Topic: Need some help

[Kate M]

Hi guys,

I could really use some help validating instructions for a productivity study -- looking for people with access to vanilla/LT 2007 and/or 2010.

It's a little time-sensitive -- if you think you'd have a few minutes before 3:00 EST tomorrow, I would GREATLY appreciate your input.

Thanks...

[mjfarrell]

Hi guys,

I could really use some help validating instructions for a productivity study --

Curiosity here Kate, shouldn't the tool, or process that you are attempting to study for productivity be slightly MORE intuitive; such that it would need no instructions?

Or is this a case of autodesk devising some tool that is so completely different than peoples normal workflow, that they will never get the benefit of the extra 'productivity' because it isn't designed with the way people work in mind?

This is the biggest reason folks were so slow to adopt ADT...

Perhaps you should post those instruction right here in plain English...even IF we do not have LT we could still read through them for clarity and completeness.

Trust me I am dealing with an issue right now with Part Builder in C3D, and if the help file, and or any other documentation for the thing were better written I wouldn't have basically wasted over 6 hours today trying to make the thing do something that apparently it will never do.  Judging by the fact that there are 36 discussion topics on exactly the function that doesn't on the discussion group, and not one single answer, or solution to the problem it's really starting to look as though it doesn't or won't ever do the thing that I'm trying to make it do. (right along with those other 36 souls whom never got it to work correctly either)

[T.Willey]

Sorry Kate.  I have neither, but I'm sure you will get some willing swampers to help.  Here hoping for you.

[Kate M]

Hi guys,

I could really use some help validating instructions for a productivity study --

Curiosity here Kate, shouldn't the tool, or process that you are attempting to study for productivity be slightly MORE intuitive; such that it would need no instructions?

Good question, but you're mixing up productivity with usability. Yes, a new process should be more intuitive. I was looking for productivity, i.e. once you know how to use the new procedure (however you learned it), how much faster are you than doing it (whatever "it" is) the old way?

The background is that I had a disappointing first run with some procedures we were using for testing (people required a lot of help), and was trying to make sure that we weren't making overly optimistic assumptions or leaving out crucial information. But today went much better -- don't know how the data will turn out, but the question volume at least was a lot lower.

Anyway, thanks.

[mjfarrell]

I don't know Kate, it would seem that a best approach would be to stop creating tools that the user MUST be retrained to use.  This would trend towards an increase adoption rates, and should eliminate much of the frustrations users express towards autodesk's products.

[Slim©]

Good question, but you're mixing up productivity with usability.

In most cases if you don't have usability you won't have productivity.

[Krushert]

I don't know Kate, it would seem that a best approach would be to stop creating tools that the user MUST be retrained to use.  This would trend towards an increase adoption rates, and should eliminate much of the frustrations users express towards autodesk's products.

You have valid points and I agree with you on that some tools are just not intuitive or the help could be a little clearer or with less assumptions.  But I whole heartedly disagree with you on the need to stop creating new tools or processes of going about how to accomplish a task.  If we stuck to your statement above (in bold) than we would be stone ages with no wheel.  The users of the wheel had to be trained on how to uses a wheel when pulled by man. (Don't roll up against a rock becuase you won't get anywhere.)  The somebody got an idea that pulling or pushing the wheel with a beast of burden was much better, but that required a different set of instruction for both man and beast.    Just because the instructions are not intuitive does not mean the tool or process in bad and/or inefficient.  The user can not be so closed minded.

[Kerry]

.....  The user can not be so closed minded.

well spoken.

[mjfarrell]

I wasn't being closed minded...just asking a question.
A closed mind wouldn't question anything.

[Krushert]

I wasn't being closed minded...just asking a question.
A closed mind wouldn't question anything.

And I was not referring to you as being closed minded.  But again your statement above (that I bolded) IMO a very narrow minded statement/response/widget or whatever you want to call it.   Again my opinion.

Maybe we should have an Ale Summit.