I think most experienced SU users agree that the change of name from Layers to Tags was very worthwhile. It avoids confusion and makes it clearer that they are simply attributes that affect visibility/appearance.
When you create a Component, a dialog box pops up inviting you to rename it from a suggested default and optionally to set other attributes. Would it be handy for this dialog box to enable direct tagging in much the same way as Entity Info? There might be a box immediately under the Definition one to allow you to do this.
I see it working the same way as in Entity Info but with slight differences. Instead of having Untagged as the default option, you would have something like âTag1â or âDefaultTagâ. If these tags do not already exist, Sketchup will create them if you donât overwrite them. If you overwrite them with a new tag, again SU will create it (just as Entity Info does). And if you start typing something that does exist, a filtered list would appear with just the matching Tags for you to choose from. If you go on typing, the options diminish until SU understands that you are making a unique Tag. Or you just choose from the whole list by using the usual drop down arrow.
I realize that most experienced users will already have an established workflow that means they are used to doing this as a two part operation, ie. create and name component, close dialog box, then assign to tag via Entity Info. But I would argue that we should always be looking at ways to make things easier and more logical for newbies as they are the future. It seems to me that encouraging people to name and tag components before they do anything else would be valuable. The current system makes it too easy to forget the tagging.
Some might argue that this suggestion risks bloating the Component dialog box and is messy because it creates two ways of doing the same thing. Maybe a way of addressing that is to have the Entity Info dialog box itself expand to create the Component dialog box.
Incidentally, having smart filtering in the tag box here and/or in Entity Info might prevent that annoying problem many of us have when we find we have inadvertently created a new layer called âxâ or some such.
1 Like
There has to be some âpop-upâ (Create: new tag?) to prevent duplicates like âNew Tagâ and ânew tagâ IMO, otherwise it would not solve the issue with creating tags on the fly.
Of course, adding multiple tags would also be implemented, with the possibility to âgroup them byâ in the Tag panel.
but
Quid pro quo- I donât mind sharing some of the stuff that Mac users are used to (creating tags âon the flyâ in entity panel) if we got something in return ( suggestion: have a list view in the color panel)
It strikes me as ironic that if they decided to implement this FR, in the process of reworking the UI they might finally be bothered to do something about this longstanding annoyance on Mac SketchUp. I suspect it would either be just a matter of finally looking at it and discovering that the fix was straightforward all along, or of finding that on Mac it is hard to avoid and the new version would have the same flaw.
Doesnât happen on Mac. The system recognizes duplicates that just differ by capitalization and wonât let you create a second one.
Ok, bad example: âNeiw Tagâ âNew Tagâ
âlevel 01â âlevel 1â âFurnitureâ Furnicureâ etc etc
These mistypes bloats the Tag panel, too
Hmmm⌠not technically duplicates but more like misspelling then. I guess you could include a spellchecker but some people like to use names that have things like underscores or no gaps and the spellchecker might be a bit annoying for them.
I should say that my main thrust with this FR was to include a tag attribute in the dialog box. The other things are just side issues.
I disagree, the OP could just have been âPlease add tag-assignment to the create component panelâ
The side issues matter, because you need to have a broader scope. What if you asign it to a Tag that is set to ânot visibleâ?
It immediately disappaers? Or after you click enter?
I would not mind the option to tag a component incorporated into the component creation pop up. That could be handy sometimes, sounds like a reasonable FR. But I would certainly Not want it assumed that I want every component on a new tag, or on any tag. I would want it to be set to untagged by default, not to create a new tag by default so that if I ignore it the behavior is the same as current. I do not want a new tag created for every component I make, or to have the extra step of switching back to untagged when making a component or of purging a bunch of extra tags that I never needed. Perhaps I misunderstood that part, but that seem like it would create much more work to me.
Any number of posts on this forum from very experienced commentators seem to suggest that all raw geometry should be Untagged, all raw geometry should be put into containers (ie. Groups or Components), and all containers should be positively tagged. If the default tag were âTag1â, say, and you never changed it, all components would end up assigned to Tag1. You wouldnât bloat your tag list unless you chose to do so.
When I remember to do it (!), at the end of a drawing session I switch to a working scene called All Off. That means all tags off except Untagged. I hope to see no geometry at all as it should all have already been put into Groups or Components which have been positively tagged.
If this method of working is not generally accepted, then the default name should probably stay as Untagged. The main thing for me is to have a better means of prompting the option to tag positively.
I take your point Jack, I was just a bit nervous that the main part of my suggestion (which you describe fairly) might get lost in a discussion of the detail. I do agree that a broader scope is good, providing it doesnât confuse the main aim.
The answer to your question about assignment to a tag that has been switched off is probably yes. But that is the same as if you did it any other way, isnât it?
Anyway, itâs good to get a discussion going.
Certainly right that all raw geometry should remain untagged and that is an ongoing source of confusion and frustration. But this FR does not address that problem.
I do not see any reason for this workflow to be necessary. I canât see any problem with having untagged components, nor any reason why all components should require their own unique tag or a collective default tag. âTagging positivelyâ is not an established workflow that I follow.
Not the same, when creating a component for the first time, I am usually about to work on that component. If it immediately disappears I canât work on it. If I want it part of a non visible tag Iâll assign it there when Iâm done modeling the component. To edit the component immediately I could go turn the tag back to visible, or assign a temporary tag and retag it later but its all extra steps.
Well then Riley (I hope I may call you that!), this FR probably wouldnât help you much as it seems you are happy to have a lot of containers untagged and presumably a well populated Untagged category.
I more or less follow the @mikebrightman method as I use SU mainly for architectural projects. His default template includes a large number of tags. I donât know how many containers he ends up with untagged but my guess is not a lot.
If most people follow your method, then I agree the default has to be untagged and the whole FR is only of modest use.
1 Like
I have a lot of tags too, but I try to keep it down to major collections of things, not individual pieces. Otherwise the Tags window gets too hard to navigate, especially as the list order is not user drag-able and there is no grouping. I might have 50 untagged components in a roof truss that is a component tagged âtrussâ. I use outliner for finding individual pieces.
Itâs still a good FR, it would be handy to have the option to tag from the component properties window.
It could have the option to set a default tag. Then those who want their components assigned a separate default tag could have it.
My FR would be an efficient way to get this window back for editing component properties. Now one needs to wade through the component browser trying to find the component before editing a property such as glue-to. We should be able to right click on a component to bring that initial properties pop up box back. Component properties extension helps, but this should be native. At the very least any selected component should be highlighted in the component browser so itâs easy to find.
1 Like
I also follow this method, but sometime I leave the component untagged. This donât mean that I donât like this FR, on the contrary I would like to have this box configured as untag as default. In case you donât want to assign the component to a specific tag, then donât touch this box and it will be assigned as untagged.
1 Like
Yes! I could not agree more. This seems to be the intended workflow idea, but it requires several awkward steps to achieve. And I keep wanting the names of things in my outliner to automatically match the names of my tags.
Awww, thanks. I am actually a noobie, but more of an old dog trying to learn new tricks. I am also approaching SketchUp with a lot of AutoCAD knowledge, so I am trying to have fresh eyes and not rely on old habits, but I really do agree that the ability to tag a group or component should somehow be more fool-proof. And I think your idea sounds great. Again, I am really just learning this, but I already know from AutoCAD that the drawing part is easy, itâs the organizing of information that will be the thing that bites you.