...isn't that they're made in America. Honda makes fantastic minivans in Alabama. BMW makes head-turning sport cars and SUV's in South Carolina.
More to follow...
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
CTRL + Z
Sorry Eddy - you'll have to pick a new cause. Turns out that all the hysteria over global warming can be ignored now that Hades has frozen over. Both my proposed sessions for AU have been re-approved. It's all part of a long (and not promised to be interesting) story and I'll gladly share it with anyone that'll buy the beer.
Anyway - stop threatening to key Jim Balding's car. ;)
So please email pictures of complex and interesting railing and stair conditions that you happen across over the next few months. While you're out and about just snap a couple of photos with your iPwn, Crackberry, etc. and email ASAP. Just remember to put "AU2009" in the subject line.
Why go through all this camera-phone-taking-picture-emailing hassle? Because according to a yet to be determined and entirely subjective, unscientific method the best image of a stair or railing used in the session wins an unlocked and lovingly cared for 1st generation iPhone. It should work with any carrier that uses a SIM card.
See store for details. Additional restrictions apply. And I'm pretty much still sold on T-Mobile. Great customer service.
Thanks all for the factory focused email and phone calls. Very much appreciated.
Anyway - stop threatening to key Jim Balding's car. ;)
So please email pictures of complex and interesting railing and stair conditions that you happen across over the next few months. While you're out and about just snap a couple of photos with your iPwn, Crackberry, etc. and email ASAP. Just remember to put "AU2009" in the subject line.
Why go through all this camera-phone-taking-picture-emailing hassle? Because according to a yet to be determined and entirely subjective, unscientific method the best image of a stair or railing used in the session wins an unlocked and lovingly cared for 1st generation iPhone. It should work with any carrier that uses a SIM card.
See store for details. Additional restrictions apply. And I'm pretty much still sold on T-Mobile. Great customer service.
Thanks all for the factory focused email and phone calls. Very much appreciated.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein! Nein!
Poor ViewCubeGirl. One can only imaging what Der Fuhrer will end up doing to RibbonBoy.
In the meantime, still no word on official support for the Classic UI in Revit 2010. This is unfortunate because unofficially it seems to work just fine - keyboard shortcuts and all.
Update:
1) No, I won't tell you how.
2) No, it's not Photoshop. Or a time machine.
3) If the factory doesn't want to support it - fine. But don't tell me how hard it is to put back when it's apparently still in there.
4) I think I need a beer with Dennis Sheldon.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Not So Fast
Want to make a sales person crazy? Ask them to wait while you read the fine print. Or better yet - ask them to read it for you. Especially if you suspect the contract contains a "Loyal Customer Penalty" (TM):
"Requires new two-year AT&T wireless service contract, sold separately to qualified customers; credit check required; must be 18 or older. For non-qualified customers, including existing AT&T customers who want to upgrade from another phone or replace an iPhone 3G, the price with a new two-year agreement is $499 (8GB), $599 (16GB), or $699 (32GB)."
I'm sticking with T-Mobile. And these guys.
Walls are meant to keep people in or out (and once in a while both). So I guess a lot depends on which side you happen to find yourself. :)
"Requires new two-year AT&T wireless service contract, sold separately to qualified customers; credit check required; must be 18 or older. For non-qualified customers, including existing AT&T customers who want to upgrade from another phone or replace an iPhone 3G, the price with a new two-year agreement is $499 (8GB), $599 (16GB), or $699 (32GB)."
I'm sticking with T-Mobile. And these guys.
Walls are meant to keep people in or out (and once in a while both). So I guess a lot depends on which side you happen to find yourself. :)
Friday, June 5, 2009
Priorities
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Factory Speak
Per Inside The Factory:
"Another related topic is the request to reinstate a "Classic UI". We are evaluating this and the only thing I can tell you at this point is it would be a very large effort with many limitations.
Interpretation:
We're not really evaluating this. And even if we did, do you have any idea how large the effort would be? Imagine something large. Now double it. Now try to pick it up. Told you. Not to mention that it's covered with limitations, so if you do touch it - well, if I were you I'd wash my hands right away. You need specifics? Well, unfortunately we can't tell you what those limitations are because it'd require a Super Secret SEC Decoder Ring. Put it this way - it's impossible to make a new button in the Classic UI and a button in the New UI do the same thing. Why? Because we can't write code when our fingers are in our ears and we're singing, "LALALALALALALALALALALAAAAAAAAaaaaa...".
"To be honest there are a lot fewer requests for the old UI than discussions here would indicate, but the rationale is well understood to better support a transition."
Interpretation:
When I said, "To be honest", you instinctively trusted me. Subtle, no? Anyway - in spite of all your experience there's not really that many of you. You're just making disproportionally more noise. Here's the deal: we need to get Revit out to the masses. But the masses have short attention spans. They love shiny. And big. And YouTube. So we need a UI that is more shiny, big and distracting than YouTube. Otherwise the masses won't get any work done or pay their subscription notices on time. Yes - we do happen to manage multiple UI strategies for some other products. But those products have competitors in the marketplace with really passionate users. And if you think Revit users are cult-like, you can't begin to imagine what SolidWorks users are like. Put it this way: Revit users are like mid-western-Lutherans compared to a bunch of end-of-an-Appalachian-dirt-road-rattlesnake-handling-poison-drinking-tongue-speaking-Pentecostals. So we really don't want to upset the Inventor users. And since Revit really doesn't have a meaningful competitor we can pretty much serve dinner and you pretty much have to eat it (or go to bed hungry). Hey - someone get that dang SEC guy outta here!
"Biggest issue here is that we would have to support both the new and old UI at the same time which is roughly twice as much work or half as many new enhancements. Pretty much why it was deprecated in the first place."
Interpretation:
Twice as much work! Do you have any idea how much time was spent supporting the old UI? Infinity! So if we have to support two UIs we'll have to do Infinity^2 more work! Do you have any idea how hard that is?! Anyway, it's now obvious you don't understand how this game gets played. If you keep pestering us for the old UI, then we'll threaten to extract a price. How much? Well, let's put it this way: by having to manage two UIs, we'll insinuate that we'll only be able to get to around half of all the cool toys we've been begging everyone to let us do. So just to clarify - you'll eventually get all the cool toys...but it'll take twice as long...minus Infinity^2. Basically somewhere below Site Tools. And we'll be grumpy when we finally get around to it.
"Really just trying to deliver as many new enhancements as possible. We can't go back in time so need to decide what the best path forward is.
Interpretation:
Managing two UI's is impossible for the Revit team because to do so actually requires time travel. Yes - in fact we already do happen have one time machine. But obviously it's already being used by the AutoCAD team for managing their two UIs. And so far they'll only share it with the Inventor team.
"Another related topic is the request to reinstate a "Classic UI". We are evaluating this and the only thing I can tell you at this point is it would be a very large effort with many limitations.
Interpretation:
We're not really evaluating this. And even if we did, do you have any idea how large the effort would be? Imagine something large. Now double it. Now try to pick it up. Told you. Not to mention that it's covered with limitations, so if you do touch it - well, if I were you I'd wash my hands right away. You need specifics? Well, unfortunately we can't tell you what those limitations are because it'd require a Super Secret SEC Decoder Ring. Put it this way - it's impossible to make a new button in the Classic UI and a button in the New UI do the same thing. Why? Because we can't write code when our fingers are in our ears and we're singing, "LALALALALALALALALALALAAAAAAAAaaaaa...".
"To be honest there are a lot fewer requests for the old UI than discussions here would indicate, but the rationale is well understood to better support a transition."
Interpretation:
When I said, "To be honest", you instinctively trusted me. Subtle, no? Anyway - in spite of all your experience there's not really that many of you. You're just making disproportionally more noise. Here's the deal: we need to get Revit out to the masses. But the masses have short attention spans. They love shiny. And big. And YouTube. So we need a UI that is more shiny, big and distracting than YouTube. Otherwise the masses won't get any work done or pay their subscription notices on time. Yes - we do happen to manage multiple UI strategies for some other products. But those products have competitors in the marketplace with really passionate users. And if you think Revit users are cult-like, you can't begin to imagine what SolidWorks users are like. Put it this way: Revit users are like mid-western-Lutherans compared to a bunch of end-of-an-Appalachian-dirt-road-rattlesnake-handling-poison-drinking-tongue-speaking-Pentecostals. So we really don't want to upset the Inventor users. And since Revit really doesn't have a meaningful competitor we can pretty much serve dinner and you pretty much have to eat it (or go to bed hungry). Hey - someone get that dang SEC guy outta here!
"Biggest issue here is that we would have to support both the new and old UI at the same time which is roughly twice as much work or half as many new enhancements. Pretty much why it was deprecated in the first place."
Interpretation:
Twice as much work! Do you have any idea how much time was spent supporting the old UI? Infinity! So if we have to support two UIs we'll have to do Infinity^2 more work! Do you have any idea how hard that is?! Anyway, it's now obvious you don't understand how this game gets played. If you keep pestering us for the old UI, then we'll threaten to extract a price. How much? Well, let's put it this way: by having to manage two UIs, we'll insinuate that we'll only be able to get to around half of all the cool toys we've been begging everyone to let us do. So just to clarify - you'll eventually get all the cool toys...but it'll take twice as long...minus Infinity^2. Basically somewhere below Site Tools. And we'll be grumpy when we finally get around to it.
"Really just trying to deliver as many new enhancements as possible. We can't go back in time so need to decide what the best path forward is.
Interpretation:
Managing two UI's is impossible for the Revit team because to do so actually requires time travel. Yes - in fact we already do happen have one time machine. But obviously it's already being used by the AutoCAD team for managing their two UIs. And so far they'll only share it with the Inventor team.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
David 1, Goliath 0
Excellent article by Malcolm Gladwell: "How David Beats Goliath: When Underdogs Break the Rules".
Along the same lines, I'd recommend, "Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin.
More to follow.
Thanks.
Along the same lines, I'd recommend, "Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin.
More to follow.
Thanks.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Customize This
GUI customization to make something exceptional is not the same thing as customization to make something functional. This dichotomy has been illustrated (intentionally or otherwise) by numerous user postings of their recently customized UI's. People are pulling off tabs, filling up the QAT with frequently used commands, and using even more short cuts.
All of this activity indicates that users are effectively trying to create a persistently exposed toolset in order to overcome the underlying philosophy of a Ribbon which subjectively and contextually exposes and hides functionality.
People who are trying to build things (even when they build them in the computer) usually don’t want their tools constantly moving around. This is an important distinction that is not about the pros/cons of a customizable UI. My contention is that a well designed GUI isn't a step backward when it can be customized, but when it must be customized.
It's enough of a challenge for one life spent in rigorous pursuit of elegant design. Must we also face the additional challenge of having to rigorously design a UI being used to rigorously design? Specific to Revit, a new UI that is more familiar to AutoCAD users could lower adoption barriers so that those users can create details.
But what if it hobbles the users that need to create buildings?
All of this activity indicates that users are effectively trying to create a persistently exposed toolset in order to overcome the underlying philosophy of a Ribbon which subjectively and contextually exposes and hides functionality.
People who are trying to build things (even when they build them in the computer) usually don’t want their tools constantly moving around. This is an important distinction that is not about the pros/cons of a customizable UI. My contention is that a well designed GUI isn't a step backward when it can be customized, but when it must be customized.
It's enough of a challenge for one life spent in rigorous pursuit of elegant design. Must we also face the additional challenge of having to rigorously design a UI being used to rigorously design? Specific to Revit, a new UI that is more familiar to AutoCAD users could lower adoption barriers so that those users can create details.
But what if it hobbles the users that need to create buildings?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Your Regularly Scheduled Programming Will Not Be Seen Tonight...
I was informed today by ADSK that my proposed sessions should not be a part of AU 2009 and someone else should manage Building Design Power Track. This is fully understood considering my strong personal opinions regarding Revit development and the 2010 UI. But it is really unfortunate considering my elegant work-around for rail joins. ;)
Autodesk has the extraordinary good fortune of having a passionate, articulate and dedicated customer base. I believe their customers yearn to buy software from a company that understands, appreciates and responds to their customer's investment. But for any company to remain successful, they must strenuously maintain balance between the sharp minds of deep thinking subject matter experts and the sharp elbows of politically savvy corporate bureaucrats. And if present management can not maintain this balance then it will likely be a priority of the next to restore it.
Between Revit Technology and Autodesk, I spent the better part of 7+ years convincing, training and mentoring people and teams to move away from a well-established, but tired, dead end of a process. I am very patient to a point. But I do not claim to have the time or patience to slowly stir Autodesk into action. Not when planning new functionality requires a 2 year lead time. Not when the last year was spent developing a new UI that many reasoned opinions believe is functionally inferior. The architectural community have invested too long and too much to see the unique (and I believe even historic) opportunity that is Revit be squandered through corporate lethargy.
I am at my deepest core an Agent of Change. It served Revit well. It served Autodesk well. I sincerely hope that it has served the Architectural Community well. I do not portend to be a reasonable man.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw
Autodesk has the extraordinary good fortune of having a passionate, articulate and dedicated customer base. I believe their customers yearn to buy software from a company that understands, appreciates and responds to their customer's investment. But for any company to remain successful, they must strenuously maintain balance between the sharp minds of deep thinking subject matter experts and the sharp elbows of politically savvy corporate bureaucrats. And if present management can not maintain this balance then it will likely be a priority of the next to restore it.
Between Revit Technology and Autodesk, I spent the better part of 7+ years convincing, training and mentoring people and teams to move away from a well-established, but tired, dead end of a process. I am very patient to a point. But I do not claim to have the time or patience to slowly stir Autodesk into action. Not when planning new functionality requires a 2 year lead time. Not when the last year was spent developing a new UI that many reasoned opinions believe is functionally inferior. The architectural community have invested too long and too much to see the unique (and I believe even historic) opportunity that is Revit be squandered through corporate lethargy.
I am at my deepest core an Agent of Change. It served Revit well. It served Autodesk well. I sincerely hope that it has served the Architectural Community well. I do not portend to be a reasonable man.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Rise of the Phoenix
In June of 2008, roofers accidentally started a fire on the backlot of NBC Universal Studios in Hollywood, CA. The resulting blaze gutted acres of sets and sound stages from numerous well known motion pictures. Just about all that remained standing that I recognized was the scorched facade of the clock tower from "Back to the Future". The rest was piles of twisted, charred debris.
About a week later I spoke with Jack G. Taylor Jr. Jack has been an Art Director on numerous award winning films and has worked with some of the finest directors in Hollywood (more info on Jack can be found here). Back in 2007, I was honored to present a session with him at Autodesk University entitled "Revit Architecture for Film and Stage". Jack deeply cares about his industry and believes that the use of BIM (and in particular Revit) can have a positive impact if well implemented by thought leaders that understand his profession.
Through our discussion, I learned that Jack and other industry veterans were being brought together to redesign the backlot; aka, Project Phoenix. And he wanted to know if we could discuss how they could approach the project using Revit. And it wouldn't be an all Revit project - because they needed to work quickly and with people that had decades of experience honing traditional design and industry methods.
The project would also be extremely complex. Encompassing more than 12 blocks (around 5 acres), each block would represent numerous architectural styles. Documentation would be an exacting assemblage of both traditional and digital techniques. For example, a detail callout in Revit might reference a full-size, beautifully hand-drawn Ionic column capital which would be scanned from a drawing that was so old and fragile that it was almost too delicate to touch.
Less than a year later, construction is now well underway (hopefully I'll post some images in the next few days) and the results are fantastic.
If you're interested in voting for the session it's here. Jack and I will be presenting the session together:
The Rise of the Phonix: The Design and Construction of NBC Universal Studios Backlot with Autodesk Revit.
I really hadn't considered presenting at AU this year. But Jack's manner and enthusiasm easily won me over. And seeing the photos of the re-construction rekindled an appreciation for architectural style, proportion and attention to detail that is so often missing. Kind of makes you wonder what really is facade and what is truly lasting. Or as the saying goes, "Film is Forever".
About a week later I spoke with Jack G. Taylor Jr. Jack has been an Art Director on numerous award winning films and has worked with some of the finest directors in Hollywood (more info on Jack can be found here). Back in 2007, I was honored to present a session with him at Autodesk University entitled "Revit Architecture for Film and Stage". Jack deeply cares about his industry and believes that the use of BIM (and in particular Revit) can have a positive impact if well implemented by thought leaders that understand his profession.
Through our discussion, I learned that Jack and other industry veterans were being brought together to redesign the backlot; aka, Project Phoenix. And he wanted to know if we could discuss how they could approach the project using Revit. And it wouldn't be an all Revit project - because they needed to work quickly and with people that had decades of experience honing traditional design and industry methods.
The project would also be extremely complex. Encompassing more than 12 blocks (around 5 acres), each block would represent numerous architectural styles. Documentation would be an exacting assemblage of both traditional and digital techniques. For example, a detail callout in Revit might reference a full-size, beautifully hand-drawn Ionic column capital which would be scanned from a drawing that was so old and fragile that it was almost too delicate to touch.
Less than a year later, construction is now well underway (hopefully I'll post some images in the next few days) and the results are fantastic.
If you're interested in voting for the session it's here. Jack and I will be presenting the session together:
The Rise of the Phonix: The Design and Construction of NBC Universal Studios Backlot with Autodesk Revit.
I really hadn't considered presenting at AU this year. But Jack's manner and enthusiasm easily won me over. And seeing the photos of the re-construction rekindled an appreciation for architectural style, proportion and attention to detail that is so often missing. Kind of makes you wonder what really is facade and what is truly lasting. Or as the saying goes, "Film is Forever".
Friday, May 1, 2009
Back to Your Regularly Scheduled Programming
Everybody out of the pool! Submissions for Autodesk University 2009 have closed. Over 2300 session have been submitted, with "Architecture and Building Design" leading the way with over 23% of the proposals submitted.
Revit Architecture represents the greatest number of submitted sessions. Proposals for Revit Architecture are nearly 15% out of all the product proposals for AU 2009! The next highest product proposal was AutoCAD which has just over 11% of total submissions.
I've proposed two sessions. The first session is for intermediate users with a basic understanding of Revit and is entitled, "Insanely Great Stairs and Railings with Autodesk Revit".
While there's much that remains to be improved (ahem...rail joins...) there's a lot of amazing possibilities with what's in the box, provided you think a little outside it. The reason is that trying to get elegant design to spring forth complete from a spreadsheet is a battle of ever diminishing returns. A spreadsheet can get you close, but it always seems the details and exceptions to those calculated rules often require direct manipulation by a extremely focused design team. That's what this class is going to be all about.
Here's one extraordinary example that I'd like to use in the session. It's the glass spiral staircase from the Apple Store on 5th Avenue in NYC.
So please don't hesitate to email me photos of stairs and railings that you come across over the next couple of months. I'll use these interesting and challenging real-world examples to create the stairs and railings in Revit. And if I use your photo I'll be sure to give you credit and thanks. Please keep in mind that the session content - stairs, railings, renderings, etc. will be available to download after AU. This way everyone will be able to dissect the all of the Revit content at their own pace.
If you want to vote for this session, click the link below. Voting opens May 4th and will close May 8th.
Link: "Insanely Great Stairs and Railings with Autodesk Revit".
Revit Architecture represents the greatest number of submitted sessions. Proposals for Revit Architecture are nearly 15% out of all the product proposals for AU 2009! The next highest product proposal was AutoCAD which has just over 11% of total submissions.
I've proposed two sessions. The first session is for intermediate users with a basic understanding of Revit and is entitled, "Insanely Great Stairs and Railings with Autodesk Revit".
While there's much that remains to be improved (ahem...rail joins...) there's a lot of amazing possibilities with what's in the box, provided you think a little outside it. The reason is that trying to get elegant design to spring forth complete from a spreadsheet is a battle of ever diminishing returns. A spreadsheet can get you close, but it always seems the details and exceptions to those calculated rules often require direct manipulation by a extremely focused design team. That's what this class is going to be all about.
Here's one extraordinary example that I'd like to use in the session. It's the glass spiral staircase from the Apple Store on 5th Avenue in NYC.
So please don't hesitate to email me photos of stairs and railings that you come across over the next couple of months. I'll use these interesting and challenging real-world examples to create the stairs and railings in Revit. And if I use your photo I'll be sure to give you credit and thanks. Please keep in mind that the session content - stairs, railings, renderings, etc. will be available to download after AU. This way everyone will be able to dissect the all of the Revit content at their own pace.
If you want to vote for this session, click the link below. Voting opens May 4th and will close May 8th.
Link: "Insanely Great Stairs and Railings with Autodesk Revit".
Friday, April 24, 2009
Dear Autodesk
Let me try to explain the difference in the simplest terms. This is not about the discomfort of learning a "new" UI, but about learning one that is demonstratively and functionally inferior. It might test well in a well lit, refreshment stocked room for an hour or two but beyond that controlled environment, it is an extraordinary and inexplicable step in the wrong direction.
Your present missteps are gutting the value proposition of Revit by not only failing to develop long requested functionality, but by breaking the functionality that is there by forcing the user to jump through a maze of hidden, contextualized and subjectively displayed GUIs to get to it. Not just occasionally (as the users have become accustomed to) but every single time and with every single mouse click.
The sales manager that came to my office last week basically said, "The ribbon is here...get over it." Any other business (restaurant, bookstore, coffee shop...design firm...) that said this to its customers would lose them at the first opportunity.
So if you're going to make create a cross-product GUI - go for it! But make it wonderful and amazing and a joy to work with for 10 hours a day. Don't make it new. Make it better. Ultimately, it should be a pleasure to learn a new UI because of the functionality to which it elegantly provides access. Not as a burden with diminished returns. The cross-platform GUI that you eventually create should reflect a rigor, care and attention to detail that is expected of those that will use it to create their efforts. It should inspire.
Your present missteps are gutting the value proposition of Revit by not only failing to develop long requested functionality, but by breaking the functionality that is there by forcing the user to jump through a maze of hidden, contextualized and subjectively displayed GUIs to get to it. Not just occasionally (as the users have become accustomed to) but every single time and with every single mouse click.
The sales manager that came to my office last week basically said, "The ribbon is here...get over it." Any other business (restaurant, bookstore, coffee shop...design firm...) that said this to its customers would lose them at the first opportunity.
So if you're going to make create a cross-product GUI - go for it! But make it wonderful and amazing and a joy to work with for 10 hours a day. Don't make it new. Make it better. Ultimately, it should be a pleasure to learn a new UI because of the functionality to which it elegantly provides access. Not as a burden with diminished returns. The cross-platform GUI that you eventually create should reflect a rigor, care and attention to detail that is expected of those that will use it to create their efforts. It should inspire.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Humpty Dumpty Sat On a A Wall...
The ribbon is fundamentally flawed for complex design environments. It incorrectly co-joins nouns (the thing being built) with the verbs (the action that you can preform on the thing being built). Every action is contextualized and the result is a confusing mental map of icons that subjectively expose or reveal themselves with each decision. What's it like? Try limiting your vision through one eye while staring down a paper towel roll. Now try to walk around. You get the idea.
I've received a number of phone calls, emails and instant messages from past associates inside the factory telling me the ribbon is half-baked and they're frustrated that they weren't able to think freely with regard to creating an elegant, cross-product GUI. Instead - the ribbon was imposed as a corporate mandate. While they're not able to say anything publicly, what is being said publicly ("Here's why the ribbon is better...") is a complete contradiction to what is said privately ("Look - you know we hate this, but it was forced upon us...").
Consider this: if the ribbon is a great metaphor for design rich environments, what did Microsoft (who developed the ribbon) come up with for the Expression and Silverlight suite? Not a "ribbon" in sight:
* http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/e...erface_web.jpg
* http://www.microsoft.com/expression/
* http://silverlight.net/Showcase/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight
Sloppy seconds anyone? Looks like Microsoft isn't willing to eat their own dogfood - which kinda says something. Autodesk must expose the existing the UI in Revit 2010 and then do their own rigorous homework with regard to a cross product look and feel. Poor design aside, I consider it inexcusable that no business strategy was put into place that allowed companies time to adjust other than "upgrade and get over it."
And now ADSK's response? "Well, the ribbon is here to stay - so help us make it better." I've got even a better idea - stop disrupting your customers. The corporate vanity that believed a "common look and feel" across design applications was more important that what the users still can't do with those same applications is deeply irresponsible considering that no customer, no user group, no user forum, no wish list has put the redesign of the Revit GUI high on their request list.
The result? It'll take more years and more customer and shareholder millions to "fix" what is now more broken than what it was meant to improve.
What an unfortunate and enormous waste of customer and shareholder value and good will. So many millions, so many years, so much human effort has been spent making something "new" and yet not making it better.
I've received a number of phone calls, emails and instant messages from past associates inside the factory telling me the ribbon is half-baked and they're frustrated that they weren't able to think freely with regard to creating an elegant, cross-product GUI. Instead - the ribbon was imposed as a corporate mandate. While they're not able to say anything publicly, what is being said publicly ("Here's why the ribbon is better...") is a complete contradiction to what is said privately ("Look - you know we hate this, but it was forced upon us...").
Consider this: if the ribbon is a great metaphor for design rich environments, what did Microsoft (who developed the ribbon) come up with for the Expression and Silverlight suite? Not a "ribbon" in sight:
* http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/e...erface_web.jpg
* http://www.microsoft.com/expression/
* http://silverlight.net/Showcase/
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight
Sloppy seconds anyone? Looks like Microsoft isn't willing to eat their own dogfood - which kinda says something. Autodesk must expose the existing the UI in Revit 2010 and then do their own rigorous homework with regard to a cross product look and feel. Poor design aside, I consider it inexcusable that no business strategy was put into place that allowed companies time to adjust other than "upgrade and get over it."
And now ADSK's response? "Well, the ribbon is here to stay - so help us make it better." I've got even a better idea - stop disrupting your customers. The corporate vanity that believed a "common look and feel" across design applications was more important that what the users still can't do with those same applications is deeply irresponsible considering that no customer, no user group, no user forum, no wish list has put the redesign of the Revit GUI high on their request list.
The result? It'll take more years and more customer and shareholder millions to "fix" what is now more broken than what it was meant to improve.
What an unfortunate and enormous waste of customer and shareholder value and good will. So many millions, so many years, so much human effort has been spent making something "new" and yet not making it better.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Update
Had a long and much needed discussion with Matt Jezyk today (Saturday). Matt is the Product Design Manager in charge of the Massing in functionality in Revit 2010. And in spite of the earlier post, he's someone that I have a great deal of respect for since we toiled together at pre-acquisition Revit Technology.
Hopefully we can sit down next week via teleconference and discuss process and direction (not to mention any errors and omissions on my part). Even though I repeatedly tried to call him, he freely admits he refused to answer any of my calls. In part because as it turns out I was calling his office phone. And in part because he was in San Fransisco. My bad.
Without breaking confidences, I think he had some fine points:
1) Building Masses. There's some good reason to approach massing at the building scale different than geometry creation at the component scale. And because until hardware and priorities catch up with each other it's better that users not have the ability to carefully craft sink taps as multi-profile blends in Revit. I somewhat disagree. I'd rather users have the ability use a tool appropriately at the risk of them doing something stupid. But I understand his point. And it reminds me of the time a project refused to print or export due to the modeled vegetable sprayers (complete with holes where the water sprays out).
2) Present Geometry Toolset. There's likely some fundamental limitations, which required a significantly different approach in 2010 - and not just as a compliment to present processes. It was necessary to start over. His contention is that explicit Extrusions, Sweeps, Revolutions, etc. aren't necessary for creating, iterating and resolving form. And he reasoned that in the majority of use cases the new Massing approach can do the kind of iteration that I'm ranting about. And I'm hopeful that he's right.
3) Present Limitations in 2010 Massing. Yes - there are some. But this is a first pass in a succession of passes. Which brought up my rant about why more should and could have been done had time and resources not been focused on the UI "enhancements". To which he opined the UI changes are necessary. To which I emphatically offered that even if the new UI was "perfect" - there should have been a transition strategy in place that didn't disrupt the customers business.
My point was that users need an opportunity to get their heads around a new UI (or the New New UI which will certainly follow in 2011, just before the Newest Newer UI which will come out a year or so after that). Existing users need to be able to absorb a new UI in non-stressful, day to day activities. And they should have the option to switch back to the existing and familiar UI environment on a project if the deadline is today (or yesterday).
Perhaps I'm having a change of heart. Perhaps the new UI could actually be a great environment for the new Revit user that's starting to use a BIM tool for the first time. You see - the big, fat, brightly oversized icons kind of remind me of those thick starter crayons that are flat on one side. I suppose it is entirely possible that some kids just can't be trusted with the additional burden of learning to color with completely round and smallish crayons. So by extension, the new UI could help new users get up to speed before they're ready to move on to a persistent, minimal and adult UI that doesn't jump around with each button push or insist on entertaining (if not insulting) you.
Think of it as a kind of Microsoft Bob, you know? Back in the old'n days before the internet, most people weren't ready for prime time computing. And everybody loved it. So what we need is a BIM GUI for designers that aren't ready to make a building in a scary 'ol computer. Buttons the size of your thumb will surely help those less decisive:
As for the discussion with Matt? Overall - we both had some valid points. So I'm looking forward to the Show And Tell later next week. And if I have to eat some crow? Well, at least Matt's the kind of guy who'd buy the beer to wash it down.
Hopefully we can sit down next week via teleconference and discuss process and direction (not to mention any errors and omissions on my part). Even though I repeatedly tried to call him, he freely admits he refused to answer any of my calls. In part because as it turns out I was calling his office phone. And in part because he was in San Fransisco. My bad.
Without breaking confidences, I think he had some fine points:
1) Building Masses. There's some good reason to approach massing at the building scale different than geometry creation at the component scale. And because until hardware and priorities catch up with each other it's better that users not have the ability to carefully craft sink taps as multi-profile blends in Revit. I somewhat disagree. I'd rather users have the ability use a tool appropriately at the risk of them doing something stupid. But I understand his point. And it reminds me of the time a project refused to print or export due to the modeled vegetable sprayers (complete with holes where the water sprays out).
2) Present Geometry Toolset. There's likely some fundamental limitations, which required a significantly different approach in 2010 - and not just as a compliment to present processes. It was necessary to start over. His contention is that explicit Extrusions, Sweeps, Revolutions, etc. aren't necessary for creating, iterating and resolving form. And he reasoned that in the majority of use cases the new Massing approach can do the kind of iteration that I'm ranting about. And I'm hopeful that he's right.
3) Present Limitations in 2010 Massing. Yes - there are some. But this is a first pass in a succession of passes. Which brought up my rant about why more should and could have been done had time and resources not been focused on the UI "enhancements". To which he opined the UI changes are necessary. To which I emphatically offered that even if the new UI was "perfect" - there should have been a transition strategy in place that didn't disrupt the customers business.
My point was that users need an opportunity to get their heads around a new UI (or the New New UI which will certainly follow in 2011, just before the Newest Newer UI which will come out a year or so after that). Existing users need to be able to absorb a new UI in non-stressful, day to day activities. And they should have the option to switch back to the existing and familiar UI environment on a project if the deadline is today (or yesterday).
Perhaps I'm having a change of heart. Perhaps the new UI could actually be a great environment for the new Revit user that's starting to use a BIM tool for the first time. You see - the big, fat, brightly oversized icons kind of remind me of those thick starter crayons that are flat on one side. I suppose it is entirely possible that some kids just can't be trusted with the additional burden of learning to color with completely round and smallish crayons. So by extension, the new UI could help new users get up to speed before they're ready to move on to a persistent, minimal and adult UI that doesn't jump around with each button push or insist on entertaining (if not insulting) you.
Think of it as a kind of Microsoft Bob, you know? Back in the old'n days before the internet, most people weren't ready for prime time computing. And everybody loved it. So what we need is a BIM GUI for designers that aren't ready to make a building in a scary 'ol computer. Buttons the size of your thumb will surely help those less decisive:
"Oh sh!t...which button do I push?! I'm still not quite sure...."
Therefore, by the powers vested in me by this scotch and soda to the right of my keyboard, I hereby christen the new Revit 2010 ribbon GUI Autodesk Bob(TM). I can hardly wait to see "Hammy the BIM Hammer(TM)". Hammy will "swing into action(TM)" every time you do a search, or hover too long or push the F1 button (right next to the Ecsape key...perfect).As for the discussion with Matt? Overall - we both had some valid points. So I'm looking forward to the Show And Tell later next week. And if I have to eat some crow? Well, at least Matt's the kind of guy who'd buy the beer to wash it down.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Autodesk Bob
Massing was supposed to be the silver lining to the cloud. With the new Massing tools, you were supposed to finally able to create forms that were impossible in Revit 2009.
Verdict? It's true: the old massing tools and flow are gone.
Wait for it....unfortunately. HD YouTube version here.
Yes - you can create some of what the old massing tools couldn't, but at the same time - you can't create all the forms that it could. And furthermore, you can't deeply iterate the results. So there's new stuff - but not all of the old stuff. To put it another way - it's a great 'answer' for someone that doesn't yet understand the 'question'.
What!? Let me explain. When you create form in in 2009 Massing and the Family Editor - the sketches and profiles to create those forms are not lost. You can still go back into "Edit" mode (the same still holds true in the 2010 Family Editor). But you can't go back and edit the sketch that was in Massing 2010 - only the sketch that is.
You can certainly manipulate (rotate, stretch, push, pull) what you've created. You can even add additional points, edges and profiles (with some exception). But once you finish a sketch - that's the starting point. No more sketch mode. The results? In the image below - the blended form "A" can be modified via sketch into blended form "B". Note how fillet arcs have been added in the process. This can be done in 2009 Massing.
This process of reiteration is lost in the 2010 Massing Tool. The closest you can get is to push vertices to get from "1" into "2". You can push/pull vertices and faces - but you can't turn a point into a curve. I can't imagine the reasoning behind this limitation. And in order to allow for the most flexibility, there's heavy use of splines (for both paths and profiles). Splines will certainly allow for the creation of more morphic forms.
Yet in the strangest of decisions - if you import a 2009 project which contains masses, these forms may be manipulated via the present rules in 2010. You may still edit the paths and profiles/sketches. AND you can even create new forms using the existing metaphors using the present rules. The engine is still under the hood! But inexplicably - this approach and functionality is not exposed if you're creating new Masses in 2010.
In Revit 2009, all of the forms in the above image may be derived from any of the other forms. This flexibility gives a designer the wonderful ability to intuitively and quickly move between creation, iteration, rationalization and eventually resolution. Inexplicably, this design flow has been removed from Massing in Revit 2010.
In Revit 2010:
- If you start with a circle, but later discover that you meant ellipse? Start over.
- If you start with a square but meant a circle? Start over.
- If you start with a line, but meant a curve or spline? Start over.
- If you start with an acute angle, but meant a radial fillet? Start over.
What seems incredulous is that this geometric toolset wasn't designed to compliment the present approach to Massing - but to replace it. And not unlike the approach to the proposed UI changes, the customer is again faced with a decision that is more "either/or" rather than "both/and". Yet another imposition without a transition. And ironically, the new method of form creation is not available in the 2010 Family Editor. Does Autodesk really believe it necessary that Revit users should have one approach for creating form when designing the whole building, but another approach for designing the pieces and parts that go in them?
Creating 3D forms in the computer used to be a significant task. But now that task is rather trivial. Many elegant and inexpensive (if not free) applications can create complex geometric shapes. The deeper challenge is within the ability to further rationalize those forms into surfaces, shapes, etc. that can leverage cost effective production and assemblage methods.
It's really wonderful that Revit users will finally be able to transition spline based profiles across spline based paths from within Revit. But have you ever tried to dimension a spline? Ever try to communicate a spline in order to resolve construction? It's essential that the rationalization be a compliment to the iteration. Why? Because great design is more than an exploration of geometric possibility - but of geometric plausibility.
Autodesk needs to take particular care in two areas:
First: Autodesk should stop exciting customers with a five-minute demos of a massing tool that on further investigation actually turns out to be quite limiting. By doing so they run the risk of building resentment when they could have otherwise built a trusting business relationship.
Second: Revit is by far the best BIM tool available. The integration of Building, Content, Documentation and Multi-User / Multi-Discipline work flow are well complimented with being highly implementable. But so long as there remains little competition, it seems that Autodesk has begun settling for better rather than striving for great. For example, it apparently takes Autodesk two years to bring new functionality to market even when the customers aren't even asking for it (cough...ribbon...ahem). But it can take even longer to develop the functionality customers really do care about (cough...site tools...sputter). If this continues, ever so slowly a vacuum will begin to form.
Before the internet-thingy, a well-heeled technology company could control marketing, distribution and FUD through a global channel of distributors and resellers. Only a decade ago, Information Age companies enjoyed being complimented by Industrial Age business practices (dutifully shipping actual boxes - think about it!).
Now? Someone can read a Twitter about a new application, download the demo the same day, purchase a copy the next and blog about it by the end of the week. No distributors or resellers. Immediate access. Training? Podcasts.
Think about it: two years. Two whole years. Add to the mix a small, highly motivated, enthusiastic team that doesn't know when to take "no" for an answer. What could possibly happen in two years? It's not like it's happened before, right?
Think about it.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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.
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:
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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Well-Intentioned Road Paving
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. ;)
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. ;)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Stop, Drop and ROLF
Been a while...sorry. Got distracted counting all of my Adsense revenue. ;)
Bit of irony as Harrison and I are at yet another chess tournament (as with the last post). So far he's up two for three with one to go. Go H!
In the meantime there's this:
Available via iTunes. More info here.
What else?
New Wallace and Grommit: "Matter of Loaf and Death". Available here and there online.
The iPhone Dev Team is plugging away - but the 3G phone still isn't in the clear. Bottom line: don't buy the unlocks. They're just reselling the iPhone Dev Team's work and ripping you off in the process. Test: Google the unlock sites. The consumer sites are full of complaints against them at the rate of $50 a person.
Slightly less ironic than a GM Suburban on an LA freeway with a "No Blood for Oil" bumper sticker - cork forests are under threat after many compelled wine makers to move to synthetic cork (cough..recycling...cough). I wish they'd make up their minds. And if you hate sprawl now, just wait till cars run on sunlight and good intentions. People will drive to from New York Tokyo for weekend sushi.
Oh yeah. After much hand wringing, Apple finally released a 17" laptop that'll support up to 8GB of ram. ZZZzzz... The 'insanely great' upcharge from 4GB to 8GB is $1200. So I'm waiting until I'm sure that I can install it myself for $200. Which leaves $1000 for far more compelling investments. Maybe fly Guy over to Vegas for AU...hmmmm.
And finally, Carol Bartz is the new CEO of Yahoo, which leaves Jerry Yang to drop by Starbucks for her on the way into the office. I'd expect a Microsoft or Google deal to follow. Google would be very interesting. If it's Microsoft, I wouldn't suggest Steve Ballmer try any of that crazy-chair-throwing-monkey-boy-intimidation-stuff with Carol. It won't work. Not with Carol.
Bit of irony as Harrison and I are at yet another chess tournament (as with the last post). So far he's up two for three with one to go. Go H!
In the meantime there's this:
Available via iTunes. More info here.
What else?
New Wallace and Grommit: "Matter of Loaf and Death". Available here and there online.
The iPhone Dev Team is plugging away - but the 3G phone still isn't in the clear. Bottom line: don't buy the unlocks. They're just reselling the iPhone Dev Team's work and ripping you off in the process. Test: Google the unlock sites. The consumer sites are full of complaints against them at the rate of $50 a person.
Slightly less ironic than a GM Suburban on an LA freeway with a "No Blood for Oil" bumper sticker - cork forests are under threat after many compelled wine makers to move to synthetic cork (cough..recycling...cough). I wish they'd make up their minds. And if you hate sprawl now, just wait till cars run on sunlight and good intentions. People will drive to from New York Tokyo for weekend sushi.
Oh yeah. After much hand wringing, Apple finally released a 17" laptop that'll support up to 8GB of ram. ZZZzzz... The 'insanely great' upcharge from 4GB to 8GB is $1200. So I'm waiting until I'm sure that I can install it myself for $200. Which leaves $1000 for far more compelling investments. Maybe fly Guy over to Vegas for AU...hmmmm.
And finally, Carol Bartz is the new CEO of Yahoo, which leaves Jerry Yang to drop by Starbucks for her on the way into the office. I'd expect a Microsoft or Google deal to follow. Google would be very interesting. If it's Microsoft, I wouldn't suggest Steve Ballmer try any of that crazy-chair-throwing-monkey-boy-intimidation-stuff with Carol. It won't work. Not with Carol.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Send Money Please!
Mike Klein (above) is Harrison's chess coach and presently on sabbatical, which is fancy talk for being unemployed (yet not unemployable) and traveling around the globe for a year while the rest of us get to live vicariously through his exploits:
http://sendmoneyplease.livejournal.com/
Don't let the adult beverage, smokey-thing and angst-ridden inability to sit up straight fool you:
*1985 - Received first rating of 1398 (age five)
*1986 - Played Josh Waitzkin at the Nationals (creating a mention in the book "Searching for Bobby Fischer")
*1988 - National K-3 Champion
*1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 - North Carolina High School Champion
*1996 - Received National Master and Life Master titles
*1996 - World Open Under 2250 Champion
*1997 - North Carolina Open Champion
*2003 - Land of the Sky Open Section Champion (Largest open tournament in NC)
*2006 - Received FIDE Master title
*8-time member of the All-America Chess Team (inaugural member)
*Career national scholastic record: 61 wins, 10 losses, 13 draws
http://www.youngmasterchess.com/
Check out his itinerary. He's presently en route to Budapest and then to South Africa after the new year.
So far:
Sept. 08 - Amsterdam, Brussels, Bergerac, Bordeaux
Oct. 08 - Pyrenees, Barcelona, Granada, Morocco
Nov. 08 - Austria, Germany, Prague
Then:
Dec. 08 - Slovakia, Budapest, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia
Jan. 09 - South Africa, Namibia, Botswana
Feb. 09 - Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania
March 09 - Egypt, Israel, Jordan
April 09 - India, Nepal
May 09 - Thailand, Cambodia, Fiji
If you intersect his path of travels and have a clean couch (or spare room) please drop him an email. In return, he'll best you in a match of wits. How well you are likely to hold your own in said match of wits besting can be quickly estimated using what is otherwise known as the "Klein Formula":
[(Bn*Tz)/Dz)*(Bz+1)] = Mw%
Where:
Bn = #Beers consumed by Mike the last 6 hours
Tz = Time zones removed from Mike's last time zone
Dz = Days Mike has spent in present time zone
Bz = #Beers consumed by you the last 6 hours
Mw = % odds of getting your wits bested by Mike
If you cross paths with Mike please be sure to post your score in comments!
Safe travels, Mike.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Transparent Stoopid Easy Multiplatform Sweet
Windows and OSX (Beta). And better performance than some paid for business solutions.
Really.
Features:
* Video Chats (3 Free / 6 Paid)
* High Resolution Video (Paid - Windows Only)
* Record Video Chats
* Video Messages (1 Min Free / 5 Min Paid)
* Video Effects (Windows Only. ZZZzzzz....)
* Call Non-ooVoo Friends (Windows Only. IM Link - Opens Video in Web Browser. Interesting / Sneaky)
* Phone Calls (US and Canada / Cell and Land Lines / Free-ish / Tinny Sound)
* Other Stuff (ZZZZzzzz....)
More here: http://www.oovoo.com/
Username: Anarchytec
Monday, December 1, 2008
AU2008 BLIM BLAM BLOG
First of all - the weather is great. Nearly 70F during the day - which is around 10F higher than normal. That means people could actually hang out by the pool. That is if there were any people here. AU hasn't officially kicked off yet (most people fly in on Monday) and Vegas seems like a ghost town. The HNTB Architecture technology team had a fantastic meal together last night and the restaurant might have had four tables in use. The restaurant was a very fine selection by Katherine Meeder. And speaking of Katherine - she'll be traveling to Seoul, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur for a brief architectural study abroad program. And speaking of Singapore - Katherine is concentrating her thesis on the modernization and planning of Singapore.
So if you're from Singapore and you'll be at AU - please drop me an email. I'd like to introduce you to Katherine. Let's see if we can arrange for you two to meet and discuss all things architecture and technology while she's visiting in early January of next year.
Today: Design Computation Symposium. All day event. I'll get to see Matt Jezyk (Revit Mother Ship) and Neil Katz (SOM NY Mathematic Philosopher Design Guru Classical Clarinetist). Neil once described his design philosophy with the elegantly pejorative, "We don't make blobs. We make decisions". ;) Good times.
Hey Neil - can I buy you a couple of beers and then introduce you to Blackjack? :)
Finally - another year passes without Guy Robinson attending AU. Dude - wish you were here. Allow me to solace you thus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)