Why???

Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

layer????

Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Olin Lathrop wrote:

Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

>> 3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

>> layer????

 

Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

 

Wow, what a worthless comment.

I am really tired of comments that state that you should first memorize

the "manual" before asking questions.  Sadly, not everyone has the time

to search for hours through the poorly organized Eagle documentation.

Please offer constructive answers or don't waste the poster's or the

rest of our valuable time.

Olin Lathrop wrote:

Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

>> 3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

>> layer????

 

Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

 

Wow, what a worthless comment.

I am really tired of comments that state that you should first memorize

the "manual" before asking questions.  Sadly, not everyone has the time

to search for hours through the poorly organized Eagle documentation.

Please offer constructive answers or don't waste the poster's or the

rest of our valuable time.

Am 03.11.2011 06:12, schrieb Marvin Dawson:

Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

>>> 3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

>>> layer????

>>

>> Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

>>

>

Wow, what a worthless comment.

I am really tired of comments that state that you should first memorize

the "manual" before asking questions. Sadly, not everyone has the time

to search for hours through the poorly organized Eagle documentation.

 

Please offer constructive answers or don't waste the poster's or the

rest of our valuable time.

 

Why don't you simply write  "Use the MIRROR command"?

--

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best regards

Richard Hammerl

  CadSoft Support -- hotline@cadsoft.de

  FAQ: http://www.cadsoft.de/training/faq/

Marvin Dawson wrote on Thu, 03 November 2011 01:12

Wow, what a worthless comment.

I am really tired of comments that state that you should first memorize

 

the "manual" before asking questions.

I am really tired of people that bash Eagle before bothering to learn it.

The OP didn't come here asking for help.  He came here to dump a diatribe

on us.

Either you don't know something and therefore ask a genuine question, or

you do know it and can pass judgement on it.  You can't have it both ways.

Did the OP really think Eagle wasn't capable of placing parts on the bottom

of the board?  Of course not (giving him credit for at least some brains).

The question should have been "How do I place components on the bottom of

the board?", but instead he had to get a dig in there without even knowing

what the software can really do: "why can't I place parts on the bottom

layer????".  Clearly that's not really a question, just a childish rant.

Also note that I answered the question as aksed.  He didn't ask how to do

it, but why he couldn't do it.  If that's not what he wanted answered, then

he shouldn't have asked it.

Quote:

Sadly, not everyone has the time to search for hours through the poorly

organized Eagle documentation.

But they seem to have the time to bump around in the dark and then ask here

waiting for answers.  People that think reading the manual wastes time are

thinking short term, and have no business pretending to be engineers.

Of course there are things that will be confusing even after having done

your homework, but then you ask humbly assuming you're the one that doesn't

get it until proven othrewise, not "Why can't I do this with this crappy

software?".

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Am 03.11.2011 06:12, schrieb Marvin Dawson:

Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

>>> 3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

>>> layer????

>>

>> Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

>>

>

Wow, what a worthless comment.

I am really tired of comments that state that you should first memorize

the "manual" before asking questions. Sadly, not everyone has the time

to search for hours through the poorly organized Eagle documentation.

 

Please offer constructive answers or don't waste the poster's or the

rest of our valuable time.

 

What a wonderful example of a constructive answer.

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

Joern Paschedag

Richard Hammerl Inscribed thus:

Am 03.11.2011 06:12, schrieb Marvin Dawson:

>> Olin Lathrop wrote:

>>> Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

>>>> 3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

>>>> layer????

>>>

>>> Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

>>>

>>

>> Wow, what a worthless comment.

>> I am really tired of comments that state that you should first

>> memorize the "manual" before asking questions. Sadly, not everyone

>> has the time to search for hours through the poorly organized Eagle

>> documentation.

>>

>> Please offer constructive answers or don't waste the poster's or the

>> rest of our valuable time.

>>

 

Why don't you simply write  "Use the MIRROR command"?

 

With all due respect, Olin, has a point !

--

Best Regards:

                     Baron.

Baron <baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:

Richard Hammerl Inscribed thus:

 

>> Am 03.11.2011 06:12, schrieb Marvin Dawson:

>>> Olin Lathrop wrote:

>>>> Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

>>>>> 3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

>>>>> layer????

>>>>

>>>> Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Wow, what a worthless comment.

>>> I am really tired of comments that state that you should first

>>> memorize the "manual" before asking questions. Sadly, not everyone

>>> has the time to search for hours through the poorly organized Eagle

>>> documentation.

>>>

>>> Please offer constructive answers or don't waste the poster's or the

>>> rest of our valuable time.

>>>

>>

>>

>> Why don't you simply write  "Use the MIRROR command"?

>>

 

With all due respect, Olin, has a point !

Yes Olin has a point, but not a helpful one. He doesnt seem to have solved

the human equation. You may argue that electronic engineers doesnt do human

engineering, but in many cases knowing a bit of both is a big advantage. I

hope Olins company already has a bunch of satisfied customers, cause he

sure scared me off long time ago with his behaviour.

Hi there,

As being one of those Eagle newcomers I have to second the original poster of this thread. My first contact with Eagle was a disaster, I though wow, that's a good example of how not to do a user interface! This was a quite long time ago, when Eagle could be used on a Mac only via the X11 windowing system. (Disclaimer: yes, I am using Macs since 1995!). Obviously, I ran as far away as I could after only one day of trying to use Eagle.

Two weeks ago, after having a chat with a colleague (also a Mac user) he pointed me to the Eagle software again. I said I know about it, but it runs under X11. However, we thought, let's give it a new try. To my amazement, Eagle runs now (almost) natively on the Mac (well, 100% native would be under Cocoa, Eagle depends heavly on the Carbon subsystem).

So it was quite a suprise, as finally one can use the Mac as a CAD platform. I decided to give the software a much deeper consideration, therefore I spent a week or so reading the whole manual while playing with the examples. The conclusion is, the software is really powerful, but... the GUI is a disaster. Obviously, this program must have started its life (Eagle 1.0?) as comand line software! The concept of clicking first a button signifying a command and then selecting the object upon which the command will be executed led me to this conclusion (it follows the comand line flow).

For all those comenters who claim that it's only a matter of learning something new: you don't get the point. All operating systems have GUI rules (with the exception probably of various Linux distros who apparently have no rules), in particular Apple is extremely picky at setting and following those rules. The vast majority of the Mac developper community is following these rules, and so most of the Mac software is particularly pleasant, efficient and easy to use. Well, it's a Mac, that makes the Mac so much different.

Looking from the perspective above, Eagle seldom respects the rules. It simply goes like a bulldozer over everything, re-inventing all anew. A long time Mac user must re-learn a lot on how to do things (and I am sure it does apply to the Windows users too!). It is a huge difference between re-learing basic things (how to select an object, move it, delete it, how to scroll left/right and up/down, etc.) which must remain system-wide the same, and learning specific things related to what a certain software should do (placing parts, rotating them, editing library parts, etc.).

So I find the comment above "For many this means ' the way I have been conditioned by Microsoft's methods for doing things.'" relevant for the way of thinking of the people here. Apparently they have come to terms on how CadSoft conditioned them to do things. What is now if each and every software house would introduce their own rules of doing things for their products? That would lead to an unbearable cacophony that would render computers almost useles! In my view, this is a dangerous way of thinking. Yes, if Microsoft (or Apple) "conditioned" developers to implent things in a certain way, they should stick with it! Re-inventing the wheel is not a good idea.

So the bottom line is, it's a pitty that the Eagle product manager(s) do not try to look beyond the technicals. The User Interface is a very important part of a software. After two weeks of working with Eagle, I can feel its power behind the surface; however, the "surface" is horrible! Both its look and feel and the way of telling it to do something. At least on a Mac, it simply doesn't belong here! with all those primitive and badly designe icons, with the placement of controls, with drop-down menues including icons, with the scroll that sometimes goes erratically while on the left/right directions doesn't go at all!, etc. etc. Even the fact that there still is a command line inside the GUI speaks miles! If I would be the Project manager, it would be the first thing I would do: remove the CLI and move it outside the program; then I would hire some good GUI designers, one for Windows, the other for the Mac; Linux apparently doesn't need one.

So please take my post as a constructive critique. I repeat, the software is very capable (I am an old hat in the Electronics/Software industry -- 35+ years!, having used professionally many CAD programs on Unix and Windows workstations). The CAD world was never particularly sensitive to the User Interface issues, most of this kind of software being written with the GUI as an afterthought. However, what CadSoft has done here is probably the worst I have ever seen in my entire professional life.

The diatribe above doesn't make me give up on Eagle. And the main reason is that this is the single serious CAD suite that runs on a Mac. I can meanwhile master the software quite well (for the time being for a small, private project), but it would have been much easier if the general GUI rules would have been respected. If I will recommend it to professional use to an enterprise, this is however a different matter.

Lix

Am 04.11.2011 00:35, schrieb Morten Leikvoll:

Baron<baron.nospam@linuxmaniac.nospam.net>  wrote:

>> Richard Hammerl Inscribed thus:

>>

>>> Am 03.11.2011 06:12, schrieb Marvin Dawson:

>>>> Olin Lathrop wrote:

>>>>> Element 14 User whined on Wed, 02 November 2011 16:43

>>>>>> 3. In the Latout Editor, why can't I place parts on the bottom

>>>>>> layer????

>>>>>

>>>>> Because you haven't read the manual, apparently.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Wow, what a worthless comment.

>>>> I am really tired of comments that state that you should first

>>>> memorize the "manual" before asking questions. Sadly, not everyone

>>>> has the time to search for hours through the poorly organized Eagle

>>>> documentation.

>>>>

>>>> Please offer constructive answers or don't waste the poster's or the

>>>> rest of our valuable time.

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Why don't you simply write  "Use the MIRROR command"?

>>>

>>

>> With all due respect, Olin, has a point !

 

Yes Olin has a point, but not a helpful one. He doesnt seem to have solved

the human equation. You may argue that electronic engineers doesnt do human

engineering, but in many cases knowing a bit of both is a big advantage. I

hope Olins company already has a bunch of satisfied customers, cause he

sure scared me off long time ago with his behaviour.

Well, how Olin is communicating with his customers is his problem.

I personally think, that he is logically and with his speech he ist

verrry straight. That this "combination" might upset people (including

me) seems normal.

On the other hand, I don't like people barking around here without

having the slightest idea of how to use a program.

It is just an accusation without background.

They claim having experience with other cad programs but don't name any.

They claim to have been working in plenty companies but their experience

is nil, which one can read out of their questions.

They claim a program not beeing intuitive, whatever that will mean,

because intuitive is rather relative.

And cad is not cad, meaning that a layout program has lttle to do with a

construction program.

So many people using eagle asking for help here politely.

So WHY can't this be the standart?

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

Joern Paschedag

Lix Paulian schrieb:

...

The conclusion is, that the software is really powerful, but... the

GUI is a disaster. Obviously, this program must have started its life

(Eagle 1.0?) as comand line! The concept of clicking first a button

signifying a command and then selecting the object upon which the

command will be executed demonstrates this (it follows the comand

line flow).

...

And exactly that makes EAGLE so powerful.

I would never use a PCB CAD that uses the object approach, forcing me to

select the object first and then apply a command. It's a really horrible

imagination to do parts placement or layout work that way.

You might discuss about appearance details like icons and menus - but

not about the "command centric" approach. The "general UI standards"

simply make no sense for this kind of application.

(And yes, a specialized and powerful software for a very particular

purpose needs some closer investigation and learning - just to repeat

that once more. Once that's learned, EAGLE is by far the most efficient

PCB CAD I know - at least within the affordable alternatives.)

Just my two cents.

Tilmann

"Tilmann Reh" <usenet2007nospam@autometer.de> wrote in message

news:j90bu8$9m3$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

I would never use a PCB CAD that uses the object approach, forcing me to

select the object first and then apply a command. It's a really horrible

imagination to do parts placement or layout work that way.

The "apply command" you mention is not applied the Eagle way. You select an

object, then apply an action to it direct (not selecting a command). This

can be actions like moving, resizing, deleting, cloning, and there are near

de-facto standard gestures how to handle most graphical objects. Eagle can

do some of them now, like delete a polygon using the context menu (context

menu is the menu you get when you rightclick the mouse on an object) even if

you have a different action active. Eagle is for sure on the right track.

You might discuss about appearance details like icons and menus - but

not about the "command centric" approach. The "general UI standards"

simply make no sense for this kind of application.

The command centric approach does the job very well, but this discussion is

like comparing a "normal" calculator with a RPN (reverse polish notation)

one. They do the same job, but requires different thinking, and I guess both

has its advantages. The object based thinking has been adapted all the way

up to modern programming.

(And yes, a specialized and powerful software for a very particular

purpose needs some closer investigation and learning - just to repeat

that once more. Once that's learned, EAGLE is by far the most efficient

PCB CAD I know - at least within the affordable alternatives.)

All sw has their own specialities, but you can save a lot of stress,

headscratching and learning hours by adapting the adaptable pieces to the

crowds ways, and unfortunately Eagle is still a bit on its own side track

GUI wise. (Old school users won't mind of course)

Personally I think Eagle should keep the old cmd way of doing things, but

continue adding the modern object base GUI approach. A first step is to add

more actions to the context menu.

An example of GUI making it simple for the user:

An action earlier suggested is moving a polygon. This is so easy to to the

GUI way. When right clicking a polygon wire, present the context menu:

wire

-> (action list for wires)

wire end (if close)

-> (action list for wire ends)

polygon

-> (action list for polygons, inc move)

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Thu, 03 November 2011 19:35

Yes Olin has a point, but not a helpful one.

Which of course was precisely the point.  The OP came here to whine, not

get a problem solved.  He got what he deserved and actually literally what

he asked for.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.