Jump to content
  • 17

Addition of a generic 'Folder Type' in the Resource Manager which allows any resource


LJ TMS

Question

18 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I would definitely use these, though it should be noted that pre-2017, only Symbol Folders existed, so only Symbols could be put into folders (meaning no functionality has really been lost). But I do agree that it seems to natural to want to be able to freely organize all resources (for example, sometimes I wish I could put everything that's been imported/referenced into a single folder so I don't have to see those resources).

 

But perhaps there's a hesitation that this would lead to poor organization and confusion for those who aren't careful? Not sure why else things were implemented the way they were.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
15 hours ago, Andy Broomell said:

I would definitely use these, though it should be noted that pre-2017, only Symbol Folders existed, so only Symbols could be put into folders (meaning no functionality has really been lost). But I do agree that it seems to natural to want to be able to freely organize all resources (for example, sometimes I wish I could put everything that's been imported/referenced into a single folder so I don't have to see those resources).

 

Interesting, I was certain pre-2017 folders allowed any type of resource to be placed in them. But I found a computer with VW2015 installed and your definitely right, they are strictly symbol folders. Guess my memory is failing me, lol. One thing I did notice and must have been what I was thinking of was that each resource was filed under a collapsible dropdown for that resource type. Seeing that gave me the idea for another feature request...

 

VE-99234 - Option to auto-sort resources into folder in the Resource Manager

Add a checkbox to the folder creation/editing dialog that would automatically place any new or existing resources of that type to within that folder.

 

This would give a functionality similar to the dropdowns pre-2017, and I would use this feature for my more create-it-and-forget-it resource types (gradients, hatches, line types, record formats, text styles, worksheets, etc).

 

 

15 hours ago, Andy Broomell said:

But perhaps there's a hesitation that this would lead to poor organization and confusion for those who aren't careful? Not sure why else things were implemented the way they were.

 

I agree this may lead to some users to not use folder types altogether and make all folders generic. But I feel one of the great strengths of VW is in it's flexibility. Often times there are multiple ways to accomplish a task, and VW doesn't force you into a strict set of conventions. Two of the benefits of this are (1) you can accomplish tasks and organize in a way that best suits you, and (2) often times if I run in a bug, I can find another way of accomplishing the same thing by skirting around it.

 

I think flexibility in allowing us to organize in the way that best suits our needs is very beneficial (especially with the range of disciplines that use VW), even if it allows less experienced users to do things in a way we may consider disorganized. For example, I would be pretty upset if VW decided there is only one way to organize our classing structure, and everyone needs to adjust to the way VW deemed 'correct'.

 

Edited by LJ TMS
  • Like 2
Link to comment
  • 0
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
On 10/11/2021 at 4:54 PM, E|FA said:

Except you can only vote "nice to have", "important", or "critical".  Shouldn't there be a way for the user base to let VW know if an option is "not needed by me" or other neutral or negative input?

I’d say your best way to express your lack of interest in a feature, in the context of the public roadmap, is simply to not provide any feedback on it.

 

Instead, I’d recommend putting positive energy and constructive feedback towards the features/topics that do interest you and would benefit your work. That way, your perspective can contribute to how a feature is developed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 0
On 10/16/2021 at 9:44 AM, Neil Barman said:

I’d say your best way to express your lack of interest in a feature, in the context of the public roadmap, is simply to not provide any feedback on it.

 

Instead, I’d recommend putting positive energy and constructive feedback towards the features/topics that do interest you and would benefit your work. That way, your perspective can contribute to how a feature is developed.

 


Positive feedback is great, but insulating product development in a safe space where nothing but kudos are allowed leads to bad design or features nobody really wanted (the icon redesign in Vectorworks a while back for example).

 

Critique in design is how we advance.  Placating instead of innovating will only get you so far. Imagine if an architectural student did not receive challenging feedback during a jury, it would cripple them for the realities of professional practice.  When we service our clients, it is common to receive “love vs hate” type feedback.  It’s all part of the dialogue and “negative” feedback is sometimes the most important information you can receive.  There are countless examples of bad design due to working in a bubble of self admiration the world over.  Like buttons, in the absence of a dislike button, can destroy the world these days.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 0

I am in no way advocating for only positive feedback. If something does not work for you, then you need to tell VW.

 

What I am trying to emphasize, is that there will be parts of the program you don't need.  And for those parts, just ignore them rather than try and comment and say that they should not be there.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
  • 0
  • Vectorworks, Inc Employee
3 hours ago, jeff prince said:

 

Thanks for the suggestion.  I can see my input here and elsewhere is not appreciated by Vectorworks.

Quite the contrary, @jeff prince. Feedback is always appreciated, but you may find your feedback has more impact by considering the language & tone of the feedback. Having a positive approach to encourage change is always better than taking a negative stance.

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
  • 0
2 hours ago, Neil Barman said:

Quite the contrary, @jeff prince. Feedback is always appreciated, but you may find your feedback has more impact by considering the language & tone of the feedback. Having a positive approach to encourage change is always better than taking a negative stance.

 

Wow, I'm used to Vectorworks dodging questions and telling customers how they should work....

but this telling your customers how to communicate and behave is a really interesting development.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
  • 0
On 10/28/2021 at 3:37 PM, jeff prince said:

 

Wow, I'm used to Vectorworks dodging questions and telling customers how they should work....

but this telling your customers how to communicate and behave is a really interesting development.

 

 

 @JuanP thanks for taking the time to downvote my post instead of contributing to the conversation.  It really speaks volumes about your dedication to your customers.

Link to comment
  • 0
On 10/25/2021 at 9:32 PM, E|FA said:

Nonetheless, can't we all agree that there should be a way to vote down VW devoting ANY resources to improving the startup Splash Screen when there are so many items that could use improvement

 

 

On 10/25/2021 at 9:14 PM, Pat Stanford said:

What I am trying to emphasize, is that there will be parts of the program you don't need.  And for those parts, just ignore them rather than try and comment and say that they should not be there.

 

 

On 10/26/2021 at 7:13 AM, Neil Barman said:

@E|FA, @jeff prince If you would like to discuss the Roadmap or any features on it, I would suggest heading over to the dedicated Roadmap section of the forum. 

 

I was wondering about that mentioned splash screen as well, mostly because there is not any info on intent and purpose of that item so I have no idea if I should support it or not.

That is imho the bigger issue with some of the roadmap items rather than whether it benefits me or not and therefore should support it or not. It may even lead to people supporting a roadmap item because of what they expect it to be rather than what it actually is going to be and be disappointed in the end and complain about bad implementation of a feature.

 

Notwithstanding that, some people may suggest a feature that they think is nice to have/useful because they have it in another program while those with more experience with VW may realize it is not of that much use within VW because of (reasons why) and it should be possible to voice such opinions and why it may be better to drop that feature or to suggest an alternative instead. The latter bascially means saying that the feature should be dropped, even if it is not explicitely said that way.

Saying that making such comments, provided these comments are stated in a decent manner, are not appropriate is imho counter-productive.

Edited by Art V
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...