No worries. I think we are very much on the same page.

Not trying to play God or spend inordinate amounts of time. When you state "You" I assume you don't mean me personally. I am only trying to ensure that default behavior makes sense for the majority use cases. Default tagging is the best example. Aside from this I agree that the features should be consistent in capability. I can't think of existing examples where like tools have been duplicated.

Thank you all for the confirmation. I agree that the tools should be consistent in behavior as well as consistently available. Here I am just confirming the Architecture requirements as these were implemented for Structure only and this created small quirks such as the span direction being the only way to control the direction. Typically this would be controlled via a parameter or control. The span direction symbol could hook up to this parameter but is not required much like a ceiling tag can control the ceiling height.

This has come up before and is a good idea. 'Edit Sketch' or 'Edit Family' have been suggested as candidates. The Enter Key is another key that goes largely unused.

So it sounds like AE firms need to be able to place the span direction symbol yet placing the plan symbol all the time would be less optimal for the primary Architecture use case which is the better section representation. Glad to hear the desire is to show the deck correctly. I feel this is a tenet of Revit.

Yes its a can of worms but I know these items are valued. I also know they are listed everywhere so I don't really plan to collect a great deal more but instead validate requirements or solicit examples. Often when approaching these there is more to them then first meets the eye. Others are straight forward. RE: The wishlist forums. Some of you may know Trey from the beta forum. He did a great job of correlating all the wish list items from the past years and weighting them against the number of votes they received. It gives a good overview.

RE: hundreds other "little" things. Yes there are hundreds. I'll try to share some information on what I am looking at relevant to this statement. In general there are a lot of requests that fall in the documentation/annotation/detailing category. I'm planning some future posts to confirm requirements and areas of focus. Stay tuned. its my favorite subject.

"15 posts in March, 12 posts in April, 5 posts in May. I would think you would want to change the subject by now." Yes, it’s like stepping into traffic. You've heard a bit from management and I can say the feedback collected through various channels has made their way to the right level. Tom and I will see about moving this blog back toward the original vision - more about internal processes and design within the Factory. It’s understandable the blog has gotten this attention since there are not many other internal Revit blogs . There are other features we can discuss as well as ongoing research and investigations. BTW thanks for all those who sent private messages and screen shots. It all helps.

Again, I am not lawyer, but as I understand it anything that we state will be done and isn't or won't be done and is creates liability. This is the reason why most if not all public companies behave this way and NDAs are used between releases. There have been requests for a futures forum or other avenues. These are good ideas.

Thanks Joel for the thoughtful reply. I like the P&G example. I and other teammates will do all we can and pass on information that is not directly actionable. We want everyone to be excited each release.

I'll try to find the person with this authority. In the meantime I can only share this feedback internally.

I see, yes it is reasonable to think that what we post on is what we are working on but its not always the case. I'll see if I can get a lawyer to blog here and explain what we can discuss or not and why. Essentially, unless it has been released, its hard to talk about specifics without an NDA. This limits us to more general topics or items that are released. I think I can share that evolving the UI, reverting the UI, addressing feature limitations, and implementing new features each carry a cost.

Yes, I am interested in what tools require persistent access. I think I know what they are but am soliciting images and responses to confirm this. My goal is not to defend one solution or the other but gather information that can be used to address issues.

The feedback from this post regarding the QAT is not just to understand how the element works or doesn't but what tools individuals have added to it and how this correlates with other usage research of specific tools. This and all feedback informs future work. I appreciate those that have shared their additions and rationale. Those who advocate reverting to 2009 have been heard along with comments from others. I cannot remark on future direction yet will continue to solicit feedback through this and other mediums. The 2009 UI clearly supported iterative editing and other workflows very well yet as noted could be improved. That UI was also common with Office of the time. As always I read all comments and don't want to discourage participation which has been helpful. Additionally there is a desire to get feedback earlier this cycle once something is ready for evaluation.

We have frequency data though the Customer involvement program yet it can't be interpreted blindly. As mentioned in comments some commands are infrequent compared to others but high frequency to a task. Additionally some commands might have been inflated due to accidental use. I feel arch column is one of these. In an early prototype we had a "Setup" tab that contained Grid, Levels, and Column. This moved these lower frequency tools away from others but kept them organized. In general icon size was determined by frequency within a panel and each panel was given at least one large icon to aid left to right scanning. Later feedback suggests a preference for consistent stacks of smaller icons. Only tablets users have preferred the larger icons. Last note: almost all commands were given icons and text labels. There is strong science to show this aids learning/recognition and has the additional benefit of providing a larger target. This does take up more space but seems to be less controversial. When horizontal space is limited the Ribbon will collapse to remove labels.

Note: The mirror command is a split button and we have a lot of feedback about it. The current undesirable behavior is: 1. Click Mirror Drop down 2. Click “Mirror by line” 3. Cancel “Mirror by line” 4. Reselect the object 5. Click Mirror Drop down 6. Click Mirror by pick The extra clicks are caused by the modify tools being disabled when an editor is active. Addressing this would change the steps as follows. 1. Click Mirror dropdown 2. Click “Mirror by line” 3. Click “Mirror by pick” (now enabled and cancels previous command)

RE: "I must state that the functionality of the ribbon relative to the rotate command should not be your biggest concern at the moment." This is an assumption. Many of us are working very hard at looking at the issues identified to develop a solution. This was mentioned in my comment above. I know I think about it constantly. It will just take a bit of time. What any of us post or even visible features in a release don't always reflect internal efforts but I will try to focus more on these issues soon to get feedback on ideas.

All, Thanks for the answers and responses. It is very helpful to get this kind of response in a short time and I will try to make this a regular event. Some comments: -There is a chance some might have misunderstood parts of this post. The three options I outlined are not new designs but additional existing behavior. If this changes any answers just add another comment. -Re: wishlist items. I wish I could have 100% control over what my projects are but it is the same as it is for many of you. This said I do take feedback and pass it along when appropriate. General feedback on the release is reaching the right people. I also represent Autodesk, and so don't want to discourage these comments, but will re-iterate that feedback around the post is most helpful to the task at hand. -Many of these comments in this post are fantastic in explaining what is useful and why. -Re: Ribbon work. I have a lot of data and feedback on the 2010 ribbon implementation. Since this post is very helpful I will see about posting some ideas to address and confirm those issues. Perhaps we can verify areas of focus and explore possible solutions. Stay tuned. Re: Futures forum. I think this is a great idea and there is internal discussion around this. It is tricky to discuss new work without an NDA but we'll try to work it out. For now we can leverage the blog a bit or AUGI. Thank you all again.