Searching \ for '[EE] Eagle' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=eagle
Search entire site for: 'Eagle'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Eagle'
2011\01\12@045854 by V G

picon face
Eagle seems to be the most pain-in-the-ass software I've ever used (other
than windows). I'm trying to create a footprint for the LTC3112 (
http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/3112f.pdf) and specifically trying to
lay down the pads. I looked at many tutorials for Eagle but most of them are
outdated and are causing more frustration than good.

1. Is there an efficient way of laying down pads according to the sizes
outlined in the datasheet?
2. I've tried to do this, and realized that my pad numbers are all out of
order. How do I quickly rename pads

2011\01\12@053737 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> 1. Is there an efficient way of laying down pads according to the sizes
> outlined in the datasheet?

I never tried this, but I think this could be scripted.

For nearly all chips I need I can find a package somewhere, I think I only created and SMD package once. But I assume you googled first?

> 2. I've tried to do this, and realized that my pad numbers are all out of
> order. How do I quickly rename pads?

just rename each pad, there are only 16 or 20 for your chip?

--
Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2011\01\12@053928 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
On 12/01/11 09:58, V G wrote:
> 1. Is there an efficient way of laying down pads according to the sizes
> outlined in the datasheet?

Throw them down in any old order, and use the Properties window to enter the co-ordinates of the centre of the pad, and its size.

> 2. I've tried to do this, and realized that my pad numbers are all out of
> order. How do I quickly rename pads?

The NAME command.

-- Phil.
spam_OUTpiclistTakeThisOuTspamphilpem.me.uk
http://www.philpem.me.uk

2011\01\12@101617 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
V G wrote:
> Eagle seems to be the most pain-in-the-ass software I've ever used
> (other than windows).

Complaining about tools says more about the craftsman than the tools.  The
fact that many people use Eagle successfully for professional purposes
clearly makes this a statement about you, not Eagle.

What were you trying to accomplish with this complaint anyway?  Why do you
think anyone here wants to hear you whine about something they have no
control over?  Other than make you look childish, what did you think it
would do?

> I'm trying to create a footprint for the
> LTC3112 ( http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/3112f.pdf) and
> specifically trying to lay down the pads. I looked at many tutorials
> for Eagle but most of them are outdated and are causing more
> frustration than good.
>
> 1. Is there an efficient way of laying down pads according to the
> sizes outlined in the datasheet?

Yes.  For large numbers of regular item, like the 20 SMD pads of this chip,
I use a program I keep just for this purpose that writes a Eagle script.  I
just checked, and it wasn't previously included in my Eagle Tools release,
so I have now added it.  After installing the Eagle Tools release from
http://www.embedinc.com/pic/dload.htm, the source template and at least one
example will be in EAGLE > SCR > SOURCE.  If you actually want to compile
and run this, you will also need to install the host software build tools.

> 2. I've tried to do this, and realized that my pad numbers are all
> out of order. How do I quickly rename pads?

This could be a two step process because Eagle won't let you rename a pad to
a name that another pad already has.  In the general case, you have to
rename all pads to garbage names, like XX1, XX2, or whatever, then rename
them in order to the specific number you want each to have.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\12@173926 by V G

picon face
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam@spam@embedinc.com>wrote:

> Complaining about tools says more about the craftsman than the tools.
>

That's not true. I could come up with a million reasons to support this, but
that's not the point of this thread.


> This could be a two step process because Eagle won't let you rename a pad
> to
> a name that another pad already has.  In the general case, you have to
> rename all pads to garbage names, like XX1, XX2, or whatever, then rename
> them in order to the specific number you want each to have.


Yeah, this is what I was afraid of.

The chip is a TSSOP-20 with 0.65 mm pin pitch. I thought that was pretty
standard, but I guess I was wrong

2011\01\12@180023 by doug metzler

picon face
There's a cool little function in Eagle that allows you to do this easily.

1) open your library
2) go to the Eagle control panel, Libraries - and search all the libraries
until you find a TSSOP-20 package.
3) highlight the package, right click and select "copy to library"

I found a TSSOP-20 in the Maxim.lbr

DougM

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, V G <x.solarwind.xspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\01\12@180623 by Jesse Lackey

flavicon
face
Cadsoft hosts newsgroups: news.cadsoft.de.  Look on their webpage for more info.  This may be helpful, I found it useful to browse for answers to almost every question I had when I started out with Eagle (2002).

J


V G wrote:
> Eagle seems to be the most pain-in-the-ass software I've ever used (other
> than windows). I'm trying to create a footprint for the LTC3112 (
> http://cds.linear.com/docs/Datasheet/3112f.pdf) and specifically trying to
> lay down the pads. I looked at many tutorials for Eagle but most of them are
> outdated and are causing more frustration than good.
>
> 1. Is there an efficient way of laying down pads according to the sizes
> outlined in the datasheet?
> 2. I've tried to do this, and realized that my pad numbers are all out of
> order. How do I quickly rename pads

2011\01\12@202827 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 10:17 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> V G wrote:
> > Eagle seems to be the most pain-in-the-ass software I've ever used
> > (other than windows).
>
> Complaining about tools says more about the craftsman than the tools.  The
> fact that many people use Eagle successfully for professional purposes
> clearly makes this a statement about you, not Eagle.

Not necessarily true.

MANY "professional" tools that are widely used are EXTREMELY archaic in
design and are "pains in the ass" to use (often due to the organic
nature the software was written and modified over the years).
The fact is many people get used to the "interesting" parts of software
and learn to deal with it. On the other end, it creates a sort of "tie
in", if you are used to one tool, no matter how hard it was the first
learn to use it, chances are you'll stay with it, even more so if it was
hard to learn it to begin with.

That said, I haven't used Eagle in years, but when I did it didn't seem
any more "pain in the ass" then any of the out tools I've used (i.e.
Orcad).

TTYL

2011\01\12@212917 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 12, 2011, at 1:58 AM, V G wrote:

> 1. Is there an efficient way of laying down pads according to the  
> sizes
> outlined in the datasheet?

Set the grid to the Y pad spacing.  Use the "smd x y" command to start  laying down pads of the exact size needed along the grid.  lay down as  many as needed on one side.  In order.

Set the grid to the X pad spacing.  use Group, "cut", and paste to  copy the first column of pads to the correct place.  Check to make  sure the newly generated pad numbers go in the right direction; if  not, undo and paste again with appropriate rotation of the group.  Done.

> 2. I've tried to do this, and realized that my pad numbers are all  
> out of
> order. How do I quickly rename pads?

Using the above process, it's much quicker to just start over.

BillW

2011\01\13@050039 by V G

picon face
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:00 PM, doug metzler <EraseMEdoug.metzlerspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com>wrote:

> There's a cool little function in Eagle that allows you to do this easily..
>
> 1) open your library
> 2) go to the Eagle control panel, Libraries - and search all the libraries
> until you find a TSSOP-20 package.
> 3) highlight the package, right click and select "copy to library"
>
> I found a TSSOP-20 in the Maxim.lbr
>

Thanks, I did this. But how do I make sure that it's the right pin pitch and
so on

2011\01\13@050521 by V G

picon face
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:00 AM, V G <x.solarwind.xspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:00 PM, doug metzler <@spam@doug.metzlerKILLspamspamgmail.com>wrote:
>
>> There's a cool little function in Eagle that allows you to do this easily.
>>
>> 1) open your library
>> 2) go to the Eagle control panel, Libraries - and search all the libraries
>> until you find a TSSOP-20 package.
>> 3) highlight the package, right click and select "copy to library"
>>
>> I found a TSSOP-20 in the Maxim.lbr
>>
>
> Thanks, I did this. But how do I make sure that it's the right pin pitch
> and so on?
>

There was no ruler tool, but I managed to reset grid spacing to "finest" and
just calculate using cursor position. I find it really lame that I have to
pull out a calculator consistently to use Eagle

2011\01\13@052141 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>> Thanks, I did this. But how do I make sure that it's the right pin pitch
>> and so on?
>
> There was no ruler tool, but I managed to reset grid spacing to "finest" and
> just calculate using cursor position. I find it really lame that I have to
> pull out a calculator consistently to use Eagle.

Wouldn't it be easier to set the display pitch equal to desired pad pitch and look? Any discrepancy would be very easy to spot.

--
Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2011\01\13@054007 by V G

picon face
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Wouter van Ooijen <KILLspamwouterKILLspamspamvoti.nl> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be easier to set the display pitch equal to desired pad
> pitch and look? Any discrepancy would be very easy to spot.


I tried that, but I didn't feel comfortable doing it. I don't know why

2011\01\13@073202 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
doug metzler wrote:
> There's a cool little function in Eagle that allows you to do this
> easily.
>
> 1) open your library
> 2) go to the Eagle control panel, Libraries - and search all the
> libraries until you find a TSSOP-20 package.
> 3) highlight the package, right click and select "copy to library"

The libraries that come with Eagle are a mess.  There is no consistent set
of rules they followed for making packages and symbols.  With the method
above you get a TSSOP-20 package, but does it have the same dimensions of
what the manufacurer of your part calls a TSSOP-20?  Is there a "wide" or
"narrow" version out there perhaps, and if so, which one did you grab?  Did
they follow your conventions for how far to extend the pads past the
package?  Was the package meant for high volume automated pick and place and
optimized for size, or for manual debugging?  Did whoever make the package
carefully look at the datasheet and take into account the worst case min/max
places where pins could be touching the board?  Even if they did, are these
parameters different for your manufacturer?  Does this package follow your
silkscreen conventions?  What is minimum width did it use?  What about the
tDocu layer or other things you put in your packages, or want not to have
there?

Grabbing anything from Eagle libraries is a bad idea.  Pretend they don't
exist and move along.  By the time you check that someone else's package is
actually what you want with the attributes you want, you could have made
your own exactly how you want it.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\13@075227 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
V G wrote:
> There was no ruler tool, but I managed to reset grid spacing to
> "finest" and just calculate using cursor position.

It would be better to read the manual before whining about the tool.  You
can get Eagle to show you the coordinate of each pad (and lots of other
things) with the INFO command.

> I find it really lame that I have to pull out a
> calculator consistently to use Eagle.

OMG!  I hav 2 us a calculator like for doing engineering like!


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\13@083500 by V G

picon face
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistTakeThisOuTspamembedinc.com>wrote:

> OMG!  I hav 2 us a calculator like for doing engineering like!
>

Real mature, man.

The whole idea of an IDE or CAD tool is to provide an integrated solution
for whatever it is you're designing. If I have to have a calculator beside
me to calculate information that the tool could have easily provided me, I
might as well have used Paint. Seriously

2011\01\13@084014 by V G

picon face
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistspamBeGonespamembedinc.com>wrote:
>
> Grabbing anything from Eagle libraries is a bad idea.  Pretend they don't
> exist and move along.  By the time you check that someone else's package is
> actually what you want with the attributes you want, you could have made
> your own exactly how you want it.


Well I found my footprint, so I'm happy(er).

Anyway, I'm going to try Altium Designer next. I hope it's a little better
than Eagle

2011\01\13@084408 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
V G wrote:
> If I have to have a calculator beside
> me to calculate information that the tool could have easily provided
> me, I might as well have used Paint. Seriously.

So go use Paint and spare us the whining.

2011\01\13@092208 by KPL

picon face
>
> So go use Paint and spare us the whining.
>

I was just watching this from a side, but now I have a question.
Olin, why the heck are you loosing your valuable time with these
threads that seem to be so annoying to you? Just ignore them :)


-- KP

2011\01\13@094113 by N. T.

picon face
V G wrote:
>
> The whole idea of an IDE or CAD tool is to provide an integrated solution
> for whatever it is you're designing. If I have to have a calculator beside
> me to calculate information that the tool could have easily provided me, I
> might as well have used Paint. Seriously.
> --

"Paint" functionality can be reasonably emulated by Javascript in
web-based app. So why not to develop a PCB design web site?

Then you could design a PCB layout right on your mobile phone while,
say, traveling somewhere :-

2011\01\13@094510 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> > Grabbing anything from Eagle libraries is a bad idea.  Pretend they don't
> > exist and move along.  By the time you check that someone else's package is
> > actually what you want with the attributes you want, you could have made
> > your own exactly how you want it.
>
>
> Well I found my footprint, so I'm happy(er).
>
> Anyway, I'm going to try Altium Designer next. I hope it's a little better
> than Eagle.

I doubt that you will find it any better. All these programs have a steep learning curve, where you need to learn the quirks of the particular program, and each program has its own set of seemingly stupid quirks.

Olin has got around a particular set of Eagles quirks with a set of ULPs he has made available to everyone who cares to download them.

I have got used to a heap of quirks in Orcad/PCB Designer through training courses and long term use.

You are going to have to do the same with whatever program you decide to use.

As to measuring the footprint, I am sure there will be some way to do the following in Eagle: -

1. Set the grid to the pad pitch you want to check
2. Locate the grid reference on a particular pad (probably moving the origin there.
3. There will be some way to measure distance from the reference point easily.

I doubt that doing this will be any easier in any other package than it should be in Eagle.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\13@095334 by KPL

picon face
>I have got used to a heap of quirks in Orcad/PCB Designer through training courses and long term use.
>
> You are going to have to do the same with whatever program you decide to use.
>

There is another option.
Learn gEDA/PCB tools, which are open source, and really awkward to use.
But in this case instead of getting used to it, it's possible and even
recommended to make your own patches and additions to that software.

-- KP

2011\01\13@095742 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM, <TakeThisOuTalan.b.pearceEraseMEspamspam_OUTstfc.ac.uk> wrote:

> > Anyway, I'm going to try Altium Designer next. I hope it's a little
> better
> > than Eagle.
>
> I doubt that you will find it any better. All these programs have a steep
> learning curve, where you need to learn the quirks of the particular
> program, and each program has its own set of seemingly stupid quirks.
>

Fully agree. At the very first time Eagle was strange to me too, but after a
while every other CAD was strange and Eagle was easy (simply because that's
what I got used to).

I am pretty sure there are some other software that better in designing fast
buses or RF, maybe even helping on design the PCB for a particular shape
and mechanical requirements, but for a hobbyist and as a general designer it
is not bad at all.

Tama

2011\01\13@105432 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 13/01/2011 14:43, RemoveMEalan.b.pearcespamTakeThisOuTstfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> >  Anyway, I'm going to try Altium Designer next. I hope it's a little better
>> >  than Eagle.
> I doubt that you will find it any better. All these programs have a steep learning curve, where you need to learn the quirks of the particular program, and each program has its own set of seemingly stupid quirks.
>

I half agree here as far as learning curves go, but IMHO Altium is a far better piece of software (for a far higher price though) and does it's best to remove much of the frustration that many seem to experience with Eagle. I would say it *almost* makes Eagle look like an open source package as far as "polish" goes.
However, none of this removes the fact that most of the responsibility lies with the designer to make the best of what he/she has available (roughly a milder, more general version of what Olin said with the "complaining about tools" comment I guess...)
None of the tools design the stuff for you, and even though features like the automatic impedance/signal integrity routing/calculations are very handy and save time, to blindly use them without learning the theory/know how to do it manually etc would be doing yourself a disservice I think, and over reliance on them can make one afraid of "getting their hands dirty" when the need arises (e.g. needing to use a calculator... ;-)  )
All are "only tools" in the end of the day, and though nice to have good ones, knowledge and ideas (and knowledge..) are the really important things I think, and what makes a difference (money/investment aside). You could design the best and most successful product with Paint if you really had to, while someone else made an unprofitable mess with Altium... :-)

2011\01\13@105452 by V G

picon face
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:43 AM, <alan.b.pearceEraseMEspam.....stfc.ac.uk> wrote:

> I doubt that you will find it any better. All these programs have a steep
> learning curve, where you need to learn the quirks of the particular
> program, and each program has its own set of seemingly stupid quirks.
>

I personally don't agree with that. Many times, I've found software that I
have instantly "clicked" with as well as software that baffled me to no end..
Diptrace and Altium is the former. Eagle is the latter.

I think it's to do with how similar the mindset/thought patterns of the
developer and user are. For some software, things are exactly where I expect
to find them, function names are exactly as I expect them to be (so when I
search the help documentation, things are easy to find), workflow
is complimentary to mine, and so on. Other software - everything is
counterintuitive (to me anyway). But then again, there are those who are
opposite to me and "click" with the software I can't work with.

I'm sure I could get accustomed to Eagle if I spent the time. But that's the
thing. I don't want to waste time learning it when there's other software
that's far easier to learn (for me anyway, I can't speak for anyone else).

For some reason, everybody seems to use and provide libraries for Eagle, so
I really wanted to get used to it. But after this experience, I'm never
going to touch it again

2011\01\13@112817 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
V G wrote:
> I don't want to waste time learning it when there's
> other software that's far easier to learn

Then you'll be cursed to use software that is optimized for first
impressions instead of useful depth and lasting utility.

Your choice of course, but please don't whine about it here either way.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\13@115511 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:54:36 -0500, "V G" said:

> I'm sure I could get accustomed to Eagle if I spent the time. But that's
> the
> thing. I don't want to waste time learning it when there's other software
> that's far easier to learn (for me anyway, I can't speak for anyone
> else).
>
> For some reason, everybody seems to use and provide libraries for Eagle,
> so
> I really wanted to get used to it. But after this experience, I'm never
> going to touch it again.

To me, Eagle is like Windows, it's everywhere and you should know how to
marginally use it and have it installed on a machine somewhere in case
you need it.

That way you aren't scared of it, and if there's a cool project on the
web with Eagle files, you can grab it, modify any bits of it to suit,
and use it.

The problem with Eagle is that it wants to be something you use eight
hours a day, every day. So spending a few hundred/thousand hours getting
it the way you like it, making scripts for it, learning all the
workarounds, the limitations of the autorouter, they are minimal since
at some point you will become productive with it. At that point your
schematics may actually not have half the parts with the values printed
at right angles to the page, like I see so much in Eagle-drawn
schematics.

To me, spending an extra $15000 for a program that suits me better was
worth it. But I probably still have Eagle("free beer" edition) installed
on a machine somewhere in case I need it, and I can fumble my way around
in it.

Times have changed, too. Eagle came along at the right time, with the
right price, and marketed smart. So they have some momentum. If they
tried the same thing today, I doubt it would work. Kicad is free, and
good enough.

Cheerful regards,

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                         or over the web

2011\01\13@115926 by doug metzler

picon face
re:

- - - -

> There's a cool little function in Eagle that allows you to do this easily..
>
> 1) open your library
> 2) go to the Eagle control panel, Libraries - and search all the libraries
> until you find a TSSOP-20 package.
> 3) highlight the package, right click and select "copy to library"
>
> I found a TSSOP-20 in the Maxim.lbr
>

Thanks, I did this. But how do I make sure that it's the right pin pitch and
so on?

- - - -

I print it out on the laser printer and do one final check.  Laser printers
are surprisingly accurate.

But Olin may be right - everything I do is hobby-level so I'm not as
concerned about the issues he outlined.

In any event, don't give up on Eagle - once you get used to it and work
through its quirks it's a decent piece of software.

DougM



On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:00 AM, V G <EraseMEx.solarwind.xspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\01\13@121041 by Robert Young

picon face


{Quote hidden}

Wow, just wow.  There is absolutely no reason to be pulling out a calculator for this in Eagle.

You can change the grid units between inches, mil, mic and mm
You can change the grid spacing in decimal steps of the above.
Read about the Grid command.
You can use the Origin command to set a temporary offset origin for measuring.
Read about the Origin command
Read about the use of the Ctrl key (Windows centric, it may be another key under Linux) for snapping things to the current grid.
Read about the use of the other mouse keys such as the right key for rotating a part as you move.
Rob

                                         

2011\01\13@122145 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 13/01/2011 16:29, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> V G wrote:
>> >  I don't want to waste time learning it when there's
>> >  other software that's far easier to learn
> Then you'll be cursed to use software that is optimized for first
> impressions instead of useful depth and lasting utility.
>

Hang on, I'm puzzled as to exactly what you are saying here - if a piece of software makes a good first impression is that a bad thing? Is it a "curse" to take the approach of using software that does?
I understand the need to look a "bit deeper" and give e.g. complex software more than a cursory glance before deciding it's rubbish, and if that is what you meant I agree (i.e. not giving less "optimised for first impression" software a chance), but I think the above could easily confuse.

> Your choice of course, but please don't whine about it here either way.
>

Is whining about (someone) whining okay?   :-)


2011\01\13@143239 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Oli Glaser wrote:
> Hang on, I'm puzzled as to exactly what you are saying here - if a
> piece of software makes a good first impression is that a bad thing?

Not by itself, but if it's a complicated piece of software and it tries to
pretend everything is all-so-easy and you don't have to learn anything, then
yes, that can be bad.  That usually means more effort went into making it
look good than actually being good.  The corrolary is they think you're a
moron and will buy a large complicated piece of software on first impression
rather than careful evaluation.  Unfortunately sometimes they're right, so
they loose sales to well funded morons.

Every company that sells a complex product falls into this, or feels they
are drawn into it, to some extent.  Look at Microchip hyping how a PIC 16
only has 35 (or whatever) instructions, like the number of instructions is
somehow supposed to matter, and that when it does less is actually more.
The only possible way that could matter is the first day someone is writing
PIC code.  After that it becomes either irrelvant or a detriment.  Note that
they stopped hyping that for the 24 bit core where they suddenly decided a
lot of instructions made sense.

And then there's that really ridiculous Visual Device Initializer.  "Calling
all morons.  Just step up here and clickety click your way to a PIC project..
No thought, real engineering, or that silly old fashioned knowing what
you're doing required."


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\13@152915 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 13/01/2011 19:33, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Oli Glaser wrote:
>> Hang on, I'm puzzled as to exactly what you are saying here - if a
>> piece of software makes a good first impression is that a bad thing?
> Not by itself, but if it's a complicated piece of software and it tries to
> pretend everything is all-so-easy and you don't have to learn anything, then
> yes, that can be bad.  That usually means more effort went into making it
> look good than actually being good.  The corrolary is they think you're a
> moron and will buy a large complicated piece of software on first impression
> rather than careful evaluation.  Unfortunately sometimes they're right, so
> they loose sales to well funded morons.

Agreed, I thought this was what you were getting at - I've seen far too much software of this sort, and indeed the fact it's all hype and no substance often only encourages the "less knowledgeable" to buy it.
Occasionally a company gets both "bits" right though, and I think Altium is probably a reasonable example of this.

{Quote hidden}

:-) - not seen it, but I can guess.. (the overused "Visual" term gives a clue - instant project, just add water..)
I pretty much agree with all this too - to put it as plainly as possible, all the hype is easy to get distracted by, and none of these things help much without some knowledge to go with it.

2011\01\13@154526 by N. T.

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> V G wrote:
>> I don't want to waste time learning it when there's
>> other software that's far easier to learn
>
> Then you'll be cursed to use software that is optimized for first
> impressions instead of useful depth and lasting utility.
>
> Your choice of course, but please don't whine about it here either way.


It looks like you have taken the statement out of its context. The context was:


> I think it's to do with how similar the mindset/thought patterns of the
> developer and user are. For some software, things are exactly where I expect
> to find them, function names are exactly as I expect them to be (so when I
> search the help documentation, things are easy to find), workflow
> is complimentary to mine, and so on. Other software - everything is
> counterintuitive (to me anyway). But then again, there are those who are
> opposite to me and "click" with the software I can't work with.

He was not talking about  first impressions. What he was talking about
were "discoverability" of the software product, I think. Complex
evolving product normally never gets 100% discovered by a user. A user
would reveal and learn new features permanently.  The process can or
can not be easy. That depends on many factors.

If a software product is one-off complex pilot project on a very
limited budget, you would normally expect that discoverability of the
features, code comments, documentation etc will be stripped down to
the very minimum set by a customer.

If developers are smart and the budget is good, you would expect that
most of the features would easily be getting discovered and learnt by
a user even without reading the docs.

In my personal experience the best user's comment on discoverability
of the application features was, - "learning to product features was
like playing a computer game"

2011\01\14@042054 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> And then there's that really ridiculous Visual Device Initializer.  "Calling
> all morons.  Just step up here and clickety click your way to a PIC project.
> No thought, real engineering, or that silly old fashioned knowing what
> you're doing required."

Oh no, please don't - stop it everyone ...

The government quango I work for has installed a set of software that has been programmed using some form of Oracle front end proforma forms for all the screens. The result is a horrible mish mash of links where they shouldn't be on the page, weirdly named links to the next screen, things that operate in strange ways, unimplemented 'features' we would do better without, and all sorts of other strange oddities I won't go into here.


-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\14@091236 by Per Linne

flavicon
face

----- Original Message ----- From: "V G" <EraseMEx.solarwind.xspamspamspamBeGonegmail.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Eagle


> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Wouter van Ooijen <wouterSTOPspamspamspam_OUTvoti.nl> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be easier to set the display pitch equal to desired pad
>> pitch and look? Any discrepancy would be very easy to spot.
>
>
> I tried that, but I didn't feel comfortable doing it. I don't know why.
> --
Hi,

Whispering rather low, considering some accusations recently, but here we go:

Take a look at Number One's "Easy PC". Here you'll find a "New Component" Wizard,
if  you want to use that. You just enter the values from the data sheet and your foot print is ready.
The precision is 1/1000 mm.

I have used Easy PC for at least 10+ years and it has not caused me any disastrous problems.
I have not made as many products as Mr. Lathrop, but rather some 50 or so . Most of the
PCB:s I have had manufactured by (very silent) OLIMEX [oops]. Once in the beginning, I
had a remark from Mr. Usinov (Olimex), rather sharp language, but only then.. The fault was
definitely mine and had resulted in a couple of boards that had required a number of cuts
and patches to be useful, if the faults had not been pointed out by Tsvetan..

For the curious ones of you:
http://www.numberone.com/

http://www.olimex.com/pcb/

Have a relaxing weekend,
regards, Per Linné
Sweden

{Stops whispering now}.

2011\01\14@110004 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 14, 2011, at 1:20 AM, spamBeGonealan.b.pearceSTOPspamspamEraseMEstfc.ac.uk wrote:

> some form of Oracle front end proforma forms for all the screens.  
> The result is a horrible mish mash of ... and all sorts of other  
> strange oddities I won't go into here.

Text field entry windows sized 3 lines by 30 characters or thereabouts?

Ah, the Oracle "sample forms."  Or something.

BillW

2011\01\14@111403 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> > some form of Oracle front end proforma forms for all the screens.
> > The result is a horrible mish mash of ... and all sorts of other
> > strange oddities I won't go into here.
>
> Text field entry windows sized 3 lines by 30 characters or thereabouts?
>
> Ah, the Oracle "sample forms."  Or something.
>
> BillW

Could be, it rather reminds me of a program suite I came across a goo few years ago that was supposed to do automated program generation for a small business machine. It had heaps of proforma code into which it plugged factors derived from what you entered on a screen when deciding what the code to be generated was going to do.

The result was a set of input screens and printout layouts that had obviously been derived from a very standard set of code.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\14@112319 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face
> horrible mish mash

I have to say that one of the things I have come to really like about  EAGLE is that it noticeably improves from release to release.  In ways  that the users have asked for.  Oh, not every improvement meets with  universal approval, and there are hiccoughs here and there, and new  bugs to go with the new features (of course.)  But the general trend  is ... pretty good!

BillW

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...