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.

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/

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/

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.

Element 14 User wrote on Fri, 04 November 2011 05:13

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

Sortof, but they also differ accross platforms.  You can't expect a

software vendor to customize the look and feel for each platform,

especially for the small percentage that are MAC users.

Quote:

Even the fact that there still is a command line inside the GUI

speaks miles!

Yes, this is one of the really powerful and great things about Eagle.  A

lot of very useful stuff follows from this, like that most everything can

be done on the command line.  Once you learn to use a command line well,

you'll find it's a lot faster than mouse movements except for those things

that are inherently graphical in nature.  Using a clickety-click interface

to enter non-graphical commands is slow, and a major frustration with many

programs aimed at the masses.  It may be kind of cute the first time you

use a program in that you don't have to know all it can do, but after you

do know it the dumbed down clickety-click mechanics just gets in the way.

You can think into the command line (the fingers just automatically type

somehow as a background process below the concious thought level), but that

doesn't work for something that requires eye-hand coordination and is

different every time you use it.

Quote:

but it would have been much easier if the general GUI rules would have

been respected.

But which GUI rules?  There is no one standard, and then the nature of what

some kinds of software does might require a different way of thinking about

the GUI.  In any case, the GUI is not something that matters much once you

get to use Eagle well.  Sometimes we seem to forget it's about entering

schematics and designing boards.  Eagle supports that very well.

--

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

"Olin Lathrop" <eagle@embedinc.com> wrote in message

news:j90l8h$gbp$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

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.

Yes he did whine and he literally got what he asked for, but normal human

skills enables me (and most others) to see past the literacy. There is

frustration from a newbie. You can choose to "knock him down" or "put him on

your lap" and explain. Cadsoft wouldnt last long if they chose the "knock

them down" approach, you know that.

Please dont knock potential future users down like that. It was his first

post (and last). He may have already left this forum and Eagle sw.

Hi again,

First and foremost, some words to Olin (I don't know if he is a user or a member of the CadSoft team): with your approach you don't enlarge your customer base. Your claims about GUIs and CLIs show how far appart you are from the world outside. In case you don't know, the world evolved, just wake up! Claiming that there are no GUI guidelines shows utter ignorance. I can point you where the Apple OS X Human Interface Guidelines are: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/Intro/Intro.html and I suspect you can find similar guidelines on Microsoft's web site for Windows.

I am not against CLIs, but they don't belong in a graphical interface software; there are many ways to include one outside. In this respect, Eagle is unique, but I wouldn't agree that in a positive way.

While I can accept that CadSoft has not the necessary financial and talent ressources to properly implement GUIs for all the three patforms, at least a minimum of alignment to the recommended guidelines of Windows and Mac OS X would have been beneficial, especially in view of aquiring new customers. I am sure many potential new users are scared after evaluating the software and run away to the competition. On the other hand, I suspect that even if CadSoft would try to change things, the current user base would cry foul, as they are already used to the current interface (unfortunately). So this is a lose-lose situation...

Anyway, these are only my opinions, and of course your mileage may vary...

Lix