Does Alibre choose more features at the cost of Ease-Of-Use?

[mtflyer]

My great frustration with AD is not a lack of features. It is Alibre's apparent lack of interest in AD's ease of use. The Marketing and Software Departments apparently get rewarded by the number of items that can be check-marked in a feature list as compared to other programs. The Technical Support Department must get rewarded by the number of Support Incidents they can mark as "Closed - Answered". By these benchmarks, both targets are met by adding features that behave in peculiar ways so require more Support Incidents which can are answered by workarounds or illogical reasoning.

My latest Support Incident involved odd behavior of assembly constraints. I have a dolly that rolls on a track. The dolly is constrained to move only along the track. A rod assembly is attached to the dolly which is constrained only to match a hole in the side of the dolly. Theoretically, if the move icon is selected and clicked and held on the rod, dragging it along the direction of the track should move the dolly while dragging it perpendicular to the track should move the rod in or out of the dolly. Well, the rod does not move at all - only the dolly. Here is Tech Support's response:

"The reason you are having trouble moving the rocker and rod is because there are to many ways the part can move, therefore the program does not know which way you are trying to move the rod."... "Answered - Closed."

How many ways are there? It is a non-flexible assembly with the round rod aligned in a hole. So it should only be either able to slide laterally in the hole or rotate in the hole. The hole is in a part that can only move in a single direction - perpendicular to the rod. Since I selected the linear move icon and not the rotate icon, how many possibilities are there?

Alibre's response is not "I can see where that is unexpected behavior. We will see what we can do to improve it." Instead, Tech Support is able to successfully "Answer" and "Close" yet another Support Incident - (wow - I averaged one answer every 2 minutes today!) and the developers don't have to mess with something that isn't fun and challenging like a new feature.

Perhaps this sounds petty and insignificant. But, over the past 15 months of nearly constant use of Alibre Design, each quirky behavior requires hours to investigate, simplify and workaround, all adding up to hundreds of man-hours wasted - no longer petty and insignificant as a whole. I previously used SW 2001 and found it much more straight-forward. It would have been a large savings to spend thousands more on SW and save the lost time in labor. Now the money has been spent.

I am still pulling for Alibre Design - it seems always to be on the verge of being incredible. But because ease-of-use can't be quantified and graphed like support incidents and new features, it may never quite cross that line. Like many other AD fans, I would happily donate time to be much more exhaustive with suggestions and support incidents if the response was more than just "Answered - Closed."

 

[MilesH]

Hi mtflyer,

Sorry to hear that you're having problems with this. Can you upload the file to Binaries, so that we can take a look?

 

[mtflyer]

I am unable to post the exact file because it is proprietary and the patent application not complete. When I did take the time to reduce the assembly complexity for tech support, they just blew it off. Like I mentioned, I am happy to spend the extra time to recreate specific problems with non-confidential examples - but only if it makes a difference.

For this particular problem, there are various workarounds. Tech support's suggestion was to anchor the dolly, then the rod would move. Since the dolly isn't anchored in real life, this doesn't seem particularly helpful. I found that if other constraints were removed that had nothing to do with the part in question or an object removed from the dolly, the rod would move. There again - not particularly useful because it no longer represents the actual assembly.

It seems like many of the posts are about being a contortionist - if I do a handstand while rubbing my belly with my left foot - it will work. Those are great and useful for implementing methods to perform an operation that is not directly supported. I posted such a suggestion in binaries on how to implement a vent louver in a sheet metal part.

It just seems that Alibre would be interested in reducing inconsistencies and quirks in the program instead of being able to stamp "Answered - Closed" with another workaround. I have headed up software projects and know that complaints and criticisms are totally useless - even counterproductive - if the problem cannot be reproduced. But, if someone took the time to provide a specific example - "I did this, followed by that, in a particular order, and this happened." Those were helpful because they could be reproduced exactly by the developers to find where the logic could be improved. But, we did not tell our customers - "sorry you found that problem - don't do it that way anymore."

 

[gregmilliken]

Hi MT,

I apologize for the problems you have experienced, but especially for the fact that we have in any way given you the impression we are not concerned with ease of use or listening to your feedback.

We take customer feedback extremely seriously, so we're already discussing steps to improve upon our processes for receiving, acknowledging and acting on it.

Moreover, ease-of-use, is a key priority for us. It's a challenging one because it can be subjective, and you do often have to balance it with others' demands for new features.

If we haven't always made the right tradeoff, I accept responsibility for that, but please do not take it as an indication of our philosophy towards ease of use or listening to the customer.

I have really been pushing an ease of use initiative as we look ahead, and I am confident we will make good progress. On that note, I am interested in the specific issue you have with assembly constraints and would welcome detailed feedback on it, as well as any other inefficient workarounds you have had to resort to in the past.

Thanks for your willingness to speak up, and of course, for your business. We will work very hard to make sure we honor it.

Regards,
Greg Milliken
Alibre CEO

 

[mtflyer]

I don't even know how to reply!
Greg, Mr. Milliken, The Honorable...

I am honored and delighted for your quick and caring response. One of the reasons I say I am pulling for Alibre and desire to provide useful feedback is because of your continued involvement in the User Groups. It is very meaningful and greatly appreciated.

I realize that ease of use is very subjective - thus the inability to quantify it. There is no delineation between creating new features which eliminate previously numerous steps and addressing the flow and logic of existing features. Either enhances the user experience.

I try to not show my ignorance and burden your tech support with numerous trivial incidents. I encounter many problems using the program including lockups. But, because I cannot repeat them and or am unable to show that it isn't my computer or my "friend" (or perhaps "fiend!") Windows, I see little point in bothering tech support.

It is no reflection on the tremendous accomplishments of your programmers and quality controllers when I have problems. The shear complexity of any modern program makes it impossible to test every interaction within the program, let alone how it interacts with any given computer configuration!

I am chagrinned that I questioned the company philosophy. Please forgive my insolence.

I will keep meticulous and copious notes on the program behaviors that cause me the greatest frustration. I am not sure which method is appropriate: User Forums, e-mail, tech support...

Thanks again for being so actively and passionately involved.

 

[Gaspar]

Hey,

Even if the tone of your post was "hard" (best word I could think of), it was respectful, objective and constructive. You took the time to write two detailed posts and I feel that is the spirit.

There are many of us who have developed a sense of belonging with Alibre and this type of critique is greatly appreciated because it is the type of thing that helps Alibre become a better company overall.

My thanks to you for your post and of course to Greg for his participation. Let's keep things going this way.

 

[jwknecht]

Re:

Hey,

Even if the tone of your post was "hard" (best word I could think of), it was respectful, objective and constructive. You took the time to write two detailed posts and I feel that is the spirit.

There are many of us who have developed a sense of belonging with Alibre and this type of critique is greatly appreciated because it is the type of thing that helps Alibre become a better company overall.

My thanks to you for your post and of course to Greg for his participation. Let's keep things going this way.

Well stated.

I also have critical posts at times, but feel very much a part of the Alibre community. I appreciate well written posts to this forum. If nothing else, your post made me feel less alone with some of the points that you made.

 

[caduser1]

My great frustration with AD is not a lack of features. It is Alibre's apparent lack of interest in AD's ease of use

I have also in the past commented that Alibre's biggest fault is ease of use and I concur totally with mtflyer's opinion.

I have really been pushing an ease of use initiative as we look ahead, and I am confident we will make good progress

This is a great releif to hear and as always it is extremely appreciated. It is quite a statement to Alibre's commitment to their customers when we have this kind of dialog with the CEO.

 

[mtflyer]

Update to original post.

Mr. Milliken is a man of his word: "We take customer feedback extremely seriously, so we're already discussing steps to improve upon our processes for receiving, acknowledging and acting on it"

I continue having difficulties with assembly constraints so submitted another support incident. The response was comparatively delayed due to an obviously thorough, thoughtful and helpful analysis. It included an acknowledgment that the problem was observed, an investigation to its cause, a report to the development team and a workaround in the form of a modified assembly. One could not ask for more!

Thank you Ryan (Alibre Customer Support). Thank you Greg.

Thanks also to Gaspar, jwknecht & caduser1 for your supportive responses making me feel like part of a constructive process instead of a critical heel!

The problems are still there - but my reversal of attitude and responses coincide with those of customer support.

 

[cgriffin]

Actually, "ease of use" can be quantified, statistically. If you give 30 naive people the task you needed to perform, you can time them. Then, after changes are made, you can time 30 more people. If the average time to complete the task hasn't changed significantly, then there was no real improvement. If the time was reduced significantly, then a significant improvement was made.

 

[moyesboy]

30 naive people...
while there are plenty of naive people about in this world, findng a new set of 30 for each new software feature test might be a challenge.
Perhaps microsoft could employ this method, but if they do they do so without success.
Or perhaps they use only this method, rather than testing the changes on those already familiar with there operating system as well. Thus you end up with accessing the same dialogue 20 different routes, having 16 ways to switch the PC off, (one of which is click "start"), and their astounding "vanishing menu items because too many are too confusing" idea that can't be switched off. What is more confusing than not seeing the menu item you know was there last week...oh darn its that extra click on the arrow to drop down the drop down menu!

Hands up those who immediately set up their xp to look more like win2k.
Will this still be possible in Vista I wonder?