because it makes the common 'place a resistor', 'place a capacitor' tasks fast and easy
LTSpice is so ubiquitous on here I'm surprised I need to point this out;
For what it's worth, I find it funny that people want a Windows experience and hold up LTSpice as an example .
John
Hmm. Someone who doesn't regard a resistor as a universal component, found in every non-trivial circuit design ever. A [different] symbol for every resistor in stock? I think someone doesn't understand the very essence of a schematic diagram.
I don't want to be bothered with the details of each and every component, just the big picture.
QuoteHmm. Someone who doesn't regard a resistor as a universal component, found in every non-trivial circuit design ever. A [different] symbol for every resistor in stock? I think someone doesn't understand the very essence of a schematic diagram.
Except, go to wikipedia and lookup the article entry for a resistor. You will find there is no universal symbol for a resistor. Instead there are two distinct, and widely accepted symbol representations that are commonly used.
...but somebody else might have their own symbol defined (for example they have symbols for every possible resistor that they have in stock. Fully filled out with order information and a footprint pre assigned. Somebody else might have a set of partially defined resistors in the lib like for example one for a 0805 imperial; 1% tolerance; 75V and one for 0603 imperial; 1% 50V ...
So a choice must be exposed somewhere, otherwise the end-user is unnecessarily constrained. Next you have a decision as to size - should a 5W current sense resistor receive the same visual emphasis in a schematic as a bias/pull-up.
A sane system is, click on resistor tool, slap down a resistor, default to whatever basic graphic is set globally {ANSI, IEC, Man-From-Mars}, worry about the details later.
Quote
A sane system is, click on resistor tool, slap down a resistor, default to whatever basic graphic is set globally {ANSI, IEC, Man-From-Mars}, worry about the details later.
See my other comment, that I believe addresses exactly this point.
Hmm. Someone who doesn't regard a resistor as a universal component, found in every non-trivial circuit design ever. A [different] symbol for every resistor in stock? I think someone doesn't understand the very essence of a schematic diagram. Confounding "symbol" and "complete component specification in the database" is an indication of some very off thinking.
Just to get you thinking. Someone produces a schematic in KiCad. Someone else comes along and says "I need you to convert all the symbols in this schematic into IEC standard ones" (Which by the way is completely realistic. An American would probably use ANSI symbols in first instance, their new European customer might insist on IEC symbols.) How do they do that? Remember, the actual circuit hasn't changed one jot, neither has any component characteristic. All that needs to change is the symbolic representation of the components in visual form.
I despair at any possibility of getting this basic "usability" idea into the collective heads of the KiCad crowd.
Hmm. Someone who doesn't regard a resistor as a universal component, found in every non-trivial circuit design ever. A [different] symbol for every resistor in stock? I think someone doesn't understand the very essence of a schematic diagram. Confounding "symbol" and "complete component specification in the database" is an indication of some very off thinking.
I think this is a view of schematic diagrams from 4 decades ago. Modern professional designs detail component specifications to the dot, that information is transfered to design review, quality control, manufacturing and other departments. You don't waste time placing "resistors", instead immediately open a company library that has previously used parts with all that data immediately attached to the symbol.
QuoteJust to get you thinking. Someone produces a schematic in KiCad. Someone else comes along and says "I need you to convert all the symbols in this schematic into IEC standard ones" (Which by the way is completely realistic. An American would probably use ANSI symbols in first instance, their new European customer might insist on IEC symbols.) How do they do that? Remember, the actual circuit hasn't changed one jot, neither has any component characteristic. All that needs to change is the symbolic representation of the components in visual form.
I would consider it poor engineering practice to make such a radical visual change to a schematic for simple updates. The symbol standard should have been defined at the start of the job. Changing it afterwards comes with the risk of stupid issues that shouldn't exist arising and requiring full requalification of a design.
I despair at any possibility of getting this basic "usability" idea into the collective heads of the KiCad crowd.
Sorry to say that, but you fell into the standard UX pit of: my approach is the right one.
KiCad is not a drawing tool for schematics as you would draw them for a book. Nor is it a tool to draw schematics for simulation, where you do not care if you can order that part. KiCad is there to build pcbs, and its long term goal is professional usage. And thats where database part libraries reside (planned for KiCad v7). Or nowadays, atomic libraries, when you want to have fully specified library symbols in KiCad as required by many business.
Optimizing you usecase makes KiCad behave more like a toy for electronic beginners, but not for people who care about the parts they need to order in the future.
For your use-case: place a resistor once, and duplicate it when you need a second one. Should be fast enough and works for every part, not only the "standard" ones.
I despair at any possibility of getting this basic "usability" idea into the collective heads of the KiCad crowd.
Sorry to say that, but you fell into the standard UX pit of: my approach is the right one.
No I didn't. It's just convenient for you to say that so that you can continue thinking that your approach is the right one. Yes, it's hard to have your baby criticised, especially when someone says that your whole UI is riddled with usability problems and needs a radical overhaul.
QuoteFor your use-case: place a resistor once, and duplicate it when you need a second one. Should be fast enough and works for every part, not only the "standard" ones.
For a start it's not a use-case, it's a UI usability case, inability to tell the two apart is telling; as is dropping into business analyst-ese with phrases like "use case".
Every time, every bloody time, someone says to fanboy contributors of program x "It would be better if the UI did this like that" the fanboys say "Oh, you can do that [the functional equivalent] by <series of moves in existing UI>" thereby completely missing the point. Just because something is functionally possible doesn't mean that it satisfies usability criteria.
I've been a programmer for 45 years, since the bloody punch card era. If I was as resistant to improving usability as you guys seem to be I'd still be insisting that my customers used punch cards. "No, look, you CAN change the customer field. Just pull the 3rd card out of the batch, walk over to the punch/duplicator, hit COPY for the first twenty columns, then type the new customer name, and then keep hitting copy until the end of the card. Then put the card back into the stack. See, no need for fancy mice or screens. Not as easy for you, you say. Well if you want a millennial toy rather then a professional tool I suppose it's alright, but we produce professional tools." Sound familiar?
It starts with the simple problem: what is a Resistor? That thing is inside a library, which is >>OPTIONAL<<.
Anyway, what is a "UI usability case"? Google finds outstanding 4 results where this term is used.
English, work it out. That it's not industry jargon like "use case" or "user story" goes a long way to explaining why there's a lot of shitty software out there. It's quite clear that you're at the "being clever/snarky" stage now, rather than the "even remotely looking like someone who might one day actually listen stage".
I tire of this. There's really no point in me carrying on as it's quite clear that you are just dead set to do it one way and one way only and you really, really, don't care what your 'customers' think or are incapable of comprehending that there is a better way. I'm out.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm marking this topic 'ignore' I really do feel that I'm wasting my time here. I tried...
What good examples of other EDA's
(not LTSPICE)