I've been getting emails from Autodesk about post that don't have an accepted solution. I also see a lot of people who include a "Please accept as solution line" in their signature.
I'm a little stingy with doing this. I understand that it will help people who have similar problems. I do Accept as Solution" anything that is a solution. However I differentiate between a "Solution" and a "Workaround". A solution (to me) is where there is a function or action in the program that I'm unaware of and someone has provided me with that knowledge. A workaround is where I can't get where I want to be by going in a straight line so someone give me alternate directions.
An example of a workaround is in my post Featureline by Point Object (accept elevation) . A Solution would have been an variable or check box that eliminated the request for accepting the elevation when selecting a Point Object. The Workarounds of inserting the points at elevation and drawing through the nodes or of creating a surface from the points, drawing 2d polylines then converting them to featurelines at the surface elevation are good Workarounds. But not Solutions (in my view).
Maybe there should be an "Accept as Workaround" option should be added. I don't want to give the opinion, especially to Autodesk, that workaround are solutions. The fact that someone posted about the same issue 2 days later show that there needs to be a change in the program.
Hope if you got this far I haven't bored you too much. I just thought I needed to say this.
Solved! Go to Solution.
Hope if you got this far I haven't bored you too much.
Well, I really felt asleep, Lady...
In my opinion, workarounds "are" solutions, whereas "a function or action in the program that I'm unaware of and someone has provided me with that knowledge" is simply a program feature, which you didn't know, period.
Have a nice weekend !
Both are solutions but in different ways in that a problem that the user was having has been solved.
The workaround (as Allen said) is likely to involve several steps as the inherent functionality isn't there (e.g. try right clicking a Civil 3D table to extract to Excel as is possible with a regular table) whereas not knowing about a program feature is a user training issue (e.g. how many C3D users can say they are competent in all aspects of Map?? - I know that you areantoniovinci as you have given me solutions in the past !!)
I know I'm skating a fine line. That's one of the reasons I posted. It was more the emails from Autodesk that prompted this. As I said, I don't want to give them the idea that workarounds are solutions. If you have to develop a workaround for a situation, especially if many people encounter that situation, there is something missing from the program that would benefit the users.
I agree - I had about 20 emails this morning (never had any before though) requesting closure but I left some as unsolved because a workaround should be addressed as such and a programmatical solution provided.
I don't imagine Autodesk will be keen to spend time and effort in making things easier for the end user by giving us what we want - case in point is the horrendous mish mash of applying solid fills to legends in MAP which is several steps backwards from the 2011 version (may have been addressed in SP1 - haven't checked)
I agree as well. There should be three different categories, Accept as (either a) Solution, Workaround or Known Issue. The Known Issues should all be routed to the Autodesk programmers and addressed! The Workarounds too, as it is something that the users need to help their workflow.
The last discussion I added my 2 cents to has an accepted solution which really isn't a solution, but an acknowledgement that there is a flaw in the core of AutoCAD. While it is beneficial for someone to know that they aren't doing something wrong in their drawing, Autodesk still needs to address the issue.
The question is, which of these answers will be your acceptable solution?
Autodesk are too busy hitching a ride on the 3D BIM/virtual reality bandwagon to bother with sorting out core Civil 3D functionality.
Lets see how long it takes to fix the DRIVE command that was broken in the recent SP1 update to 2012
>> There should be three different categories, Accept as (either a) Solution, Workaround or Known Issue
- alfred -