TOO MANY CLICKS 5

[filbbb]

It seems in UG the click count is going up on simple tasks a few examples:
Reposition component if I want to copy it I have 2 clicks (one to open the pull down and once to click copy) if i go to move object i can decide move or copy with a single click. Same function doubles the click count.

Same thing in the most used box in ug....point dialog box....2 clicks 2 get absolute / wcs / wcs of current part. Old ug had it in one click with no pull-down.

Windows removed most of the pull-down menus and went to single click buttons for all of their commonly used tasks like 10-15 years ago. Why is ug using pull-down instead of buttons?

Many many more examples can be given anyone else have a problem with pull-downs in ug?

I know it wont be in the next release of ug but i would really really consider removing ALL pull-downs in commonly used functions.


Thanks
Future carpel tunnel patient!

 

[jerry1423]

If there is not a button for what you want then you can create it yourself.
Also, there should be a button for just about everything. If you cannot find it then you need to toggled it on.
The pull-downs are there for those who like them, not as the primary way to execute something.
Roles could also be an issue here, and you need to be utilizing the one that suits you best.

What version of NX are you on?

 

[JohnRBaker]

Generally speaking, the rule is that 'Radio Buttons' are used when there is either a single option to toggle ON/OFF or where it's better to offer an expicit choice between Two options. We use the 'Drop-Downs' when there are Three or more options, primarily to save space, so that the dialog does not become too long or too wide (or where we can avoid the overuse of abbreviations or poor choice of words, just to save space). In the cases that you mentioned, with Move Component, there can be Three 'Copy' options, whereas in Move Object there are only Two.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[filbbb]

I am running NX 8.0.3.4 but I have heard of even more pulldowns inside of commands in nx9/10. We are going opposite of the world leader in click count …Microsoft Windows.

Who likes pulldowns for the wcs in the point box? Anyone??? Not only 2 clicks but I have to move my mouse to get what I want. Remember nx3? With one click & no extra movements I could decide abs. or current wsc in a flash.

If I understand Jerry I should be making a button for absolute wcs when I go into the point box? Another for the current wcs? This is inside a ug function that went from the best productivity (NX3) to the worst (pulldowns). Common knowledge is: Clicks = time/productivity = $. Am I wrong?

I currently have 100-120 of my own buttons for time saving tasks. Pulldowns are for people that like to click twice as much in a day. I am talking about the puldowns within ug commands not the ones at the top of your screen. I use those very rarely as I have mostly buttons to save time & clicks!

 

[JohnRBaker]

I'm sorry, but 'Microsoft Windows' is one the least capable CAD/CAE/CAM systems in the world.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[filbbb]

John,
This is an answer but a poor one. Your space saving rule of 2 / 3 needs to be reconsidered for the commonly used areas.

Wcs Absolute Abs work part

They can be fit all in one line with a "bullet" click...disagree?

New rule: if we can fit them we will at least try, not wash it away on a 2/3 rule. This is very counterproductive on the daily use of ug, which needs to be considered more!!

 

[filbbb]

I don’t draw on windows, that’s why i have ug? Maybe I misunderstood the prev comment?

 

[filbbb]

The move component has all kinds of room. Even with every “arrow” clicked/expanded there is all kinds room for 10 choices with no pull-down for copy / move. Another 2/3 rule gone bad! There is room!!!

To a designer, the glass is twice as hard to use….lol

 

[filbbb]

Point dialog box isn't even close to being to big. Disagree?

Do you see where the 2/3 rule is a BAD rule?

 

[JohnRBaker]

When we designed our user interface we had to consider how much space would be needed for each text string used in a dialog. And while you might not think that this is a big deal, just use the least number of words or the most concise terminology and if that means I can get three options in the same space that I managed to get only two where I was force to use less concise terminology, well lets do it anyway. And if that means that sometimes I can get three but something I may be forced to put in a pulldown if there is no way to be concise or brief, so be it, at least I've made some progress. Well that was exactly the decision that we made, only we made the rule TWO and not THREE maximum in a single row and tried to avoid LONG dialogs using fixed but unique LISTS of choices. Fortunately, most choices are 'binary' so we CAN either use a 'toggle' where a simple 'ON/OFF' is clear or a pair of 'radio buttons' when I need to use explicit terminology. This works for most all siutations, but when we start to get a longer list of options, and here we made the decision of THREE or more, we would opt for the 'pulldown', or where practical, a single row of 'icons'.

And before you start offering examples where we COULD have used better terminology to have at least changed some of the THREE option 'pulldowns', please keep THIS in mind. NX currently can be run using TEN different languages (this goes up to 12 with NX 10.0), some of which are not as 'compact' as is English (ever look at an 'English to German' dictionary for example?). We have to have a single set of dialog designs which will be suitable for whatever language was set when NX was launched. We do NOT have the option of using different rules for dialog layouts using a different languages. We have only one set of code and where the words used are being provided for WHILE NX is running. In other words, there is NO English ONLY version of NX just like there is NO Germany only or Spanish ONLY version or for that matter, any other unique vesions. Rather there is ONLY a single version of NX where the words used in the dialogs and the UI are read from a 'translation' file WHILE NX IS ACTUALLY RUNNING. Even the English version of NX is utilizing this 'translation on-the-fly' scheme (actually more of a 'text substitution on-the-fly' scheme as all of the text strings are pre-defined, just that they're being read from different look-up files as NX is running).

Anyway, I hope you see that this is not as simple an issue as it might seem at first glance.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[jerry1423]

fibbb,
How long have you been on NX?
What kind of training did you get for NX?

 

[filbbb]

John,
Very valid points on the English / German translations. And therefore the room holds water until you look at the point dialog box and the copy / move box as previously noted. The point box is the most used box in all of ug correct? All kinds of room no matter what language, that is all I am saying. You need to stay away from the 2/3 rule as a whole and make it as a “do we have room rule”. You must agree the radio buttons are much more efficient than the pulldowns on my end of the game.

Jerry,
I think almost 16 years on ug & a few years prior using it sparingly to cut sections & measure things in a 3-d world. When we took classes it didn’t take long to know more than the prof. (16 yrs ago) Ug used to be very picky back then. It would work one day & you could do the same thing the next day & ug wouldn’t like it.
We don’t keep parameterized solids on anything & pretty much stick to making 1-out dumb solid tooling.

 

[JohnRBaker]

That's part of the problem.

In the old days we allowed the individual developers to create whatever style of dialogs that they liked and we ended-up with a product that looked like ir was 'designed' by 500 people, which in essence it was.

However, starting with NX 5.0 we created a toolkit based on what we called the 'Lego Block' approach, where a dialog is broken up into sections, each designed for a specific type of task or purpose, and these would be stacked on top of each other, like a stack of 'Lego blocks'. Each 'block' was designed based on it doing one simple task, such as pick a 'Type/Mode' from a drop-down or list of Icons, select something with the cursor, enter some text, enter a parameter, show a list of ON/OFF toggles, show two mutually exclusive options (i.e. 'radio buttons'), show a 'drop-down' of three or more options, etc. They were designed INDEPENDENT of where they might used so as to assure consistency from one function to the next.

For too manmy years we were accused of being inconsistent and making nearly identical functions totally different in both appearance and behavior simply because each developer was on his own when it came to the user interface. If you've been using UG/NX for 16 years then you've certainly experienced what I mean here. This meant that we had to train people or they had to learn on their on with separate efforts to be familiar with, even if it was a similar function, because there was little or nothing common between the UI of the functions.

Well, all that changed starting with NX 5.0 so now a developer simply chooses the appropriate 'block', following a style-guide of course, but one that's a lot easier to adhere to when all the pieces and parts have been pre-engineered for you, based on what he needs the user to do.

So for example, when the guy responsible for the Point function needed to have a 'block' where the user could choose from one of three options, that is the block that he got, the one with the 'pulldown'. That's the rules and the size of the dialog played no role in that choice. If it had, this could and would lead to eventual inconsistencies again creeping back into the User Interface.

I'm sorry, but consistency is virtue onto itself.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[filbbb]

So if i understand the problem is that i have been on ug prior to nx5? I remember when ug was more user friendly on its simple task. I will agree nx5 was the downfall to the clickcount.

I understand why it is what it is. I don’t really care why. I just am suggesting the developers take a look at some of these issues. How about even a “show shortcuts” in the point dialog? That would really be more consistent than just a pulldown?

First there was a two/three rule. Then it was a space / language rule. Now it is a consistency is virtue rule? Not once in this forum have you put any concern on the click count your “rules” have passed down to the user. From a long time user standpoint…that seems pretty sad!!

Think of all the extra clicks in 10 languages every day (12 languages in nx10)…adds up in the millions?? Per day…that’s just for one point dialog box to look / function like the rest? Really??? I don’t understand why you would completely defend why it will never be any different.

Granted the “consistency is virtue “ is another reasonable reason why it is that way, that doesn’t have to be that way!

 

[JohnRBaker]

I'm sorry if you feel that way but you can always contact GTAC and open an ER (Enhancement Request) if you feel that you've identified a specific example where something better can be implemented and it will be given consideration.

Note that wee are constantly tweaking the UI based on feedback both from the Beta testers when we're finishing up a new version of NX (we start NX 10.0 beta testing in May) and from user feedback after the software has been released. We also conduct focused one-on-one 'usability' sessions with the key person responsible for the 'style-guide' used to develop our UI tools. Theses sessions are held both during the beta period and at the national Users Conference. These sessions focus on exactly the sorts of things that's been commented on here including better accessibility to functions/options, mouse clicks, mouse travel (almost as important an issue), something called 'discovability', etc. So if you really would like to influence how the NX user interface is evolving, perhaps you might want to volunteer to come out to California for beta testing or attend the national conference coming up in Orlando and take advantage of the opportunity to participate in one of the these one-on-one sessions.

BTW, when you start using NX 8.5 or NX 9.0 you will see one of those recent 'tweaks' and that's something called the 'shortcut toolbar' which makes typical tasks and operations that you are most likely to perform on a selected item immediately available right at your cursor without the need to spend any EXTRA CLICKS (or wasting time moving the mouse) to get to where you could select that function. And this feature is fully customizable in that you can decide what functions are the ones that you would want to perform when you've selected some specific object or just clicked anywhere on the screen to bring up whatever functions that you might wish to launch without opening a menu or going to a toolbar/ribbon tab.

So, if you've keeping 'score', be sure to account for those places where we've REMOVED mouse clicks, OK ;-)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[filbbb]

John,
Perfect! Cal & Orlando are great solutions & I would love to put these concerns with “clicks & mouse movement” to the test. Nx3 we could really fly just doing simple tasks. We have really enjoyed most all of the new tools like direct modeling, repeat last command, & my favorite is the addition of shortcut keys. Example… In nx3 we used <alt>f…m…p…. to import a part. It was much faster than the mouse movements. While the plane box takes 3-4 times longer now to pick a point plane. We used to pick a point then change x value then <tab><tab> change the z and you had a plane in space in less than a second.

I will contact GTAC as I have in the past over the mirror display not working on solids & the “entire assy” issue resetting.

Thanks John & we will battle again…lol

 

[multicaduser]

NX 8.5. Click count.....not feeling the pain when it comes to real world productivity. In not even addressing any of the arguments John put forth.....from a practical stand point I consider the total click count to be lower, not higher. From the pure fact that it now takes fewer features to the same thing from a just a few versions ago, i.e. create feature, create feature, then intersect/unite/subtract, etc., it takes less effort to get to the end game than it use to.

Some other very popular cad packages cannot even do the some of the things that NX is capable of, and this from a very seasoned user of this other cad system sitting just one cube away.

I don't use NX the same in 8.5 as even 8.0, that would be a waste of effort. The same work is easier and simpler because of new features, such as choosing which areas to keep with the new unite. Previous versions required these ares to be trimmed off before or simplify after the unite to remove artifacts, and that could be a real high click count.

That's not to say there aren't more clicks to accomplish some things, but it's human nature to resist change, and what you focus on has a great deal to do with how you preceve things.

 

[filbbb]

Multi,
I don’t remember saying the overall click count went up. It did on a few things but more than made up for it on others. I do like the nx8 that we are currently using. It is much faster & smarter than most of the other systems. No arguments on that stuff at all!! All i am saying is it could be even better with a few minor tweaks.

The changes are on some of the most common boxs used in all of ug. The change from 2 radio buttons to a pulldown is tremendously slower. This box is used all day every day! It has nothing to do with change or how it is perceived. I focus on quality, accuracy & speed. I am not an hourly worker who doesn’t mind the extra clicks / time. Ill race anyone…picking a box vs. picking a box, moving the mouse, and then picking again. Common sense, not resisting change!

 

[JohnRBaker]

...my favorite is the addition of shortcut keys. Example… In nx3 we used <alt>f…m…p…. to import a part. It was much faster than the mouse movements.

That still works in NX 9.0. There has been NO changes the use of so-called 'shortcut keys' in NX.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[rickemeyer]

I agree with filbbb about the pulldowns in dialog boxes. I also agree that picking a plane is a lot more cumbersome now than it was in NX3. At least double the clicks and menu maneuvering than nx3 in that regard. Although NX has added time saving commands and refined the way certain commands behave, I agree that certain dialog boxes can be expanded to get rid of the tiresome pulldown boxes. One or two boxes here & there that have unnecessary pulldowns in them just to keep consistency may not seem like that big of a deal, but to a guy who uses those commands all day every day, it gets very frustrating and time consuming. If there was a way to get around the in-dialog pulldowns bu instead using a keyboard key, that'd be great!