One thing that it seems some people have no concept of, or don't care about, is that there is a continuum when regarding available software:
Ease of Use----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Power/Ability
I used to love my old HP48 as well, but it couldn't do half of what my TSC3 or Toughpad FZ-M1 can do. I'm an old TDS man myself. The program was so easy and user-friendly you could teach yourself how to run it on-the-fly.
Most current software offerings are somewhat like a funnel, with the small opening turned upwards - think of it like this...90% of users only need 10-15% of the software's capability. That's why I can look at most plats I see in the courthouse that were recorded in the past 20 years, and they still have the default Carlson fonts, linetypes, colors, symbols, north arrow, legend, etc. There are others, though, that use most, if not all, of the software's ability. It it in this "rest of the program", the widening part of the funnel, where a lot of the polish disappears. I imagine that the people that programmed the software are probably of the mindset that you probably shouldn't be poking around in the Helmert adjustments and seven parameter projections areas of the software if you still need your hand held over how to set fonts. I tend to agree with this line of thinking.
I only point this out because it seems like a lot of software is too harshly judged. For instance, Javad's new Triumph LS actually has a lot of features and abilities that I am interested in. It does not seem to be super user-friendly, though, and as some have pointed out the COGO is lacking overall. I would point out that I don't think Javad's goal is to offer a new blunt instrument that can be rapidly placed in the hands of button-pushers that need their GPS software boiled down to five or six buttons total. It also seems like Leica has largely taken this mindset as well in the past, but with their recent purchase by Hexagon and acquiring/combining of other offerings such as Microsurvey, etc. that they are wanting to wade into the "surveying for the masses" offerings.
I'm not shilling for one brand or another. I use Trimble gear for 90% of what I do, and I love it. One thing I do find aggravating, though, is that while there is A LOT of power built into what TBC and Access can do - it is somewhat more clunky than needed when using the full power of the software because you have to wade through the "polish".
I've also seen the issue where new functionality is added but the usability is dire. That's usually because 1) not enough time was taken on the design and/or 2) a "power" user designed it who knows how to utilize the functionality already. Sometimes, once the functionality is released, the UI or workflows will be redesigned to make it easier to use for everyone.
It can be difficult to balance the UI design between needs-to-be-obvious for a new user versus the advanced functionality / streamlined UI wanted by an experienced user.
I haven't always found that to be the case. My prime example would be the old StarNet: VERY EASY, VERY POWERFUL.
dmyhill, post: 359885, member: 1137 wrote: I haven't always found that to be the case. My prime example would be the old StarNet: VERY EASY, VERY POWERFUL.
Yes, if power means the ability to easily perform work, then there is a power to simplicity for which Star*Net provides a sterling example.
My main problem with the Leica software wasn't that it wasn't "easy enough" it was the nomenclature and counter-intuitive placement of tools under obscure menus. I am talking about smartworx, so I can't really speak about the new stuff. I also hated the collector. Huge clunky brick yet they didn't take advantage of the size and put the smallest keys, screen, and memory inside it. (CS15).
I am a C3D user, and I still find new stuff in that program almost every day. I consider myself pretty well versed in CAD. As for field software I use SurvCE which is easy yet has a lot of power. It does kind of have the qualities you described though. You can do the basic stuff on the surface, but you need to dig deep to get into the real nitty gritty. I think that's the way it should be though.
Dan Patterson, post: 359889, member: 1179 wrote: My main problem with the Leica software wasn't that it wasn't "easy enough" it was the nomenclature and counter-intuitive placement of tools under obscure menus.
The other issue is efficiency, by which I mean the amount of effort that the user has to put into doing work vs. the actual output of work. Intuitive, logical design is inherently more efficient than the opposite.
It's not as if software users have unlimited time to perform work, both in the overhead activity of learning how to run software as well as actually using it to complete tasks. Where there is a limited amount of time to do anything, efficient use of that time is a big deal.
Bricscad comes to mind when power versus ease of use is weighed up.
There's a lot there I'll never use, but equally a lot I'm learning that makes life simpler and simpler.
Menu driven or Shortcuts? As in MicroSurvey too, my work flows via Alias's and Keyboard shortcuts.
In some ways that's the real power of the application, but there's the other aspect where, as mentioned, the software development is seen in light of new features at the expense of a lighter, more robust program. Yet alone fixing the issues that get carried forward from version to version.
This is my biggest complaint against some software. I wouldn't put Bricscad in that box though.
Dan Patterson, post: 359889, member: 1179 wrote: My main problem with the Leica software wasn't that it wasn't "easy enough" it was the nomenclature and counter-intuitive placement of tools under obscure menus. I am talking about smartworx, so I can't really speak about the new stuff. I also hated the collector. Huge clunky brick yet they didn't take advantage of the size and put the smallest keys, screen, and memory inside it. (CS15).
I am a C3D user, and I still find new stuff in that program almost every day. I consider myself pretty well versed in CAD. As for field software I use SurvCE which is easy yet has a lot of power. It does kind of have the qualities you described though. You can do the basic stuff on the surface, but you need to dig deep to get into the real nitty gritty. I think that's the way it should be though.
That's pretty much how I think it should be, too. I didn't do a very good job, but I was mostly commenting that people want some things to be "easy" that by their very nature aren't very "easy".
As for the Star*Net comments: I have heard good things about it for years, but I wouldn't exactly call it "easy" from what I have seen. In TBC any noob can sit down and bang some buttons and get an "adjustment", or at least they think they can.
I have played with Star*Net enough to know that you have to get pretty familiar with the program to even get the raw data in the correct format. We had Carlson and TDS converters that didn't quite do 100% of their job. There was still a lot of editing to be done to get it to work.
I absolutely love Carlson Civil Suite, but I have been impressed with Civil3D enough to want to give it a look. Haven't yet, though. Given my long-time use of Carlson I am planning on giving SurvNet a solid try before I purchase another software (Star*Net). I like a lot of what TBC does, but even after years of careful use I'm still worried about how it treats increasing amount of data. It seems like the more data you add, the more log-jammed the the program gets (unable to compute an adjustment). Even when I have parsed every file for errors and ran separate adjustments showing each individual file is sound.
It's an incredible challenge developing a tool, making sure the tool works for the application and then creating a user interface that offers enough controls for users to improve performance and at the same time, keep it simple enough to allow a novice user the ability to work productively with default settings.
Star Net and the like are purpose built - adjustment survey data. There may from time to time be some new feature to incorporate or addition of a new geoid or something, but the initial objective, the input and desired output have probably remained virtually unchanged since the inception. GUI has been polished up I'm sure, but the goal of the application has not.
Javad set out to build something different wit the LS. I know some tried to convince him to use an existing software to drive the LS. But he was confident he could build something that was better. I'm glad he did. I don't think we'd have things like all-in-the-box photogrammetry with off the shelf software. We probably wouldn't have automatic translation to CORS through DPOS either, or simultaneous base/rover setup.
There are challenges. First, you can't give the LS to a new user and say, "this works a lot like TDS", or Carlson, etc. The interface is completely new. It's not really menu driven, like the early touch screen software. It's more tile driven like a smart phone. Buttons on the screen give information and access to deeper settings or actions. It's slick, but different. The second challenge is cohesion with new features. We're chasing a moving target. There is no final objective, only innovation. Some software sets out with a specific goal and accomplishes the goal, lIke least squares or post processing or accounting software. An occasional polish or tune up is all that's needed. Not so with J-Field. Today we're working out adding post processing. It's like surgery. It's not just a matter of adding post processing, it's also a matter of how the user interface works and how to incorporate the results into the database and make it all look like the software was born that way instead of looking like Frankenstein's monster. Inevitably you have power users asking about how much input they might have with the post processing, and you'll find users that will be intimidated that it's even in the box. Again we have to balance power and simplicity. I'd say Javad leans toward power in most cases. This is tough for consumers who want rtk that works just like their total station. Javad will require more from you than this and he'll give you more in exchange . In the post processing on the LS, he's doggedly pursuing simplicity.
No complaints, but it is a challenge. An immensely rewarding, never dull challenge.
Plumb Bill, post: 359934, member: 226 wrote: I have played with Star*Net enough to know that you have to get pretty familiar with the program to even get the raw data in the correct format. We had Carlson and TDS converters that didn't quite do 100% of their job. There was still a lot of editing to be done to get it to work.
There just aren't that many data types, though, and the formats resemble a normal field book entry.
Most adjustments of conventional observations can be run with just three data types:
C - Entry of whatever fixed coordinates will be assigned to at least one point to constrain the survey
B - Bearing or azimuth of at least one line to fix orientation of the survey (unless more than one point is assigned fixed coordinates)
M - Angle, distances, and/or zenith angle/height difference
The other useful data types:
A - Measured angle
D - Measured distance
Are pretty obvious.
Considering what excellent documentation Star*Net has (or used to have), I'd be surprised if any land surveyor who was familiar with the concept of adjustments in the first place couldn't get up and running in less than a a couple of hours.
Kent McMillan, post: 359973, member: 3 wrote: ...the formats resemble a normal field book entry....
That is probably the key to StarNet's ease of use. When the .dat file looks like a field book you are pretty much there.
My favorite raw data format is the Autodesk .fbk file. It's even more like pencilled field notes. Plus there are free converters out there for many common file types. It would be sweet - and probably no great feat of programming - if StarNet would learn to accept that format. But that would kill Microsurvey's sales of data converters so I don't expect it to happen.
Mark Mayer, post: 359979, member: 424 wrote: That is probably the key to StarNet's ease of use. When the .dat file looks like a field book you are pretty much there.
The other important characteristic is longevity, software that has backwards compatibility so that data from old projects doesn't end up effectively lost. That's part of the power of Star*Net that it has been perfectly backwardly compatible. The editable and readily intelligible ascii format has meant that old data can be easily combined by cut-and-paste into new work, such as adding GPS vectors to an existing conventional survey.
