Printed manuals or electronic documentation?
Last week, Matt Lorono, fcsuper of SW Legion wrote me an email. He wanted to talk about the lack of printed documentation from SW Corp. It has been a long time and a lot of people used to get fired up about this topic. I thought it was a great topic for a blog post, so what follows is a greatly expanded version of my email response to Matt. He also wrote a blog post on the topic, which you can read here.
======================================
The way I look at it, there are two sides to the “printed manuals” issue: paper books, and usable information.
I write printed books. I”ve also written classes for SolidProfessor. I”m secretly jealous of organizations like SolidProfessorwho write for electronic format, because they can make changes very quickly, and their distribution is cheap. My printed books take 3 months for the publisher to get together, print, bind, and distribute. Plus, it costs $3 to send one in the US, and 10x that to send to New Zealand. If I find a mistake in the book I can”t make a change for 2 years when the next edition comes out. This feels very old-tech compared to electronic formats.
I”m a bit of a book worm too, so I love a book in my hands, and reading is real enjoyment. I mean, I really enjoy the weight of the paper in my hands, the smell of the book. Sometimes to relieve the eye strain of staring at a computer all day, I read a book. Ok, that”s still eye strain, but its different.
The advancement of cultures used to be based on literacy level. These days, if it doesn”t entertain you automatically, no one is interested. No batteries? No wall plug? No wireless connection? On one hand I really resent the laziness of modern pop culture, but at the same time I”m a part of it. I”m on-line all day, I”m wireless, I”ve got a pocketful of gadgets where ever I go.
Sometimes I just want to go outside, sit under the tree, drink manually squeezed lemonade in a homemade hammock, swat flies and mosquitoes without chemical repellent, and read a real book. Dostoevsky or Mark Twain. Unplugged, off the grid, manual and gritty.
Other times I want info to be searchable, copy/pastable, screen shotable, surrounded by a bug zapping shield.
So yes, I really DO miss the printed manual, because it was something I could refer to and put sticky notes in, and take to the bathroom, and have on my desk for use while the software is up.
Printing a manual means translating it and printing it in 12 languages, and distributing it. And then changing it when the software changes. They already do this to the training manuals, and I know that writing a manual with the translation and distribution in mind (and doing it SW”s way) means that the level of material that you write goes way down.
Even the SW 2007 Bible was only translated into Chinese, and that probably because if we didn”t do it, someone else was going to bootleg it. Anyway, 1/3 of my sales came from the Chinese version, but I only made half per book of what I make on the English version because of the translation.
Further, the SW 2007 Bible isn”t available in electronic format at all because everyone (author and publishers) are afraid of it just being another freeload download. I”m all for openness of information, but I didn”t write that book for free, and I won”t give it away.
I got the chance to work on a SolidWorks official training manual, and see some of what happens behind the scenes. Translation puts huge impediments in the way of writing a complete and informative manual. Ironically, it is the non-print SW help that suffers the most due to this syndrome. The Help documentation is a spectacle of efficiency, and at the same time nearly useless. SW help is very rare on screen shots, and sparse on words. (Translators are paid by the word.) Screen shots of the interface are non-existent because you”d have to take screen shots in software installed in all languages. The Help is pathetic #1 because they tried to cut corners for translation and #2 because it was written by writers, not by people who understand CAD.
Of course why print anything at all if you don”t have content worth printing. The current (sw08) SW help files are not worth printing. Not by a long shot. But, kind of in the spirit of my Is SolidWorks in the mood for granting wishes? post, Jim Wilkinson has committed to better documentation because of some vocal blog visitors. Crappy documentation benefits me, because people have to either buy a book from me for $50 or go take a class for 10x or more. I”m looking forward to the documentation with 2009, because that would be the first opportunity for Jim”s new initiative to show results. Plus, it might leave me time to write about more interesting things than how the sketcher works.
As I see it we”ve got these two issues (writing for translation and writing by writers instead of experts), and we can”t solve the print/electronic issue until we solve the issue of having something fit to print in the first place. You can”t solve the translation issue without charging more for non-English versions of software and documentation. I want to say that again because it”s painfully obvious, and SW often has difficulty with the really obvious stuff:
You can”t solve the translation issue without charging more for non-English versions of software and documentation.
Personally, they have worn me down. I used to be a big proponent of a printed manual, but now I”ll just take the information in whatever format they can deliver it. And now, I might even lean a little the other way, because electronic data is more easily searched, and more quickly updated. On the downside electronic format is too easy to steal, which is a problem for paid books, but not for software manuals. Also, for me, I really dislike reading from a screen for long periods of time.
So there are pros and cons on both sides. I don”t believe we will ever see printed manuals again for software in our lifetimes. The people developing the software are too far divorced from old-tech techniques. The costs of educating users just seem like a waste to them. Notice the only print books SW creates are the ones for the training classes, and even those exist primarily to sell $400-$1500 classes, not for the sale of a single $60 book (aside from Rob Rodriguez”s new Photoworks book).
I want to lean toward publishing new information electronically like SolidProfessor. I must admit, though that I prefer the style of info delivery in a book, a narrative, rather than a video style. I personally don”t think that people absorb much from videos, and that they lack the inate ability to look at it again effortlessly that you get with print. People love what”s easy, but learning isn”t easy. Video lessons look like learning, but I think they have some evolving to do before they really teach much. Video is also no good for reference info.
The Kindle device seems like a good answer, but staring at a screen isn”t on my list of things I want to do more of. Plus, the thing costs $400 plus media.
Anyway, how many more conflicting points of view can one person have? I”m attracted to both electronic and print publishing. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. When it comes to these large impersonal corporations, the cost factor is going to be what wins the day, and that is clearly the electronic side of things. It”s not an entirely bad option, and makes at least some sense business-wise.
How about you?
Geometry Spot (.net) is an online resource that focuses on teaching geometry through interactive tools, tutorials, and visual guides. It’s designed to help students, educators, and anyone interested in geometry to learn and understand geometric concepts more effectively.
CAD wars: I think people tend to develop a mindset from long-use of a tool. They root for the home team.
This blog is SolidWorks-centric I think the exploration of ST is of value, in that you’ll probably see some ST-like capabilities coming into SolidWorks in the future. So, to the extent that you can express what you find interesting and valuable about the technology, it helps SolidWorks’ developers to prioritize their work.
(Hey, if SolidWorks could incorporate ST-like capability into their product instantly, don’t you think they would? It would be a no-brainer, insofar as they didn’t have to otherwise handicap the program. But things aren’t that simple. Developing CAD software is incredibly difficult, and even throwing money at the problem doesn’t make it any easier.)
****
Evan,
I’m not sure if ST can be nibbled off in little bites. Users have been rumbling recently, and I think there is an opportunity for SW to enable a toggle for parametrics so it can be turned on or off while still using direct editing capabilities. Right now the direct editing inside of history is a bizarre thing, and best practice nightmare. Users are identifying situations in which ST is a bit clumsy. I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that it will win over history modeling. It has definitely exposed some major history modeling flaws, though.
The use of Live Rules in Synchronous Technology is very flexable. ST itself is very intuitive but you can change things easily with Live Rules. Also there is no re-engineering needed when changes are made. This is a huge time saver. Let me know if you have any questions; I’ll get you answers.
Adam Charlton
Inside Product Sales
Siemens PLM Software
Yeah, I’d really miss the use of configurations in parts and assemblies. I don’t see how ST can offer that. Linking parts really isn’t the same, since the linked parts could not share the history of part geometry along the way. So an edit would need to be applied to all the linked parts.
CoCreate and Kubotek probably thought their product would also replace the history based ones.
While SE has done very well to combine the two disciplines so far, they have a long way to go before it is truly ready for mainstream production use.
Matt,
I do not in any way want to be the catalyst for any “CAD WARS” as you say, and you’re right, the link to the brochure was gratuitous (my apologies), but I could have posted the comment as an anonymous Alibre user if my only reason for posting was to get some free marketing exposure – so I think I at least deserve some credit for being honest about my identity. Also, aside from the brochure link, I feel that my comments are definitely on topic, reiterating the sentiments of other posters – the points being that it’s hard to predict the future, and most people out there are not saying “I really need to model parts faster,” they’re saying the things that Devon mentioned in his list of things that need to be better/faster.
Greg
I’ve worked in both worlds and I’d say that while the history free looks atractive on the outside you give up a lot of the things I love about a solidworks or pro-e to get there. I’ve been working in CoCreate for the past few months and at first I thought that the whole history free concept sounded great. The problem is you don’t have any real link between models and drawings. You also lose the ability to keep models linked for following a casting through to a final assembly. You need to first change the casting, then you do it all over again in the machined part then you replace it in the assembly. You also lose the autodimension ability. Another gripe I have is when you want to change a fillet/chamfer you have to change each one individually you can’t group them all in one feature and edit them as a whole.
The one good thing I see with it is in the concepting phase you can make concepts very fast. I think in that realm you’ll beat a solidworks/pro-e every time.
****
Some of these comments probably apply to CoCreate specifically, I know you can link multiple fillets in ST. Anyway, thanks for the perspective on direct edit stuff.
Matt,
While I’m not a huge fan of making broad sweeping predictions about the market ten years from now (we can’t even predict the weather ten DAYS from now), Dan Staples clearly believes passionately in Synchronous Technology, and that conviction will certainly serve Siemens PLM well.
But I’m not here to second guess Dan. I wanted to reinforce what Devon said, but from a developer’s perspective. We at Alibre, like any developer worth their salt, are constantly engaging with our customers and prospects to understand what they really care about, and I must say that Devon has boiled it down to pretty much exactly what we’re hearing. Our thinking is that the other 3D CAD developers out there are focused too much on that last 5% of features that very few designers will ever use. Say what you will about Alibre, but we are sticking to our knitting, and the other 3D CAD vendors can ignore us at their peril. With the release last month of Alibre Design V11 (https://www.alibre.com/products/11brochure.pdf), our focus, aside from our port to .NET, was almost exclusively on the items in Devon’s list, and as we start building V12, I don’t see much deviation from that.
If Synchronous Technology is really a better mousetrap, the market will tell us, and Alibre will have to respond in some way. In the meantime, we’ll be sticking to our knitting.
Greg DeMars
VP Marketing
Alibre, Inc.
****
Greg,
I’m really not interested in hosting another round of CAD WARS here on my blog. I like to keep the focus to particular topics. So far I mention Alibre mostly as a low cost alternative, not as any ground-breaking technology. For some people all they need is a low cost alternative. I know your comment here is just to get the Alibre name in front of some real CAD users, and I’m not so keen on being used as an arm of the free marketing department.
More than 12 years ago Johnny Mac (SW) made a similar statement about 2D CAD. Us engineers don’t like to throw away anything 🙂 How many of us still use the old handtools even after buying the compact cordless powertools..right tool for the right job.. be it old or new.
Matt:
I can’t wait to read your review of SEV21 .
I have some limited experience with SEV17 .
I guess you might find out that SEV21 is as good as SW in many aspects. Hopefully you can come out some quick review or comparison soon.
****
Lin,
Actually, I’m probably not going to review regular Solid Edge. I don’t think they even gave me that part of the software to install. I’m really only interested in the ST side of things. After seeing SE, though, it’s easy to see that there is a lot of copying going on. You know those tools that show up in SW that no body asked for and it doesn’t make sense in the software? At least several of those came from SE. The rest from Inventor.
SE is probably a cool product, with its own strengths and weaknesses, but it doesn’t interest me as much as the new ST stuff.
Hi Matt-
We’re all curious to learn all about this, at least I am.
RE:“Ten years from now history based modeling will not exist”.
Well, what do you expect them to say, right? Marketing 101 BS.
I log 40-50 hours per week, year after year. The actual design of the parts and assemblies, at least machined parts, is straight forward to me. I feel like my biggest bottle necks are:
1. Drawings, they take too long.
2. Bill of Materials, they’re difficult to make as needed.
3 Large Assembly Performance, still a problem, in my opinion.
4. Data Management, where’s my stuff?, or is this the correct version?
Devon
Exactly, totally agree Matt.. what I also find interesting is that a well published hard copry/paper manual/book is very hard to duplicate/pirate effectively, but software is pretty easy. If more software companies provided well informed and good quality printed documentation, that in itself, in my opinion, would be a major purchasing incentive. Instead of someone getting the DVDs from a friend and loading it someplace it shouldn’t be. Why don’t software companies realize this? Printed good Reference material is important. Same goes for Microsoft.
-Tim