J-Field Suggestion

[Patrick Garner]

This comment echoes Darren's "too complicated" comments in the Deleting Job Files thread. And what I'm about to suggest is not intended as criticism but rather a constructive suggestion based on my own experience and that of about a half dozen other surveyors I've spoken to during my research. So, here I go...

My suggestion is that the LS J-Field open with a simple two-option splash page.

--Option One (perhaps a radio button) would be the keep-it-simple option for a field crew with limited experience. Anyone who made the first choice would get 3 or 4 possible uses, something like the Actions now available. A crew could do topo, quick topo, staking or boundary, etc. They could be up and running in minutes w/o being geniuses. The work horses would be able to get to work fast.

--Option Two would be for Advanced/Power Users. And option two would essentially take the user into the current opening page in the LS with its myriad of possibilities.

Of course the first option--simplification and 4-5 steps max before you began work--would mimic what most other manufacturers offer. Keep it simple stupid. Don't allow them to fiddle with the guts and to make sophisticated refinements. 1-2-3 and I'm collecting points.

Option two would be for power users who wanted to access the full gamut of stuff that Javad offers. Option two is for serious land surveyors who want maximum control of their instrument, something no other manufacturer offers.

In short, the reality is that the LS J-Field learning curve is steep. I've spoken to a number of surveyors who say they love the Javad's speed and ability to collect under impossible conditions, but there's no way they'd hand the LS to their average survey crew. Yes, I know that doesn't speak well of the surveyor or the quality of the crew, but the comments are real. One guy in Vermont told me, "I don't want my guys to have choices. What if they punch the wrong button and we lose a day of work?"

On the other hand, I've spoken to surveyors who absolutely love the LS J-Field interface as it is today. Of course as Darren has pointed out, some of what's there today is not intuitive. But the underlying horsepower is amazing and I suspect folks tolerate the software layout because of the rich options.

The last two paragraphs sort of describe Option one and Option two folks.

Hey, I've only hung around here for a month or two, so this topic may have been discussed ad nauseam. If so, my apologies. And my comments are made only so Javad sells a bazillion more of these. I've personally never encountered such a crazy good piece of equipment. Please take my comments as those from someone who has been knocked over by the power and intelligence that's gone into this device.

 

[Matt Johnson]

One guy in Vermont told me, "I don't want my guys to have choices. What if they punch the wrong button and we lose a day of work?"

A confirmation prompt is displayed and requires the user to choose Yes before any data or files can be deleted in J-Field. When I just checked Topcon Magnet I note that a similar confirmation prompt is displayed when deleting a point but not displayed when deleting a job. SurvCE has similar confirmation prompts when deleting both jobs and points so I don't see how J-Field differs much from the competition here.

I agree that there are some things that could be done to improve the interface and make it easier to use for new or unsophisticated users.

 

[Patrick Garner]

Matt, I don't think the guy I was quoting meant that literally. He told me he'd seen an LS used by a friend somewhere in the south. And his quick conclusion was that, if he couldn't figure it out in 10 minutes, it was too complicated. If he couldn't figure it out, his crews never would. But that's feedback I've gotten from others, so there's a definite intimidation factor.

My point is that J-Field could be configured to offer two levels: the basic user's level, and the advanced level that the PLS might set up for working crews. JAVAD doesn't want to ever lose sales because it's perceived to be too great a challenge to learn.

For me the beauty of the LS is that it allows a user to dig way down and really understand what the instrument is providing them. But it also assumes a fairly sophisticated understanding of surveying and geodesy.

 

[Shawn Billings]

This has been suggested and discussed in the past (easy/simple/basic and advanced modes). I was open to the idea when it came up, but I am a no vote now. In order to make it simple, what would be removed and why?

 

[Patrick Garner]

What I'd envision is that under the Basic Option, the user would not be able to customize the actions or fiddle with other controls. If, under that option, the field crew clicked Topo, however that action was pre-configured, that would be what they got. Of course someone in the office could always use RAMS to modify that if justified.

Under the Advanced Option, what's in J-Field now would be in J-Field. Nothing would be removed. Click Advanced, and the present homepage would appear.

The JAVAD software guys would have to be able to create an overlay to allow entry into the two options. I'm sure I'm overly simplifying the challenge. But this approach would make the rover more approachable and the steep learning curve would simply go away. As a basic user became more confident, they could begin to explore the Advanced options--that is, if the PLS chose to let them play there. (Perhaps Advanced would be password protected.)

I suspect this suggestion has come up before because of the same learning curve criticism. Look, I've obviously fallen in love with this crazy instrument. But I've also "demo'd" it to a couple local surveyors who kept saying they wanted simple. I'm willing to put time in to master this beast, but there's a significant slug of surveyors who won't. One-man surveyors recognize the LS's power, and guys running a half dozen crews just want a wrench. (All comments meant to be constructive only. As I said, earlier, I'd like to see Javad sell a bazillion more of these, not just a million.)

 

[Matthew D. Sibole]

I believe that there should be a lock on some features. With that said I do not think that we need to dumb things down for those who are unwilling or unable to adapt. This is the greatest piece of surveying equipment ever conceived. Why dumb it down?

 

[Nate The Surveyor]

My solution is: Do a little re arranging, (Actually put all file management, under files, not collect and stake...) Simplify SOME of it...
And, make a CORE video, for youtube, that will get the normal guy going.
And, videos for a number of subjects.

(Making videos, takes work!) But, Shawn is doing just that.

So, yes, we are champing at the bit..... Simplify where we can... But, some of it has to stay like it is...

I'd like to be able to hit a button in inverse, that takes me to STAKE THIS LINE.
And, a button that makes a MID point, at the inverse screen.

But, hey, Thanks guys for all the hard work!!

N

 

[Darren Clemons]

I believe that there should be a lock on some features. With that said I do not think that we need to dumb things down for those who are unwilling or unable to adapt. This is the greatest piece of surveying equipment ever conceived. Why dumb it down?

I completely agree with Matthew here. I, personally would not want to see any modes or locks put on anything. Just speaking from our own small company (only five of us total) we want all our guys to be able to use anything/everything the LS has to offer. Now,that being said, I realize we are in the minority with that and most larger companies with many, many field crews only want guys to "know what button to push".

This next part would be for those companies:

If all you want to do is train your field guys to do minor things, that's easily accomplished - only teach/show them the minor things.
Setting up and starting the base, collect mode, stake mode and most likely, how to correctly store a PPK shot (just two buttons to push - all the parameters are previously set up at the office). That's about it.
Then maybe a little training on where/when to use different profiles that are already set up in the unit by you at the office.

We have three LS units and I have set them all up identically. All the profiles, white boxes, precision parameters, codes, etc. There is really nothing the field guys have to get into or change when they're in the field. There's not a lot of decisions they have to make. Even if it's a really tough spot for RTK, just plumb up with the bipod on the pin in my boundary profile and let the LS do its work.

The LS actually has more ability to control and keep track of what your field guys do than anything I've ever used. Back in the days of the SMI, Carlson and TDS collector's and software, when your guys brought in the days work, all you had were coordinates. With this Javad LS, you have the ability to look through literally everything and every point that was collected. With its ability to easily create a PDF job report, I can look at every screen shot (and many times attached photos my guys attach to individual points!). With that, I can see the Pdop, number of sats, time, epochs and even a time stamp for each point collected.

Now, as is most times the case with the LS, add in the RAMS ability and you have a giant topping of whipped cream with a juicy cherry on top .
If the field guys run into anything they're not sure of, simply teach them how to very easily connect to RAMS and while either on my phone or at my desk, I can immediately not only see, but take over operation of the LS! I can usually take care of or fix the issue in a matter of minutes on something that with the "other guys" equipment, may have caused the crews to have to shut down and come back to the office.

Without a doubt, the LS is the most advanced piece of surveying equipment there is out there and to fully understand and learn all it will do takes a very long time. In fact, I'm not sure it is possible to learn everything it will do! It is an extremely intimidating looking piece of equipment the first time potential users see all the screens and buttons.
However, with the proper setup in the office by trained personnel the "basic" operations of it are not at all difficult to teach others.

 

[Patrick Garner]

Darren, I like. Very persuasive. Nicely presented. I'm nodding my head.

Javad's challenge though is real. The very sad reality is that the survey field is increasingly divided into serious professional land surveyors who take great pride in their work (and accuracy), and those who don't. In my state the 'those who don't' seem to be everywhere. Deed surveyors stalk the streets like Hollywood zombies--and worse, they seem to be in the ascendence. They are the same companies that won't pay for their employees to take continuing ed or go to national conferences. They're the same companies that will do your boundary for $350. They are the same companies that ignore original corners and create pincushions because their "math" closes.

Too many companies running 4+ crews want easy, and don't want to train. This attitude prevails even in large national companies. About a month ago I reviewed a couple mile long R/W boundary run by one of those large firms, and met the chief surveyor on site; he was using 15 year-old Trimble gear, and complained that "procurement" wouldn't listen to his pleas for newer gear, and that training was a joke. So he slogged along with bad stuff and a bad attitude.

By that's more an aside. My point is just that Javad is perceived by many surveyors as more complicated than what they are used to. Although the reality is that Javad gear would allow them to do work 50% faster and more accurately--and at a lower cost--surveyors remain stubborn and conservative.

My original post was made more as an evangelical than a critic. Heck, I've fallen in love with this gear. So I want to see everyone embrace it and be as blown away as I have been. A simple interface seems a simple solution. As I've said a couple times in this thread, having a Basic and an Advanced option is a simple software tweak. I really see no downside, however persuasively everyone's responded with "Why?"

Anyway, I'll retreat. Seemed obvious to me, but there's been no chorus singing my song. Can't win 'em all!

 

[Matt Johnson]

Patrick, I'm curious what parts of the interface do you find to be more complicated or confusing than other brands?

 

[Darren Clemons]

Darren, I like. Very persuasive. Nicely presented. I'm nodding my head.

Javad's challenge though is real. The very sad reality is that the survey field is increasingly divided into serious professional land surveyors who take great pride in their work (and accuracy), and those who don't. In my state the 'those who don't' seem to be everywhere. Deed surveyors stalk the streets like Hollywood zombies--and worse, they seem to be in the ascendence. They are the same companies that won't pay for their employees to take continuing ed or go to national conferences. They're the same companies that will do your boundary for $350. They are the same companies that ignore original corners and create pincushions because their "math" closes.

Too many companies running 4+ crews want easy, and don't want to train. This attitude prevails even in large national companies. About a month ago I reviewed a couple mile long R/W boundary run by one of those large firms, and met the chief surveyor on site; he was using 15 year-old Trimble gear, and complained that "procurement" wouldn't listen to his pleas for newer gear, and that training was a joke. So he slogged along with bad stuff and a bad attitude.

By that's more an aside. My point is just that Javad is perceived by many surveyors as more complicated than what they are used to. Although the reality is that Javad gear would allow them to do work 50% faster and more accurately--and at a lower cost--surveyors remain stubborn and conservative.

My original post was made more as an evangelical than a critic. Heck, I've fallen in love with this gear. So I want to see everyone embrace it and be as blown away as I have been. A simple interface seems a simple solution. As I've said a couple times in this thread, having a Basic and an Advanced option is a simple software tweak. I really see no downside, however persuasively everyone's responded with "Why?"

Anyway, I'll retreat. Seemed obvious to me, but there's been no chorus singing my song. Can't win 'em all!

I agree completely that is seems that that is becoming the perception of the Javad equipment amongst most surveyors. But, I wonder back when desktop computers and smartphones first came around what did we all think? Probably something like "those are way too complicated, I'll never learn to use those" - but we did.
I've come to think of the Javad equipment like this - "If you build it, they will come!"

 

[Shawn Billings]

Darren, I like. Very persuasive. Nicely presented. I'm nodding my head.

Javad's challenge though is real. The very sad reality is that the survey field is increasingly divided into serious professional land surveyors who take great pride in their work (and accuracy), and those who don't. In my state the 'those who don't' seem to be everywhere. Deed surveyors stalk the streets like Hollywood zombies--and worse, they seem to be in the ascendence. They are the same companies that won't pay for their employees to take continuing ed or go to national conferences. They're the same companies that will do your boundary for $350. They are the same companies that ignore original corners and create pincushions because their "math" closes.

Too many companies running 4+ crews want easy, and don't want to train. This attitude prevails even in large national companies. About a month ago I reviewed a couple mile long R/W boundary run by one of those large firms, and met the chief surveyor on site; he was using 15 year-old Trimble gear, and complained that "procurement" wouldn't listen to his pleas for newer gear, and that training was a joke. So he slogged along with bad stuff and a bad attitude.

By that's more an aside. My point is just that Javad is perceived by many surveyors as more complicated than what they are used to. Although the reality is that Javad gear would allow them to do work 50% faster and more accurately--and at a lower cost--surveyors remain stubborn and conservative.

My original post was made more as an evangelical than a critic. Heck, I've fallen in love with this gear. So I want to see everyone embrace it and be as blown away as I have been. A simple interface seems a simple solution. As I've said a couple times in this thread, having a Basic and an Advanced option is a simple software tweak. I really see no downside, however persuasively everyone's responded with "Why?"

Anyway, I'll retreat. Seemed obvious to me, but there's been no chorus singing my song. Can't win 'em all!

Please don't take the push-back as a defeat. It helps to talk ideas out.

I think that they types of surveyors you describe will find the Triumph-LS difficult.

I also think that those surveyors who are being convinced that the Triumph-LS is too complex will ultimately be persuaded to, at least, give it a try because of the performance advantage it offers. In my opinion, much (not all, but much) of the performance improvement is built on the complexity.

 

[Nate The Surveyor]

Patrick, I think I see where you are coming from.... However, the "Road to simplicity" is not to block features, and settings, but a very basic re-arranging of a number of things will simplify it.
For instance... IF we videoed a man using the LS for a week, and all the places he goes, ie, Stake, Collect, Stake line, inverse, cogo, etc, and then analyzed this, we could find ways to MAKE the LS more intuitive. That is my goal.

Kind of like the "motion studies" done by the folks that wrote the book, "Cheaper By the Dozen" . They eventually became UL Laboratories. They STUDY car assembly processes, and all the steps used on the assembly line, and then modify it for efficiency.

Another thing, I want to be ABLE to make a single file, that has ALL the settings, in the LS, and clone it.

So, I don't have to re make profiles. in another LS.


Nate

 

[Patrick Garner]

Darren, I'd like to quote your comment, "The LS actually has more ability to control and keep track of what your field guys do than anything I've ever used. Back in the days of the SMI, Carlson and TDS collector's and software, when your guys brought in the days work, all you had were coordinates. With this Javad LS, you have the ability to look through literally everything and every point that was collected. With its ability to easily create a PDF job report, I can look at every screen shot (and many times attached photos my guys attach to individual points!). With that, I can see the Pdop, number of sats, time, epochs and even a time stamp for each point collected..." in my upcoming article. Okay with you?

 

[Matt Johnson]

Another thing, I want to be ABLE to make a single file, that has ALL the settings, in the LS, and clone it.

So, I don't have to re make profiles. in another LS.

Profiles can be transferred between different units as I explained yesterday: https://support.javad.com/index.php?threads/copying-settings-from-one-ls-to-another.2617/

The other Settings cannot be transferred to a different unit for a variety of reasons, one of which different LS's have different hardware.

 

[Darren Clemons]

Darren, I'd like to quote your comment, "The LS actually has more ability to control and keep track of what your field guys do than anything I've ever used. Back in the days of the SMI, Carlson and TDS collector's and software, when your guys brought in the days work, all you had were coordinates. With this Javad LS, you have the ability to look through literally everything and every point that was collected. With its ability to easily create a PDF job report, I can look at every screen shot (and many times attached photos my guys attach to individual points!). With that, I can see the Pdop, number of sats, time, epochs and even a time stamp for each point collected..." in my upcoming article. Okay with you?

Okay by me

 

[Patrick Garner]

Thanks.

 

[Jim Frame]

I almost commented on Darren's remarks yesterday, but decided not to bother. However, since they might show up in a publication soon I'll put in my 2 cents:

I agree with the general sentiment, but I disagree that the only thing that SMI and SurvCE give you is coordinates. There's a wealth of information about the field experience in the raw data files those applications create.

I've been using one or the other application for 27 years, and I rarely even look at the data collector coordinates in the office. Instead, I process the raw data file for use in adjustment software (Star*Net being my weapon if choice). And whenever something doesn't look right, I go right to the raw data file to see what actually happened.

My point here isn't to criticize Darren, but rather to alert Patrick to a perceived vulnerability in a blanket statement that he's considering for publication.

 

[Darren Clemons]

Patrick, I think I see where you are coming from.... However, the "Road to simplicity" is not to block features, and settings, but a very basic re-arranging of a number of things will simplify it.
For instance... IF we videoed a man using the LS for a week, and all the places he goes, ie, Stake, Collect, Stake line, inverse, cogo, etc, and then analyzed this, we could find ways to MAKE the LS more intuitive. That is my goal.

Kind of like the "motion studies" done by the folks that wrote the book, "Cheaper By the Dozen" . They eventually became UL Laboratories. They STUDY car assembly processes, and all the steps used on the assembly line, and then modify it for efficiency.

Another thing, I want to be ABLE to make a single file, that has ALL the settings, in the LS, and clone it.

So, I don't have to re make profiles. in another LS.


Nate

Very good points Nate. There are several things I agree could be re arranged to make the "flow" better.
I was able to copy the profiles with Adam and Matt's help yesterday into my other LS but as Matt said there are several things that are individual to each machine.

 

[Jim Frame]

I've been using one or the other application for 27 years

(Edit: I meant to say TDS and SurvCE; I've never used SMI.)