A long time workflow wishlist item for me is that many dialogue boxes remain unadjusted for comprehensive viewing & aren't even manually resizable upon opening a popup?
In the calcs the manual & perhaps some nomenclature makes sense but I wonder if it might be easier if using more industry familiar terms... I am wondering if 'Division', 'Components', 'Assemblies' & 'Description' might be better than 'Key', 'Components', 'Properties' & 'Descriptors'...?
Unless I'm missing something the manual might also benefit from using only the newer & less cryptic property object names, components & descriptors (vs. from as far back as v6) which may confuse new users.
The standard archicad v10 library seems to have a few partially executed examples which might be more confusing at the learning stage. We end up with several examples to count chairs - would it be more helpful to have examples of such as costing/quantity takeoffs?
The vast range of flexibility in the calc linkages section may increase the risk of error (say someone changes a pen# delinking a criteria & throwing off a calc result) which as anyone responsible for practice knows is as or perhaps more important as increasing a practice capability... This I don't know how to best solve - the multi-dimensional matrix between materials, objects, components & other attributes has become seemingly complex...
Hence back to the notion of encouraging more user operability vs merely capability 'out of the box'...
Even the calc menus need to be added in v10 while v7 menus had a dedicated & complete calc section... I recall being disoriented due to all the menu changes & have yet to sense any real benefits from the redesign - no tangible improvement in logic to me & in fact some confusion between view, document & certainly missing calc menues per the status quo... Should 'model view' really be in the 'document' section?
That being said there is merit in a 'standard' interface for less experienced users & minimizing training if staffing up...
