| User Interface
Aug 2 2004 on content QCad |
As I see it, there are only two ways to create successful CAD-Software. Either to come up with a new, intuitive interface that people love right away - or try to mimic as close as possible the current "standard", i.e. AutoCAD, to ease transition, so people will not have to learn tediously another "language" that is no better. The AutoCAD interface still shows how this application has grown from text-based CAD, and than has consecutively been fixed up. It takes years to really get to know it, and I still wonder about some tools that basically do similar things but expect a different way to enter the command.
Some new software, such as SketchUp, has shown how intuitive 3D Architecture Modelling can be, and everybody who fooled around with it for half an hour loves it, and is fit to create a complex drawing.
I tested QCad half a year ago (1.5.4), looking for a CAD application for my Linux system that was free, stable, could handle dxf-files and was easy to use.
I was pleasantly surprised by the simple clean look, the good translation (German), the professionality. The interface actually reminded me somewhat of ArchiCAD, not AutoCAD.
As I had to find out, many things neither work the way one is used to from AutoCAD nor are they really intuitive.
This "drawing on paper" right from the beginning annoyed me quite a bit, I appreciate a lot the "model"-approach where you draw something in virtual space (even 2D) and only when it comes to printing you decide what you want, where you want it and how to scale it to fit your momentary needs. I like WYSIWYG for word processing, but a vector drawing is not done from left to right, top to bottom.
I imported a dxf-file, and except for some sort of polylines it rendered well. But I couldn't figure out how to mark elements. No simple mouse frame, the way even window managers work today. The menus are very logical and very complex. There is no handy help text that tells you in a status bar what action is expected next. And so on.
You are right, I could dig into the hand book, and work my way into the program. But, like most users, I am lazy, and as long as I neither have to nor have fun doing so I probably won't bother.
I think it is difficult for any application, adequate and grown as it might be, to reach today a large audience and make people convert with an approach that is not intuitively understood.
Don't get me wrong, this might be a great program and I do honestly appreciate the programmers' work. Maybe my version is to old, too, and some things have changed already. It's just that I probably won't ever know... |
|  |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
