topic Re: ArchiCAD user interface in Installation & update

ArchiCAD user interface

Christiaan — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:14:27 GMT

Hi, I've been taking a look at ArchiCAD recently. I really love the overall user experience of ArchiCAD but one area that's a little disappointing is the user interface. It seems messy and a bit clunky.

From what I understand ArchiCAD has got increasingly powerful and complex over past few years, which probably explains the messiness. And Java certainly explains the clunkiness.

So is there any hint of GS looking to give the UI a makeover any time soon? And is it likely to remain written in Java for the foreseeable future?

Re: ArchiCAD user interface (and Java)

Karl Ottenstein — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:14:30 GMT

To my knowledge, nothing about ArchiCAD is written in Java. Only the installer. Well, maybe when you open Help in your browser, Java is used ... did not examine the source...

Karl

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Christiaan — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:56:27 GMT

Oh right, so why does it require that Java is installed? (excuse my ignorance)

If it's not in Java then presumably it will eventually move to Cocoa on the Mac?

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Karl Ottenstein — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:00:26 GMT

Christiaan wrote:
Oh right, so why does it require that Java is installed? (excuse my ignorance)

If it's not in Java then presumably it will eventually move to Cocoa on the Mac?

What are you talking about and why do you care? Java is installed in order to INSTALL ArchiCAD. As I said, AFAIK, ArchiCAD does not need Java after that. I don't understand what the issue is - pretty much every computer needs Java for one reason or another today anyway.

Cocoa vs Carbon has almost no effect on the user interface. (I say 'almost no', because there are certain things that Cocoa does automatically that require extra programming work in Carbon.) Why an end-user would care about such things is beyond me? It has no effect on the user experience.

Perhaps, instead of focusing on implementation, you might describe what you dislike about the interface and how you would prefer that things be?

Cheers,
Karl

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Thomas Holm — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:11:10 GMT

Karl wrote:
Cocoa vs Carbon has almost no effect on the user interface.

I'm not sure that's entirely true, but the difference hasn't been big. However, Apple has chosen to stop developing the Carbon 64bit APIs, which means that Carbon applications will run in 32-bit space forever. (This is the reason for Adobe CS4 being 64-bit enabled in Vista 64, but not in MacOSX despite that OSX can run 64-bit programs as-is. CS5 will be 64-bit on the Mac too, I've heard.)

The next OSX (10.6 or Snow Leopard) will be 64-bit throughout, but Carbon apps will still run in 32-bit space. Since Archicad is one of the applications that could benefit from being able to address more than 4GB of memory, I'm sure Graphisoft is busy making the transition to Cocoa on the Mac as soon as possible.

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

David Shorter — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:52:27 GMT

Karls rght.... java is not the issue. The design of the interface has almost nothing to do with the interface. Christiaan, what is/ are your issues ? .... let us know and we may be able to help

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Christiaan — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:06:14 GMT

Karl wrote:
Cocoa vs Carbon has almost no effect on the user interface. (I say 'almost no', because there are certain things that Cocoa does automatically that require extra programming work in Carbon.) Why an end-user would care about such things is beyond me?

You answered your own question. The answer is better/easier compliance with human interface guidelines. I would expect any move to Cocoa would encourage this and probably include an overhaul of the interface for no reason other than it would be a good opportunity. ArchiCAD's flouting of such guidelines and plain ugliness makes the app harder and less fun to work in, therefore increasing the cognitive load on the user.

And compliance with human interface guidelines is not about "making it the same as other apps." I use many very good and unique applications on the Mac but they still manage to comply with basic human interface guidelines.

But maybe you're right, maybe GS could get through a transition to Cocoa and keep the horrible GUI. I would expect it would be easier not to however. My experience of UIs in Cocoa apps is very much better than Carbon or otherwise. Maybe for reasons other than the underlying code but better none the less.

Most architectural apps are a bit behind the times in terms of GUI it seems to me, compared to say the graphics/photography industry. See Apple's Aperture, for instance, for a complex app with a great modern GUI.

It seems to me many of the companies making these apps seem to relegate the GUI design to an afterthought process of "making it look good," instead of integral process of "how it works." But here GS doesn't even appear to have hired someone to make it look good. Ha!

I have to say, while this issue is somewhat important it's not as bigger issue as the general user experience of working in the model and producing documents, which ArchiCAD does really well. So in this regard I think I'm prepared to put up with the UI because the overall user experience is so good.

Perhaps ... you might describe what you dislike about the interface and how you would prefer that things be?

The problem with this is that I'm not a UI expert. I don't think ArchiCAD's GUI is going to be fixed by listening to UI suggestions from people like me. What it needs is for UI professionals to be pushed to the forefront of development and given the keys to how ArchiCAD actually works.

In saying that I will offer a few thoughts:

Firstly, it's just butt ugly and has loads of unintuitive icons (aside from the Toolbox), not a nice place to spend most of your day, so an overhaul of the UI workflow and an overhaul of icons would be high on the list, including banishing Windows icons from the Mac version.

More compliance with Mac interface guidelines generally, e.g. Mac folder trees instead of Windows folder trees

A major tidy up of the Menus, including banishing tools and icons

A unified window interface, with tear off palettes for those utilising multiple screens

Tabbed main windows

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Karl Ottenstein — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:27:58 GMT

Christiaan wrote:
comply with basic human interface guidelines.

Perhaps you could give specific example of cross-platform HI guidelines which ArchiCAD violates? B**ching about stuff without giving examples may make you feel good, but it accomplishes nothing and just wastes space here. Giving examples could help Graphisoft and other users down the road.

How would you like it if your client told you that your design was just not acceptable, as it did not meet his requirements for his building? Period. Not very likely you would modify the design in a way to satisfy him ... and you'd be out of a job.

But here GS doesn't even appear to have hired someone to make it look good. Ha!

Here, I think you're showing how new you are to learning ArchiCAD. Yes, there are inconsistencies and a few things that were standard UI designs a few years ago and which others may not still utilize... but you must realize that unlike Aperture, ArchiCAD has existed for around 25 years and has evolved in a way that is not a huge lurch in UI from version to version. I just downloaded the AC 7 'conversion' version for Mac this past week - and my reaction to that UI was "Boy, was that ugly and I would hate to go back there." But, at the time, we thought 7's interface was a huge leap forward from 6.5.

GS has a sizeable, smart and experienced design team that designs the functionality of new features, including the UI, for hand-off to the developers. That you do not care for their design does not make it bad. It just states your opinion.

I have to say, while this issue is somewhat important it's not as bigger issue as the general user experience of working in the model and producing documents, which ArchiCAD does really well. So in this regard I think I'm prepared to put up with the UI because the overall user experience is so good.

Glad to hear you say that. Such is the case with all of us with whatever our pet peeves are with the program - lack of interface consistency is a big one for many of us.

What it needs is for UI professionals to be pushed to the forefront of development and given the keys to how ArchiCAD actually works.

As I said, there are many UI professionals at Graphisoft. Disagreeing with their choices does not alter their credentials and professionalism.

In saying that I will offer a few thoughts:

Firstly, it's just butt ugly and has loads of unintuitive icons (aside from the Toolbox), not a nice place to spend most of your day, so an overhaul of the UI workflow and an overhaul of icons would be high on the list, including banishing Windows icons from the Mac version.
I agree that some icons are non-intuitive - but there are so many of them and so few pixels, that it is hard for them to be perfectly descriptive. They are easily learned and, once learned, make using ArchiCAD much faster from condensed pet palettes, snap points, etc. Just my opinion. Personally, I would not want anything major changed relative to the icons. I view the use of the various smart icons as one of the unique strengths of ArchiCAD.

More compliance with Mac interface guidelines generally, e.g. Mac folder trees instead of Windows folder trees
I'm confused on this one. I have Mac folder trees everywhere in the interface on ArchiCAD on my Mac... flippy triangles identical to list view in Finder.

A major tidy up of the Menus, including banishing tools and icons
Apparently you have not discovered Options > Work Environment yet? You have 100% control over your menu content and much more.

A unified window interface, with tear off palettes for those utilising multiple screens
This has been wished for by others - perhaps on one of the wishlists. The palettes all dock for me, and the Work Environment lets me set up multiple palette layouts, so personally, not a high priority.

Tabbed main windows
I agree that this might be a nice feature, particularly for beginners. I do not see it as a 'UI standard', but a personal preference. For experienced users, the shortcut keys easily move you from plan to 3D views on Windows and Mac. For Mac users, Expose is the easiest way to visually move between open views/windows. Tabs would take up valuable screenspace - but their visibility could be controlled from the Work Environment. The other thing against tabs and even Expose when multiple sections, elevations, etc are open is related to another recent discussion: switching to any other window will utilize all current layer, model view, etc settings. Only by opening a saved View does one get the proper model view - so the Navigator (or Organizer) is how one wants to switch between views anyway. Tabs would not truly help IMHO until we can have multiple floor plan windows, windows 'remembering' their view settings, etc.

My 2 cents,
Karl

PS Christiaan - please click the "Profile" text link near the top right of this page and fill in your AC version and machine description in your signature. Thanks.

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Christiaan — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:40:22 GMT

I haven't got time or inclination to argue the intricacies of ArchiCAD UI at this point (too busy spending my weekend trying to learn ArchiCAD). I'm just glad to know it's not lumbered by Java.

Karl wrote:
Here, I think you're showing how new you are to learning ArchiCAD.

Ah yes, that old chestnut, blame the user. That's the same thing I hear from Desktop Linux advocates. If only I'd learn all those command line commands; then of course it's easy as pie!

Yes, there are inconsistencies and a few things that were standard UI designs a few years ago and which others may not still utilize... but you must realize that unlike Aperture, ArchiCAD has existed for around 25 years and has evolved in a way that is not a huge lurch in UI from version to version. I just downloaded the AC 7 'conversion' version for Mac this past week - and my reaction to that UI was "Boy, was that ugly and I would hate to go back there." But, at the time, we thought 7's interface was a huge leap forward from 6.5.

Couldn't agree more.

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Mats_Knutsson — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:17:14 GMT

Christiaan wrote:
I haven't got time or inclination to argue the intricacies of ArchiCAD UI at this point (too busy spending my weekend trying to learn ArchiCAD). I'm just glad to know it's not lumbered by Java.

Karl wrote:
Here, I think you're showing how new you are to learning ArchiCAD.
Ah yes, that old chestnut, blame the user. That's the same thing I hear from Desktop Linux advocates. If only I'd learn all those command line commands; then of course it's easy as pie!

Yes, there are inconsistencies and a few things that were standard UI designs a few years ago and which others may not still utilize... but you must realize that unlike Aperture, ArchiCAD has existed for around 25 years and has evolved in a way that is not a huge lurch in UI from version to version. I just downloaded the AC 7 'conversion' version for Mac this past week - and my reaction to that UI was "Boy, was that ugly and I would hate to go back there." But, at the time, we thought 7's interface was a huge leap forward from 6.5.
Couldn't agree more.

IMO. I think the UI is very efficient and fast to use. It's a professional UI for the professional user. It's really simple to make your own UI as Karl says if you want something different. I guess there are as many UIs as there are distributors even if many of the users go for the GS standard which however should be considered a UI-template to tweak to your special wishes. Some 5 years ago I did a kids UI with just one palette with something like 15 buttons. It was just for modeling but it was a fun task and worked great.
My fav is as much modeling space as possible - less of everything else...use shortcuts instead.

/Mats

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

ci-JoshOs — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:13:19 GMT

I also find the interface very fast to use and learn.
It maybe doesn't look as cool as something like Lightroom or Picasa, but it looks quite good in Vista, fits well with other applications, and have a sort of professional, we-mean-business feel to it. I would almost say 'Spartan'.
UI Design is not about making things look good, but making things 'work good'.
If your biggest upset is that the OSX version uses some Windows icons or conventions, then I think that UI team are doing a great job(I do think that anyway).

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Christiaan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:22:58 GMT

henrypootel wrote:
If your biggest upset is that the OSX version uses some Windows icons or conventions, then I think that UI team are doing a great job(I do think that anyway).

Even if that was all I was talking about, which I'm clearly not, you would consider the use of Windows icons in the Mac version a great job? GS may be doing a great job overall but using Windows icons in a Mac version is the definition of not doing a great job (at least with regard to icon design).

henrypootel wrote:
UI Design is not about making things look good, but making things 'work good'.

Of course, which suggests you need to read my posts again.

In any case I've only scratched the surface so far. I'm sure I'll have more feedback as I get into doing a project.

@ Karl, my suggestions weren't meant as isolated features to be tagged on to ArchiCAD. They were meant to be taken together, as an all encompassing overhaul of some of the basic UI elements.

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

David Shorter — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:45:01 GMT

Christiaan, the real issue here is not that Graphisoft can't or don't want to do what you suggest but is probably more that the majority of ArchiCAD users run one of the Windows operating systems, sometimes in the same office as Macs are running.
What Graphisoft have done very successfully (IMHO) is to put together an interface which works well on all platforms.

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Christiaan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:12:18 GMT

David wrote:
Christiaan, the real issue here is not that Graphisoft can't or don't want to do what you suggest but is probably more that the majority of ArchiCAD users run one of the Windows operating systems, sometimes in the same office as Macs are running.
What Graphisoft have done very successfully (IMHO) is to put together an interface which works well on all platforms.

Wow, I would be shocked if that's their position, especially with regard to something as basic as icons. That's a horrible way to develop an application. I really doubt that this is the case.

Vectorworks is developed for Windows and Mac and they don't resort to such silliness, and I've never heard of any complaints in understanding between the Mac and Windows versions.

I'm evaluating ArchiCAD for our office (which is Mac only) and we'd obviously want the least friction to adoption. An app that looks like a Windows app and doesn't follow modern Mac interface conventions is quite a bit of friction, and in the case of basic UI elements like these it also the crucial aspect of "first impressions." So, in introducing ArchiCAD to my Director he's immediately going to be thinking negatively along the lines "these guys don't even know how a Mac app should look and work."

Good to see there are other users of the same opinion:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=26933

Looking through various threads it's not surprising that many of the comments along the lines of mine come from Mac users, especially those who are new to ArchiCAD. Long time users have got used to the idiosyncrasies, and even have an interest in keeping the status quo. New users have a unique perspective that long-time users would be wise to keep an open mind about in my opinion.

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

ci-JoshOs — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:46:13 GMT

henrypootel wrote:
UI Design is not about making things look good, but making things 'work good'.

Of course, which suggests you need to read my posts again.

I realise that this is not what you mean, but you are saying that it needs to have better 'workflow' and 'ui' without much by way of actual illustration of the point, and you keep mentioning little visual niggles which don't really hurt the design(like Windows icons). you also keep mentioning that archicad doesn't fit the mythic 'standard ui conventions'. i assume that what you are referring to here is the almighty OSX UI Design guidebook? If so, a quick re-read of this will show how well archicad fits the recommendations in that document. this is an especially impressive feat given the vast complexity of the program.
I realize that people like to vent, and discussion of this kind of thing is good, but to help archicad and the community(and by extension, yourself), suggestions need to make sense within the context, and to be well thought through:

Firstly, it's just butt ugly and has loads of unintuitive icons (aside from the Toolbox), not a nice place to spend most of your day, so an overhaul of the UI workflow and an overhaul of icons would be high on the list, including banishing Windows icons from the Mac version.

what icons are unintuitive? how would you like the UI 'overhauled'? what about the thousands of existing users who like and are used to the current system? Incremental changes are always best for an established user base. an 'overhaul' would create a lot of ill will in the community and would make a significant in almost all current users productivity.

More compliance with Mac interface guidelines generally, e.g. Mac folder trees instead of Windows folder trees

I can't think of what you mean here. as karl mentioned, the mac version folder trees do look like mac folder trees.

A major tidy up of the Menus, including banishing tools and icons

this was done in v10 and given the uproar at the time, i wouldn't think it would be a good idea to do it again. if you can think of a way of doing the menus better, use the work environment.

A unified window interface, with tear off palettes for those utilising multiple screens

i don't see what this would do that the current interface wouldn't let you do. apart from making it look more like a windows application.

Tabbed main windows

this would, i agree, make archicad look more modern. i don't see any need for it though, as the view map in the navigator is all i really ever need. i guess if you were working between multiple different views at the same time it might save a few clicks, but when i'm doing that, i still use the navigator to change between views each time instead of grabbing them from the Window menu.

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Karl Ottenstein — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:05:40 GMT

henrypootel wrote:

Tabbed main windows
this would, i agree, make archicad look more modern. i don't see any need for it though, as the view map in the navigator is all i really ever need.

On this tabbed vs Navigator thing, Apple's own Xcode shows that even they recognize the use of a navigator list interface over tabs when there could be dozens to hundreds of items to view. The attached screenshot is Xcode 3.1, the latest update. Source files clicked in the tree list at left appear in the editor at right. (There is a drop-down list of files in the editor header bar, too.) Microsoft's Visual Studio uses tabs to show the multiple open files on the right .. and one quickly runs out of space for all of the potential tabs there.

So, here, Graphisoft and Apple seem on the same page.

I did a quick scan of Apple's Human Interface Guidelines, and don't see anything that suggests that Aperture (for example) is more "Mac-like" or "modern" than ArchiCAD. But, I just skimmed:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/userexperience/Conceptual/AppleHIGuidelines/XHIGIntro/XHIGIntro.html

There is also this User Experience document:
http://developer.apple.com/ue/index.html
which points back to the Human Interface document as the guide for developers.

Cheers,
Karl

Re: ArchiCAD user interface

Christiaan — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:51:22 GMT

Karl wrote:
Cocoa vs Carbon has almost no effect on the user interface.

Eric wrote:
Outlook will be a Cocoa application. We're building on the most modern OS X framework to make Outlook beautiful, to make it high performance, and to make it well integrated with the operating system.

Maybe Microsoft didn't get the memo about Cocoa not having almost no effect on the user interface?