[Bf-funboard] Re: Large Blender UI improvement proposal

ph bf-funboard@blender.org
Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:25:18 +0100


----- Original Message -----
From: William Reynish <wreynish@yahoo.dk>
To: <bf-funboard@blender.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Bf-funboard] Re: Large Blender UI improvement proposal


> I urge you to use common sence.

I normally do. Please do not exaggerate my points to extremes.

> Don't mean to be sarcastic, but what your argument
> really seems to say:
>
> That all functions in Blender should be called
> "Function 1", "Function 2" and so on, the names are
> not important because you can just go through
> tutorials and find out what's what.
>
> We could call the 3d window "Funny hat from Berlin",
> or write all the names backwards with greek letters..
>
never said that. But I cannot understand that 'Grabber' is equal to
'function 1' or 'Funny hat from Berlin'
>
> I know there IS a way to find out what a function
> means, but try searching for "IPO" in the Blender
> forum.

I rather try to search for that in the online documentation at blender.org.

>It will take you quite a while to find what the
> name stands for, and even longer to find out what it
> is used for! Some functions though, are pretty much
> impossible to find (like the Shift+F camera)in the
> forums even if you KNOW it is there! Imagine being a
> newbie... I mean, if you don't know what to search for
> it will be much harder!
>

Yes, but that proves that the way of documenting is not newbie-friendly yet.
A complex 3d application cannot compensate that.


> There is no reason why not to use naming that regular
> people can understand. You shouldn't have to look
> every feature up. A good interface is as
> selfexplanetory as possible.
>

As Ton stated:
All major 3d programs have naming weirdness, and none of these will
ever copy the conventions from others.
I totally agree with Ton's opinion on that one.
Apart from that, in my opinion, a good interface is as efficient as
possible. That should be goal #1. Everything else is second place.

> And you know what, most people will try tutorials, but
> very few will try EVERY tutorial there is.

Haven't demanded that.

>You are
> likely to go through a few and then experiment for
> youself. Even if you think people should not, that is
> what the majority do.

I do not think that.

>And if the names are too far
> away from what they can understand, most will not
> continue learning the application, because the
> interface starts to get in the way of your work (You
> get stuck because the names don't make sence). Some
> will continue however, and that is you and me and the
> rest of us at elysiun. But we could be hundreds and
> thousands more Blender users if a few things were
> adressed..
>

So 'Interpolation window' and 'grabber' do not make sense? Strange that I
didn't notice. The more so as I am not a native speaker. Again I say, the
problem is that the user runs unguided into Blender. If you let that happen,
the user will either search for documentation or more probably abandon the
application. You won't alter that by renaming. You just will not. A user
that runs unguided into Blender is very likely a lost user that switches to
another application.


> You have got to remember the importance in choosing
> good names. You see, what is the point in having
> (insert great feature here) if only few knows it
> exists?
>
again a documentation issue.

So my suggestion still is: two levels of documentation: Level one: a small
set of structured tutorials that are not scattered over the net but are
presented right before the blender download area and at other places and
Level 2: the already existing extensive documentation to provide further
background knowledge after the first contact is done.

There is a multitude of places where such a tutorialset can be recommended.
On the major download areas, on the splash screen, inside a help menu etc.

by the way: do you claim that flight mode is not widely known, because it is
badly named?

Peter