Quick Access Toolbar

In this post I want to solicit and verify feedback related to this element.  The Quick Access Toolbar (QAT) is now one of several places where persistent access is provided.  Some others are:

• View Frame
• Status bar
• Ribbon panels dragged off the ribbon
• Project Browser
• Navigation Bar (Zoom and SteeringWheel)

Any control on a static ribbon tab can be added to the QAT.  This includes drop downs.  Below work sharing tools have been added to appear in a similar configuration as was possible in 2009.

2009

2010

The QAT may also be displayed below the ribbon via its right-click context menu.  While this takes up additional vertical space it allows for more items and places them closer to the workspace.

Known Issues

• The ability to customize in Revit is appreciated yet 2010 is over dependent on this place for common tool access
• The visual design is too low contrast/dark
• The icons are too small
• There should be some ability to re-arrange tools once they have been added
• “Synchronize with Central” and “Save” should be adjacent
• The type selector should show the type/family name much like work sharing and design options.
• There is not a clear way to “reset to default”

In understanding what tools require persistent access we have frequency data that shows which of the hundreds of tools get the most use.  Despite this the data must be qualified given the following possibilities:

• A tool might be infrequently used yet be critical to a specific task
• Tools might be highly used by accident or other confusion (Arch column vs. Structure column)
• Some tools have a high affinity and should be co-located even if their individual frequencies differ

To supplement internal data and research I am soliciting screen shots of your customized QAT layouts.  Steve Stafford, Revit blogger, provides an example here:  Please share yours by sending a screen shot as an attachment using the following link:

Share your QAT Screenshot

Thank you

_erik

Comments

[Andrew Dobson]

Assuisng we have to keep the ribbon:
Could there not be two halves to the ribbon - the left hand side of the screen could contain a persistent "tab" with all of the "modify" buttons from the 2009 toolbars.

To the right of this, would be the tabs that could change contextually or manually as currently.

You could presumably have a right click option in panels to "make persistent" and move to the left hand tab.

I also think that we either need to revert the options bar to the 2009 version, or integrate it into the ribbon. At the moment, it just wastes even more vertical space, as the ribbon is over tall.

[eddy]

To iru69's comment on the Microsoft ribbon protocol: "2007 Office UI Design Guidelines License"
what does that mean for the kids working in 3ds Max 2010? Have you seen that UI? Ribbons AND dialog boxes AND pulldowns. They have one of everything! plus it's easy to find your stuff.

Revit dudes. If the new matra is ribbon, copy theirs. It's win-win.

http://blog.digitalcontentproducer.com/briefingroom/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/reviewenhancements.png

Om Mani Padme Hum

[Donnie]

I just opened 3ds Max Design 2010 for the first time this morning. If Autodesk is trying to follow MS rules on ribbons, then they broke the rules with Max. To me, (and I think someone else may have said this) Max got it right.

The ribbon is there with three tabs, and it holds a set of new commands that I probably don't need that often.

The ribbon can collapse to tabs only (like Revit) but more importantly they can be removed completely. The constants that were up top remain as before, albeit with new/bigger icons, but I can handle that.

I'm not saying Revit needs to follow this line of thinking. I'm not sure that it could, since these are two very different programs. Just pointing out that they currently aren't following MS rules.

One item that isn't mentioned much is the Options bar. Very little space is taken up by contextual selections, yet it runs the length of the screen. Why can't the type selector remain here? Workset pulldowns?

Instead of searching for Thin Lines and Show Mass toggles, can these be placed in the options bar as well? Better yet, place them in the View Control bar since they are essentially "view toggles." You could separate them somehow with an isolator so that we know it isn't a view specific change.

This would help alleviate some space on the QAT. I would put the type selector and workset pulldowns on the QAT, but they take up too much space (and dissappear from it altogether).

[iru69]

Eddy's screenshot says it all - bring on the Max! The best of both worlds.

So let's put the old toolbars above the ribbon so that all the old toobars are persistant, de-contextualize the ribbon and call it a day.

[eddy]

Donnie-

Great idea regarding the options bar. Add the type selector and the worksharing pulldown.
And I disagree about your comment: "I'm not saying Revit needs to follow this line of thinking".
I'll say it: Revit, follow that line of think. Do what the kids at 3ds Max did for ribbon and toolbar layout.
You can have my copy of 2010 back. I'll take one of those 3ds max versions.

[Ian Kidston]

Hi Tony, Erik and others,

I guess Autodesk best be careful in how they resolve the failed interface, competitors are watching: http://www.podbean.com/podcast-players?b=9545&p=631383&f=http%3A%2F%2Fspect0l.podbean.com%2Fmf%2Fplay%2F74dkvm%2FBA_Revit_GUI_270509.m4v

Ian

[Chad Smith]

Eddy: "what does that mean for the kids working in 3ds Max 2010? Have you seen that UI? Ribbons AND dialog boxes AND pulldowns."

Hold the phone! Lets take a trip waaaay back to this blog post http://insidethefactory.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/03/introducing-the-new-revit-user-interface.html, where it says;

"This is part of a corporate effort to unify the way our flagship products (that is, AutoCAD and it's verticals, along with Inventor®, Revit® products and 3ds Max®) look and behave."

Taking a look at that Max UI screenshot, I beg to differ with the above quote.
I think the justifications that Autodesk have outlined on this blog for implementing a Ribbon are starting to sound a little thin. Very little of it is consistent with the results of the final product.

While I don't use any other Autodesk software at this point in time, and if what other are saying that some other Autodesk products are supporting two UI's, then how are they still able to punch out a more feature rich product?

Phil has quite an amusing new post. But he does make some very valid points.
http://architechure.blogspot.com/2009/05/factory-speak.html

[Bob]

http://architechure.blogspot.com/2009/05/factory-speak.html

Phil Read's blog pretty well says it. Rather than forcing him into exile, Autodesk should hire him back and put him in charge of Revit development.

[JoeF]

I'm kind of sick of talking about the ribbon. I've paid for it and I am using it but I am not happy about it. It makes working with Revit a chore. Here is a little idea to keep in mind. When a user is reaching for a tool, present them with the tool, not a tab, then a tool. How do you know what tool they are going to need? You cannot always know. So you'd better make tons of stuff visible all the time. Persistent tools!!! You cannot know what I am going to do next so quit trying.
When I want to switch windows in AutoCAD, I do not have to click on the "View" tab. Why did someone decide that Revit users needed an extra click? This type of decision making has infected the entire interface.
Don't even bother with the QAT. It's whole existence is an admission that the UI has failed to place the tools in an efficient location. I say get rid of the QAT altogether. Make a proper UI that is not constrained by the idea that everything has a context. Identical functions (move, edit, copy, trim, etc) should be in the exact same location every time you want to use them. Exact same. Why do they move around? What possible enhancement of the work flow is achieved by having tools jump from one place to another on the screen? If there is some benefit to this I'm keen to hear it.

[Rafael]

As a matter of fact the contextualization of the ribbon, ie. the way it displays different tools when an element is selected, goes against the Microsoft Office Fluent UI Design Guidelines.

There are other things that do not follow the standards like graphics, etc. that are required. So in the end the Revit team chose to implement the ribbon the way it is, because technically it is not compliant with the Microsoft UI guidelines.

This means that they could also chose to put some toolbars back, especially for the edit commands that should be persistent.

[Ian K]

Hear, Hear to Bob's comments.

"Phil Read's blog pretty well says it. Rather than forcing him into exile, Autodesk should hire him back and put him in charge of Revit development."

I know Phil presents the unpalatable truth a bit bluntly at times, however, asking nicely -AUGI wishlists - and hoping someone is listen doesn't seem to have done much good.

Get rid of the contextual UI. When users such as JoeF comment that working with this software is now a chore, this surely cannot be good for Revit or AutoDesk.

[Bill]

15 posts in March, 12 posts in April, 5 posts in May. I would think you would want to change the subject by now.

Maybe you could post about the many productivity tools you're working on and take our minds off the UI.

[DoTheBIM]

"This is part of a corporate effort to unify the way our flagship products (that is, AutoCAD and it's verticals, along with Inventor®, Revit® products and 3ds Max®) look and behave."

I might read this a bit different than most, but it seems to me that this "effort" is more of a selfish (cost cutting) nature than benefiting customers. Is there really that much desire & benefit to having "similar" interfaces for "different" programs that require "different" workflows and a "new" learning process? I'd imagine that the number of people that need to use multiple Autodesk products on a frequent basis isn't that high let alone the the number that are clamoring for a unified interface between all products.

[Joel Aviles]

Today GM and tomorrow Autodesk if they don’t start listening to their customer’s specific need. What does Autodesk & GM seems to have in common? Greed coupled with lack off ingenuity.

[Tom Vollaro]

"15 posts in March, 12 posts in April, 5 posts in May. I would think you would want to change the subject by now."

Yes, it’s like stepping into traffic. You've heard a bit from management and I can say the feedback collected through various channels has made their way to the right level. Tom and I will see about moving this blog back toward the original vision - more about internal processes and design within the Factory. It’s understandable the blog has gotten this attention since there are not many other internal Revit blogs . There are other features we can discuss as well as ongoing research and investigations.

BTW thanks for all those who sent private messages and screen shots. It all helps.

[Basam Yousif]

My two cents about this whole issue are these:

First, forget about the ribbons and the toolbars. I like neither. let's see if we (I mean you) can integrate an "intelligent" command line into Revit, where we not only enter commands by typing first letter, Revit "lists" all commands starting with that letter, list shortens as I type a second command...etc.). This is also a great way to get Revit to talk to me. AutoCAD talks back to me and Revit does not. I do want Revit to talk back to me on why it can't change height of that wall...

This will lead you to actually publishing a list of Revit commands, which will also open the door to huge improvement in the API and scripting..... Heaven forbid you implement tools that users actually need.

Basam Yousif
SOM Chicago

[Chad]

In the interest of sharing some UI screenshots, Phil Read has some very interesting ones here; http://architechure.blogspot.com/2009/06/nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein.html

Is maintaining a 'classic' mode really as hard as you're making it out to be?

[Aaron Rumple]

The great thing about the internet is that the truth is always out there...

"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."

http://architechure.blogspot.com/2009/06/nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein-nein.html