HumbleChief

Very interesting topic.  As a consumer of computer software myself I would have to agree that having a nice looking and efficient interface is a pleasure to behold.  But, when you take this issue to the next, and I hope obvious level, then I can't in all honesty agree that a nice GUI is or will be the deciding factor in the survival of software companies.

 

I actually do agree with the above statements, at least in the sense that this is the way things have been for a long time now.  Big fish eat little fish "businesses" and the better at marketing a company is the more sway they will hold in the marketplace.  I would even have to agree that those in the construction and design industry are rather set in their ways and therefore rather resistant to change.

 

However, trends in the consumer marketplace are indicating that the winds of change are blowing, and rather briskly at that.  I saw a statistic very recently that predicted that within the next ten years only ten percent of brick and mortar businesses will still be standing.  Whether they will go away entirely or simply be eaten up by the competition is yet to be seen.

 

So then, where is the business going then if not brick and mortar?  Not a hard question to answer really, so I will attempt to answer it myself "It's the internet slash economy stupid" as Clinton would have put it.  But, and this is the crux of the matter, and why I do not see things continuing as they have in the past.  The new internet based consumer economy is predicted to not be driven by the influences of powerful marketing companies, but rather by consumer prefereces and information gathered through social media. 

 

The catchword tossed around these days is absolute value.  Kind of sort of meaning that with adequate and trustworthy information consumers will decide for themselves what products and services they would prefer to purchase.  In this environment traditional marketing mechanisms are actually being resisted, not considered to be trustworthy, and alternative sources of information are being considered.

 

So, what in the world does all of this have to do with GUI interfaces and Revit and Chief and or software in general.  Well, we are consumers, yes, but only if our customers see the value in the services we providel.  My point is that this perception of value is changing, and rather rapidly.

 

Customers probably won't care what software we like the look of, or how many extra clicks we have to make.  We certainly do, but they probably won't.  I can't see why they would want to deny us a nice interface to work with, but it probably won't be their primary focus.  What they will care about is how efficient and cost effective your services are, and how well they think they can trust us as service providers.  Not the wild west anymore, there is a new sheriff in town and he is the consumer, and it is about time IMO.

 

My own personal thoughts are that it will be more about the quality of the experience we can provide to our customers in the sense of visual presentations that will matter.  This may not be very popular to those who want a brand new GUI more that anything in the world, but those software companies who intend to be left standing will be those who can meet not only our needs as software consumers, but those of our customers as well.  This is a big part of why I keep going on about file compatiblity issues.  If there is a better sofware out there for a specific purpose, that means that it better meets what I see as my customers needs, then I fully well intend to use it.  I would also like a very nice GUI as well.  2 cents.

Interesting points Rod. I couldn't help but draw a parallel between your point and Johnny's experience with the transition from DOS to the modern GUI. It seems the opportunities during that transition were vast as the gap between DOS apps and modern GUI apps were huge.

Today maybe the opportunities with the advent of social media and that arising paradigm and the ease of which customers can demand and get what they want in a very fluid marketplace are just as vast. I can see how easy it might be to ignore that new paradigm and continue plodding down a path that might not end that well.

I for one do not have the answers nor do I have the business acumen to run a company like CA and really can't see a clear future for this or any other software app but I do love the discussion. All the posts here are very enlightening to me and appreciate the ideas.

Sorry, not my intention to steal your thunder and I mostly agree with you, I just wanted to emphasize that it isn't only because they are large bullies that they are successful. Sketchup came from nowhere and carved a niche because it had a great GUI combined with clever tools.

Good points.

Not entirely true about Protools. They dominate because nothing came even close 20 years ago when the battle lines were drawn. They definitely had the best software and GUI. Same thing with Avid, which at the time was light years ahead of the competition and they still dominate today. Others are challenging, and Final Cut made a serious dent until Apple abruptedly dropped it and now Adobe is trying with Premiere Pro. But the fact is, when it comes to long form editing nothing really touches it, and for news and broadcast, no one offers the same system solutions.

 

One has to remember that all dominant players have become so because there were a reason. After you reach critical mass it then becames a tough player to bring down due to all the trained people and existing work pipelines. Adobe beat Quark Express by iteratively and aggressively produce better and better software until even the biggest magazines relented and agreed it worked better. These are not consumer goods decisions like VHS vs Betamax.

I would say my entire post is not 'entirely true' but do you think the point I was trying to make, which is that it's much more complicated than a single business factor, is relevant? Oh wait, that's the same point you made too. I agree with you.

The new GUI was the principle cause for massive market-share grabs from other competing companies - since clients saved money with less "data entry" times (they note "St. Vincent Healthcare achieved at least a 57% reduction in order entry time.").

 

Efficiency is very important.

Do you think that a new GUI, for argument's sake let's say it's the best GUI in the world, would that be a vehicle by which Chief would/could grab massive market share from its competitors? I mean would an ACAD house switch to Chief because the interface was 'the best in the world? Would a Revit house do the same? Individual users, much better chance but massive share grab? What do think? Genuinely curious.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  As a side point, I led a team of 4 GUI designers in 2002 (as a side project to my architectural business - long story how that happened but its related to the fact I designed some of the top execs homes) to redesign archaic software that existed in the pharmaceutical world.  Ominicell was a publicly traded company that controlled a large portion of the market, and we took their first system and re-designed the entire process.  Here is a link to the software, and them showing the extreme difference in how the software looked in a dos window verses what we created:

 

http://www.omnicell.com/Products/Central_Pharmacy_Automation/OmniLinkRx_Medication_Order_Management_System.aspx

 

(FYI - we actually created that graphic for them before the app even ran so they could pre-market - on the left is what the app looked like before we remade it)

 

Omnicell went on to change all their software to match our efficient and new GUI, and other companies in the business even licensed the visual and currently 10+ products use a version of what we did for them.  The new GUI was the principle cause for massive market-share grabs from other competing companies - since clients saved money with less "data entry" times (they note "St. Vincent Healthcare achieved at least a 57% reduction in order entry time.").

 

Efficiency is very important.

VERY impressive Johnny. I would love it if your expertise could be applied to Chief's interface and I'm hoping their evolution includes some of the ideas in this thread - sooner (rather than) or later.

Im sure it was a major help, but I do say in the software/hardware business if you dont adapt quick you won't keep your lead long.  Its really a combination of all sorts of things really....I was just capitalizing on the comment dealing with GUI.

I agree it really is a combination of many things. In the early days WordPerfect was way better than Microsoft Word but Microsoft bullied its way into market dominance using its OS as the vehicle.

That same Wordperfect company had an Adobe type PDF creator and reader that ran circles around Adobe's offering but Adobe bullied its way to market dominance.

In the music business ProTools dominates the market - not because they make great software or have a great GUI but because they have enough market share to dictate the next direction of music software. They are adding features now that have been available in other software for years. People hate the fact they have to use ProTools and their terrible upgrade policies and feature less software but they remain the leader and show no sings of being toppled because their GUI might suck or they are slow to add features.

ACAD dominates Architectural software, not because they make great software but because that Lion's share allows them to charge incredible amounts of money and change the entire direction of Arch software when they choose. They continue to be successful because they run a god business and their market share allows them lots of leeway in features and GUI.

In the music software world there are many smaller labels that are becoming more popular but if you don't know ProTools you won't work at a large production house - ever. I imagine it's the same with ACAD.

So getting and keeping your lead is way more complicated than just having great software with a great GUI. The above examples prove you don't have to have either to succeed but you do need a very focused business plan and must be able to execute same.

Just thought of another - Quickbooks. They own financial software but certainly not because their GUI is world class. In some ways it's very very dated but their market share allows them to dump on even Microsoft's Money.

I just double click one of the lines and change its weight to something different - they won't join then.

All we want is to cut down dbx's and endless clicking.. I don't care how it's achieved. 

My thoughts as well.

Keith, wow - no real need to be so dramatic, it's just a different opinion. I think it's apples and oranges, you think it's apples and apples. Absolutely respect your look at the issue and it's only an opinion, and in my opinion I don't think the analogies hold but I'm all ears and eyes and will learn from every post you make and very much appreciate your input.

I wonder about some of the analogies. Remember the buggy whip? Well cars got rid of buggies and the whip didn't evolve fast enough...

Chief occupies a very unique niche market within the architectural and design world. Are they really risking going away because their GUI is outdated? It's irritating and old fashioned but I don't think they are at risk of disappearing like the above companies did?

Who is their real competition? It's not really ACAD, or Revit or Archicad. SoftPlan for sure but their price point ensures survival until another player comes along - into a very crowded marketplace. Wouldn't mind that myself but don't really see it.

...and drawing in clockwise rotation.

I don't think that's needed anymore. I think Chief knows the exterior layers in the later versions.

Then learn about Annotation Sets. Absolutely key to using Chief effectively

 

Larry:

 

layers and layersets yes...

 

annosets can wait until its time to create cd's on layout

 

many other things to learn first, such as roofs, terrain, etc

 

Lew

I don't think we should argue the correct order Lew. The idea of any suggestion is that it is just that, a suggestion. I couldn't proceed without Anno Sets but then again I was creating actual working drawings not playing with Chief to learn basic house models. For someone else it might make sense to never learn Anno Sets. So take each suggestion as an idea and a place to start not some absolute method that must be followed and learn Chief in a way that works for you.

I 'think' this is how it works or should work. When you add a new Layer it adds a new Layer to every Layer Set but that new Layer can have unique properties in each Set.

You can change those new Layer properties in each Set, or change those Layer properties across all Sets by checking the 'Modify All Layer Sets' box. Does that sound correct?

Just tested and this appears to be correct. Don't fear the 'Modify All Layer Sets' button it only affects the single Layer's property you've selected, it doesn't affect any other, or all Layers.

Whoa - I just checked this and Chief certainly does add new Layers to every Layer Set without the Modify All Layer sets box checked. 

Neither show as used in plan? (Red +) If they are not in plan, than they will not display, correct.

He's referring to the different Layers he's created and wondering why they are not in each set. Look for 'molding kicks and lt blks' they are different in each screen shot.

OK I'm confused. If you add a Layer to a Layer Set it is added to all Layer Sets without the 'Modify All Layer Sets' box checked? Or is it (somehow) checked by default in your set-up?

Oh boy,  not sure if I agree with this,  I do want every layer in every layer set and I think CA is suppose to add every new layer to every layer set.

I just checked this and Chief certainly does add new Layers to every Layer Set without the Modify All Layer sets box checked. Sorry for the confusion. What's that check box for again?

Hi

Hoping someone can help me with this,,,,

I created a new layer while in an elevation view (adding some light blocks and stuff) to the exterior,,,,  this new layer only shows up in an elevation view on the "layer display options" layer list.

when In plan view and full perspective I open the layer display d box and this new layer is not there. This new layer is only visible in the layer set I was using when I created the layer!!!

Is this sompton new!!! I don't ever remember being able to do this b 4....

No, I do not care to send  the plan along with this enquiry, but thanks for asking.

Ray C

Edit: this is not correct see posts below.

Ray that's how Chief is supposed to work. Typically you (I) don't want every new Layer to be in every Layer Set but if for some reason you do, check this box.

EDIT: Whoa - I just checked this and Chief certainly does add new Layers to every Layer Set without the Modify All Layer sets box checked. 

Larry, I suspect you are right for the large majority of people, and defaults were one of the things I set out to do early, with templates. I quickly learned though that these were nearly useless for where I work, with a few exceptions. The average home I work on in NW DC is about 100 years old and they are completely different in every single one. Virtually nothing the same. From the terracotta brick foundations, to the actual dimensional lumber (when it was actually a 2x4) I've seen every variation in height, structure and materials imaginable. Even within a single house where it may have been added to several times over the years. So I still have defaults, but know full well that they will and are going to change on every single house I'm on.

For new or newer contruction, this would help a lot, and a good idea to do, and learn, regardless.

Don't confuse defaults with templates, they are 2 different things. Defaults need to be set up for each new house configuration and shouldn't necessarily be good from house to house. Templates of course are designed to fit houses that have the same basic configuration.

So first thing is to set up the default floors, room heights, roof pitch, foundation type etc. If you can use a template from a previous plan (which include that plan's defaults), fine, but even then you need to check defaults first thing before you even start drawing the first wall.

The reason I have posted 4 or 5 times is because I've been through the ringer with Chief and just recently really understood the importance of Defaults.

I believe that you shouldn't just start drawing walls and roofs and learn as you go. Layersets, annosets, proper default setups, etc., etc. should be part of your thoughts on a plan right from the start if you are going to do a professional job. I look at it the same as a college course that teaches you all the proper basic setup and techniques before you do a full job.

I agree 100% with this philosophy of learning Chief. Learn Defaults, Layers and Anno Sets, then start drawing.

take a house - any house

 

preferably your own or a family or friends that you have constant access to

and model it - completely

 

by the time you are done you will have a very good understanding of how Chief works

 

learning "features" in a void - doesn't work for me

 

Lew

Yes, by all means model an existing house but DON'T start without understanding Defaults, Layers, and Annotation Sets.

Then learn about Annotation Sets. Absolutely key to using Chief effectively.

Here's one from the great Scott Hall

Next Learn about Layers - they rule your every move as you design for different disciplines in Chief.

http://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00765/

Here's a great knowledge base tutorial on defaults. LEARN THIS FIRST, it will help with every part of your plans as you proceed.

http://www.chiefarchitect.com/support/article/KB-00463/