It Has Begun (SW Community)

SolidWorks has started their effort to provide users with access to the SolidWorks online community via the SolidWorks website.  It is under the heading Communities.   This new area is apart of the revamping of the SolidWorks website in to a more organized set up.  When you open the Communities area, you’ll see a slick yet simple 3D rotation menu that allows you to go to six separate SolidWorks related communities. 

The first area is to the Engineers & Designers community.  Here, you will find links to the SolidWorks Discussion Forum, the friendly and familar SWUGN, SolidWorks User Blogs (such as yours truly), and the always useful SolidWorks Express Newsletter.

The second area is a connection to Manufacturers & Suppliers, were you’ll find links to SupplierSource.com (a valuable resource in its own right), 3D ContentCentral, and the listing of SolidWorks Partners.

The third area takes you to information about the Certified SolidWorks Professional program, including basic information about the CSWP tests and how to get certified.

The fourth area is for Educators and Students, with links to vital websites that support each.  This area has an extensive number of links, so even if you are not currently going to school or teaching, I would encourage a looksee.

The fifth area on the list is to SolidWorks itself, called “Connect with SolidWorks“, which has links to Enhancement Requests, Early-visibility Program, and Beta Testing. 

The final community area is Events, which has information about SolidWorks World, User Group meeting dates, Industry and online events such as SolidWorks regular teleconferences and on-demand webinars.

This new Communities area seems like a good and modest first step in attempting to bring together all of the diverse SolidWorks resources that are available online.  The list of links is comprehensive and fairly well organized (for the most part).  If this area gets enough notice, it may open the door to more people discovering our SolidWorks online community. 

SolidWorks online community efforts are on par

Our SolidWorks online community currently seems to be based largely on individual contributor efforts.  Discussions regarding SolidWorks are scattered all over the internet in a multitude of forums, a growing number of blogs (though that number does seem to be stabilizing this year), and online resource sites.  In the past, these websites were far and few between.  Nowadays, they are fairly well interlinked.  It is this interlinking that really has started creating the sense of community.  A lot of the interlinking of websites comes from the 2006-2007 explosion of SolidWorks related blogs, and through the efforts of SolidWorks (namely Richard Doyle) to provide new resources to its user base.  In a way, Richard has been pulling double duty, by being the man behind the curtain for both the user group community and the online community.  These are intertwined, but they are different.

SolidWorks is now giving more attention to the online community.  One of the earliest attempts was the revamping of 3D ContentCentral, with (in my opinion) marginal success.  A new and recent endeavor (this year) attempted to take advantage of “organic marketing” (or whatever it is currently called).  This was the whole Smart Button affair.  This new push was even alluded to at SolidWorks World 2008.  Of course, like most planned organic marketing campaigns, this project didn’t seem to go very far. 

Now, SolidWorks is researching how best to proceed.  I’ve seen some enthusiastic inquiry by SolidWorks staff.  Some of my suggestions and ideas have been previously mentioned on SolidWorks Legion to aid their effort.  Perhaps I should be working for SolidWorks? :)  Though some of my comments have warnings or cynical, I am grateful to SolidWorks Corp for supporting the natural organic growth that is going on.  Maybe they can tap into it more effectively eventually.

That all said, there is one place where SolidWorks appears to have some level of success in the online community.  This is in their forums.  There aren’t thousands of people logged on at one time (and if there was, I imagine it would be chaos), but there is a large number of active users.  Discussions include the frequent how-to question and answers.  There are the occasional rants and raves.  Requests for software improvement are frequent.  And, included are tips and tricks.  Though the forums are moderated, it is not done so with a heavy hand.

Perhaps the forums can be used as an example for SolidWorks on how they can tap into the online community more effectively.  Simply, provide a useful and engaging resource that will compel individuals to participate (or at least frequently lurk).  This seems fundamental, but it is something that escapes so many corporations.  So far, SolidWorks is running par for the course.  With some luck, maybe they can strike on an idea for the online community that takes off.

Is it a Bolt or a Screw? (Nut jobs welcome)

The term bolt in plain English has many definitions as applied to the Engineering Principle.  It can be the movable rod that slides into a socket to fasten a door.  It is the portion of a lock that moves from and back to the case.  It can be fastening rods, pins or screws, usually threaded to receive a nut.1  Other mechanical items also carry this name, but the examples here are likely the most common.  The common factor between each of these definitions is that there is an object (often rod-like) that is inserted into something else, often for the purpose of some sort of fastening.  Given this broad definition, the question might be asked, when is a bolt called a screw?  Not so fast!

Much like bolt, screw has many definitions in plain English.  As applied to the Engineering Principle, a screw can be a fastener with a tapered shank and helical thread.  It is also a threaded cylindrical rod that engages a threaded hole, and used to fasten in some fashion.2  (Of course, there’s the famous Archimedes’ screw, which fastens nothing, but sure moves a lot of water uphill.)  From the plain English definitions, one might say that ultimately all screws are bolts except for one strange caveat.  Bolt, as a fastening rod, is made to receive a nut.  From the definition for screw, it appears that screws are made to be driven into a threaded hole.  But doesn’t a nut usually have a threaded hole?  So where is the distinction?

As strange as it may seem, the distinction may simply be where the threaded fastener is torqued.  It might be said a screw is normally torqued via its head, and a bolt is normally torqued via the applied nut.  In this case, the decision whether to call the threaded fastener a bolt or a screw is based on how the fastener will normally be applied.  This is the logical conclusion if one takes the plain English definitions at face value, and willfully ignores the fact that a having a nut does not magically turn a screw into a bolt, and not having a nut does not magically turn a bolt into a screw.

So, this leads into researching the topic further, having to go back to traditional applications within the Engineering Principle for these terms.  The following is oft quoted:

Bolts are defined as headed fasteners having external threads that meet an exacting, uniform bolt thread specification (such as M, MJ, UN, UNR, and UNJ) such that they can accept a nontapered nut.  Screws are defined as headed, externally-threaded fasteners that do not meet the above definition of bolts.

I will state that I’ve seen this quoted several times, but cannot find an attributable source.  That aside, traditionally a bolt meets a particular uniform specification so that it can receive a nontapered standard nut.  Screws are everything else (such as tapered screws that form their own thread during initial insertion).  This would suggest that the terms bolt and screw are not interchangeable.  In fact, one is not a subset of the other.  It would also suggest that there is a major misuse of the term screw since almost everything labelled as a screw is really a bolt, according the above definition. 

Looking for some formal definition might be of help here.  Believe it or not, the U.S. Government has made an attempt at such in a document called What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About: Distinguishing Bolts from Screws.3  This document references ASME B18.2.1 1981 and Fastener Standards, 6th Edition as sources.  I do not believe either of these standards are current, even though this government document is dated January 2008.  The document authoritatively (note the sarcasm) goes on to define bolt and screw as if these standards provide a clear guidance regarding the matter of definitions.

Bolt – A bolt is an externally threaded fastener designed for insertion through the holes in assembled parts, and is normally intended to be tightened or released by torquing a nut.

Screw – A screw is an externally threaded fastener capable of being inserted into holes in assembled parts, of mating with a preformed internal thread or forming its own thread, and of being tightened or released by torquing the head.

You know what, those definitions do not seem all that unreasonable.  Of course, the U.S. Government, being what it is, needs a 21 page document to make these two statements.  (It makes comments on everything from the Internet to a plead for small businesses to rate agency responsiveness to small business needs.) 

However, English is one of those funny languages where definition of words is not by decree, but rather by use.  (I say this sarcastically since almost every language, except for a few like French and perhaps German, works in this way.  Ironically, to the best of my limited knowledge about them, neither French nor German have separate words for bolt and screw, in this context.)  How do many people use these terms?  This is not a democracy.  The majority has a say in this, but not exclusively.  Definitions are added simply by many people using a word in a particular way (majority or not).  So, the question points back to each of us.  How have you used these terms?  Is there a distinction, or are these synonyms?

In practice, when applied to threaded fasteners, my use of these terms may be simply this; a bolt is fastened with the use of a generic wrench; a screw is fastened with the use of some sort of dedicated driver, such as screw driver, hex head driver, Torx Plus driver, or torque driver.  Ironically, even these basic definitions also have many exceptions, so even these are not universal.  They certainly contradict the traditional definitions.  They also do not provide any mechanically significant functional distinction.  So, even though they may be commonly used, they do not provide any usefulness when classifying a threaded fastener.

As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on this issue.  Whether a person calls a particular threaded fastener by the term bolt or screw seems to be fairly arbitrary these days.  It is based more on personal preference, rather than any formal definition.

Drawing Revisions and PDMWorks (Part 2: Automatic Revisions)

With PDMWorks, it is possible to automatically revise a drawing’s title block and revision block upon check in.  Three things are necessary to use this functionality.  First, the drawing template will need to employ a SolidWorks Revision Table.  If someone is not familiar with how to set up revision tables, please see my previous article: Settings Up and Using SolidWorks Revision Tables faster. Second, the drawing template’s title block will need an annotation note that is linked to the custom property “Revision”.  If someone is not familiar with how to link annotation notes to custom properties, please see my previous articles about this subject:Introduction to SolidWorks Custom Properties.  Third activate the revision automation feature within the PDMWork’s VaultAdmin tool.  Of course, this will require Vault Administrator access to the VaultAdmin. The setting is found under the Revision Table tab in the General section, called “Enable Revision Table”.

Once these three items are set up, drawings will automatically revise upon check in, with updated revision and title blocks.  Control over what appears in the added revision row is within the check-in screen itself when the drawing is checked in.  Further controls can be set up to limit or automate the value for revisions so that no mistakes can be made regarding the revision level of the check-in.  Within the VaultAdmin, there is even the ability to control the number of revisions visible on a drawing.  Utilizing this set up can save substantial time and eliminate potential check-in revision identification errors.

Drawing Revisions and PDMWorks (Part 1: Letter Revision Identifiers)

Whether using actual drawings or relying on the model, and whether using a highly controlled documentation system or nearly completely uncontrolled, one will find revisions are necessary.   It is important to use them consistently.  It is important to make sure each time another person sees a drawing or model, they understand which revision is in front of them.  It is important not to reuse revisions. If there is a working copy that is incomplete, preliminary or draft, then stating such directly on the document is very important.

Also important is avoiding interpretation confusion.  If using letters to represent revision iterations, avoid using letters that resemble numbers or that can have alternative meanings.  ASME Y14.35M-1997 states that I, O, Q, S, X and Z should not be used as revision letters.  In fact, other ASME engineering drawing standards also forbid the use of these letters for other purposes as well.  The reason is that I, O, Q, S, and Z all can be misinterpreted as numbers 1, 0, 5 and 2.  When X is used, it looks like a field that requires further input.

These rules where written before the Information Age (wiki) and our reliance on computer databases, back when documentation relied on handwriting.  However, these rules are just as important in our current age as they have ever been before.  Many different types of computer fonts exist.  What looks like a 1 in one font will look like an I in another.  Even with my 20/20 vision, I will confuse S’s with 5’s in small sizes in certain common fonts.  Also, transcription errors still enter the picture, as a human who does not have direct access to the electronic database is usually involved at some point.

PDMWorks (soon to be renamed to SolidWorks Workgroup PDM by SolidWorks Corp) automatically assigns revisions to documents when they are checked-in.  There are options for the PDMWorks Administrator to use dumb ranges, or to establish a list of revision identifiers from which to pull.  Unfortunately, when using letters, PDMWorks does not automatically disregard the taboo letters.  So, I’ve made an Excel file with a list of allowed revision letters.  It can be copy-and-pasted directly into PDMWorks VaultAdmin’s Revision Scheme Listing fields.  It is available here: Allowed Revision List.

Part 2 of this article series will address using PDMWorks ability to automatically revise drawings upon check-in.

United SolidWorks of Contributors

Future SW Online Community 

With two recent surveys (1) (2) regarding the future of the online SolidWorks community as conceived by the SolidWorks Corp, it is becoming apparent that some plan is in the works for a new vision of this online community.  How is that vision shaping up for far?  SolidWorks’ Matthew West’s recent words seem to point to having “a  central repository on solidworks.com” where tips, tricks, hacks, tutorials, instructions, etc can be collected.  To me, this suggests an educational focus.  Mr. West continues, “I think it would be great for casual users and people who aren’t into the whole blog thing to have one place where they could find information generated by other users, and maybe even sign up for your RSS feeds.” 

Are SW Users Ready?

One problem right now, as I see it, is that there are hundreds of thousands of SolidWorks users, but only a small fraction of these seek out further SolidWorks information online.   For example, the SolidWorks Forum recently hit 50,000 users.  This was a celebrated number, but is a small fraction of the total number of SolidWorks users.  Even further fractioned is the number of those who actually actively browse the forums frequently.  And of those, how many actually participate in forum discussions?

No one should expect everyone to be online every week looking around through SolidWorks resources.  However, I think these numbers indicate that many people may not even know these resources exist; or that they have not realized the depth and value of such resources yet.  

Support from SW Corp

If SolidWorks Corp puts a concerted effort into promoting its new online community, it may have a higher level of success.  However, they already have one case study that demonstrated the difficulty of this task: 3D ContentCentral.  Even with a link built right into the SolidWorks software, I suspect the user contributed area of this site gets very little activity when compared to the total number of users.  This may be due in part to how the site is organized.  It is definitely better than before, but still lacks the intuitiveness required for content managers that house a large quantity of items.  But, this may not be the point.

Types of SW Users

So what’s really going on?  It almost seems that it is the experienced (power) users who come online seeking out resources.  These are people who may have a consulting business or they are their company’s SW guru (or future guru).   These are the people for who it is important to expand their skill set.  Should SolidWorks Corp online efforts focus on the average user, or should they focus on the power user?  I think they can support both.  They may have to do this with separate efforts.

A central repository of user provided content would best serve the power user.   SolidWorks Corp should invest in this.  It can be wiki-like.  Or, perhaps it can be more like an aggregator, similar to SolidMentor.  It would have to be organized, maybe like CADdigest.  Opposing views should be represented without prejudice.  I’m not talking about commentary (though that is important too).  I’m talking about opposing views in terms of methodology.  For example, some people prefer one particular methodology, while other methodologies that accomplish the same task are also available (and may be better for many scenarios).  If a wiki-environment is employed, debates regarding such will definitely unfold, as they do on Wikipedia.org.  Again, this would be for power uses.  I think the biggest obstacle is determining how to make such a site for the average user.   To do this, information will have to be easy to find.

Ease of Use

How does one set up content driven site that makes finding particular topics easy?  This is question I’ve asked myself about my own blog.  I see people come to this blog and look around.  I see the searches they do.  I am often frustrated at just how many searches are unsuccessful when I know I have articles that covered the searched keywords.  This is because searches are imperfect.  The results are often too exact.

Alphabetical listing by topics wouldn’t work.  For example, How-to articles are often far to complex to make such a system useful, as they often cover topics involving multiple concepts or concepts that cannot be reduced down to a simple noun phrase.  My experience with How-to books (home repair, etc.) is that they are more for casual reading to get ideas rather than actually being a go-to reference (such as encyclopedias).

The online community site would have to be heavily cross-referenced, whether it encyclopediatic (Wikipedia.org, SolidMentor), aggregational (Pulse, SolidMentor), or listy (CADdigest).  Most of the research in setting up such a site should be in the area human systems analyst to find out how people most intuitively use content managers.  If the content is user driven, the content itself be the least of SolidWorks Corp worries.

Depersonalization and Individual Ownership

So, this does bring me to a point recently brought up by Matt Lombard:  Depersonalization.  I look at this with two points in mind.  First, there shouldn’t be an effort to remove personality or individuality.  The singluar voice still has to be heard in order for a united site to work.  Second, how does one set up such a site without stepping all over copyright?  It seems to me that SolidWorks Corp may be forgetting they would have to respect the individual’s copyright over the material they produce. 

Do I want my whole articles published on some other site?  Maybe, as long as I received some benefit from it.  Each person requires something different.  I doubt there is a single method that will fulfill the requirements of any majority of individual contributors.   This cannot be like Wikipedia.org where all content is non-copyrighted.  This is because the content provided by the individual for the Solidworks community is Original Research, unique to that individual.  Wikipedia.org does not allow Original Research at all.  A united SolidWorks community sie would have nothing but copyrighted Original Research.  SolidWorks Corp will have to recognize this and work within the guidelines established by each contributor, just as they expect their user to follow legal requirements in the use of the SolidWorks application.  SolidWorks Corp cannot dictate to us on how the rules will be set for such a site.  They will have to find a consensus upon the contributors, somehow.  This is why I previously stated such a site is a risk to SolidWorks Corp.  How would they handle content if they do not own that content?  Also, how do they prevent bias from interferring with the content that is provided?

Where to Start

Maybe to start, SolidWorks Corp can set up a simple RSS feed page that links to the major SolidWorks blogs.  It should still be easy to use and in a format that can be easily referenced and provided to non-power users.  These qualities will allow a dynamic area that will benefit the power user and also provide value to others.

Other Solutions Needed As Well

Something that may be just as effective for the average user is an effort to work on the improvement of the documentation provided by SolidWorks Corp for its software.  Why must a user come online in order to find a tutorial and how-to guide for basic functions?  The information provided on some of the technical blogs should already be apart of the manual provided by SolidWorks Corp for its SolidWorks software. 

Discussion to Continue

So, that’s my thoughts about this at this moment.  I welcome other ideas, points and counterpoints.   If ideas come up that have merit, I will likely adjust my own input about this matter.  I’ve set this article as second in a series of article that will likely continue, called “Future SW Community”.  Let see where this discussion leads.

P.S.

One additional point on a sidenote:  We need printed manuals!  At the very least, I feel there needs to be printed CAD Administrators manual that allows CAD Administrators and power users to have access to detailed information in offline settings for study and research.