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.
3 comments:
Hear hear!!
The UI change got my feathers ruffled as well. I'm glad to see someone else expressing discontent.
I would back you up on this one. I have noticed in the media releases regarding the 2010 products, there are not as many software enhancements. They all tout the new UI. Very dissapointing.
I think it is somewhat analogous to a Revit Family or AutoCAD dynamic block into which someone has just crammed way too much information to the neglect of it's usefulness and efficiency. IE: I could cram every single piece of casework from the AWI catalog into a single family or 100 door types and options into a single family (or even a dynamic block in ACAD) to the point where the user has to make several subsequent clicks in order to get the piece of casework they need or the door type and orientation exactly as they need it. Or, I can have several families or blocks available and a user just grabs the one they need, places it in the file and moves on to the next task. Sure it's cool that I have one "super family" or "mega dynamic block" to me, because I am the idiot who spent 3 days designing it, but not so cool to the person who has to place 400 of them in a project. I know this may seem like somewhat of a stretch, but I kind of have the same concern here with the ribbon interface. Put simply, it all comes down to the fact that anytime a "technology advancement" results in more clicks to do the same thing, I am immediately suspect.
All of that said, we'll probably just be forced to take the productivity hit from the interface changes in order to get the schematic design improvements if they are as good as advertised. But, we probably won't upgrade any existing projects.
I think the most disturbing thing and the thing that is gnawing at everyone, is that the amount of time and effort that appears to have gone into the interface changes (note: I didn't say improvements)while the core problems that we have been asking for improvements on for years still remain core problems. IE: The initial revit generated elevations and sections are still as ugly as ever, the site tools still leave a lot to be desired, etc..
Post a Comment