Solved! Go to Solution.
Solved by GrantsPirate. Go to Solution.
It was removed. I call 2015 the "MACification of AutoCAD".
GrantsPirate
Piping and Mech. Designer
Always save a copy of the drawing before trying anything suggested here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If something I wrote can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, I meant the other one.
Agreed. Beyond stupid is the idea that Autodesk has paid teams of programmers to sabotage a perfectly working product, for what reason???
If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Now it's broken
Reality doesn't conform to our own understanding, or lack thereof. In otherwords even if we can't think of a reason (I can think of at least one) that doesn't preclude their existence or validity.
There's always a "reason" The question is whether the reason would withstand the process of thoughful review. 😉
Guh. Why would they fix something that isn't broken? I have always prefered the text-based buttons for the OSNAPs; For me they're quicker to scan and find what I'm looking for, so I had apprecieated the ability to adjust the GUI to my preferences.
@shanep wrote:
Guh. Why would they fix something that isn't broken? I have always prefered the text-based buttons for the OSNAPs; For me they're quicker to scan and find what I'm looking for, so I had apprecieated the ability to adjust the GUI to my preferences.
I think we ALL did. About the only thing we can do now is complain about it: submit your feedback here.
@dgorsman wrote:
Reality doesn't conform to our own understanding, or lack thereof. In otherwords even if we can't think of a reason (I can think of at least one) that doesn't preclude their existence or validity.
One guess is translation. since the arbitrary icons have no meaning other than what Adesk assigns, there's no need to try and translate to any other language or character set. It's called laziness.
(Note that intelligent laziness can be a good thing -- dumping 7000 years of glyph development in written communications in favor of something less intuitive than a petrogloyph does not constitute 'intelligent' laziness.)