rough draft of UX case studies intro post. #401
43
docs/blog/2021-07-04-ux-case-studies-intro.mdx
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
|
||||
|
|
||||
---
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
slug: ux-studies-intro
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
Sorry that I can't remember, if you were planning on adding to this to make it a long form, or if the case-studies will be seperate posts? I'm asking here because maybe a slug of just But than again, if you've decided hard on a series, that cool and no need to change it. Sorry that I can't remember, if you were planning on adding to this to make it a long form, or if the case-studies will be seperate posts?
I'm asking here because maybe a slug of just `ux-studies` might give you flexibility later on as it doesn't imply a series, but you could still do `ux-studies-part2` etc later on. I'm only saying this because changing the title and the content later is fine, but we don't want to change the slug after publish.
But than again, if you've decided hard on a series, that cool and no need to change it.
|
||||
title: "GUI-CAD UX studies: introduction"
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
author: Frank Noirot
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
author_title: CadHub Core Team
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
author_url: https://github.com/franknoirot
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
author_image_url: https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/23481541?v=4
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
tags: []
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
---
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
import Image from '@theme/IdealImage';
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
import ivanSutherland from '../static/img/blog/ux-case-studies-intro/ivan-sutherland-sketchpad.jpg';
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
I'm helping CadHub out by designing the interfaces for the [new editor](https://www.figma.com/file/VUh53RdncjZ7NuFYj0RGB9/CadHub?node-id=1114%3A1608), [project viewer](https://www.figma.com/file/VUh53RdncjZ7NuFYj0RGB9/?node-id=1046%3A0), and [more](https://www.figma.com/file/VUh53RdncjZ7NuFYj0RGB9/?node-id=1150%3A1618). Right now we're focused on getting the Code-CAD user experience perfected so that users can try out all the great Code-CAD packages out there in a simple and sharable way. But we think that the future of Code-CAD will pull UX lessons from traditional, GUI-based CAD systems. So I'll be taking a look at the history and UX of some of today's CAD tools to see how we might bring them along with the Code-CAD evolution.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
<!--truncate-->
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Nice, easy to forget about adding this somewhere. :) Nice, easy to forget about adding this somewhere. :)
Definitely, I just started with the Definitely, I just started with the `truncate` on my blank post to write around it.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
## Why GUIs aren't enough anymore
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
As others like [Jessie Frazelle](https://medium.com/embedded-ventures/mechanical-cad-yesterday-today-and-tomorrow-981cef7e06b1) have pointed out, the history of CAD software has been focused primarily on using software to emulate the frictionless user experiences of sketching and modelling by hand. That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still forms the foundation of the paradigm, but could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
<Image img={ivanSutherland} alt="Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad program from the 1960's, a man using a pen-like tool on a screen to manipulate a 2D model, considered the first CAD program." className="mb-8 bg-contain rounded-md overflow-hidden max-w-lg mx-auto" />
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
It's hard to understate how much of a sea change web development has brought to technical culture. In the past decade the web technologies of HTML, CSS, and especially JavaScript have trained a large part of technical workers to think not in terms of software packages, but in terms of the technologies and languages that are used to construct them, because as a culture we have become accustomed to the idea that there is always an API powering whatever tool we're using. Technical users of course still want seamless GUI user experiences on platforms, but increasingly they also want the ability to get under the hood and use the APIs that power whatever tool or platform they're on. This trend is evident in the rise of API-first services like [Stripe](https://stripe.com) and monolith-fracturing trends like [JAMstack web development](https://jamstack.org).
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
With Code-CAD, we are putting a spotlight on this sea change in user expectations, and putting out a call to action for people to start creating experiences for this web-native, language-comfortable audience of CAD users. With CadHub, we're building a showcase for the great Code-CAD packages like [CadQuery](https://cadquery.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) and [OpenSCAD](https://openscad.org/) that have been under development by early adopters for years.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
## A Gooey Hegelian Dialectic
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
Okay, so we in the Code-CAD community are a bunch of developers who want more interfaces from our CAD programs. We're comfortable with programming languages and APIs and we want access to them in addition to the GUIs that CAD has traditionally provided. That's all great, but then why isn't Code-CAD mainstream right now?
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
For one, the process of building a robust, text-first approach to so visual an activity is, as [Kurt has written about](/blog/right-level-of-abstraction) on this blog, incredibly difficult. But the Code-CAD community has been doing the monumental work of developing clean, expressive APIs for modelling. That important work is what we want to showcase and make more accessible with CadHub. But we think it's only half of the equation for creating the next step in CAD.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
There are myriads of thorny user experience problems that have been solved by the dominant CAD packages of today. They are amazing pieces of software that users know and love. And all those clever UX solutions were created in the design space of GUIs. If Code-CAD as a paradigm is going to become the new normal for computer-aided design, we need to understand and address all the innovation that GUI-CAD has brought to design, and translate them into Code-CAD. We need to find a gooey-code synthesis. As previously stated, this new generation of users *still want seamless GUI experiences*. Code-CAD needs to provide a way of switching seamlessly between "Application Programming" and "Graphical User" interfaces.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
## Already under construction
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
I'll try to explore that design space with a few brief case studies on UX that I love from existing CAD and 3D modelling software. I'm looking for key experiences that help empower designers, how they operate in the GUI-CAD paradigm, and how Code-CAD might provide code-based synonyms of these GUI experiences.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
But I want to mention that work is already being done on this front. Jeremy Wright of the CadQuery team is building [Semblage](https://semblage.7bindustries.com/en/latest/), a GUI-code hybrid built with CadQuery and the Godot gaming engine. [BuildBee](https://makecode.buildbee.com/) lets users switch between Scratch-like block interface and JavaScript code for making models. Blender provides an [excellent Python API](https://docs.blender.org/api/current/index.html) for almost all of its incredible functionality, and there a dozen other projects pushing things forward while we look to the present and the past for more inspiration.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
Our first stop will be the timeline feature of AutoDesk Fusion360, which is a clever way to make the order of operations in modelling intuitive. Stay tuned for this post and more in the coming weeks, check out our work on [GitHub](https://github.com/Irev-Dev/cadhub/discussions/404) and [Figma](https://www.figma.com/file/VUh53RdncjZ7NuFYj0RGB9/?node-id=633%3A0), sign up for [Kurt's newsletter](https://kurthutten.com/), and join [our Discord](https://discord.gg/sFYJyEJ6) to get plugged into our ongoing discussions about the future of Code-CAD.
|
||||
I love that, it's spot on. I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers. A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC. I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything. One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion. > We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
> That paradigm lead most of the major tools to build GUI-based systems, as they correctly assumed at the the time that the GUI offered an interface that could be understood by people in the industry. Decades have passed and the same assumption still form the foundation of the paradigm, could these assumptions have fundamentally changed?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor. Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement. Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
|
||||
BIN
docs/static/img/blog/ux-case-studies-intro/ivan-sutherland-sketchpad.jpg
vendored
Normal file
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 87 KiB |
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
I love that, it's spot on.
I think the narrative about the tools been made to cater to users of the time is very interesting. Engineering of the day was all down with drawing by draftsmen, which is why both the focus as on having these pieces of software produce technical drawing as well as why a GUI was important because there were not many programmers.
A similar story can be told for PLC, (programmable logic controllers), These are essentially industrial computers used for controlling automated lines, (think commodity production, paper, steel etc). Before PLCs, the way logic was done was with a big panels of relays. In order to sell PLC's they implemented Ladder-logic or Ladder-code, which is essentially a way of drawing the logic the same way you would draw an electric circuit if you were designing relay logic so that the same people who designed the relay panels could start programming the PLC.
It's clever really and nothing wrong with that direction of innovation, the problem is that PLC's still use them today!, even though the assumption about users is no longer valid (no one is learning how to design relay panels)
I'm just rifing on a thought this paragraph gave me, not trying to imply you should fit this in or anything.
One other thing I was tempted to suggest you change "We believe that this assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to "This assumption about users has fundamentally changed." to make it shorter and more assertive, but re-reading it I can see how the build up of the paragraph means "We believe" makes sense, but I wonder if maybe a question is more fitting?
I didn't plan on changing it that much. each time I tried to make smaller changes it was terrible, anyway just a suggestion.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.
Totally! My stepdad runs a local machine shop and I was surprised to see their interfaces still feel like 80s CLI-style interaction with the machine. So wild how a new technology will come out, and in the course of adopting it, people will use metaphors they understand to determine its interface as a stop-gap, but that stop-gap can like atrophy into the way things are done for far longer than users need the metaphor.
Dig the edit, just tweaked two things and made the replacement.