You obviously consider
learnability to be of higher importance but IF it comes at the expense of
others, I would say that increasing learnability would detract from the software
as a whole.
> > Alas, many of the major tools are not FOSS so it is difficult to add to them. I
> > have a number of ideas which I think would add to MLCad and make it easier to
> > learn but they are unlikely to be added quickly.
>
> I misstated that. Let me try again. I've never seen a piece of free,
> enthusiast (Linux, Open Source, Lego, HAM radio operator) written software that
> has had usability analysis done on it.
>
> Even if the code was open for people to add, the FOSS process is not conducive
> to allowing for major user interface architectural changes. Most FOSS projects
> are written either by people who have zero understanding of UI, and most source
> changes tend to me ports, hacks or bugfixes, not fundamental design changes.
>
> LDD has the greatest chance (out of all the tools) of having that put as a
> priority (as it's a commercial, sales oriented tool), though Ted's observations
> seem to say differently.
With that I completely agree. Unfortunately the people that have expertise in
this field rarely seem to want to contribute to FOSS projects, quite possible
because the culture doesn't encourage it.
Another thing about a lot of FOSS (and some commerical software) is that it is
aimed at a specialised user base, who would prefer to take the time to learn
something which is then very easy over a quick learn but less functional piece
of software. Of course given unlimited time, energy and volunteers, both could
be addressd at once.
>
> The fact you have some ideas that won't get implemented is a shame.
>
> Calum
It is a shame.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
61 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
|
|
|
|
