PartDesign modeling tools: Combined or verbose tool set?

[cox]

If there is a change to combined tools, would it not be possible to make convenience tools to mimic the old tools. Maybe not on the toolbar by default, but to choose them in preferences.? I think i could be convinced if a wrapper function was made for the tools of today, but using the new underlying technology.

In general I do not think it sensible to do something just because everybody else is doing it. Locking at the examples provided lately shows a neat condensed holistic function, but it looks like much clicking to get stuff done.

I guess that the extra click could be saved if we had two buttons for extrude instead of one. One for preselected subtractive tool and one preselected for additive.

[NormandC]

In general I do not think it sensible to do something just because everybody else is doing it.

I agree. The big high-end packages like Catia and NX are often used as references, but the truth is they are hard to learn and have confusing UI. I have never used them, but this is what people who have tell me.

[cox]

I agree. The big high-end packages like Catia and NX are often used as references, but the truth is they are hard to learn and have confusing UI. I have never used them, but this is what people who have tell me.

Yes, I agree and find FreeCAD Part Design and Sketcher extremely good in the usability department.

I am just trying to think out of the box to try to come up with a solution that would unify the community opinion on the subject, there must be a way. We might just not found it yet.

[DeepSOIC]

I think the option for everyone is to implement both. That's not as hard as it sounds.
We can set up two toolbars. One contains unified commands with dropdowns, other contains all specific buttons. User can hide and unhide any toolbar.

Furthermore. With unified + dropdown toolbar implemented, the other toolbar can be constructed by user via Tools->Customize .

EDIT: that may be the actual reason I vote for unification: it is more flexible.

[cox]

I think the option for everyone is to implement both. That's not as hard as it sounds.

Fantastic, then all that is left to do is have another poll, witch toolbar should be the default out of the gate?

[NormandC]

I think the option for everyone is to implement both. That's not as hard as it sounds.

Please think of the trouble it will cause for the documentation and the helpers on the forum.

" - You can do this by selecting the sketch and clicking on the Pocket tool..."
" - Sorry I do not have a pocket button I can't find a pocket button anywhere what's wrong should I reinstall FreeCAD do I have the latest version??? PLEASE HELP"

Seriously. Let's pick one OR the other, and stick with it. Otherwise it's going to be a usability NIGHTMARE. We've seen what damage the "Automatically refine shape after boolean/sketch-based operation" can do (even though I was one who asked for them).

[jmaustpc]

We've seen what damage the "Automatically refine shape after boolean/sketch-based operation" can do (even though I was one who asked for them).

Yes, pain in the ....

I think the option for everyone is to implement both.

Let's pick one OR the other,

I agree with Norm here, that we really just need to decide on one only and stick to that, we should not be afraid to say "this is FreeCAD, we do it this way".

[ian.rees]

There are two separate ideas that might be conflated in this conversation - how discoverable the tools are, and how efficiently usable they are. An intuitive design is not necessarily a discoverable one, since intuition is shaped so much by past experience. My feeling is that discoverability is a little bit more important than efficiency.

That said, I think what's the most important in UI design is getting a good agreement between the user's mental model and the UI available. To me, there's a fundamental difference between cutting material away from, or adding material to, a thing. So, to me, it's not a good idea to combine additive and subtractive operations into the same tool (this is the same reason I hate the UI for non-binding-constraints in sketcher - essentially the same UI is used for totally different purposes). As a programmer, I understand that the operations are similar, but I think that making the UI reflect that is exposing too much of the internals in the UI.

To answer the basic question - I voted for separate buttons. If the buttons take too much space, there are plenty ways to make more space. For instance, we could make a widget that works much like the N-sided polygon that Jim mentioned, but that expands via mouseover instead of click.

Related: There are some really good books available on this stuff - I suggest "Design of Everyday Things" and "Universal Principles of Design". -Ian-

[ian.rees]

we should not be afraid to say "this is FreeCAD, we do it this way"

Agree. To take it a step further, we should aim for an experience where we don't have to explain/justify this sort of thing at all! -Ian-

[triplus]

After thinking about this for a while this is how i see it. In general for the base FreeCAD i would vote for:

• Underlying QAction used for QToolButton(s) (with or without menu). One for each tool.
• QToolButton with menu can be used for combining tools.
• More complex tools should give choices in sidebar.

This is rather straightforward way to interact with FreeCAD and it allows developers to build potential alternative UX solutions with ease.

As for the sidebar. I feel we will start "to open up the 3D view" in the future and complex sidebars will get in the way. Therefore developers try not to create too complex sidebars. As a general guide horizontal and vertical width and height should fit in the sidebar without the need to do any resizing when the sidebar is enabled on smaller screens.