Beyond Labels to User Experience



Bob Cramblitt

Throughout the history of CAD/CAM/CAE, software vendors have shown remarkable resiliency in creating new names for features or methods that differentiate their products. Sometimes these labels truly mark a significant development, such as the first references to parametric modeling. But, more often, they simply are names meant to convey superiority for a vendor’s preferred approach.

Standing on the sidelines during this “namesmanship” are the users, waving their hands and signaling a time-out so they can get the software vendors’ attention for what matters most to them: a better way to do their jobs.

This comes to mind now because of recent use of the term “CAD-embedded” by vendors who are positing CAD-embedded simulation as an intrinsically better way to do CFD (computational fluid dynamics). The idea certainly makes sense: users get to directly simulate use of their model created in their CAD/CAM package, using their familiar CAD/CAM interface.

Still, inquiring minds might be suspicious about an approach that’s considered better than the others based on its user interface. Joe Walsh certainly is.

Walsh’s company, Simmetrix, Inc. (Clifton Park, NY; simmetrix.com), develops toolkits for interfacing CAD with computer-aided engineering applications. Simmetrix supports all approaches: CAD-embedded, stand-alone, and CAD-driven, or what Walsh calls virtually embedded — when a tightly integrated CAE system directly accesses the CAD model at the kernel level.

 

“They all have their advantages and disadvantages,” says Walsh. “It comes down to what the software vendors and their end-users are trying to do, and traditional factors of value, ease of use, performance, flexibility, and time-to-market.”

Beyond the surface appeal of CAD-embedded simulation are some caution flags. Will the CAE software vendor be able to keep up with revisions of CAD software in which its program is embedded, especially if the vendor is supporting three or four different programs? Will the effort to remain current with new revisions thwart feature innovation? Is the CAD interface the best way to access and interact with CAE functionality? Does one size fit all?

Before we anoint CAD-embedded simulation as the superior approach, we need to consider these things, as well as the fact that one interface does not always fit all. While there are good examples of greater productivity and ease-of-use under a common interface, there are other examples where separate, well-integrated programs do the trick.

Internet browsers and search engines, for example, have their own interfaces designed to provide the best user experience for their specific tasks. The Apple iPod, perhaps the most-heralded consumer product for ease of use, does not rely on the excellent Mac OS but provides a way for anyone on any type of operating system to access, play, and manage music easily and intuitively.

There are also many examples where a common interface has been a distinct disadvantage. At one time or another we’ve all probably had a bad experience with a “combo” product that bundled together different functions into a single package. Invariably, at least one of the functions in the package didn’t work well, or didn’t provide the quality of experience delivered by the best products dedicated solely to that particular function. There’s a reason many of us have three or four remotes; a cell phone and a PDA; individual TV and DVD player; and a game console and PC. It’s all about the experience.

Slogans such as “soft Corinthian leather” do not sell cars. They might get you in the show room, but if the experience of test-driving the car isn’t a great one, there’s no sale. The same applies to CAE software.

There’s no doubt that close association and integration between CAD and CAE is a good thing, but there’s more than one way to achieve that. Pushing aside the rhetoric, designers and engineers delving into CAE should make their decisions based on a total package that best fits into their workflow, does not require a great learning curve, improves their productivity, achieves consistent results, and grows in pace with their needs.
Anything less is a compromise.

---

Bob Cramblitt is principal of Cramblitt & Company (cramco.com), a technology communications company. He has more than 20 years of experience in CAD/CAM/CAE as an editor, writer and communications specialist. He’s seen some jargon in his time, and occasionally has used it shamelessly.  Send your feedback about this article through e-mail here.