We joke about how market research for software companies consists of
rolling over in bed and saying, Honey, what do you think? And I totally agree
that the reason we have the office software we have today is because it is
purchased by people who don't have to use it--at least not in the same
way I have to use it. I sure wouldn't be using Microsoft Word if I didn't
have to (although, is that Microsoft's fault, or my company's fault, or my
fault for caving in?). However, the last time I did any programming, it was
on punch cards in Fortran, so I'm not the best person to comment on the
difficulties of doing it today.
Besides, it's not clear to me, especially in relation to 3-D CAD for RP,
that it's all in the software. I have heard designers complain about the
lack of natural computer interface hardware, which would allow them to
replicate the expression of the human needs they are trying to create. They
say drawing with a mouse is like drawing with a brick. I know this is
partially SRI's fault, for having invented the mouse. But then, the mouse was
invented as an x-y pointing device for text, not a CAD drawing device, let
alone a 3-D ergonomic interpretation device. Still, the goal was augmented
human intellect, and we still haven't got there.
Brock Hinzmann
Technology Navigator
SRI International
Monica & Glenn Whiteside wrote:
>Brock, you wrote:
>
>"If CAD software is difficult to use, perhaps you need different people
>designing it."
>
>Amen to that, I've been saying this for years, Catia for example is very
>powerful but not always user-friendly with some of its functions.
Instead
>of being "user-vicious" CAD software needs to become much more intuitive
>(and this doesn't necessarily mean more undecipherable little icons and
>message boxes!!!), sort of like assembling a Lego model or an Erector
set
>model only in a virtual 3D space. Of course what might be "intuitive"
for
>one person could be mass confusion for another and this is the crux of
the
>problem: How do you design software that can be easily used by a
majority of
>users? By utilizing plenty of user feedback from many different
industries,
>not just one, and by making the software easily customizable for
individual
>user preferences. One major problem (in my opinion) is that the larger
>software companies like Dassault do not listen closely enough to the
REAL
>users of the software. They listen to MIS managers and employees but
these
>are NOT the daily users of the software that have to live with the
>inadequate interfaces and functions day after day. Catia is real famous
for
>its error and "abend" messages which usually give the user no real clue
what
>the actual problem is (and the "help" file is absolutely worthless).
The
>MIS managers and employees are mostly concerned with file administration
and
>troubleshooting individual problems as they crop up. When "buried"
problems
>are finally detected by the users in day-to-day usage, it's usually too
late
>in the release cycle and then you have to wait a year or so for the next
>version to clear up the problem (or at least until your company decides
to
>implement the next release which could be several releases later!!). I
>think that some software companies are much more concerned with
collecting
>their licensing fees than in listening to their core users. This loss
of
>customer focus will eventually catch up with them when the competition
>starts providing what the customer wants in a timely manner and at more
>reasonable prices.
>
>Regards,
>
>Glenn Whiteside
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
>Status: U
>Return-Path: <owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>
>Received: from bart.lpt.fi ([193.166.66.1]) by mgw-mp.sric.sri.com
> (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA5E27;
> Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:41:33 -0800
>Received: from major by bart.lpt.fi with local (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for rp-ml-outgoing@bart.lpt.fi
> id 0zqSBO-0002O7-00; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:24:50 +0000
>Received: from mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.39])
> by bart.lpt.fi with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
> id 0zqSBN-0003gj-00; Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:24:50 +0200
>Received: from siderwhite ([12.75.170.123]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net
> (InterMail v03.02.05 118 121 101) with SMTP
> id <19981217012401.QKRL4576@siderwhite> for
<rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>;
> Thu, 17 Dec 1998 01:24:01 +0000
>Message-ID: <014d01be295b$b72b8d00$7baa4b0c@siderwhite>
>Reply-To: "Monica & Glenn Whiteside" <SiderWhite@worldnet.att.net>
>From: "Monica & Glenn Whiteside" <SiderWhite@worldnet.att.net>
>To: "Rapid Prototype Mailing List" <rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi>
>Subject: Re: a summary of Future of RP Comments
>Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 19:22:28 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2120.0
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0
>Sender: owner-rp-ml@ltk.hut.fi
>Precedence: bulk
>
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:47:42 EEST