Page MenuHomeAleph Objects Inc

Standardize Profile Naming and Classification System
Closed, DuplicatePublic

Description

The first letter case varies in between profiles where sometimes the first letter of each word is capitalized, and other times it's just the first letter of the first word. Should standardize on one of these.

For example:

  • t-glase (Taulman) has Quality and Speed capitalized, but clarity and strength in lower case.
  • ABS (IC3D) has Quality and Speed capitalized, ABS (Chroma Strand Labs) has detail and speed lower case

In the picture below, the example of t-glase (Taulman):

Note: The exact word choice on some of these profiles is a separate issue, see: https://code.alephobjects.com/T2174

Event Timeline

kenhara triaged this task as Normal priority.
kenhara updated the task description. (Show Details)Mar 21 2018, 5:00 PM
karrad renamed this task from Varying first letter case in profile names to Standardize Profile Naming System.
karrad changed the edit policy from "Custom Policy" to "Restricted Project (Project)".
karrad added a subscriber: karrad.
karrad reassigned this task from karrad to benmalouf.EditedMar 22 2018, 8:12 AM
karrad added a subscriber: benmalouf.

I have merged in T2174 on this one. @benmalouf @kenhara We can update these to whatever standard you prefer. At the moment, i read these two tickets as having two questions to answer:

1.) detail vs quality
2.) capitalize all words, or just the first

Either way we can update it, just let us know what you would like.

karrad moved this task from Restricted Project Column to Restricted Project Column on the Restricted Project board.Mar 22 2018, 8:13 AM
kenhara added a comment.EditedMar 22 2018, 8:33 AM

My instinct/first thought would be:

  1. Detail (reasoning explained in: T2174: Use of "quality" in profile names rather than "detail")
  2. A few ways to think about this, this order makes sense to me:
    1. Comply with LulzBot Style Guide (I don't think it covers this, so...)
    2. Defer to consistency within Cura LE (more on this below) <- My vote: Capitalize All Words
    3. Defer to AP Style Guide (we use this as backup/default as-needed)

Cura generally capitalizes the first letter of each word in the menu drop downs with a few exceptions (a separate issue I'll create a ticket about, as there's not an immediately clear reason for the few examples where this is inconsistent.)

For what it's worth, LibreOffice does this too:

This is ultimately a Creative/Marketing decision for sure.

karrad lowered the priority of this task from Normal to Low.Apr 4 2018, 10:17 AM

@benmalouf @kenhara Discussion yesterday focused also on renaming of the "Beginner, intermediate, advanced, expert" categories. Aiming at a professional market, there may be a better way to communicate this.

In T2173#39795, @karrad wrote:

Discussion yesterday focused also on renaming of the "Beginner, intermediate, advanced, expert" categories. Aiming at a professional market, there may be a better way to communicate this.

Agreed, I think that's certainly worth re-visiting +1

@karrad When would we want to do that by? Who would be involved and how/where would we track it?

@kenhara I feel that absolute latest will be Quiver for it to be completed by.

I prefer tracking in the code ticket, as we will not lose anything and easy to tie commits to.

As for the discussion, I feel it is heavy on marketing and sales for the final determination. If more feedback is required, I would suggest a discourse post

This all makes sense to me. Okay, so re-visiting filament tiers (currently structured as "Ease of Use") sounds like it should be a separate ticket, created here in a code ticket, and assigned to someone. My first instinct would be to assign it to @glatti, who would complete with guidance from @benmalouf.

@karrad could you make this ticket since you brought this up, to close the loop?

It sounds like it would also be put on the Marketing timeline as a deliverable to be completed in the run-up to Quiver release. I'm not sure who owns that but I believe it would be @benmalouf as the relevant stakeholder for that stream of work.

@kenhara @karrad Changing how the filaments are categorized should also align well with an updated filament guide deliverable that's been talked about for a while

karrad renamed this task from Standardize Profile Naming System to Standardize Profile Naming and Classification System.Apr 9 2018, 8:59 AM
karrad added a project: Quiver.
karrad added a comment.Apr 9 2018, 9:04 AM

@kenhara I am not sure what specifically the marketing department is looking for, it was a brief mention by @benmalouf while we went over marketing ticket priority. If this needs to be on Code (not sure if you all prefer projects) feel free to get one logged.

As for the Cura Side, this ticket is what we are using for tracking this change. I have also added this one to the quiver board to ensure it is not lost.

Orias added a subscriber: Orias.Apr 13 2018, 11:24 AM

Related: We currently use "DualExtruder". Instead we should use "Dual Extruder...".

karrad moved this task from Restricted Project Column to Restricted Project Column on the Restricted Project board.Apr 13 2018, 2:28 PM

I believe T2497 may be a separate issue from naming and classification as I don't see anything in the material definitions that controls what categories are included when the user selects "All".

@b-morgan That would be the classification aspect of this ticket.

At the moment, the only materials in the "all" category will include filaments that we carry and sell, as we have access to these filaments to test if issues arise. These profiles in the "experimental" category are actually submitted by the filament vendors, and are not developed by us. In order to emphasize this point, we leave them in "experimental" as a good starting point for customers. If they are found in the "all" section it may give the false impression these are a point and click experience.

Either way, we agree all can be misleading and we will be looking into a total reclassification in future releases.

b-morgan added a comment.EditedMay 3 2018, 12:37 PM

Then I humbly submit that "All" should be "Supported" and perhaps "Experimental" should be "Third-party" or "Other" or "Unsupported".

@benmalouf If we are going to roll this into the next release, we will need to know how you would like this organized by June 5th

My vote is to capitalize the first letter in each word except as determined by a proper noun (copperFill, MOARstruder, etc...).

Orias added a comment.May 31 2018, 9:35 AM

Agreed on the capitalization!

Then I humbly submit that "All" should be "Supported"...

IMO, "All" is more encouraging and less restrictive than "Supported", as the contrasting term is going to be more restrictive.

perhaps "Experimental" should be "Third-party" or "Other" or "Unsupported".

I'm still a fan of "Experimental". It's more encouraging, and has a more positive connotation than the alternatives.

We could do: "All (Certified|Verified|Stable)" and "New (Experimental)"

Agreed with @mcoronado and @Orias on the capitalization question.

For All vs. Supported, I do prefer "Supported." The "Experimental" category isn't included, so it's not really "all."

I don't know that I agree that "experimental" is encouraging (maybe when compared to "unsupported" or "third-party") . We could do something like "In Development"? "Other" or "new" could work too, since "Supported" would indicate that their other/newness is lack of official support.

karrad added a comment.Jun 4 2018, 2:14 PM

Branch added, will work on updating all "High Quality" to "High Detail" along with capitalizing first word for each profile.

karrad added a comment.Jun 4 2018, 3:38 PM

Note to self, still need both V3's, both Moars, and Twool Head machines updated.

karrad added a comment.Jun 5 2018, 8:58 AM

All profiles updated. Removed all instances of "quality" and replaced with "Detail". Ensured all profiles have first letter of each word in the profile name capitalized. Twool head changes on branch T1617 as well.

karrad added a comment.Jun 5 2018, 9:00 AM

Okay, to jump into the category aspect!

The issue I have with a "Supported" category is it implies that our support team will not look over photos, models, settings etc and provide suggestions on how to improve a print. This is something we do on a regular basis.

At the moment, it appears the confusion is around the "all" category leaving out unverified material and tool head combinations. Any objections to changing the category to "All Verified Materials"?

The issue I have with a "Supported" category is it implies that our support team will not look over photos, models, settings etc and provide suggestions on how to improve a print. This is something we do on a regular basis.

Doesn't "supported" imply the opposite? Or are you saying it implies we won't provide suggestions for 3rd party materials? I personally don't think that will stop people from contacting us, but it will set an expectation for what our TSRs will be able to do for someone. "Supported" to me implies that if you can't get a good print (of a reasonable model) with your under-warranty printer, printing a supported material, that we will work and work to find a solution for you. If someone is printing an unsupported material, there comes a point where we recommend different filament, right?

karrad added a comment.Jun 5 2018, 9:35 AM
are you saying it implies we won't provide suggestions for 3rd party materials

That is how it first comes off to me, as in this is not in the supported category they will not help me figure out how to make it work. (Just my initial reaction when I see supported out in the field, you can only get help with these items.)

there comes a point where we recommend different filament, right?

Eventually we will get to that point after running through all mechanical and basic software settings to improve a print. When we get to that point though, we have a customer try a "verified" filament that we know to work. This also helps when diagnosing mechanical issues. Using verified filament, on verified software, with verified profiles, and a verified model. If it is not working, we know something mechanical is off.

Hmm, interesting. For what it's worth, we've always used the term "supported" in marketing copy when describing filament profiles in Cura and never have used "verified."

IMO, "supported" is the way to go here.

@lansky From a TSR perspective? IMO, we should not be spending a ton of time troubleshooting print problems with bargain basement and/or exotic filaments with which we have no experience. And to that end, the implication that other filaments aren't technically supported is accurate.

I think we should also consider something like "LulzBot Certified" for filament profiles that we know have been tested extensively on our printers, regardless of whether or not we sell them. But that's probably a different discussion.

karrad added a subscriber: anolen.EditedJun 5 2018, 10:42 AM

"LulzBot Certified" for filament profiles that we know have been tested extensively on our printers, regardless of whether or not we sell them

At the moment, the plan is to move the "experimental" profiles into all/verified/supported/bananas category after either:

a.) @anolen verifies these profiles with samples from the vendors
b.) we have them incorporated in experimental for ~3mo w/o any reported issues on the forums or code

Whichever one pops up first

Edit: ++ for LulzBot Certified/Verified/somethingfied.

This clearly states we have tested and approved these materials with this tool head, without the possible negative connotation of restricting customer choice of filament.

lansky added a comment.EditedJun 5 2018, 11:24 AM

@benmalouf Yeah we do say supported right now.

We do try to help people with non-Lulzbot filament, but if we determine that the issue is due to the filament we will recommend an equivalent filament we sell, and if they want to stick with their filament we recommend they should check the forums for settings for that filament. While we are not familiar with it (because we don't have it available to test and don't have a profile for it), some of our users might be.

So while I do want to maintain our right to tell someone we can't help because their filament is very bad quality, I'm not so concerned with the wording.

karrad reassigned this task from benmalouf to alexei.Jun 7 2018, 8:13 AM

We are going to merge in the existing fixes, as we know they are final. We can continue to discuss and roll in material classifications during testing.

karrad moved this task from Restricted Project Column to Restricted Project Column on the Restricted Project board.Jun 15 2018, 2:29 PM
alexei closed this task as Resolved.Jun 18 2018, 6:08 AM