Menu
Logged-In As
ACCOUNTNot Logged In
Design a prototype CAD GUI layout #9BRL-CAD
Status: ClosedTime to complete:
100 hrs
Mentors: Deepak, Hardeep Singh Rai
BRL-CAD's usability is notoriously complex and ''expert friendly''. MGED and Archer are the main geometry editors, with drastically different user interfaces.
This task involves evaluating the features provided by MGED and Archer, then designing a new GUI layout that encompasses their features while improving usability. Rationale for design decisions and layout should be provided.
References:
- http://brlcad.org/design/gui
Provide one or more mock-up images (png, pdf, psd, html, whatever)
Search for other similar GCI tasks (look at previous years too) to avoid making a similar design. You can use any tools, but your work must be original.
Uploaded Work
File name/URL | File size | Date submitted | |
---|---|---|---|
FinalGui (2).psd | 1.8 MB | December 12 2014 07:11 UTC | |
mged.psd | 1.6 MB | December 26 2014 09:05 UTC | |
mgedmockup.png | 935.5 KB | December 26 2014 09:05 UTC | |
mgedredone.psd | 1.9 MB | December 27 2014 14:20 UTC | |
mgedfinal.psd | 1.8 MB | December 28 2014 07:14 UTC |
I would like to work on this task.
This task has been assigned to JASKIRAT SINGH. You have 100 hours to complete this task, good luck!
The work on this task is ready to be reviewed.
Hi Jaskirat,
Please Go View My Task That I Made For The Same(Or You Might Have Already Been There) And Tell Me Anyone Difference.
Regards,
Aditya.
The work on this task is ready to be reviewed.
One of the mentors has sent this task back for more work. Talk to the mentor(s) assigned to this task to satisfy the requirements needed to complete this task, submit your work again and mark the task as complete once you re-submit your work.
Jaskirat,
I believe this task is a great opportunity to come up with something original and creative. I'm very disappointed to see you uploaded the same design another student came up with.
The claim on this task has been removed, someone else can claim it now.
I would like to work on this task.
This task has been assigned to Marc Tannous. You have 100 hours to complete this task, good luck!
1) Keeping the Archer MGED interfaces floating around the same concept, just like Adobe's Creative suite. Similar interfaces, to inspire a "kit" of applications coming from the same source.
2) Merging the two windows into one. Provides a full screen window instead of two windows that would leave a quarter of the screen as unused space, and was something done in the 90's. Was thinking about the console being a modular component that is attached to the whole frame, but could be dragged out and used as a standalone, like it is right now.
3) Always minimal and sleek. No unnecessary effects, everything that needs to be seen is there, nothing else.
Regards,
Marc
The work on this task is ready to be reviewed.
One of the mentors has sent this task back for more work. Talk to the mentor(s) assigned to this task to satisfy the requirements needed to complete this task, submit your work again and mark the task as complete once you re-submit your work.
I think you other design is considerably superior to this one for a variety of reasons. With a single uncluttered window, the command console now wastes considerable real estate on the right side. If they're merged, having the menu duplicated seems unnecessary too. Lastly, separating the 3d view's status bar info below the command console separates it from the content it reflects.
That said, I do lie the minimalist single window approach. I suggest either trying to address those three issues or take your first point to heart even further. Your first point mentions the CS suite kit approach yet mged and archer are not two different tools. Archer will replace mged (and get renamed to mged) when it gets out of beta testing. With the CS suite, perhaps you can design either a rendering interface (see our rtwizard tool or mged's ray trace control panel for the current state of badness) or a geometry diff interface (for comparing the differences between two geometry files).
If you're inclined to work on more than one of these, let me know so we can get some more tasks added. :)
Added the objects column from Archer, wanted to have this initially included as well but forgot about it. Why? At the moment, every thing you create in mged prompts a name request, and one of the main concerns of modern design is the fact that the user needs to know that the application is doing what he intended to do. There is no feedback that the object he created is indeed, named as he wanted it, he does not know what other objects' names are and this is a good way to use some of the free space. If there is a way, I as a beginner user of mged could not find it, and think it was rather necessary to be incorporated.
There is still some space in the right side of the console, but that is not such a big issue in my opinion, as the interface displays are the tools necessary and is quite neatly divided into work areas, the one that occupies 90% of the screen being the principal one.
The menu is now gone from the command window.
The coordinates and dimensions are now in their right place.
Regards,
Marc
Did not know that Archer is going to become Mged once out of Beta, and considering my past works on Archer's UI ( The splash screen and the interface, done at the beginning of the GCI ) I am very interested in this subject.
Anything that is related to growing Archer design-wise can be added as a task, especially UI-design ones, and I'll make sure to submit work at all of them. I have not taken a lot of design tasks lately as I wanted to focus on the coding part of this contest, and even though I submitted a relatively low amount of tasks there ( about 5-10 I think ) I learned a lot and I've also switched OSs which was quite the jump, as I've always postponed learning to work on Linux.
Also, one more thing I'll specify here that me and Peter also talked about over IRC is that there might be some issues with rt^3's ways of handling tests, which is different that the libbn/libbu/librt ones ( him and I discussed a bit about this yesterday ) and we're not sure as to how to approach them ( the argc/argv way, as in libbn/libbu/librt or the standard rt^3 way, where the "main" function receives a database as parameter and only adds the object to the database if it passes the test ).
Regards,
Marc
The work on this task is ready to be reviewed.
Nice work marc! I would suggest few little improvements. The line-height in objects section needs to be increased a bit and the background color of objects section should be a bit different from commands section. Rest I think is fine :).
Nice work marc! I would suggest few little improvements. The line-height in objects section needs to be increased a bit and the background color of objects section should be a bit different from commands section. Rest I think is fine :).
One of the mentors has sent this task back for more work. Talk to the mentor(s) assigned to this task to satisfy the requirements needed to complete this task, submit your work again and mark the task as complete once you re-submit your work.
The work on this task is ready to be reviewed.
Congratulations, this task has been completed successfully.