|
 |
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:51:11 +0200, Le Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> wrote:
> That's ok for technical inclined people, not for user-friendliness.
I don't like user-friendliness at some places. While I agree that making tools
user-friendly increases market but at the same time it increases "stupidity"
when it is applied in wrong place - where some level of intelligence is
expected from user and additional tools like declarations and macros are
served.
> But from a user-friendliness aspect, when Joe user (with a degree in
> math, a.k.a not a mathemacaly ignorant) wants to have a poly equation to
> be rendered, he has to carrefully spot the place for all values, and
> simple things like x^6+y^5+z^4-10=0 turn into a nightmare of values.
If HF_Sphere macro can create complicated smooth mesh from pattern why another
macro can't create poly object definition from apropriate input data ?
> As a bad thing is always worth something, I believe iso-surface wouldn't
> have been there so early if poly would have been easier in syntax, and
> their success might have been reduced...
:-)
> P.S.3: You might ask what the relation with your question... my answer
> is 'Think about user-friendliness, dismiss if you want, but think about it'.
I think I think :-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
