Re: gEDA-user: german article in the linux magazin online now

[Dan McMahill <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Clifton wrote:
>>> gschem and pcb havedifferent user interfaces, which you have to
>>> learn.
>> Yup.
> 
> I've wondered in the past.. would people (users / developers) object to
> making the GTK HID for PCB more in line with gschem's GTK UI. (Or vica
> versa)
> 
> I already ported a similar looking footprint selector (reusing some
> code), and the file-quit dialog. Little things... like the message / log
> window dialogs could be made more similar, and it might have an effect.
> 
> I'm not quite sure how we'd get round the key-bindings, but perhaps one
> idea would be to ship two (or four) sets. PCB: (classic PCB / gEDA
> like), or gEDA: (classic gEDA / PCB like). Clearly if we did this, a
> brand new install ought to default to a coherent set.

cadnetix mode!!!

I only say this half kidding.  For those of you who have never 
experienced the pleasure of cadnetix, it was a schematic capture and 
board layout tool that was pretty darn good back in the sparcstation 2 
days.  When I first used cadnetix, I didn't like it because it was 
different than other gui programs of the day.  Everything was 
"nonstandard".  I later realized there were 2 reasons.  The first was 
historical.  It predated much of the gui driven programs of the day. 
But the second is that a CAD system is *different* from a word 
processor.  After getting to know the tool I came to really appreciate 
how totally excellent the UI really was.  It was clear that someone sat 
next to a layout person for a month and walked away with a histogram of 
how often different things were done.  Then they made the most common 
the most simple.  You could do 90% of your work with one hand on the 
mouse and the other on the "L-keys" on a sun keyboard.  You rarely 
needed to move the pointer away from the main action area on the screen 
and you never needed silly things like a modifier key.  If you're never 
typing text, why force ctrl-c, ctrl-v on someone.  Why not just 'c' over 
the original and click where the copy goes?  It was a very fast and RSI 
friendly tool.  But I have to admit that the learning curve was a bit of 
a pain and I'm sure by now with how much more "GUI modeled after a 
wordprocessor" oriented we all are that it would feel even weirder than 
it did in the early 90's.

I don't want to start a huge discussion of "my keybindings are better 
than yours", but I did want to point out that even a simple 
standardization especially on a layout tool can actually translate into 
a huge difference in the number of key presses.

> I'd like to see shared code (or at least.. shared appearance) when we
> come to sort out toolbar icons in gschem and PCB in the future.
> 
> If we had to nail down what it is about gEDA and PCB which make them
> feel like different applications, what is it?
> 
> Keybindings? (those are the ones which trip me up moving between them)
> Colours?
> Grid style / behaviour as it zooms?
> Zoom style? (about point / warp to centre)
> Graphic style of toolbar icons?
> Dialogs?
> Menus?
> Object selection styles?
> 

a big complaint I had about concept + allegro (cadence board tools) when 
I used them many years ago is simple things like zooming were very 
different between the two.  In contrast, their IC tools have a very 
similar (but not quite identical) look and feel.  zooming/panning is the 
big one that gets me.  I am forever trying to use 'z' and 'Z' to zoom 
in/out in tools other than the ones which actually accept those.

> 
> Side note.. why doesn't the lack of anti-aliasing in PCB bug me like it
> did in gschem?
> 
> Is it that text legibility in schematics is more important, and
> schematics typically have narrower line features on screen?

possibly.  Maybe because one more typically looks at hardcopy schematics 
and we're used to silk screened or etched text?

-Dan



_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user