The question of Interface
Much of the “objections” to TAD by architects were done with reference to other software (e.g. “Why don't you do it like Sketchup?”) – as if a 70 year old nascent field such as computer science had many things to say to a 100,000+ year of architectural theories. I am quite sure the interface of TAD has gone through a lot more iterations and refinement than many of the other software – but let me not sound defensive or digress.
BTW, I do like the interface of Sketchup a lot and would have loved to put TAD as a Ruby script inside Sketchup, but it has not happened because Sketchup and other software which could have been appropriate candidates can lead to corruption of data – it can lead to just a confusing, internally unrecognizable but visually recognizable objects.
How I wish architects would first get their skin bruised in the questions that TAD was asking and then suggest alternative answers to those. That unfortunately has not happened thus far. Nobody has found any formal objections to these questions. I have given enough lectures, talks, seminars, submitted papers on this at international conferences on this but in the end, invariably, the most vocal suggestion would be to make the interface like some other software. The subject of user interface is often fraught with lots of misunderstandings. I have a different take on Where is the real interface? Read more here https://goo.gl/VKb5im
These very same people would easily understand when I say: a villager who used only a bicycle – how absurd would it be if he expected the pedals in the car with to have similarities to the pedals of his bicycle.
Press F1 inside the application to read context-sensitive help directly in the application itself
← ∈
