Due to people misunderstanding my post, I changed the title.
Guys, stop reading a title and assume “Oh, they are insulting us!!” Take time to read a post and truly understand it. If I were flame baiting you all, then I would have said “Blender sucks, the UI sucks, and it’s a toy because it sucks.” — Which I clearly didn’t. I meant it’s a toy to some people.
@Joseph. Don’t forget that a moderator accepted this thread - I didn’t have 5 posts at the time, so how would I count as flame baiting you or trolling you. Unless you are few of the people who didn’t read the whole thread.
I think one of the things needed here is being careful with describing something as a toy in the context of software.
In many software circles, referring to an app. as a toy means that while it might be fun to make something in it, it’s not something that is viable for commercial projects due to the relative lack of professional-grade tools.
Try to keep in mind that the word “toy” may have different connotations to others than it does with you. To you, the word “toy” can mean simple and available to everyone, but to others, the word “toy” can mean a childish plaything that one should eventually outgrow in favor of more mature things, which some Blender users can potentially see as offensive. When you say something, try to keep in mind how other people may interpret such a statement.
Edit: Damn, Ace beat me to it while I was typing this. :no:
@TheOmnilord,
I’ll give you that. I didn’t think of it that way. Thanks for letting me know.
@Ace,
Yeah, I see why people could have taken it that way.
I am trilingual and in each the term toy in connection with a tool or software is a condecending term and we talk English.
If some use blender to entertain themselves than that is grammatically not the same as calling blender a toy.
just bad use of words.
There are things we call similes and metaphors in the English language.
My issue with Andrew Price’s UI proposal had nothing to do with his ideas and intentions. He did his homework and most of his ideas where on point. But that’s because he had read tons of books on UI/UX design. His knowlage was from the right source. My issue is that when he finally got to the video where he actually showed his mock-up, it looked like it was designed by someone how had only ever used Microsoft Office. And, in fact, I believe that’s actually true. Andrew had admitted (almost proudly) that he had never used 3DSMax or Maya before. In my opinion, someone who designs a UI for 3D software (or any kind of software) needs to take a long hard look at what the other software in that field is doing so you can see what is done right and what is done badly.
Gosh, are already several years that I read similar post, without commenting; people appearing out of nowhere, and they has the truth in her pocket, this sucks! now only missing LazyVirus, with its constructive comments.
You obviously don’t know our mods very well.
To be quite honest I question this. I can read a paper about anthropology design or a book and still not understand the practice.
I rather have the feeling that quotes are inserted to give the argument more weight because own work does not support it.
Over the years I noticed a certain shallowness in some areas such UI or such.
He tried to market it to make it easier so more people use it but what he proposed did 90% not really
address the issue that needs some love.
You dont really need to read much to understand where Blender’s UI hurts.
Teaching it is closely the best way to test the practicality of it.
And I think being a professional working with it even more provides insight.
I find it often interesting that at Autodesk for a software I use they have mechanical engineers working on the QandA and not designers who work with the software to do work, meaning that I often think the engineers, because they dont design, are actually not able to fully understand the workflow and process we use.
Alright… so this discussion has boiled down to a semantics debate and is circling itself.
Closed.