Composite naming

[Anonymous]

I am having some difficulty in defining useful names for composites without resorting to cryptic abbreviations beacuse the limitation of 32 or so characters for naming of composites is too limiting. I think the option to include more descriptive names by increasing the number of characters would be very useful.

I suppose this may apply to other elements, but I feel that, because the potential number of elements in a Composite is greater than for any single element, the extension of the number of characters would be a real boon!

[Anonymous]

We resorted to a Letter/number combination to define the type of composite.
WE=wall exterior
WI=wall interior
RF=roof composite
FL=floor composite

This helped to organize all of the office composites into a useful standard. Now if I could only have the wall ID display the composite type.

[__archiben]

essential.

and this 'usability' issue is just a small part of a very long overdue and important composites overhaul.

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

Millard

I have resorted to a simlar technique, but how do you differentially describe the individual components withing the composite?

Mike

[Anonymous]

MikeS wrote:
Millard

I have resorted to a simlar technique, but how do you differentially describe the individual components withing the composite?

Mike

Inside each composite combination, they are defined by a three digit number.

101=4"stud 1 layer 5/8" gypboard both sides
201=4"stud 2-layers both sides
301=4" stud 5/8" gypboard one side only.

By separating the composites with 100 series there is plenty of room to add composites as the need arises.

The composite can have a short description as the user should know most of the construction of the composite by the composite code.

[Anonymous]

Millard

I think that this proves my point - you presumably have to refer to an external index of composites, which, I feel, is hardly intuitive or user-friendly.

Mike

[Anonymous]

MikeS wrote:
Millard

I think that this proves my point - you presumably have to refer to an external index of composites, which, I feel, is hardly intuitive or user-friendly.

Mike

True, but naming every component in the composite gets a little overwhelming. Having a index makes it easy for each member of the office to understand the office standards. Also like most standards, after a little while of using them, you begin to memorize the code and you understand when someone else in the office mentions a WI-101.

[Anonymous]

I find the interface not very friendly at all, if it was a graphic textual interface (see attachment which is a bit rough but you get the idea) I think it would be better, this may reduce the need for longer names?

Roolio