Subject:
|
Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:29:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
711 times
|
| |
|
|
>
> 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
> operator/drafting technician is important. But this is Lego :) I suspect a lot
> of users might just want to put some bricks together for fun. And that
> learnability isn't there...then you lose a great deal of the user base.
>
> I could see, and I don't know this for sure:
>
> a) People who want to build the occassional Lego CAD model for say a website or
> to explain something.
For whom LDD is, as you've pointed out, probably going to be the better option.
> b) People who build all day in Lego CAD (eg, James Mathis)
For whom the LDraw suite is definitely the better option.
> The a) users aren't being helped here. The b) users have stuck with it so far.
Different tools for different tasks
>
> Well, that's an interesting point: With programming, you can sit alone in your
> dorm room or wherever hacking out a piece of code. But things like
> documentation, usability, and analysis aren't the kind of things people can do
> alone or for free.
>
> Say you managed to get some UCD types to work on X. It's not like you can sit
> and bang out "here's five things I want to fix". You need to find thirty new or
> typical users, figure out their scenarios or use cases, then get them in and
> watch them use the system. Then you need to review, analyze and produce a
> document with recommendations. Which probably will be ridiculed by all the
> developers anyways, because...
>
> To use ESR's (ugh, I won't want to lend credence to him) terms, the scratchers
> don't have the itch to fix the design problems (because they're not users), and
> the itchy (new users) don't have the ability to scratch.
Some Open Source software would have UI analysis carried out, but probably only
the paid-for stuff. There is a decent argument that you get what you pay for.
> I think if you look at FOSS development, it's always been one of a few things:
>
> -Some developer or systems utility (eg, OS, webserver, scripting language)
> -Emulation of some successful product (eg, GIMP, OpenOffice)
>
> The former, the scratcher is the itcher. The latter, you don't need to do any
> design work on, because the template is already there. Half the time with the
> latter, the motivation us geek-political anyways (eg, we hate Microsoft, down
> with Microsoft, let's make our own mediocre, more bug ridden version, so at
> least we can say we're Microsoft-free).
>
> Calum
To accuse most of the MS clones of being mediocre and bug ridden versions is
just plain wrong. Many of them are probably more bug free and offer more
features than the originals, albeit more difficult to use.
In the case of the GIMP I agree that it is nowhere near as easy to use or as
fully-featured as Photoshop. It is however a good 500USD or so cheaper which is
a pretty good reason to use it if you only want to dabble in image editing.
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
