I'd like to see "None" Class (which is an unintuitive) changed to "General."

And also Classes such as "Ceiling-main" changed to "Ceiling-General", or even better, implement this instead (selectable sub-group headings):
http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=67740

I think "None" is okay, but I'd like to see the term "Class" changed to "Category". That would get rid of the socialist overtones.

And I'd like "VectorWorks" changed to "VectorCad", which is more consistent with industry practice.

I'm preparing a long list of other terms I'd like changed. Also a complete guide to the syntax I'd like to see used for all annotations in VW's source code. I'll post them here when I'm finished.

You can implement class name changes using Standard Naming.

Being a rapid socialist I was thinking more about other people buying the software for the first time. Why should they be faced with a Class called 'None' when there's no such thing? The answer is because someone who doesn't have a very good grasp of the English language made the decision at some point and nobody at NNA has ever bothered to change it.

In any case Standard Naming won't deal with the second request I mentioned.

And also Classes such as "Ceiling-main" changed to "Ceiling-General", ---> can be changed using standard naming - that's the whole premise behind standard naming.

My wish is to change the name of all my "mistakes" to "miscalculations"
and all my "miscalculations" to " inconsistencies"
and all my " inconsistencies" to "inadequacies"
and all my " inadequacies" to "improprieties"
and all my "improprieties" to "impulsiveness"
and all my " impulsiveness" to " spontaneity"
and all my "spontaneity" to "serendipity "
and all my "serendipity" to fortuitous mistakes.

here, here! and a pint of guinness

That's a good point. The "None" class should always be displayed at the bottom of the list of classes, and it should be renamed "NoneOfTheAbove". That'll save new users from the ontological nightmare that we all went through.

Perhaps even "default" ;-)
I don't know how many times I've had to explain that Class 'None" does not mean that there is no class.

Then again, if Islandmon can turn a Mistake into Spontaneous Serendipity, perhaps the "None" class should be named "Everything" :-)

"None", to me, doesn't suggest the meaning "no class". It suggests "no distinguishing features". I find it consistent and intuitive, since the other classes are named for the features that distinguish them. There would be other ways to convey that meaning, but "None" is good because it's short.

That's how I perceived it from the start. I didn't really go through an ontological nightmare. When I suggested that we all did so, I was being facetious. The nomenclature changes that I suggested were also tongue-in-cheek. I apologize.

I'd submit that you're simply used to it. Give this software to somebody new (and with a reasonable grip of the English language) and generally they'll tell you it's unintuitive to have an object in a Class called "none class".


3 more characters in "general". I can see VectorWorks falling apart at the seams already!

Some of my suggestions on this forum don't come from my own experience with VW but with teaching others how to use it. People can hold onto the antiquated "none" Class if that makes them comfortable but I think it's to the detriment of VectorWorks if such things remain for the sole reason that the user-base is used to them.


I meant selectable sub-group headings can't be implemented with Standard Naming:
http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=67740

Christiaan, check your messages ... Sean be calling ; )

My vote is to convert the 'None' Class into the 'Null' Class
thereby saving a letter for other better uses.
Then adding a 'Nyet' Class for stuff that is not assigned to 'Null'
therewith using the free letter leftover.

Are you accusing me of lying about it? In the post you quoted, I said that I perceived it that way from the beginning, i.e. from the first time I saw that the default class is called None.

The tip-off may have been in the fact that it's the name of a class, which to me would force it to mean something other than 'no class'. Perhaps it's not that I don't have "a reasonable grip on the English language", but rather that I don't have a predisposition to find anomalies in minutiae.

My perception may also have been affected by my prior experience with AutoCad, whose default class is called '0' (which never suggested to me that there are no objects in the default class). The transition from '0' to 'None' would have fit in nicely with the tendancy I was discovering for VW to use short meaningful names where AC used cryptic acronyms or numbers.

Well said, Jan15, none has made sense to me from the moment I started using classed and it still makes sense.

In the electronic dictionary on my computer the meaning of None = not any.

Therefore None class = not any class. Makes sense to me.

Mike, that's great that you have a dictionary that can tell you what 'none' means. But what about grammar and syntax? 'None' is a pronoun. 'Any' can be a pronoun, as in the definition 'none = not any'. But in the phrase 'not any class' it's an adjective. You can't just plug the one in for the other.

You could say that 'no class' means 'not any class'. But 'none class' doesn't have any inherent meaning in English. Putting two substantives together can only suggest a meaning based on what we know about the two words, as with 'fire truck' or 'fire brick'. In this case it suggests a class that doesn't have any of some unspecified thing, perhaps a thing that other classes do have.

Besides, 'not any class' means boorish or unrefined. It doesn't mean 'not a class'. Does your dictionary say that 'none' = 'not a'?

Of course, you could always rename the 'None' class, and call it 'Not a'. And there's nothing to prevent Christiaan from renaming it 'General' in his prototype file, if he wants to promote Colonel Class to that rank.

[/quote] Why should they be faced with a Class called 'None' when there's no such thing? The answer is because someone who doesn't have a very good grasp of the English language made the decision at some point and nobody at NNA has ever bothered to change it. [/quote]

I always assumed it was named "None" to correspond to AutoCAD's default class "0", therefore it always made perfect sense to me (in spite of the fact that I can't stand AutoCAD). Although I would have no problem with changing it to something else (null makes the most sense). The reason I like VectorWorks is that it ISN'T like AutoCAD. Unfortunately, the trend seems to be towards placating the newer AutoCAD converts, and making VW more and more like it with every release.

What difference does it make what the generic default drawing class is called? It is just a label. If you don't like that particular label don't use it. Create your own generic default drawing class and use that instead, or rename the None Class to something of your choosing and create a Template with it that way.

The following extract from the Online Help indicates that you can rename the None Class if you so wish:
Every new drawing in VectorWorks automatically has two classes: Dimension and None. Any dimensions created are assigned, by default, to the Dimension class (this is a preference setting that can be changed; see Dimension Preferences). Group objects are assigned to the active class. All other objects and symbols are assigned to the None class, which is the default active class. These two classes can be renamed but not deleted.

I find it's more than that. I find it's often something to explain to new users, whereas "general" wouldn't need explaining. Clearly I'm outnumbered though!


As always Mike, you excel at missing my point, which was about default usability, not whether or not you can customise it or not.

If the concern with the class labeled "none" as being such for training purposes specifically, perhaps a different approach is needed here.

Rather than trying to explain every single default setting in the software, it may be more efficient to note the defaults, but emphasize and teach on the ways you can modify this. Standard naming is one of the first features I personally teach someone just getting started. They can simply a layer/class structure without using parent and subclass settings, they can use names familiar to them, and even store it as a preference, so they set it up once and use it time and time again. As their comfort zone expands, standard naming gives way to exploring a more structured approach to drawing organization.

BTW, I sometimes use MISC instead of NONE using Standard Naming.

I don't know of a software who creates default settings, labels, names, etc. that works for all audience members. The important thing to keep in mind is that VectorWorks does provide the flexibility to change most of the settings.

Ouch! Lighten up, Christiaan. Mike's the one who tried to defend your idea of what 'None' means. I kidded him in my rebuttal to that, but I think Mike is probably the most perceptive and considerate contributor to these forums. 'Always excel at missing my point' seems very unfair.

Christiaan - I have had very few users have problems with the None class once it is explained to them.

Classes is a way of organissing and classifying 'the what' in a drawing. The None Class is a class for all those 'whats' which don't have an available or convenient 'what' classification by accident, intent or exception. In most instances Classes should be set to have predetermined graphic attributes which are applied to objects created in that class. The exception is the None Class which should never have predetermined applied graphic attributes. Therefore if you like None equals not any classification and/or not any predetermined applied graphic attributes.

The None class also has the advantage that if a user so wishes they can use only that class and the dimension class in their work and not get into the complexities of organising their work by classes. There are users who prefer to work that way - usually those at the more graphic end of the spectrum, or those who have problems working in a disciplined way.

For me Layers is a more difficult concept to get across to architectural users because for them it should logically be floors of a building (like Archicad has). That convention however would make absolutely no sense to the myriad of non architectural users. Hence the conundrum. A compounding factor is that Layers has a completely different meaning in many other CAD programs more analogous to VW's Classes.

All programs have their conventions - getting used to them is part of the learning curve. There is also no way of keeping everyone happy, but at least VW is flexible enough to allow most people to devise and use a system that suits them, with the ability to make it as simple or as complex as they need.

Let's see...what kind of object is this? Is it a piece of millwork, a foundation, a piece of glass, a dimension?. Actually,it's none of these so I'll put it in the 'None' class. If I find I need more objects like this maybe I'll create a class for them. I'll figure out a name then.

No classification...no problem.

I can understand if people are going to argue that "None" should stay because it's the status quo and they're used to it. I'd argue against this but it's quite a valid argument. What surprises me, however, is that people are arguing that "None" is semantically better than "General". Anyway, I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you all, buy out NAG and order the change from the top down.

Well, Christiaan - it is. Sort of. "None" means, hmm, none, doesn't it? Not classified. Class = null.

I may not be a "rapid socialist", not even a rabid one, and have only a passing interest in the English language and its lamentable deterioration in the mouths of the Colonials, but I do care about semantic constructs and their implied logic in any language.

Notwithstanding, the current naming system imposed upon us & made extremely difficult (in reality, impossible) to change is an absolute pain in the posterior.

If you do that, I don't think I could ever use VectorWorks again, and I'm sure a lot of new users would be discouraged from buying it. It would be impossible to decide whether something should be in the General class or not, whether it really 'involves or is applicable to the whole'. It would be too confusing.

I see.

Well, whatever. It is fascinating to witness a fisticuff about the meaning of simple English words between native English speakers. (Here I'm graciously including Kiwis & "Americans" in the said group, against my better knowledge.)

Hello? Anyone interested in the logical concept that would not be dependent on (more or less poor) linguistic skills? Well, I didn't think so.

What's the problem with "None"?

As I alluded to, the problem I have with 'None' stems mostly from showing others how to use VW rather than my own use.

OK. Acknowledged. Not actually understood, but if "others" have problems with the status quo, obviously status quo is wrong. The user never is.

Nevertheless, "General" does not sound like a solution, vice versa, if you ask me. In my simple mind, "None" means "NIL", "undefined" and any other variation of the same. Works very nicely for me, but I'm starting to see your point.

For once, I'm not taking a stance or try to demonstrate superior logical, pointy-eared, conceptual thinking. If the Vulcan logic does not work - well, then there's something wrong.

Could this, by any chance, be related to the muddled, totally stupid & useless classes of NNA PIOs? Are they the source of this confusion?

Anyway, I sincerely apologize for the previous insulting post.

If you think that is hard try explaining the why's and wherefore's of Autocad's Layer 0. At least None gives you a hint as to what it might be for. How does zero do that?

Having some sort of classification system is essential for a CAD program so you can organise and use what you draw / model effectively. The problem is there are many ways you can cut the cake. How do you determine which is right and which is wrong?

If you need to you can develop a system that suits your needs and context through Standards Naming. All it requires is some time and some diligence - an absolute necessity though is clarity of thought about the structure you want. It is not something to do on a whim based on a half baked concept.

Tsk, tsk. AutoCAD is not The Benchmark. Users are. If users do not grasp the meaning of "None" (= "NIL" = "0"), then, well - Houston, we have a problem.

About 4000 words. About "none".

Much Ado About Nothing, ye Gentlemen of Verona. A none by any other name would smell as sweet.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Who are you, and what have you done with Petri?

Mike,
Maybe it was called that simply because Autocad layers are displayed in alphabetical order? Calling it "0" keeps it at the top forever, since you can't rename it. I remember that some people used to number their AC layers, back when there weren't so many of them. Lots of people used 8-digit numbers as filenames, because they were limited to 8 characters under DOS.

Orso,
You counted the words???

I find myself in agreement with those who consider 'None' an odd choice of nomenclature for something that does have existence, and indeed parity with all the other classes one might create. It's not null in any sense. Not inactive, not unusable, not irrelevant, not invisible, not useless, not empty.

What else could it be named that conveys its presence more clearly?

Default, Misc, Placeholder, Base, Root, General, Indefinite, Undefined, Hotchpotch, StuffWeDontKnowWhatToDoWith?

OK, so the last one might break something…

Joel.

Jan,
In earlier versions of Microstation Layers were only identified by numbers. I have worked with a client's Autocad protocol where the layers were only identified by numbers. Both systems were incredibly user unfriendly and prone to error because of it.

This debate is about the naming of the 'not uniquely classified' Class. You will not get agreement on its name no matter what you call it. I tried to explain to Christiaan and co. the logic behind None (as I see it), and why it has validity, so that they would have a way to explain it to their users. The 'not uniquely classified' problem is not unique to VW - Autocad has its zero layer, Archicad used to have its 'Archicad' layer etc.

Notwithstanding all of that you can in fact call the 'None' Class whatever you like by setting up your own Standard. So if you really have a problem with it being called None there is a way around it. The problem with a unique standard is it has to be maintained, and more importantly if you get new staff you will have to train them so they know how to use that unique standard. That could be expensive, not to mention frustrating for new employees with previous VW experience who will then have to learn a whole new system. It is far better to leave the Standard as it is and deal with it.

The reality is this Class isn't going to change from None just because half a dozen users have a problem with it. They will just have to learn to live with it.

command + A
Safari > Services > TextWrangler > New Window With Selection
command + A
command + I > here you have all words

just randomly removed 300 from the count because of html layout stuff.
I am unable to count.

Well, that's a relief. The thread is incredibly long-winded and inane, as you pointed out, and I was distressed at the thought that someone made it worse by manually counting the words. My browser doesn't have that feature.

But what about that Venetian blind thing? You said you never heard of them in Venice. That makes sense. I noticed that the French called their French fries something else when I was there, and my German friends told me they don't know what we mean by German chocolate cake, and that they have something called American cookies.

But do the Venetians have the thing that we in the U.S. call Venetian blinds? Maybe under a different name? Persian blinds? This photo shows something that looks a bit like Venetian blinds, only they're on the exterior. They'd be more effective there, but wouldn't withstand the climate in much of the U.S.

German chocolate cake is named after Sam German, who developed the chocolate for Baker's Chocolate Company. The original name was German's Chocolate Cake and somehow the 's was dropped. I'm only posting this because if fits this thread in inaneness...