TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => CAD Standards => Topic started by: daron on June 28, 2004, 08:56:54 AM
-
... and don't impose them on others.
I find that most of us are opinionated as far as standards go. I've found over the 7 years I've been in this racket, that the things I learned at school were the opinions of my instructor and found that some things they told me (us) never to do, actually made more sense to do. The situation that comes to mind is layers. I had instructors tell us that if we needed to change the color of an object that we should create another layer. I found at my last job that if I did that, I would be turning off multiple layers for the task at hand, wherewith by changing the colors of objects that were related to each other, all I had to do was turn off one layer.
There are many examples and since this, the CAD Standards forum has been put in place, it appears just by reading the titles, that we are letting our opinions take precedence in what could be seen in a bad light. It's okay to say that the way you do things in your office is such and such, but let's keep the "YOU should NEVER use the ZERO layer for anything" types out of our postings. Please think about what you're saying and maybe formulate a less opinioniated way of saying it. I'm sure all who read these posts would appreciate not having their way of doing things attacked.
Thank you.
-
Daron I think the subject line may be a bit mis-leading.
-
i disagree because i can :twisted:
-
What about special cases, like mine, where I'm always right? :P
-
I basically agree with you, Daron. I think that it comes down to the person 'in charge'. In many cases, they create (or 'update') the company CAD standards and opinion DOES seem to have a lot to do with it. I'll admit that I've been guilty of this...:oops:
Like Dan said...
"Because I can."
-
What about special cases, like mine, where I'm always right? :P
Aren't we all??? :D
-
... and don't impose them on others.
...
it appears just by reading the titles, that we are letting our opinions take precedence in what could be seen in a bad light. It's okay to say that the way you do things in your office is such and such, but let's keep the "YOU should NEVER use the ZERO layer for anything" types out of our postings. Please think about what you're saying and maybe formulate a less opinioniated way of saying it. I'm sure all who read these posts would appreciate not having their way of doing things attacked.
It is my opinion that "feelings" are the responsibility of the holder of those feelings. My feelings can not be hurt, unless I allow it. If I choose not to allow my fellings to be hurt, nothing anyone can say will hurt me. I've been called an idiot by people who really matter, why would it bother me when someone I've never really met does so?
ALL we have to offer here is opinion, it should be assumed by all that anything offered here is only that. Every post on every forum should be read as such. We shouldn't need to continually qualify every post in that manner. But hey that's just my opinion.
-
What about special cases, like mine, where I'm always right? :P
Aren't we all??? :D
NO, just me.
-
What about special cases, like mine, where I'm always right? :P
Aren't we all??? :D
NO, just me.
So you say, try and prove that one... :D
-
What about special cases, like mine, where I'm always right? :P
Aren't we all??? :D
NO, just me.
So you say, try and prove that one... :D
Welll, that's my opinion, anyway :D
-
I love to have my opions attacked .. but that's just me.
I agree with Mark that the topic title is mis-leading, Daron.
-
See, where we messed up is that we never had a "definition of terms". Define "standards" ? With a few exceptions - symbology-text fonts, etc, standards are best described as " an IN-HOUSE set of drafting proceedures that produce the highest quality detailed drawings in the least amount of time". As we have seen already, "standards" can be impacted by discipline, shop size, shop budget and local conventions. (especially that Shriner one!!)
There can be no one over all "one standars fits all" standard. True, symbology should be standard throuout a discipline, but we have MANY disciplines here.
Some rave over paper space. I have no use for it, but that doesn't mean that it should never be used.
-
See, where we messed up is that we never had a "definition of terms". Define "standards" ? With a few exceptions - symbology-text fonts, etc, standards are best described as " an IN-HOUSE set of drafting proceedures that produce the highest quality detsiled draswings in the least amount of time". As we have seen already, "standards" can be impacted by discipline, shop size, shop budget and local conventions. (especially that Shriner one!!)
There can be no one over all "one standars fits all" standard. True, symbology should be standard throuout a discipline, but we have MANY disciplines here.
Some rave over paper space. I have no use for it, but that doesn't mean that it should never be used.
I think that's the longest paragraph that I have complteely agreed with you, Dent! :lol: ;)
-
be even more impressive if I knew how to spell. MARK WE NEED A SPELL CHECKER HERE!!!!
-
>We need a speel Cheeker?
Just edit your post...that's all I do...
-
The sleeper awakes......and speaks.......intelligently!
(his spelling leaves a lot to be desired)
I too agree whole-heartedly.
-
among other things
-
LOL you mean a spill chicker
-
I'm not sure I understand this thread. Heck I'm not sure I understand most threads. Anyway ...
I believe a CADD Standard, particularly an in-house standard, must be able to stand up to scrutiny by the folks that use it day in, day out, and feedback should be encouraged. Heck -- you might have missed something.
However, the law is the law -- violations must be flagged and there must be some form of discipline, lest cowboys that insist on blazing their own trails ride right over you without fear of reprisal.
-
Trail blazers are the backbone of any progress, should we try to quell that?
-
I'm not sure I understand this thread. Heck I'm not sure I understand most threads. Anyway ...
I believe a CADD Standard, particularly an in-house standard, must be able to stand up to scrutiny by the folks that use it day in, day out, and feedback should be encouraged. Heck -- you might have missed something.
However, the law is the law -- violations must be flagged and there must be some form of discipline, lest cowboys that insist on blazing their own trails ride right over you without fear of reprisal.
Very true. We have several procedures (both formal and informal) in place for feed-back, and I demand it from the design leads. Our standards are strict, compliance is not an option, it's required. If you have a better way, we'll talk, but in the mean time, you'll adhere to the published standard and there are repercussions for failure to do so.
You guys only get to see my sweet, congenial, tactful side. It's really not pretty :horror: when I have to stay late to repair some "cowboy's" file :choke: to bring it into compliance. :rip:
-
Cowboys are sent off into the sunset.
-
Cowboys are sent off into the sunset.
Witha smokin' hole where their innards used to be......
-
Cowboys are sent off into the sunset.
Or "strung up"!
-
Or they end up takin' you out cause you are inpertinent
-
Okay people, thread-jackers and others, all I was trying to say is that it seems that many of the topics started here come off as YOU should set YOUR standards the way MINE are. All I was hoping to do was to curb this and hopefully set a better tone to something more like: "This is what I use for creating blocks" or "These are the layers my company uses. What are your's like?" I almost think that Dent's words fit what I was trying to say.
-
Okay people, thread-jackers and others, all I was trying to say is that it seems that many of the topics started here come off as YOU should set YOUR standards the way MINE are. All I was hoping to do was to curb this and hopefully set a better tone to something more like: "This is what I use for creating blocks" or "These are the layers my company uses. What are your's like?" I almost think that Dent's words fit what I was trying to say.
Come on guys, if everyone starts agreeing with Dent, there'll be no living with him.
Sorry, I'm psycologically pre-disposed to thread-jacking. I agree with "him", too.
-
Thread jacking's okay as long as the initial point or question has been solved or gets solved somewhere along the way and not forgotten.
-
Daron you are right about opinions.
BUT
CAD stanadrds are about what is written for that company, and opinions have nothing to do with it, you should do what your are told, and stick what the manual says.
We have cad forums once a year where we all discuss CAD and the standards and agree ways forward, this is where our opinions come out, and stay. Once the standards are agreed that's it you work to them.
as for layer 0 & bylayer, there are good reason to things this way. the rules obviously can be bent for special occations, i.e don't make a layer for a single line that is maybe a different linetype. And layer 0 is there for a purpose to make blocks on layer 0, so when you insert them, they take the properties of the layer you inserted them on.
Ive lost count of the amount of drawings I have worked on where everything is on layer 0 and the properties have been changed. This is why these kind of rules are set up.
I have been in CAD for 16 years, and I have now wrote 4 CAD manauls for most disciplines of engineering. In that time I have learned that there is usually 3 or 4 ways of doing something in CAD, and all work, and all are correct, you just have to us ethe 1 that suits your or your company best.
-
Brezi -
You missed the point of Daron's first and last post. He's talking about on this forum (the swamp), not within a company.
Basically what he's saying is that the standards I use in my company are not necessarily the best for your company and I shouldn't push it on you that they are.
-
I understood fine, but I just thought I should put my opinions on. :-D
Seriously, I did get it, just wanted to expand on it a wee bit.
Also I think the rules about bylayer and layer 0, are not opinions they are the basis for any cad standards, and if you don't have them in, then your cad standards are not worth the paper they are wrote on.
-
Standards are a funny thing. First off, they are subject to perspective. Second off, they are meant as a starting point. They are not rules or laws but standards. This gives us a starting point or common frame of reference for a team of people from various backgrounds and experience levels to come in behind someone else and pick up a piece of work and carry it on. Each job in our various disciplines has standard accepted practices. These vary from company to company and region to region. I have no personal experience with jobs in other countries, but I'd veture to say that there are even differences there as well. The point is that when you are new to a specific project or job position within a company, you start out with the standards. We all come accross things that will not fit neatly into those standards. This is where we diverge a bit. Most often, out of habit, we will blend that variance into that standard. Not because we are really thinking about it but because it's easier to deal with it. It's also easier to communicate with our co-workers in regards to it. I've worked on teams with 15 people all drawing in there own little ways. When anyone else tried to work on something that someone else had put together, it was a nightmare to follow. Other jobs I've been in have people drawing to such a rigid set of standards that they may as well have been called laws. Deviation from them was taboo. Any way you look at it, it's all subjective. Just like the work that most of us do. If we are true profeesionals who are trying to better ourselves in our craft, it will not matter if you can or cannot modify the PG file or load your own LISPs and menus or control your line weights with polylines instead of by color. What matters is that you can communicate the product you are trying to document for others to use effectively.
This is all just my opinion though so don't take it personally or I'll have to bash you over the head with an empty beer bottle. :evil: Because that is my standard way of telling you to snap the f*** out of it.
-
good one! :kewl:
-
Also I think the rules about bylayer and layer 0, are not opinions they are the basis for any cad standards, and if you don't have them in, then your cad standards are not worth the paper they are wrote on.
Who's rules are they?
-
Layer 0, is specifically used in AutoCAD for creating blocks, I think it's in the AutoCAD manual.
Of course you can draw whatever you like on layer 0, but have you ever tried making sense of a drawing where everything in on layer 0 and the properties have been changed, it's a nightmare.
Im sorry but anybody that draw's in CAD like that want's put away for life.
-
Layer 0, is specifically used in AutoCAD for creating blocks, I think it's in the AutoCAD manual.
Of course you can draw whatever you like on layer 0, but have you ever tried making sense of a drawing where everything in on layer 0 and the properties have been changed, it's a nightmare.
Im sorry but anybody that draw's in CAD like that want's put away for life.
Well put me away for life cause in DataCAD we draw like that. We then move them to other layers, but still a lot of people start out on a base layer. BTW - we don't have to have a 0 layer. I happen to like having one.
-
What kind of drawings do you do?
I honestly think it makes life harder doing it your way. Okay maybe this is just an opinion.? :?
Everybody I know that does CAD, reckon not drawing bylayer and drawing on layer 0, is almost as bad as an electrician wiring life to nuetral. :-D :pissed: :realmad:
-
Well put me away for life cause in DataCAD we draw like that. We then move them to other layers, but still a lot of people start out on a base layer. BTW - we don't have to have a 0 layer. I happen to like having one.
If you keep a drawing with a load of standard blocks in the relevant layers and use these for inserting into whatever your working on layer 0 need never be used except for creating blocks and such.
Don't think Ive used layer 0 for anything else since Release 9.
Don't get what you mean about "we don't have to have a 0 layer" would be kinda hard to purge it I imagine :-D
-
Hrm...
DataCAD does not have a standard Layer named 0 or Default as I believe AutoCAD does. I have not used AutoCAD in quite a few years so I'm not sure any longer.
You can have any entity on a layer and you can change entity color as you wish.
-
Looks like "Standards" are based upon the program, type of work, personal (management) preference, etc.
-
"DATA CAD"? tee hee hee :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
-
Hrm...
DataCAD does not have a standard Layer named 0 or Default as I believe AutoCAD does. I have not used AutoCAD in quite a few years so I'm not sure any longer.
You can have any entity on a layer and you can change entity color as you wish.
Apologies, I thought everybody was using AutoCAD!
CAD standards also depend on the package being used.
I have never even heard of datacad, in scotland that is a comapny used to do training for AutoCAD.
-
"DATA CAD"? tee hee hee :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Dude!
I hear more people that USE AutoCAD that bitch about AutoCAD then people that use DataCAD bitch about DataCAD. For such a "great" program, it's users sure do like to complain about it.
-
For such a "great" program, it's users sure do like to complain about it.
Some folks just like to complain. I hear the complaints all the time, but when you corner 'em about the real problem, it usually boils down to lack of training, poor equipment, or just stubbornness.
An example, I hear about AutoCAD crashing all the time, blah, blah, blah. Then I find out the guy's got a 6 year old P3 with 128k ram, running with ALL osnaps preset over 15 XREF's with shademode set to gouraud in 4 viewports during a 3dorbit... welll duh.... That's like complaining about my truck's performance while trying to tow the Lusitania without a trailer.
-
Touche'
-
This thread is a riot because our small office is creating it first standards manual. We decide we would do it democratically and sit a round a table and discuss what every one would like to see. A very big mistake. Lets see, we started with topic of how and what was going to be xref. Four 1-hour meetings latter we were still on the same topic with very little agreed upon. Everybody had a different opinion on how and what should be xref. All opinions were based on where someone came from or my favorite, didn't want to do becuase of laziness (actual reason stated new hire). The vice principal/president of the firm canceled all meetings and is now writing the cad standards the way he sees fit. The only problem I have with that and it is minor problem, he thinks and drives Autocad as if it were r11 on that era computer. Just a minor issue.
Hell we have three principles that have their own version of a title block and the information that is shown on the drawings reflect their opinions on what it should look like. We were a small office of 7 until year and half ago. We are now 12 people all doing their own thing. We have one suck-up even change the title block pen weights and fonts. He said he got it approved from the one principle that doesn’t even use Autocad. :realmad: We have three old timers (2 of them are principles) that use Drawbase and refuse to come to the dark side of Autodesk version of cad. This suck-up is the dangerous one because he thinks where he came from is the only way to do things and he is good at sucking up. :pissed:
IMHO, Cad standards are opinions of the company decision on what they want their drawings to look like. And those who join that firm should follow the old adage “when Rome, do as the Romans”. Just spouting off MY two cents and why.
-
CAD standards. This thread has stretched out over a long time.
Funny thing since we find a lot of post about people trying to get their standards in place. Now in the year 2006 (better late than never). ;-)
Anyway, programs change so it helps if your standard is somewhat adaptable. (i didn't say change it at the flip of a coin, though that could be a standard too :-o). Anyway, setting standards democratically works in some offices and not in others.
Having a suck up with great sucking up prowess will eventually lead to a standard. Albeit not one you like, but a standard nevertheless. You can work to improve it from there. Helps if you have a CAD manager.
You could always try to be the cad manager or accept the challenge of it. Unless you are worried others may perceive you as the new and improved suck up. :-)
-
For such a "great" program, it's users sure do like to complain about it.
Actually I think it's because it has such a big user base that things can sometimes get done because of all the whining.
Um, not that the software improves that much but you get users who try to improve things because of autcads ability to be customized. Like this here forum.
-
Standards are so office and discipline specific, there are no one system fits all systems.
I have a very tight system for doing single houses, but the system doesn't work for apartments, much less machine design.
A good coherent system is worth the manuals weight in gold, but a badly designed system or one that ignores recent advances can be as destructive as no system.
Still a continual discussion is not a bad thing as long as it goes both up and down the various levels.
My peeve is having the whole drawing made up of tiny arcs and line segments,making any change tedious and laborious. For others only that can the manipulate.
If all the lines are on 0 layer and adjusted by color and linetype I can kick them into separate layers a few moves if necessary.
It is just really tough to unexplode blocks. Particularly in a very complex drawing.
-
Glee, I agree with everything you have said.
The two failures in this office is one; stubbornness of not recognizing that my way is just my opinion and two; that other person that is arguing with me doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about so therefore I am going to do what I want when I want. Until this mentality is corrected from the top down, it doesn’t matter how many manuals are written. This it the reason why I and few others have gained very little ground on getting any form of standards in place when we have tried to take the initiative.
I agree that having a flexible doctrine in place allows for changes due to future software releases and projects that fit the norm. And that is why this firm has managed meet the demands of it clients for so long, going on 30 years doing everything medical to residential. The problem we are facing is we have nothing to convey to the new hires of what our procedures are and that has final come around and bit us on our rear ends.
You must remember the Sylvester the cat cartoon with Chester and Spike, and how Chester is always hoping around Spike asking if he can find Spike a cat. Our suck up is that Chester. And he sorts hops around whomever he happens to be sucking up to. Our Chester is good at two things, schmoozing the clients and making pretty renderings (I give credit where credit where credit is due), but he can’t drive cad to save his butt. I have already to fix bunch of files and he has been here only a few months.
I have hijacked this thread enough.
-
I, unfortunately, am one of those people that create change in an office. I've done it at all 4 CAD related jobs I have had. Some have not been the best, but most have made the office more efficient.
In my current job, I am being reigned in. This is good, cause we review as a group (there are 5 of us) if the change is a good one and discuss it. If it is not, we don't do it and I scrape it (so they think). If it is good we change and continue on.
Some of the good changes I've created...
Symbols (blocks) on the networks so we are all using the same ones. If someone adds to it, everyone can get to it.
Same things eventually for hatchs and linetypes.
Introducing xrefs (at least how the work in DataCAD) to the group. They were fossils before i started.
Layer naming. Something that is more straightforward and easy to read.
Stuff I'm working in.
Default drawings.
Looking for more things that I can do to improve how we work in the office. I've gotten some great ideas from the swamp (believe it or not). Doesn't matter if you guys are using AutoCAD or what not. There are a lot of simliarites between all the cad packages.
-
Stuff I'm working in.
Default drawings.
Doing single family houses I set up a base drawing with all the layers, all the pages (except details) all the elevations already set out with defpoints rectangles at the four sides, and a place for sections just beyond. All the plans are done in the center.
Each page is set up with a border and the layers frozen etc as per need. All the plan door & window blocks, all the tags and linetypes, the electrical legend in the electrical space with all the electrical blocks. If you just draw the house correctly, all the sheets are already setup and done.
There is a square at 150' from the center of the drawing that is the finish floor of all elevations and the sections 50' further. If you get the height of a gable an ofset of the square is the height of that roof in all the other elevations. If you get one roofline, just mirror it and you have the roofline on the other side, or copy 50' down rip out some stuff and you have a section. Each part on an elevation of course lines up with the plan.
The whole thing is really quite the slam dunk, and it is all there from the moment you start a drawing.
-
Man, Most of yall have it SOOOO easy.
I had to laugh :-D when I read about the difficulty in setting up one cad standard, no offense to yall. I work in an outsourcing firm and one of the keys to the way we operate is that we draw to the clients standards. Layering, file naming, block usage, directory structure, everything. In a typical day I can go from a project with keyplans x-ref'd in to the the drawing that is id'd with dynamic blocks using fields directly to another client who draws everything on the zero layer in model spaced scaled down to the size of his titleblock and explodes everything, including hatch and dimensions. :ugly: And everyone in our office HAS to be able to do that if they wanna keep collecting a paycheck. :pissed:
I will agree with the OP, standards are almost always based on the opinion of the one(s) that created it. It may or may not make any sense to anyone else, but if that's the standard, you go with it.
In setting up all our client standards I have found one thing in common, NOTHING is the only way to do something. Zero layer, by layer, plotstyle, x-rf, blocks, ms/ps, groups etc. different people do it different ways. My job is to make Autocad do that without 18,000 buttons so the users can use it effectively. Maybe that's why I have no hair? ^-^
-
Would it help if some of us who have CAD standards posted their files somewhere?
I know that half the time standards don't get done because it takes a lot of time and effort to put them together.
Obviously the standards from one office is going to be different from another. Plus it's very different across different engineering and architecture disciplines. Within architecture, a firm that does public work will be different from one doing residential.
But just maybe a set of published manuals would be a help to somebody hoping to put one together.
Just give credit where it's due and change to suit.
There's a bunch of guys here who have established standards in place. It's a lot of time, effort and intellectual property. But so are the lisp routines that are posted here for the use of people everday. I have definitely benefited from those routines.
I wouldn't mind posting my standards for people to use and edit and change. If it helps you have something in print that you can show your boss, I think it may sway them over to your side of thinking. At least you don't have to start from scratch. You just adjust or edit to suit. Given mine address a lot of my custom menus, those you can delete or change to suit your custom menus.
Jut be aware that they are architecture centric. But maybe the other professions can see where some of us come from and not think we are all idiots.
If this is of interest let me know and I'll figure out how to post it.
It's a bunch of PDF files with references to different issues. part of my 1 1/2" cad standards binder and office manual. Um, everything is geared towards 2004.
-
We have a standard client survey we are creating that is in dwf format (we maintain our standards in hyperlinked dwfs, or are working on that :-P). Once we get the website revamped and the survey redone by our in house "graphic artist" (read as: the boss's wife) I will gladly post them along with some of the standards in the finalized format, if it would help.
-
That would be really cool, Shinyhead! Not to mention very generous!
Be aware of company restrictions, though. They may not like that idea too much.
However, if they're cool with it, we'd sure like to see what you've got! :)
-
NOTHING is the only way to do something.
Very true, and I've seen as many different cliant standards as you. However, (always one of those) ther ARE "better" ways, more efficient ways, right ways of doing all things. While setting DIMASSSOC=0 is "a" way, it's not the most efficient wayand therefore not the "right" way.
-
Chris
I have worked a similar client range as you speak of, fortunately I did it one client at a time. Trying to manage that kind of range all at once would definitely send me around the bend.
For your odder clients, I think I would keep two sets of drawings, one you could work on comfortably, and one that a few lisp routines would degrade into their standards.
I actually did that in a shop that insisted that everything be exploded. I had blocks that used text as insertion points, and programs that sought out and created polylines or exploded them. And another that sought out and erased the random dots(0 length lines)from exploded hatches
-
As far as two sets of drawings, that is EXACTLY how we do it, we have a folder for "published" drawings that are blown to crap so to speak, but if we have redlines we can go back to our original, edit it and republish it. I wish we had the option of lisp but I do it all in macros with scripts and diesel as most all our stations are LT.
As far as putting our standards up, we are redoing our web site to have a portion of it where I can post little routines and samples of CAD standards for people to download and use. Nothing too powerful mind you (we gotta keep something for ourselves ;-)), but enough to be helpful. The boss gave us the go ahead this past week to start putting it all together.
-
Chris,
There are programs out there that have made a deal with Autodesk to demaim LT so their lisp will work. Funny thing, when their 30day trial runs out, their stuff no longer works, but lt remains demaimed.
Still no fancy stuff, like refedit, etc but lisp works, and I can drive a semi through that loophole. Saved my life at a past job.
-
Standards!? What standards? Two guys here work in Inventor, two (me included) in Vanilla AutoCAD. I LIKE the way I can have an entire machine in one file. Each layer has any linetype or color I want and they rarely change. I usually have an assembly layer, several detail layers where I copy over the area to detail keeping LT and Color, clean up, dimension, drop in a border and Voila!
I've build a fair sized library over the years. It's easy to find a similar design in another file (I store by machine type), cut-copy-paste,modify it, dim it and Voila! Another drawing done and it ain't even lunch yet. :angel: A couple of thousand entities in 8-10 layers (Each layer a drawing).
Then I get a file with 98,000 entities from the Inventor guys and my regen times... :pissed: Like 700 entities for the 8" gear I would do in maybe 20! Maybe you want electrical on a different layer than ductwork but I 'ain't got no' electrics or ducks in my mechanical dwgs. If I pushed, I could do a machine in a day (with pre-art) but it gets 'stretched' to about a week. The real drag is spec changes or design changes. I hate to get too far ahead before the design is frozen 'cause it's a waste of time like driving before you know where you are going. :ugly:
I have to admit my LISP routines help a lot. Since V10 like our eastside of town it just happened that way and I was the only one on CAD. BTW 11/10 is my 20th year with the company.
-
BTW 11/10 is my 20th year with the company.
Gratz
Lot's o ranting just to brag you'll have been at a company for 20 years. Sheesh.
-
Portions of the foregoing were tongue in cheek. The point was that there are nearly unlimited ways to get a job done with or without standards.
I'd not call it ranting but rather thumping my chest... and for that I am guilty. A crisis is looming for our company concerning melding the results of our various efforts due to not having any standards. So there may be benefits for them after all, as long as they comfom to mine!
-
This comic reminded me of my reading of this thread.
ArchiteXts Comics: Consultant Standards (http://architexts.us/2016/02/10/consultant-standards/?utm_source=Architexts+List&utm_campaign=70ca514331-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c097d7c2a2-70ca514331-25430201)
(http://architexts.us/comics/2016-02-10-consultant-standards.png)