Don't Confuse Change with Progress

I think the existing users of Revit are on to something. There's a great book by Malcolm Gladwell called Blink that goes into some depth on intuitive thinking. The book isn't suggesting that people stop 'thinking'. What it's suggesting is that people with experience about something have the ablilty to instinctively "know before they know."

Many existing Revit users are finding the new user interface to be a move in the wrong direction. So let's quantify this intuition with regard to the redesign of the Revit 2010 UI. I'll start with a comparison of completing some of most common tasks in Revit 2009 to completing those same tasks in Revit 2010 using Autodesk's own data (the video can be found here) which starts by quantifying the most frequent user tasks in Revit. Here's a screen capture from that video:

So by comparing common tasks, I'll illustrate why the new users are not just intuitively - but also quantifiably correct. The new interface isn't just unfamiliar because its new. It's that the expression of creating something as complex as a building defies the overly simplistic metaphor of a "ribbon" that by design constantly hides and subjectively contextualizes both elements and their modifiers.

Link to Part 1
Link to Part 2

And let's not even get started into the discussion regarding the creation of a UI based upon the measuring the "most common" tasks. If frequency = functionality, the cancel, delete and undo functions represent nearly 75% of the value of Revit. And this is certainly not the case.

A Well-Intentioned Road Paving

In glorious (or inglorious) HD here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj2USV01_VQ

Ever have someone "clean up" your office/study/desk/tool bench? May seem clean and well organized to an outsider - but actually quite useless. Worse then useless. Actually quite annoying: someone spent time and/or money that could have been better spent doing something else. Even something more productive. And the cost really isn't the true cost. Because there's also the hidden expense of all the wasted time it'll take you to find where everything has been so "thoughtfully" organized.

What could be worse? How about a magic tool shed? Here's how it'd work:

Every time you put down a tool to do something else, the tool gets put away..."poof!" Maybe in a drawer, maybe hung on the peg board. Or perhaps in a box on a shelf. So no matter what you do, the moment you take your hand off the tool...poof!. That'd waste a lot of time, eh? Put the hammer down to pick up the screwdriver...poof!. No, wait. Can't pick up the screwdriver - it's already been put away in the drawer to your left. Now put the hammer down (poof!) and open the drawer and pick up the screwdriver. Now put the screwdriver back down (poof!) to pick up the hammer. Changed mind, still need the screwdriver...sh!t...already back in the drawer...d@mn magic tool shed!

What could be worse? How about a demonically possessed magic tool shed. Here's how it'd work:

Every time you put down a tool to do something else, the tool get's put away. But here's the difference: it's not in the same place twice. It depends on what you're about to do with the tool.

No kidding.

Need a hammer? Well - depends. If you're going to hammer a nail, it's on the pegboard above the bench. But if you're going to pull a nail, it's in the drawer to your right. If you're going to chisel a bit of wood, we'll - it's in the box on the shelf behind you. But if you're going to smash something (like the drunken leprechaun that haunts your tool shed) it's in the silverware drawer in the kitchen.

So there you have it. The UI in Revit 2010 is like working in a tool shed possessed by a drunken leprechaun. Or maybe one designed by a committee with a 2-year lead time.

Same thing really. ;)

One More One More Thing...

Ok - I've received a lot of private email about the last post.

So yes - there are some interesting improvements - but neither required an overhaul of the UI. I could have been swayed to move to R2010 if learning a new UI (downtime) was offset by substantial functionality enhancements (uptime). As it is, I'm not convinced I can make the business case to move to R2010. More organic modeling tools are great and will help us resolve more than a few geometric edge conditions. But at what cost?

I moved from CAD to Revit 1.0 not because I was smitten by the UI, but because of a philosophy and gains in efficiency that (in spite of significant room for improvement) represented a far more elegant approach to describing a building. Does Autodesk really believe that potentially new users will finally be convinced that they should move to Revit because a new UI is similar to their old UI?

Does ADSK really think we'll buy this marketing speak without holding our collective noses?

The reason Autodesk's tools look different (and should continue to do so) is because ground-up innovation is no longer Autodesk's key strength. Disruptive innovation is too hard and moves too fast outside the confines of 9 to 5 (and even farther outside the confines of being a publicly held company where the "customer" isn't the end user - but the share holder). Autodesk's last decade of growth has been through acquisition and the democratization of those tools. We get that - it's ok. So we expect the tools to look different because we learned to use those tools as soon as they were available and long before they were acquired. The real challenge is the distribution of new technology is fundamentally disruptive to large, pre-internet technology companies that for a time were able to enjoy the control of distribution. But this is no longer the case. And so innovation gives way to democratization. Big deal.

But unfortunately, democratization has now given way to homogenization. Case in point? Site Tools. They should have been in Revit years ago (and would be if Revit were still an independent company) because 1) their customers would have demanded it and 2) they would have faced no internal, existing tools and functionality to disrupt or displace. But in my opinion the reason that Revit does not have site tools is because it would disrupt other business units within ADSK: ACAD, LDT, C3D. Perhaps the idea is that so long as the user has another ADSK flavored tool for site design, Revit doesn't need one. So which site design tool is the tool of choice by Architects?

SketchUp.

It really simple:

1) Let the Revit team fly the pirate flag and disrupt your other business units by making insanely great technology

- or -

2) Continue to disrupt your customer's businesses by drip feeding functionality that when finally released will be far too late to be much used, much appreciated or of much consequence.

One More Thing...

I haven't posted in a while, but I've certainly been chewing on something that continues to leave a bad taste.

Being fluid in an application is akin to playing an instrument (or learning a language). Is ADSK is deciding that all instruments should have the same UI? That we all should speak the same language? This seems an inane presumption.

Why has the UI been so significantly altered? A few reasons suggested at http://insidethefactory.typepad.com/:

* Make the products easier to learn

To be determined. Why "easier"? What compels me to learn an "easy" tool if I'm not convinced it does what I need? I wouldn't. I'd learn to use the harder tool that will help me accomplish a task.

* Make it easier to switch between Autodesk products

Presuming users care about switching only between Autodesk products that do different things is the first mistake. In any event, we switch between products all the time - from operating systems to applications. They look different. We get it.

* Maintain the productivity of existing users

To be determined. Anyway - why is the ideal to "maintain"? Why not accelerate or enhance productivity?

* Update the Autodesk identity

You are a public company. Your identity is your stock price. Get over it. Investing 2 years improving the UI while not significantly improving what you can do with the UI is wrong headed and inexplicable. How will revamping the UI convince your existing and new customers to buy your product and in doing so increase your stock price? This is your identity.

In conclusion, to hobble design teams with learning another "language" will make them significantly less productive in the short term. If they are 1/2 productive for a month, this represents a annual productivity hit of -4%, which I have to trust will be made up over the year. The UI is interesting but not compelling. What is the trade off? The downside of an learning an entirely new UI is certainly not being offset by long needed functionality enhancements (starting with site tools).

At this time, I find no compelling reason to upgrade to R2010. And if I get the sense there will not be significant enhancements in functionality in the coming years I will absolutely begin to consider other non-Autodesk solutions. There aren't any compelling BIM solutions at present. But this could quickly change as Autodesk has just given a potential competitor a terrific head start.