Change Design Layers & Sheet Layers terminology to "Layers" & "Sheets"

[E|FA]

Request to change the official terminology of Design Layers and Sheet Layers, because of confusion and "wordiness":

 

• "Design Layers" -> "Layers"
• "Sheet Layers" -> "Sheets"

 

I believe this has been mentioned in other threads, including:

 

[Jeff Prince]

YES, with the suggested naming scheme:

 

Sheet

Design Space

Class

 

Do that and AutoCAD users will stop tripping over "layers" because we can succinctly say your AutoCAD "layer" = a Vectorworks "class" without confusion.

 

Build your model in a Design Space...

Classify the stuff you make by putting it on a class...

To make a drawing from this model, go to a sheet.

Create a viewport on that sheet which will act as a window into your Design Space...

add your notes to the viewport's annotations and they will move with the viewport if you adjust its position.

 

Just get rid of the word "Layer" entirely, it's soooo 2D sounding.

[Cristiano Alves]

2 hours ago, jeff prince said:

YES, with the suggested naming scheme:

 

Sheet

Design Space

Class

 

Do that and AutoCAD users will stop tripping over "layers" because we can succinctly say your AutoCAD "layer" = a Vectorworks "class" without confusion.

 

Build your model in a Design Space...

Classify the stuff you make by putting it on a class...

To make a drawing from this model, go to a sheet.

Create a viewport on that sheet which will act as a window into your Design Space...

add your notes to the viewport's annotations and they will move with the viewport if you adjust its position.

 

Just get rid of the word "Layer" entirely, it's soooo 2D sounding.

This workflow/naming scheme was the hardest thing for me to assimilate and understand throughout the entire migration from Autocad and Wysiwyg to Vectorworks. It still costs, and in fact this change would help a lot to not create confusion. I know it costs to change something after so many years implemented like this, but it's never too late to change something that can greatly improve the lives of new users.

[E|FA]

14 hours ago, jeff prince said:

Build your model in a Design Space...

I agree in concept, except then there will be confusion with the Space tool.  Layer might be a reasonable term, and some users still work in 2D only without using Viewpoerts/Sheets.

[Jeff Prince]

1 hour ago, E|FA said:

I agree in concept, except then there will be confusion with the Space tool.  Layer might be a reasonable term, and some users still work in 2D only without using Viewpoerts/Sheets.

just delete Space or Layer and simply call it Design 🙂

[zoomer]

Sheet Layer > Sheet > Layout

 

Sheet sounds like paper and dead tree's.

Today I would call it more likely "PDF".

But for me it is the place where I care about Layout like in InDesign or Pages.

So "Layout".

 

In German localization of VW,

Layers are called "Zeichnungsebenen" (drawing layers),

while Sheet Layers are called "Layoutebenen" (layout layers)

 

Where "Ebenen" does not really mean Layer (Schicht) but more

like "Level" which I would also prefer as Layers are primarily used

to have a Layer Height, separation of different content is secondary

and also primarily served by Classes.

 

Classes (from "Classification") are basically ok in naming.

But as any other App outside calls it "Layer",

I would switch Class name to Layer anyway for "compatibility".

 

So for me please,

Layers, Levels and Layouts ....

Stories and Reference Heights (or just Benchmarks)

Render Materials and Building Materials

 

BTW,

PIOs are BIM Parts ....

[Pat Stanford]

Before the actual release of Sheet Layers, I believe the VW "Internal" name for them was Presentation Layers. This terminology was present for several versions in the Vectorscript Documentation.

 

 

[E|FA]

I can't modify the original post, but based on the conversation at the related thread, I would modify my Wishlist to the simple and minimal change of:

 

Removing the word "Layers" from Sheets.

 

Sheet Layers are not really being layered in any way - Design Layers can be - and they are analogous to real world sheets in a drawing set. This would reduce some confusion without adding new nomenclature.

[Matt Overton]

18 hours ago, jeff prince said:

YES, with the suggested naming scheme:

 

Sheet

Design Space

Class

 

Do that and AutoCAD users will stop tripping over "layers" because we can succinctly say your AutoCAD "layer" = a Vectorworks "class" without confusion.

 

Build your model in a Design Space...

Classify the stuff you make by putting it on a class...

To make a drawing from this model, go to a sheet.

Create a viewport on that sheet which will act as a window into your Design Space...

add your notes to the viewport's annotations and they will move with the viewport if you adjust its position.

 

Just get rid of the word "Layer" entirely, it's soooo 2D sounding.

 

Why not then Build space not design space 

Build your model in build space

or Model your model in model space

 

Shame DL's have been upgraded to contain some of the hierarchy and 3Dness of that part of the of the project then they could be called a "Regions" 

 

Region or

Sheet

 

Class or 

Material

[E|FA]

It's probably unrealistic to get a total revamp of the naming conventions in VW, as it would just add to the confusion, so trying to get the most impact with the least change should be the goal.  I think there are multiple forum threads dealing with the change from OpenGL to Shaded, so imagine if everything was renamed.  

 

Similarly, I would avoid using a word that is already in use by VW (Space, Material, etc) to deal with this issue.  

[Pat Stanford]

There are not enough words in English to describe all the different things we need to do. 

 

I think we need to be more like the indigenous people of the far North who have many words for Ice. 😂

 

So I am proposing the following rules for this game (and it is a game for us since only the powers that be at VW can actually make any of the changes we propose. Maybe we will get lucky and come across something that makes them happy.) Then end goal of the game is to generate a lexicon that makes sense for both new users and existing users. It does not have to make everyone happy

 

1.  You can not use a name from something that already exists in VW and use it for something else. That means that terms like Layer, Class, Space can not be just repurposed to mean something different than what they are now.

 

2.  You can not use terms that already have a common meaning associated with any of VWs primary industries to mean something different. So since Plan is such as common term in all the industries (in addition to being used in Top/Plan see #1 above), it can't be used for a specific object.

 

3.  You have to describe how you would use the term in both singular and plural use and how it makes sense to do so.

 

Who wants to play? 😉

[Pat Stanford]

I'll go first.

 

Design Layers  -> Vellums or Films

Sheet Layer -> Sheets

 

"I made of viewport of the first floor films and put is on the plan view sheet."

 

"Please edit the restrooms on the third floor vellum to be disability accessible."

 

Who's next?

[mike m oz]

Where this gets messy is Vectorworks' hybrid drawing paradigm with: 

• Top/Plan View showing 2D objects, the 2D component of hybrid objects and symbols and wireframe views of 3D objects; and
• Top View showing 2D planar objects, the 3D component of hybrid objects and symbols and 3D objects.  The 3D will be in wireframe unless a rendering mode is applied.

Some users still only work in 2D and all they use is Top/Plan View, so for them Model is meaningless.   They also use Design Layers for their Drawing Sheets.

 

The dilemma for Vectorworks has always been how to accommodate both a 2D and a 3D workflow.

 

There is also the problem of how you handle both forward file conversions and backward file exports.

[Jeff Prince]

3 hours ago, Pat Stanford said:

 

Design Layers  -> Vellums or Films

Archaic, no relevance to anyone who has joined the profession in the past 10 years.

AutoCAD had it right with Modelspace and Paperspace.  Even then, some people just used modelspace with scaled up titleblocks LOL.

[Jeff Prince]

14 hours ago, E|FA said:

It's probably unrealistic to get a total revamp of the naming conventions in VW, as it would just add to the confusion, so trying to get the most impact with the least change should be the goal.

 

To be fair, the people at Vectorworks have changed far more fundamental UI features that negatively effect use than the simple naming conventions discussed here...

The changes to color management are terrible and a step backwards, IMHO.

 

 

[Hamo]

On 1/11/2023 at 8:42 AM, zoomer said:

Sheet Layer > Sheet > Layout

 

Sheet sounds like paper and dead tree's.

Today I would call it more likely "PDF".      [IH - that would be confusing where 'Publishing' is concerned]

But for me it is the place where I care about Layout like in InDesign or Pages.

So "Layout".

 

In German localization of VW,

Layers are called "Zeichnungsebenen" (drawing layers),

while Sheet Layers are called "Layoutebenen" (layout layers)

 

Where "Ebenen" does not really mean Layer (Schicht) but more

like "Level" which I would also prefer as Layers are primarily used

to have a Layer Height, separation of different content is secondary

and also primarily served by Classes.

 

Classes (from "Classification") are basically ok in naming.

But as any other App outside calls it "Layer",

I would switch Class name to Layer anyway for "compatibility".

 

So for me please,

Layers, Levels and Layouts ....

Stories and Reference Heights (or just Benchmarks)

Render Materials and Building Materials

 

BTW,

PIOs are BIM Parts ....

 

[Hamo]

Layers. Classes. Sheets.  For me.

[zoomer]

4 minutes ago, Hamo said:

[IH - that would be confusing where 'Publishing' is concerned]

 

And it would not sound very pleasing anyway 🙂

[Matt Overton]

On 1/11/2023 at 12:41 PM, mike m oz said:

Where this gets messy is Vectorworks' hybrid drawing paradigm with: 

• Top/Plan View showing 2D objects, the 2D component of hybrid objects and symbols and wireframe views of 3D objects; and
• Top View showing 2D planar objects, the 3D component of hybrid objects and symbols and 3D objects.  The 3D will be in wireframe unless a rendering mode is applied.

Some users still only work in 2D and all they use is Top/Plan View, so for them Model is meaningless.   They also use Design Layers for their Drawing Sheets.

 

The dilemma for Vectorworks has always been how to accommodate both a 2D and a 3D workflow.

 

There is also the problem of how you handle both forward file conversions and backward file exports.

I don't see this as a problem. Hybrid is really just a CAD/BIM extension of 100's of years of drawing tradition. A wall drawn with a bunch of parallel lines and some hatching has always been a placeholder for a 3d object.  It is a 3d for free/cheap system compared to manual which is a big advantage.Simplifying the naming of the bit you "draw" on even upgrading the system doesn't change that. Hybrid is 3D content. Even if the users don't take advantage of that and it costs them nothing if they don't.

 

Vectorworks does very well to date of letting you care for the content you care about at this moment without painted you into a corner of wasted work when the focus shifts. It should be the biggest marketing point they hit as it really is the point of difference. Low overhead, fast start, sketch to complete package (as long as you don't hit one of the rough edges).

 

Simplifying naming only helps that ends.  

[shorter]

I am all for industry convergency on terminology.

 

Model

Layout

Project Base Point, not 'user origin'

Project North, as the go-to rotate view or as defined in the geo-referencing settings.

 

Classes, though, is the correct term, not 'Layers'.

[zoomer]

6 hours ago, shorter said:

Classes, though, is the correct term, not 'Layers'.

 

I think too.

Nevertheless ....

 

6 hours ago, shorter said:

I am all for industry convergency/standardizatio on terminology.

 

[shorter]

Ignore source user origin = align to internal origin