Because I Can Means I Should

Writing headlines is a science all its own. If you read headlines in a news aggregator, you probably notice that many of them are difficult to understand, or mean something other than what you think they mean at first. The shorter the headline, the easier it is to misunderstand it. It’s often journalistic shortcuts that make things so easily misunderstandable in the first place.

“Farmer Bill dies in House”, talking of course about an agricultural bill considered by congress.

“Stolen Painting Found by Tree”. Was the painting near the tree or did the tree find the painting?

“Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim”. Did the squad help the dog or the victim?

And then there are the space-saving conventions of replacing “and” with a comma, and adding the source of the information at the end of the headline using just a comma, like this:

“Lincoln, Douglas to debate, Jefferson”. The intended meaning was that Jefferson was quoted as saying that Lincoln and Douglas would debate one another. This one makes me queasy because so much headline writing looks like this, and the author seemingly doesn’t understand or care that it makes no sense.

Headlines can be written by different people with different goals in mind. Some people are really trying to condense the meaning of the article, as above. Some are just trying to be cute, probably with some double entendre, and others mean to tease, and to waste as much time as possible, which they pass off as “SEO” clickbait.

In this blog, I try to convey meaning. Sometimes I try to play with words, but I never do stuff just for SEO purposes. Until you see the word “Kardashian” in one of my blog titles, you can assume I’m not trying to just attract idle search traffic. Oh, that stuff grates me.

I went into all of that irrelevant writer’s rant because as I look at the title for this blog post, I realize that it would be really easy for it to make no sense at all. Maybe I should have said “Because I CAN” means “I SHOULD”. And then of course I’d have to put it in purple, which used to be the color for sarcasm on this blog, because there were some people who didn’t seem to get that unless I was explicit about it.

By the way, there are all sorts of ways written language could be more expressive, more understandable, and more specific, or accurate. There are so many ways of writing stuff that is misunderstood. Maybe I’ll write sometime with some of these things, like nested parentheses, colors, and quotes. Language academicians frown on so many lingual innovations, we’d all be speaking in King James if they had their way.

</rant>

So. Anyway. Yes. I am eventually going to get around to writing about engineering tools here. I’m going to try some of my ideas about how to write more clearly. Red text will be misconceptions, and blue text is my rebuttal. My main point today is that a lot of people seem to think that just because some sort of function exists, that existence in itself means that you should use that function. Some of you will consider this sacrilegious, but here goes anyway:

Motion

Because you can leave out certain mates to create motion means that you must do this.

No it doesn’t. It’s so much easier to design when things aren’t moving around.

Configurations

Because you can have versions of assemblies means that you must do this.

No it doesn’t. Configurations are the source of much evil in the world such as huge file sizes, and confusion or ignorance about what is controlled.

In-Context

Lots of people think because in-context design method was shown in the sales demo and in the training, that they must use this.

No. Stop. Think for yourself. Read what other people have to say about this.

You hear it frequently enough that that other side of this is that you must delete all in-context references at the end of a project.

Don’t do it. If you created them in the first place, why just throw away all that control? Plus, to really do it, without taking the cheap and easy route of just Breaking all relations (which has no value at all) to avoid another misconception that you must fully define all sketches and parts), you’re going to waste a lot of time and energy with zero (or negative, if truth be told) benefit.

Multi-bodies

Multi-bodies can replace assemblies, and it is easier at first, therefor, multi-bodies must replace assemblies.

No. Geez. This might be easier up front. No planning. But in the long run, you will pay for this and wish you had done things differently. Unless you’re a godless contrarian, in which case you will revel in requiring someone else to rescue you from this terrible program that is not worth anything, and you will do the rest of your career in Sketchup because it is for real makers like yourself.

Virtual parts

Virtual parts exist, therefor they must be used.

No they don’t. Actually, virtual parts are less evil than mindless multi-bodies. I don’t get the aversion to best practice.

Contours

Sketch contours exist, and allow me to be sloppy and follow fewer rules, therefor I must use them.

No. Sketch contours just introduce more ways sketch selections can fail. Do you really need more ways simple things can fail? Why do you hate yourself and your co-workers so much?

Revision in the file name

Because we used revision in the file name in Autocad, it means that it is good, and we should also do it in SW.

There’s an opening in marketing. I think you should apply. I will be a reference for you. Here, I’ve filled out the form for you, all you have to do is sign.

Flex Feature

Flex enables you to bend and stretch and taper parts. This looks like a great way to design.

Don’t do it. Flex makes “looks like” models, not something you want to manufacture or make detail drawings from (unless it’s a “bend by hand” sort of part).

Hack and Whack

Matt Lombard is always telling us what a great method direct edit is, so I’m going to use a lot of Move Face features in my next model.

Maybe marketing is too good for you. I think there is a chair in the HR department that has your name on it.

…………….

I could go on, but you get the idea. Just because you CAN do something – ie, the functionality exists and you know how to use it – doesn’t mean you SHOULD use it. You CAN go slap your boss with a Cod fish. Doesn’t mean you should.

If you’re thinking about a special technique, ask around. See if anybody sprays their half-swallowed coffee in your face. If all else fails, ask me. I might make fun of you terribly, but at least you won’t introduce a deadly error into your company’s product data.