Related Posts with Thumbnails

« 2010 Task Dialogs | Main | Tuning the Graphics Engine »

April 23, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear Nicolas,

I was one of the many users who was disappointed in the recent revit release. Although I acknowledge Autodesk's desire to make the UI better, I question whether that is more important than the hundreds of feature requests and enhancements that have been made (especially on AUGI).

Nevertheless, at least you're talking to us now and you have started a dialog. My only hope is that you guys really, really, really listen and simply do not pay us lip service.

For me, I always like it when people come out and talk to me directly as you have done...I am willing to move on and forgive much because of that.

Please do not let us all down on the next release....we want some serious features added or improved!

Thank you,

Danny

"By adopting a ribbon style approach, we accelerate learning by allowing new users to apply concepts learned elsewhere."

So where is all the research that supports this is a better UI for the advanced users? Because this is where the real productivity killer is with the Ribbon.


"Your perspective on these issues is very important to us, and we are taking a new look at how we communicate with you about your needs and requests for enhancements. For example, we are going to better align the AUGI wish list voting process with our development cycle so we can more effectively incorporate your requests."

What Autodesk needs is it's own web portal for product wishes. A central Autodesk location, similar to the Subscription Center or Autodesk Seek, where ANY Autodesk user can come and log a wish for their chosen software/s.
Each wish has it's own comment section for users to follow up on the original wish, and a continuous rating section for users to place a wish at anytime. A list of the top 10 or even 50 would also be available.

Autodesk would obvisouly have no obligation to comment on the wishlist, as you have private and confidential means to do this.

Autodesk are the ones that need to be pro-active and introduce such a service rather than relying on the user community to hack together rather difficult to use wishlists such as on AUGI.

It would go a long way if Autodesk stepped up and showed some interest by creating such a service.

Nicolas, on the one hand, I don't want to discourage you from "communicating" with your users by bashing what you're saying, but on the other-hand, this blog post is incredibly frustrating to read and just another indication that you guys are completely out to lunch.

You've simply regurgitated the sales pitch without a single admission of wrong-doing or acknowledgment that maybe something is seriously wrong with the new UI. I've filled out a number of those autodesk surveys, and they're terribly flawed making all sorts of presumptions about how I want the software to work (in the survey I filled out, it asked "Would you recommend Revit?", not "Would you recommend *this version* of Revit?"). Your "user research" creates a positive feedback loop where you end up hearing what you want to hear.

If you still believe that the problem with the UI is that you simply haven't communicated it in the right way to your users, that's just another indication that we're all wasting our time here. If after years of asking for the same wish list items over and over again, you think the problem is one of aligning AUGI wish lists with development cycles, that's just another indication that we're all wasting our time here.

And just keep in mind that as much as you guys want to be defensive about all the criticism, we wouldn't be taking the time to voice our criticisms if we didn't care so much about the product. But you guys need to start taking some responsibility that you really messed up.

"Over the past few years you’ve consistently told us that the Revit user interface was dated."

Yes, it was dated, but it worked. What we were after was the UI to be freshened up, and new usablilty enhancements added.

We you delivered was a completely different look, a degradation in workflow performance, and addressed very few of the UI enhancements we had been requesting. It's as though Autodesk wasn't listening hard enough.

What is frustrating is that you would have got a lot the UI comments from AUGI (the old wishlist), but failed to follow up there with questions, and as a result ended up with a misguided result.

"By adopting a ribbon style approach, we accelerate learning by allowing new users to apply concepts learned elsewhere."

What concepts are these? The UI may look the same, but the tools are different. There is a limit to how many concepts one might apply in a similar interface. With basic concepts of webpage navigation, one may learn how to navigate through other webpages, but there is onlhy a limited number of "concepts" to be learned. A program on the otherhand is a lot more complex. Even simple programs like Word and Excel one cannot simply jump between them because they share a common interface, because apart from the interface, the tools and concepts are different. A program like Revit is a lot more complex than a simple office program, there are many more features and concepts unique to the program which are not present in another program like 3dsMax (which I hope does not get the ribbon)making a similar UI just that, something that looks alike, nothing more, like two people wearing the same suit. I agree the UI was outdated, but the concept and the way one interacted with the program was not. Adobe for example has taken the same outdated UI and made it sleek and modern looking without completely changing how one interacts with the program. I feel the ribbon is form over function. I have a harder time searching for commands in the ribbon, it feels like searching for a needle in a haystack, it is too busy visually. I am learning shortcuts now because it takes me too long to find commands that are now hidden in tabs. Before they where all in the same screen, or in a list that was very easy to read through. Now they are spread out in lists, side by side, with big icons and small icons, drop down menus, etc .... The logic of the ribbon tab titles is also difficult to follow. A command I use very frequently is the paste, and the now called "paste aligned" and I am constantly searching for it and don't get why this is in a Modify tab. Paste to me could be in the Insert, View or Home tab. Also in the modify tab it is in the far left, but when inside the contextual tabs, it is in the far right. It is much easier to learn where things are when they don't move rather than having to think about where they might be every time one is looking for them. This slows down the workflow. I do not see the "relative ease and speed" produced by the ribbon UI.
If the goal behind the common UI is ease when working with other Autodesk products, why not make them as similar as possible. Autocad Architecture is very similar to Revit, but the ribbon items are not the same, even for the same command, they have different icons sometimes. Why not use the same layout and icons in the panels within the ribbon.
The ribbon is also wasteful of screen space. Nn my screen, only half of the horizontal length of the program is used by the ribbon, the other half is wasted leftover space.

What frustrates me most of all is the lack of response to the wishlist items users have been asking for years. Critical things missing in the program. The UI did not introduce any new tools. The wishlist has been organized and redone in AUGI to be easy to follow. The first wishlist having the most requested features, such as SITE TOOLS. Every year I reluctantly pay my subscription. I don't know what I am paying for, because of the secrecy and NDA's. I have stopped submitting and using the wishlist. At the rate things are going, of perhaps 2 wishes per year, it would take over 30 years to fulfill the wishlist.

I have to agree with most of the comments done before.Not everyone will go to the trouble and give you a lot of feedback and the few that do will sound like a nuisance i second Chads idea about a portal for a wishlist as i have stopped to worry about the augi one.
and please fix the missing shortcuts we wont upgrade till the main points of contention are gone.The sorry thing is there are a few very good ideas and changes in this release that get overshadowed by the UI shortcomings

Sadly, I have to ditto the comments above. After several years of Revit use, it seems like you guys got cocky and stopped listening to user feedback because you wanted (note 'you', not 'us') a new interface. This whole blog seems like a sad post-rationalization for poor decision making. You claim you have 18 months of research - where is it? And is 18 months even enough? If you look at what Microsoft did to implement the ribbon, implement Windows 7, or what Mac did before OS X, it was YEARS of research and customer feedback.
Let me point out what I feel are some of the biggest flaws. This list is by no way complete, but it's the elements that give me the biggest heartache:
- There is no path to transition between 2009 and 2010. You are egotistically expecting users to 'just get it' all across the board.
- The RTM doesn't function properly. Even if the ribbon in it's current iteration was the right thing to do, what you've put in the RTM has icons that don't show up correctly, buttons that don't show up right, etc. How am I supposed to use a product if I can't see the tools?
- The ribbon is not a consistent interface when the same tool is never in the same place.
- A previous blog post said you designed the ribbon based on a linear architectural process. This one in particular made my jaw hit the floor. If I'm drafting, sure, it's a linear process - I'm replicating digtially what I have infront of me. (on paper or otherwise). However, as designers, nothing we do is linear. It's iterative. It's a completely different workflow.
- I can't see what workset I'm on anymore. it seems so simple, but how do I draw if I constantly have to flip back to verify a workset?

I can keep going, but why? I have posted comments about the application to the beta forums that were not responded to. At least not that I could see. Heck, the RTM wouldn't even load properly on my computer until I rebuilt it.

Guys, you totally missed the boat. I love Revit and have used it for years, but there were a number of better things to do with your development dollars that would have helped the industry a lot more than a new UI. The fact that you consistently throw up more of this marketing goop to try to justify your decision instead of coming clean is possibly the most disappointing part.

Hi Nicolas,

If you're going to take one UI out - at least keep it in until you've really figured out the new UI. This is terrifically disruptive to our businesses. Managing 2 GUI's will be a challenge for the factory, but please keep in mind we're the customers.

Thanks -

Phil

I have two key problems with 2010:

(1) The new UI has been developed at the expense of adding any new funtionality that is of use to 90% of Architects. Please, read the AUGI wishlists and start there.

(2) The New UI has not addressed any of the problems with the old UI (having to open multi level dialog boxes and then close them all to see the effect of a change) Instead, it has completely changed the parts of the UI that worked very well.

Nicolas,

Again, don't write this off to, "Oh, they don't like the new UI. So we don't have to listen to their comments." I don't care about how the new UI looks. I CARE about how it FUNCTIONS.

The new UI is less productive due to the number of clicks to get to the tool you need. For instance, Match Type and Linework, both of which are on the main toolbars. Now, to get to Match Type, I have to click "Modify" and then the tool. This isn't improving the workflow.

This is just an example of two simple commands. Other commands are buried 3 or more clicks away. How is this more productive?

Also, keyboard shortctus have been removed. How does this help production?

I hope that you take a serious look at improving the UI and not leaving it as it is in it's current state. Read the AUGI website. There are some well thought out solutions to the UI.

Howard

Revit 2010. Worst. Release. Ever.

The interface did need a refresh. In particular, it needed, and still needs, an instance properties box that can float or be docked, like Autocad has had for years. Type properties and view properties could use the same thing; when one is tweaking those, the ability to keep the settings visible and accesible would be a great boon. But what really needed improving, and still does, is the numerous layers of dialog boxes one has to navigate to find the setting that needs to be changed. All of the dialog boxes are essentially unchanged. New users still need to plumb the depths to get any real work done.

What it did not need is expanding the one contextual part of Revit (sketch mode) into multiple contextual modes, so much so that the whole interface becomes contextual. Indeed, the keyboard shortcuts have become contextual, an inexplicable mess of confusion for any user seeking even modest fluency.

The idea of the ribbon MAY apply to Microsoft's Office suite, but those ribbons have very few changes in a user's day-to-day getting work done. They are shallow programs, with very few depths to plumb, Excel being the only exception, and it's depths still work largely the old way.

The ribbon as developed for Revit 2010, on the other hand, changes with every action. Panels with one name appear in multiple modes, but contain different subsets of tools. Remembering where everything is made much more difficult; muscle memory is undermined, and one must pause mid thought about what to do, and look at the ribbon taking a cognitive detour to figure out how, and then come back to the what. Bad for design process. Bad for productivity. Perhaps ok for learning a new piece of software, though. Emphasis on the new user has come at the cost of the everyday users, the proficient users, and the advanced users. The people clients pay to get stuff done.

From where I sit, every time Autodesk has tried to contectualize Autocad, my users have looked, tried, rejected, turned off, and got on with their work. The ribbon is not a one size fits all interface solution!

Lastly, compare the documentation for Revit 2009 versus 2010. Describing a click sequence to activate a command takes the SAME form, ie. "menu -> tool -> sub-menu" has become "ribbon -> panel -> tool -> sub-menu". So it's still hierarchal in nature, it's just that the mid-level panel portion is constantly shifting where it is and what it contains. This then requires the user to focus more on the interface and less on their model.

Howard, Are you implying that keyboard shortcuts have been completely removed? If so, that is far from the case. Yes, the View orientation commands are missing due to a technical issue related to moving them to the ViewCube, but we are looking into fixing that. However, we have enabled keyboard shortcuts for a number of commands that never had them before (Ref plane by line and pick, Measure between and measure along reference, etc.)

Tom,

Yes, I was refering to the View Orientation commands. Sorry, should've clarified that.

Howard.

Tom
The View Orientation missed is a very big one when you are in Production Work
when you play with the software you may not even know its there.
there are so many complaint's in the Forums about working with revit in 3D most people never realize the power of this Tool now its buried to never be discovered.
similar with Element Properties i had it mapped to the Tilde key above the Tap. this worked well and quick to get information about the Selected Object is should have been Mode-less but OK you seem to have trouble with it but why do you make it more confusing in dividing it between Type and Instance Parameter another Click added
Now The new Type-selector Congratulation this is really good and very helpful for pros and Beginners.It would be very helpful if you would not only highlight the Picture but it would also show the Type Parameters when hovering over it.

Michael

Nicolas,
In your words "The process for developing the UI was highly comprehensive and included over 18 months of iterative design . . ."
I, and others spent 2+ months of weekends and evenings (unpaid) beta testing and commenting on the new UI - I tried so hard to be constructive. Only one thing I could see, out of the many good suggestions made by beta testers made it into the RTM. We know that the guys on the coalface (Tom, Eric, Trey et al) were listening but presumably up against a deadline. Somewhere up the chain, no one was listening, and the release went out with all the problems (including reported bugs) that we have identified and suggested how to fix. No wonder there is so much angst on the various forums and blogs.

What we need from you now is not a sales pitch on how and why the UI was changed, but a timetable of when this seriously flawed release will be fixed - I don't want to wait until 2011, as there are some good things in this version. Sure, we will get used to the new UI and maybe stop complaining somewhat, but the problems won't go away unless you address them quickly - we want an excellent UI to go with an amazing piece of underlying software

Michael, to address your question about why we split up the Instance and Type buttons: a common complaint was that users did not want to have to go into the Instance prop dialog just to get to type. By creating this separate button, we have SAVED you a click when you want to go straight to Type Properties. As for element properties, you do not need to open the drop-down, just click the top half of the button and it will always go to Instance props.

"By creating this separate button, we have SAVED you a click when you want to go straight to Type Properties."

Aah, please correct me if I am wrong, but I am counting the SAME number of clicks.

In 2009;
1 - Press Element Properties on the Options Bar
2 - Press Edit / New

In 2010;
1 - Press the Element Properties drop-down
2 - Press Type Properties.

I guess it does save a click on the way OUT of the dialogue box though.

So there doesn't seem to be a great deal of improvement in this area, just a rearrangement.
What would be great is to be able to shortcutkey to the Type Properties. There doesn't seem to be any means to do this in the shortcut file.

Tom, Michael,
I think it is great that the Element/Type properties have been split into two options on the same button - this is a case where the new UI works perfectly for me: 70% of the time I want element properties, so it is one click at the top of the button; 30% for type properties so it is two clicks but in the same place/time. Much easier.

I am hoping that it will also clarify the difference between element and type properties for my users - for some reason, they often did not get it with the old dialog sequence - possibly because "Edit/New" confused them?

Move, copy, rotate, array, scale, group, pin, set workplane, spell check, measure, match properties, linework. hidden lines, split face, edit cut profile, demolish, align, split, trim, offset, join geometry, unjoin geometry, cut, don't cut, edit wall joins and a host of other commands were always visible in Revit 2009. Most important, "modify" was always visible.

Now these commands are not visible. Not to new users -- not to experienced users. The whole point of the Word 2007 ribbon was to put as many commands as possible accessible to the user at all times. We had that, and Autodesk took it away.

We also have had AUGI Revit wishlists for years. And beginning now, you're going to pay attention. It needs to be clear that we want "improvements" to stair tools and rail tools -- not just changes. We need "improvements" to text tools -- not just changes.

Word 2007 got a ribbon because there was nothing left for Microsoft to do. Word processing is a mature field and the software already does virtually everything that could be wanted. Whether the ribbon is good for Word or not, they had to change something to generate revenue.

BIM in general, and Revit in particular, are not mature products where everything is settled. The 2009 user interface worked well enough as it was. Even an improved interface, while appreciated, would have been less appreciated than new or improved functionality elsewhere in Revit. The interface we received works less well, takes more clicks, and it's clearly not what users requested. It also has nothing to do with the ribbons in Max or Autocad. The idea that I become a more skilled user because all three products have ribbons is laughable. (I know far more about using Word than I do about Excel, and the Microsoft ribbons don't help with that either.)

Chad, concerning Instance/Type split button, you are correct, it is the same *number* of clicks. But this is not the only metric we use for measuring efficiency. A) it is a lot less mouse travel and B) as Tim pointed out, the placement and labeling of the button makes it easier to grok the concept of instance/type. Enabling keyboard shortcuts for these is being investigated...

Tom, I disagree regarding the ability to grok the actions in question. Split buttons that aren't split until the mouse gets there cannot possibly be considered unintuitive. A user looks at the ribbon, decides where to go, and then has to make a second decision once their mouse pointer actually gets there.

The tiny triangle indicator, that used to itself be the target of a secondary, less-used function, has been expanded to sometimes indicate a split button with two equally sized buttons (eg. wall), or two unequally sized buttons (eg. Floor), or perhaps to be whole button (eg Model Group). To cite merely three nearly adjacent examples on the Home ribbon. Not intuitive, and inconsistency undermines learning.

Tim Waldock brings up an interesting point. Can we get some idea as to when you plan on fixing some of these issues? What kind of timetable are we looking at? If it's not until the first service pack, doesn't this hit around September? So that means that for paying a yearly subscription, I'm only able to use the product for 7 months until the next release?

I also can't believe that the feedback from the beta testers was not implemented. Certain beta testers in our firm said that it felt like the factory just didn't care and was totally focused on making the ship date. Tell me again, what was their purpose? The beta testers gave up their valuable time to help with testing Revit and the majority of their comments was ignored! Unbelievable. However, according Nicolas everything will be alright... Just email, Autodesk.now.we.care@autodesk'strashcan.com

Too bad you didn't listen to the beta testers. You might've actually been able to release a decent product.

Howard
Revit 2010. Worst. Release. Ever.

"it is a lot less mouse travel"

I wouldn't even say that this is true.

In 2009;
Select the object (in center of screen), traverse over to the Element Properties button, then traverse back to the Edit / New button on the dialogue (in center of screen), then traverse down to the properties.

In 2010;
Select the object (in center of screen), traverse over to the Element Properties drop-down, then traverse down to select the Type Properties, then traverse back to the dialogue box.

These distance of mouse travel in both 2009 and 2010 are practically the same.


As for the labelling, it's nothing that couldn't have been clarified in 2009. You could have renamed the Element Properties button on the Options Bar to Instance Properties, and then the rather obfuscated Edit / New could be renamed to Type Properties.

I have to say that I rather prefered the Type Properties being hidden away a bit, because in a Worksharing environment, inexperienced users tend to fiddle with the Type properties not realising the effect it is having project wide.
Now that this button has a higher level of visibility, I can see more issues arising in these projects. It's made it easier for beginners to introduce errors into a project.

There are some things in Revit that *should* be just that little bit more hidden.
Once again, this UI is aimed too much at beginners, without what seems to be too much thought of how it affects the project or advanced users.

I Agree with most comments, I don't like the new UI. I was an ADT user and fell in love with the simple yet powerful UI in revit 9. I hated autocad becuase it was so customizable and everything change on me and found myself spending too much time dealing with the UI instead of producing work. I got revit since then hoping that Autodesk won't mess it up and complicated it like autocad. For me, the notion that you need a quick access tool tells you that something is not right, also I found that I have to wait a bit for the ribbons to catch up with the task at hand, this is nonsense. I just hope that revit doesn't become like autocad complicated. No to monopoly.

Take a look at this video. Go the blog and select the 2 videos. The 2009 User interface is smarter that the 2010. In 2009 the important tools were their in close proximity (e.g. finish sketch) which eliminated mouse traveling all over the screen. In 2010 your mouse traveling is all over the place, this bring hand discomfort and unpleasant experience of the program, not to mention productivity slow down. This might sound kind of stupid but it is true. After getting the perfit mouse and the goldtouch keyboard some years ago my hand discomfort was reduced big time, but know, using the revit 2010 UI my mousing hand discomfort came back. From an ergonomics point of view, every little thing counts, every little extra traveling effort counts, remember we are here sitting for 8 t0 12 hours a day from 5 to 7 days a week. Please watch those videos, you might learn something, they kind of explain why the 2010 UI is inferior to the original version. I am really disappointed with the direction this program is taken ( and I'm a very optimistic person ) Go back to basics. Don't fix what's not broken. I think I will skip this "upgrade" and probably stop paying my subscription fee until you guys earn it. Please don't make it like Autocad-stupid. If you find your way accessing a command 3 to 4 different ways, it is truly and indication that a wrong path has being taken.


revit-usa.blogspot.com/2009/03/revit-2010-user-interface-ui-good-or.html

Hi Nicholas,

I will simply add my voice to those above who have eloquently and in great detail highlighted the flaws in the UI and this release in general.

Having tried 2010 in my spare time, I find that it is not worth upgrading from 2009 for my paid work.

As I make my living by producing documents for a client or builder to construct a home or an extension or a factory etc., I need to ensure that every upgrade improves my efficiency in producing the drawings. Sadly, notwithstanding the speed improvements in graphics etc, 2010 is in my view slower overall for the end result.

For me, this release and the money I have spent on the subscription licences are wasted.

I certainly hope that 2011 is a great release because if google decides that there is a substantial market in BIM your company may well have a competitor willing and able to produce better software. Again, for myself, given their history of being able to produce great client focussed products, I would jump ship in a flash if they produced something that was even looking like it would be even close to being equal to Revit.

With all due respect, I don't think another official Autodesk Revit wishlist is what we need. Creating one is a distraction from the real issue.

Which is, "Does the AUGI wish list have "teeth". Does Autodesk respect the value of the information it contains?

The AUGI wish list system is not perfect and we'd like to make it better. Another wishlist would fracture, marginalize something that is good for both AUGI and Autodesk.

Autodesk and the Revit development team can make the wishlist valuable by being responsive to it. By the way, the AutoCAD and Inventor development groups set the standard in this way. Talk to Buzz Kross about his approach to it.

Tom you said
By creating this separate button, we have SAVED you a click when you want to go straight to Type Properties. As for element properties, you do not need to open the drop-down, just click the top half of the button and it will always go to Instance props.

My Problem with this is
Agreed there needed to be a better distinction between Type and Instance Parameter this could have been done by Graphical means.
The problem for me with the split is this
I created a new custom Family some parameter are Type some are Instance.
The user of the Family does not know what and where the Parameters are.
Before 2010 they could scroll through both at the same time and then decide to change the parameter of choice.
Now you are assuming that the user knows what and where the Parameters are.
How can they know/remember for hundreds of custom families????
I consider this a grave oversight

Are you refering to the read-only Type parameters list which is shown on the 09 Element Properties dialogue box?

If so, I am in agreeance with this. Having that small read-only list was a visual indicator that there are more parameters and also being able to read them from the same dialogue box.
For a similar usage that 2009 has, I would like to see a button called Type Parameters to the left of the OK button. This button would extend the dialogue box to present the Type parameters. Similar to the Preview button on the Edit Assembly dialogue boxes. This could be read-only, but ideally it would be editable.

Failing that, since we now have separate dialogue boxes in 2010, there really needs to be an "Edit Instance" button on the Type Properties dialogue box. We can go from Instance to Type, but not the other way. This really doesn't do much for workflow, which this UI was supposed to improve.

Rather than just pulling a workflow apart, such as the Properties dialogues, and leaving it as just that, you need to look further into how that affects the workflow. This has not been done in this case.

Hi Tom
Michael, to address your question about why we split up the Instance and Type buttons: a common complaint was that users did not want to have to go into the Instance prop dialog just to get to type.

Tom here is my problem with this
The Element properties are not only for changing but also for information.
If i have a new Custom Family and a user wants to adjust a parameter he does not know if it is Type or Instance he just wants to know what Parameters are there and what are their values.
before you could read all the parameter and then decide if you wanted to change the Instance or type Parameter
Agreed there needed to be a more clear description but this could have been done by
Type (changes all Objects in the Project)
Instance (changes only the selected Object in the Project)
Who can remember 100s of family parameter if they are Type or Instance for information i now have to go to 2 Places ??? Go Figure
the Element Property Box should be Modeles
and make clear what an Type Parameter change does and what an Instance parameter Change does

oops postet again did not see my post from before
yes chad the read-only List was a good thing

"Another wishlist would fracture, marginalize something that is good for both AUGI and Autodesk."

Steve, I think the intention would be for Autodesk to create their own wishlist system that would be a *replacement* for the AUGI one.
AUGI should be focused on Tips, Tricks and helping others, while leaving the development side (wishes) with the developer.

Some AUGI users complain about all the compaining. But where else can those users go to publically discuss, or just vent how they feel about the product?

On an Autodesk controlled wishlist site I can see having the sections for the wishes, but also a single forum for each of the products where users can come and vent their concerns about the product or Autodesk. Maybe even get some discussion/ideas going about a concept before it is posted as a wishlist item.
Possibly even a new 'Opinions' forum on the Autodesk Discussion forums. But it would be better and more centralised if it was part of the wishlist.
This way Autodesk only have one forum to read to help gauge public opinion.

So in the end we have;
AUGI - Community help forum
Autodesk - Product development and opinions

Autodesk could even tie in the logins for the wishlist with the Subscription Center or their Discussion forums.

As a full time professional CAD trainer of 15+ years I can truly say that this UI is a dream come true. Thank you. Why ? because NEW users have absolutely no preconceived workflow / clickflow or habits holding them back, and I believe they will develop a new workfow just like we all did over the last 5-6 years. Unfortunately that is the basket Autodesk has placed their eggs in.

As a trainer I have seen alot of glazed over faces and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the old UI made ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT ALL, WHAT SO EVER to new users. It was totally convoluted in their virgin eyes and brutal to teach with. BUT OVER TIME they adapted and eventually became comfy with it. That did not happen over night however.

I find myself scratching my head looking for tools every step of the way because I cannot 'un-learn' what I already know. It's impossible to do. The delemma here is that the 1000's of existing users and 'technical supporters' have all been left for dead. Their clickflow is gone. Deadlines are looming, productivity suffers and production managers start cracking the whip.

The field is split.
'New users' are going to be just fine.
Existing users (paying customers) have lost their mojo.

Autodesk has wiped the slate clean and is essentially telling all existing paying customers to 'unlearn' what they know, abandon their clickflow, think like a brand new user and start again.

Tough sell to those who have been the biggest supports up to this point.

Perhaps autodesk is counting on a big rush of new REVIT users to drownd out the complaints of the old?

http://www.CADclips.com

"Perhaps autodesk is counting on a big rush of new REVIT users to drownd out the complaints of the old?"

Daryl, I think that will be a very tough thing to do.

The software market, like CAD/BIM, is a very 'word of mouth' driven one. If you're going to hear about a new piece of CAD/BIM software entering the market or a new release of an existing, you are most likely going to either hear it come from an industry peer, or read it online.

Also, companies these days typically have a CAD Manager. These people are highly technically competent and will always research into a product before purchasing. Even if the company is wanting to go from one Autodesk product to another, this decision won't be done lightly.

So, at the moment Autodesk/Revit has everything going against it with 2010. With 66% of users disapproving of it's developed (or lack of) features, that's a whole lot of people out there in the community who will be telling others to stay away for the moment. If anything, I think Autodesk will have less of a rush to Revit this year. That is, unless new users can still purchase 2009 to get up and running with.

I am going to cast my vote strongly against the ribbon UI. It requires more mouse clicks and mouse travel. It is constantly flashing and changing to different versions of itself and is a serious distraction to my work. The ribbon reminds me of those flashing banner ads on websites. You just want it to go away.

I much prefer the 2009 interface. It gives me what I need without a lot of distraction.

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS

  • Subscribe