Change layer during routing?

Hi Lix,

I do think you raise some valid points, but there are a lot of things EAGLE does differently that work better than in other packages too. Just because they are different and unexpected doesn't mean they should change them if they work better.

I've just done some experimenting on applications I have installed and many have a right mouse button context menu that doesn't require you to select something first. Web browsers are a prime example of this. More in line with EAGLE type apps I looked at Autodesk's Fusion 360 and this too has right click context menus that don't require you to select something with a selection tool first. I'm not sure how a separate selection tool would speed up the process of selecting the correct object for a context menu, it would still have the same limitations of the number of objects within the tools selection catchment area and you'd have to scroll through all the matching objects just the same.

Adding in a step of having to choose the selection tool first and then having to choose the tool you want to use after selecting things seems counter productive to me as you have more mouse clicks per thing you actually want to do. Maybe I have misunderstood what you intended here.

With regards to objects being glued to the cursor on move, yes I can see your point on that, it would be nice to be able to group select object and then just click and drag around without having to go "right-click->move group" for every adjustment. This does make it harder to just tweak a position slightly as it moves to your current cursor position when you select the menu option. The up side to this is you can't accidentally drop a block you are moving in the middle of somewhere else which can be really annoying with other tools, especially if there is a lot of scrolling involved as part of the move. I'm sure there are ways CADSoft can tweak this use case without having to rewrite the whole UI paradigm though.

Best Regards,

Rachael

Hi Lix,

I do think you raise some valid points, but there are a lot of things EAGLE does differently that work better than in other packages too. Just because they are different and unexpected doesn't mean they should change them if they work better.

I've just done some experimenting on applications I have installed and many have a right mouse button context menu that doesn't require you to select something first. Web browsers are a prime example of this. More in line with EAGLE type apps I looked at Autodesk's Fusion 360 and this too has right click context menus that don't require you to select something with a selection tool first. I'm not sure how a separate selection tool would speed up the process of selecting the correct object for a context menu, it would still have the same limitations of the number of objects within the tools selection catchment area and you'd have to scroll through all the matching objects just the same.

Adding in a step of having to choose the selection tool first and then having to choose the tool you want to use after selecting things seems counter productive to me as you have more mouse clicks per thing you actually want to do. Maybe I have misunderstood what you intended here.

With regards to objects being glued to the cursor on move, yes I can see your point on that, it would be nice to be able to group select object and then just click and drag around without having to go "right-click->move group" for every adjustment. This does make it harder to just tweak a position slightly as it moves to your current cursor position when you select the menu option. The up side to this is you can't accidentally drop a block you are moving in the middle of somewhere else which can be really annoying with other tools, especially if there is a lot of scrolling involved as part of the move. I'm sure there are ways CADSoft can tweak this use case without having to rewrite the whole UI paradigm though.

Best Regards,

Rachael

I am not sure I can follow this idea of Eagle is doing certain operations better by not using a standard interface. In my view this is a legend which seems to be quite common in the Eagle community. I can't imagine anything that currently Eagle does, that can't be done at least as efficiently (if not easier) by using standard UI concepts. I am working for large company that does professional cine & video cameras and accessories (those used for filming most of the Hollywood blockbusters) and of course we do have GUIs on our products. But: we have a professional especially hired to design GUIs through the whole product line, so that we remain consistent. And believe me, one of the factors our customers prise, is the ease of use of our products. I doubt CadSoft has such a professional...

Lix Paulian wrote:

 

I am not sure I can follow this idea of Eagle is doing certain operations better by not using a standard interface.

Damn you are good at mis-quoting people aren't you?

rpeterson wrote:

 

I do think you raise some valid points, but there are a lot of things EAGLE does differently that work better than in other packages too.

I said better than other packages, and by implication this would be other comparable packages. I've used a lot of ECAD packages and they all have their own UI quirks.

Yes ideally a GUI expert would come along and help streamline the UI (btw, I did actually study interaction design as part of a course I did a few years back, it should be intuitive but the most important goal is to reduce the number of operations you need to take to perform an action to a minimum, for technical apps like CAD you can assume a certain level of user competence / ability to learn) but it's not as cut and dried as forcing it to confirm to a set of UI conventions (which UI conventions btw? Windows style conventions? If so that wouldn't be consistent on my Mac or on my Linux machines...) which were likely specified with typical office applications in mind and which have very different use case requirements to ECAD. With ECAD (or any other type of CAD) you are always going to have to learn the some of the UI paradigms otherwise operations are going to take longer to do with a lot more clicks.

To be blunt, you're not doing yourself any favours here. I'm happy to help people who have genuine technical issues but if you continue whinging and complaining about everything you hate about the EAGLE's UI then people will soon get bored of listening to you and be less than willing to go out of their way to answer your questions.

As I already wrote elsewhere, my hope is that the CadSoft guys would listen and do finally something. You don't have to take this personally. I much appreciate your help.

And speaking about GUI conventions, meanwhile all major platforms came to a common denominator. Linux may still have some strange quirks going back to X-Windows, but Macs and Windows are quite the same).

Best regards,

Lix

On 27/05/16 19:53, Lix Paulian wrote:

Linux may still have some strange quirks going back to X-Windows, but Macs and Windows are quite the same).

What utter rot!

Last time I checked in Ubuntu, the terminal still needed a three button mouse to copy/paste text. But this is a very minor issue. Generally Ubuntu is a very decent OS; if I would have to choose between Windows an Ubuntu, I would go with the latter.

Am 27.05.2016 um 16:28 schrieb Lix Paulian:

I am not sure I can follow this idea of Eagle is doing certain operations better by not using a standard interface. In my view this is a legend which seems to be quite common in the Eagle community. I can't imagine anything that currently Eagle does, that can't be done at least as efficiently (if not easier) by using standard UI concepts. I am working for large company that does professional cine & video cameras and accessories (those used for filming most of the Hollywood blockbusters) and of course we do have GUIs on our products. But: we have a professional especially hired to design GUIs through the whole product line, so that we remain consistent. And believe me, one of the factors our customers prise, is the ease of use of our products. I doubt CadSoft has such a professional...

 

--

To view any images and attachments in this post, visit:

https://www.element14.com/community/message/198103

 

Well if you like the UI of a different program better then why don't you

get that program and stop whining about the eagle UI.

Eagle is effective because it HAS a different UI.

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

Joern Paschedag

...because "that" program costs over ten times so much as Eagle and I don't have that money for it. On the other hand, I don't think that cost is an excuse for a bad UI.

Anyway, due to guys like you I won't bother to post anything here (although I have to say there also kind persons around, like Rachael); there are a couple of guys  that keep repeating all the same that Eagle has the best UI in the world, how cool it is to do things in the command line etc. etc. It seems you missed the boat: you are living in the past. The man-to-machine interface is getting always better (think not only GUIs, but Siri, Cortana, etc.); otherwise we would still type today commands in a DOS terminal.

Wake up!

PS: I must clarify: there is no connection between my employer and me using Eagle, as I use it privately. At my job we use the "over ten times so much" CAD suite. Just to set things straight.

On 30/05/16 18:35, Lix Paulian wrote:

It seems you missed the boat: you are living in the past. The man-to-machine interface is getting always better (think not only GUIs, but Siri, Cortana, etc.); otherwise we would still type today commands in a DOS terminal.

You really are a sad victim of modernism, aren't you. New does not

always equal improved.

Lix Paulian wrote:

 

Anyway, due to guys like you I won't bother to post anything here

Hi Lix,

There's no need to abandon the community. There will always be people to try and help you in future if you need it :-) It's very easy in an online forum for things to get heated and become confrontational. Don't take it to heart, just in future don't try to change EAGLE all at once. There are UI issues, but it's not all bad and there are lots of different people who's usage suits the way it works. I'm sure reasoned suggestions for select improvements will get taken onboard if explained the right way.

Best Regards,

Rachael

Am 30.05.2016 um 19:35 schrieb Lix Paulian:

..because "that" program costs over ten times so much as Eagle and I don't have that money for it. On the other hand, I don't think that cost is an excuse for a bad UI.

 

Anyway, due to guys like you I won't bother to post anything here (although I have to say there also kind persons around, like Rachael); there are a couple of guys  that keep repeating all the same that Eagle has the best UI in the world, how cool it is to do things in the command line etc. etc. It seems you missed the boat: you are living in the past. The man-to-machine interface is getting always better (think not only GUIs, but Siri, Cortana, etc.); otherwise we would still type today commands in a DOS terminal.

 

Wake up!

 

--

To view any images and attachments in this post, visit:

https://www.element14.com/community/message/198364

 

I know it's always the others fault (what else). But it's always people

like you that buy a program and then complain  that it isn't exactly

working like you want it. A program comes like it is, so take it or

leave it. What is wrong saying that?

I don't like some things in windows but do you think that Microsoft

gives a damn on my  meaning? So it is again up to me to use it or don't

use it.

Besides this has imo nothing to do with "changing layers".

You should  open a different thread for complaining gui.

--

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards

Joern Paschedag