[Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
vocx
Veteran
Posts: 5197
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:18 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by vocx »

triplus wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:13 pm ... Sure, why not. But some quick solutions and proposals don't always end up being the silver bullet. And much effort needs to be invested to actually introduce an improvement in the end.
As yorik said in his previous comment, I think introducing these generic classifications isn't such an enormous task, as it would only affect the graphical user interface; the underlying operation of FreeCAD would be the same. It may not be a "silver bullet" and solve all problems of documentation and discoverability of tools, but I don't think it requires investing much effort, as you say.

It is something that is worth trying at least, and @kkremitzki seems to agree with me that there wouldn't be a drastic change as long as you included a filter to show all workbenches in alphabetical order, just like it is done now.
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by chrisb »

kkremitzki wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:17 am This dropdown menu would act as a filter for workbenches. The first, default option, would be "Filter: Alphabetical".
The set of workbenches in the dropdown can be customized. So we don't even need an additional filter, if we can provide additional help for different preselections. Following wandererfans proposal there could be different recommended setups for
- basic 3D solid generation
- Milling
- Architecture
- 3D print
- FEM analysis
- ...
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
vocx
Veteran
Posts: 5197
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:18 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by vocx »

sliptonic wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:18 pm Your assumption that the core functionality is to draw and create is correct. Path users ARE drawing and creating geometry.
And as I said other times, I am completely fine if you'd like to propose Path as a core workbench. If you think it's a basic tool, that represents a functionality that just can't be missed in a modern CAD program, then you absolutely have the right to defend it as being a core workbench. I wouldn't be opposed to that. If tomorrow the main developers of FreeCAD came out and said, "guys, we have decided to define the core workbenches as Draft, Sketcher, PartDesign, and Path", I would have no objections. I am not opposed to it being included, I am just proposing a classification.
When you say, "To most people, the "core" functionality of a CAD program is to draw, and create 3D solids." I don't know if you're right or wrong. You have no data. It's an assumption but one that doesn't universally agree with my own experience.
I have no data, but you are also ignoring the empirical data that is presented in this thread. Yorik said if he presents FreeCAD, he usually just uses PartDesign; jpg87's web tutorial illustrates PartDesign and Assembly2 for mechanical design; NormandC also mentioned his own ideas of what a CAD program is (geometry creation). At least concede that there are other people who consider the design of solids a core functionality.
When you go on to say, "but users are expected to at least know about solids (core functionality) by then" I ask, why? If they don't need those tools, why expect them to learn them?
Well, in general, you are right. Just because a tool is considered core, it doesn't necessarily imply that you must absolutely know everything about it, but that applies to any piece of basic knowledge. We all learned mathematics in school, and we all probably consider it core knowledge of a modern human, but everybody in their adult life knows how much math they really need.

The core would be an average of users' experiences. I think in average most FreeCAD users know, or would like to know about solid bodies. If you think Path in average would be as popular then, again, I have no problem if it's included as one of the core workbenches.
Always add the important information to your posts if you need help. Also see Tutorials and Video tutorials.
To support the documentation effort, and code development, your donation is appreciated: liberapay.com/FreeCAD.
User avatar
sliptonic
Veteran
Posts: 3457
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by sliptonic »

vocx wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:57 pm
I have no data, but you are also ignoring the empirical data that is presented in this thread.
There is no empirical data in this thread, only anecdotal data.

You're proposing a change to UI based on a system that you 'think' captures 'most' users. UI decisions that are made that way often become emotional and lead to unnecessary churn. So I'm saying gut feel, anecdotal experience, and instinct shouldn't be the basis of such change.
The core would be an average of users' experiences. I think in average most FreeCAD users know, or would like to know about solid bodies. If you think Path in average would be as popular then, again, I have no problem if it's included as one of the core workbenches.
I'm not advocating Path should be 'core', I'm saying I don't see the benefit of the distinction in the first place. Sorry.

Now, if you want to gather real empirical data, you'll have my attention. Analyze forum posts, poll users, Do AB testing if you can figure out how. I don't care. Decisions made that way are almost always an improvement.
User avatar
furti
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:27 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by furti »

vocx wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:55 pm which workbenches are included together with FreeCAD, and which are not
Why should a filter be aware of that? When the user has installed the flamingo tools and it is tagged as "arch" then it could be shown in the "Arch" filter. As easy as that. If it is not installed it is not shown in te list.
User avatar
sgrogan
Veteran
Posts: 6499
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:02 pm

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by sgrogan »

sliptonic wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:16 pm I'm not advocating Path should be 'core', I'm saying I don't see the benefit of the distinction in the first place. Sorry.
I think we are "assuming" the "average user"

A challenge to all. Customize FreeCAD to use a "core", you can disable WB's in the dropdown, use the the Complete WB with a bunch of customized toolbars, etc.
When your done go to the "Help Forum" and work through the issues. When you can get through a full page of help requests, post your configuration here.

@vocx, maybe you should consider a detailed tutorial with extensive links, for a MCAD (SolidEdge, SW, Catia) work flow.

I came from a CadKey/SW background, without Draft I would have moved on.

I appreciate the effort, I'm worried we alienate some users at the expense of others.
"fight the good fight"
User avatar
kkremitzki
Veteran
Posts: 2511
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by kkremitzki »

furti wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:14 am I like the filter approach. But i dont think a "Filter: Core" makes much sense here. What is the point of having "Sketcher" in the list but not "Part" or "PartDesign"? I think this will confuse newcomers even more. Now you can draw 2D geometry but no way to create 3D geometry out of it.
Whose list are you talking about? I didn't mention Part but I would definitely say Draft, Part, and Sketcher should 100% be considered a core workbench. Part Design I'm not so sure, since although I'd like it to be "premiered" in this way, knowledge of how to use Part Design requires knowledge of Sketcher, so it's less foundational in that sense. Similarly for Tech Draw, since it is a consumer of something produced either in another workbench or another program, and for Path, as well.
vocx wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:31 pm As yorik said in his previous comment, I think introducing these generic classifications isn't such an enormous task, as it would only affect the graphical user interface; the underlying operation of FreeCAD would be the same. It may not be a "silver bullet" and solve all problems of documentation and discoverability of tools, but I don't think it requires investing much effort, as you say.
I think a lot of these categorical classifications would be better as tooltips when mousing over a workbench in the workbench dropdown.
furti wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:45 pm Why should a filter be aware of that? When the user has installed the flamingo tools and it is tagged as "arch" then it could be shown in the "Arch" filter. As easy as that. If it is not installed it is not shown in te list.
A filter can be aware of any classification it wants to discriminate on, why not? There's no way currently to see which workbench in the list is a 3rd party workbench, so I think it'd be useful enough to include as a default filter.

An Architecture and other purpose-built filter would also be good to include but if there's only 1 or 2 workbenches in it, it doesn't seem all that helpful to include by default, but if one wants it, it can be added dynamically. Otherwise we're just trading one long dropdown for another.

Another option, though, would be to add these filters but have them disabled in a preferences menu, with the known 3rd party workbenches for that filter being shown as missing and possibly installable. That would be nice, but probably better as a later feature.
sliptonic wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:16 pm Now, if you want to gather real empirical data, you'll have my attention. Analyze forum posts, poll users, Do AB testing if you can figure out how. I don't care. Decisions made that way are almost always an improvement.
I think the vast majority of project decisions aren't made that way, and I think that's an excessive requirement for something which in its proposed form would mostly only double the width of the workbench toolbar by adding another dropdown and practically not affect people who aren't interested in it.
chrisb wrote: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:32 pm The set of workbenches in the dropdown can be customized. So we don't even need an additional filter, if we can provide additional help for different preselections.
I'm not sure I quite follow, but I would say: customizing requires you to know what you want, but this tool is not so much for those people, but for those who might know what they want with a little guidance.
Like my FreeCAD work? I'd appreciate any level of support via Patreon, Liberapay, or PayPal! Read more about what I do at my blog.
User avatar
jpg87
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:16 am
Location: Limoges - France
Contact:

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by jpg87 »

vocx wrote:
I think that overall, those who have been working for some time with FreeCAD have their habits, their preferences, but do not really measure the difficulties of newcomers, especially when they start in CAD:
- go into the preferences of a workshop ...
- customize your list of workshops ...
- customize your toolbars ...
all this already supposes a decline and a little experience.
This is not the priority of the beginner who wants to discover a new tool.
I think the initial idea of ​​vocx is very laudable, even if its way of doing brings lively discussions to regulars who navigate FreeCAD with their eyes closed.
My website : http://help-freecad-jpg87.fr updated 2023/11/06
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53945
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by chrisb »

kkremitzki wrote: Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:11 am I'm not sure I quite follow, but I would say: customizing requires you to know what you want, but this tool is not so much for those people, but for those who might know what they want with a little guidance.
Sorry, reread my post and saw it could be clearer :oops: .

I had wandererfan's post in mind
wandererfan wrote: Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:25 pm What do you want to do with FC?
- build 3d models for my 3d printer
--- Sketcher, PartDesign, ...
- design my new house
--- Draft, Arch, TD
- create cnc code for my milling machine
--- Path, ...
- determine if this bridge will fall down
--- Import, FEM,...
- ...
In the customize dialog we could offer some preselections for different use cases or areas of interest, like

- build 3d models for my 3d printer
--- Preselect workbenches Sketcher, PartDesign, ...
- want to import STL files from thingiverse?
--- add Mesh Design
...

It is very similar to your filter approach but has two advantages - and one drawback:
- We can show much more explanatory text
- It can be additive, as in the example above
- the third of the two advantages is, that we can start with a "Recommended usage" page in the wiki.

the drawback is, that switching to and fro between different setups is not as easy.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
kkremitzki
Veteran
Posts: 2511
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: [Discussion] Defining core workbenches

Post by kkremitzki »

Ahh, then perhaps that could be accomplished by having a "... Customize" option as the final entry in the filter dropdown, which would open up the preference page I mentioned, which could show the disabled custom filters like "3D Printer Design", "Home Design", "Manufacturing Design", etc., as well as not-downloaded-but-available 3rd party extensions we know of for those custom design categories, and some info or way of downloading them like I mentioned.
Like my FreeCAD work? I'd appreciate any level of support via Patreon, Liberapay, or PayPal! Read more about what I do at my blog.
Post Reply