By JohnParker,CTS,CSP - 9/20/2012 9:55:48 PM
In SD AV 2007 I developed a pet peeve for the inconsistency of where the manufacturer name and model number were located under the product. Some products shared the manufacturer and model number name; some had the model number under the manufacturer and some beside (with some separated by a "/" and some without "/"). My preference is beside, one UOM underneath the product drawing (pictorial, rack, or schematic). In SD AV 2007 I would take the time to edit and standardize this to a nomenclature for improved title page sizing, consistency, and overall appearance.
SD7 also has this inconsistency, but there are a few more steps to achieve this whereas I now need to create a UDP and this is more timely than what my company has to spare. The most obvious difference and sometimes challenging labelling is Middle Atlantic. When plotting the rack the name is not directly underneath the product and this increases the overall size of the product affecting title page sizing which affects readability of the fonts within the page.
Additionally, without ability to quickly edit, the overall rack design and all work placement etc appears to be the work of Middle Atlantic (not the designer) due to the large spacing between the rack assembly model number and the manufacturer and model number.
Lastly feedback received from layperson customers confirms it increases a percentage of confusion as it appears that all equipment contained in the rack are part of the Middle Atlantic rack model number. So when they are cross referencing the quotation to the designs created in SD7 the additional panels, fans, and other manufacturer rack accessories are harder to understand. Reducing percentage of confusion in presentations and quote reviews increases percentage of close rates.
Can Stardraw please update all libraries with a nomenclature consistency?
Sincerely,
John
|
By Rob Robinson - 9/27/2012 9:04:41 PM
Hi John,
Thanks for the post and apologies for the delay in this reply.
We are aware that over the years some inconsistency has 'evolved' into the data. I'm sure you can appreciate that with a library of over 57,000 symbols that are manually, not programmatically generated this is not something to be approached lightly and it will consume significant time, thought and resources.
I cannot, alas, comment further at this time other than to say your observations have been noted and we have a plan to rework the data and its specification with the intention of providing significantly enhanced functionality and flexibility.
|
By JohnParker,CTS,CSP - 10/1/2012 4:24:34 AM
Excellent. Thank you Rob. If the middle atlantic rack assemblies could be moved up to just underneath the product that would be a tremendous page set up savings in time; in the interim to the big picture solution.
Cheers
John
|
|