Spatial Analyst Toolbar

[TedCronin]

It seems like this toolbar can be combined with something else, it is so limiting in functionality since everything went to gp, perhaps a general Analysis toolbar, that works in conjuntion to the 3D Toolbar for ArcMap, unless beta 2 is coming out with more tools.  Personally, I would get rid of the toolbar, and push us to build our own toolbar via the customize mode.

[XienChen]

I think ESRI should keep the Spatial Analyst toolbar the same old way, because many users were used to it.
But, while they are using those Spatial Analyst commands, the command automatically opens the corresponding GP tool.
Ex, using Slope command opens Slope GP tool.

Old users may not like the BIG changes in ArcGIS 9.4.
They need time to get used to it. So ESRI should find a way with minimum impact.

[EricRice]

First, let me thank both of you for your feedback.  Its interesting in the position I am in to get to hear so many different things from customers.  This thread is such a great example of different users wanting different things and the choices that we have to make when designing the next release. i.e. Riverside is fine if we get rid of the toolbar and xienchen wants to keep it the same.  Below is a bit of our reasoning behind this move.

The dropdown list of analytic functions in the Spatial Analyst and 3D Analyst toolbars were a legacy UI that was causing confusion for users. We considered removing them at 9.0 with the introduction of Geoprocessing tools and all this functionality also being available in the ArcToolbox. We decided to provide a transition period to allow people to move away from this functionality, which most have done.

Questions about different environments, different appearance of dialogs that appear to do the same thing, bugs related to different behavior, and sometimes different terminology and parameters were causing confusion.

We had two options, replace all the functionality on these pulldown menus with the equivalent geoprocessing tools, or remove the functionality and allow users to put what they want on the menus. We chose the latter since we feel most people only used a small subset of tools on the pulldown menu and it is now easy to customize it.

In this regard I hope we are satisfying both of you.  Ted you don't really have to turn on the toolbar and xienchen you can customize your toolbar with GP tools that you commonly used in previous versions.

Regards,

[TedCronin]

It is interesting to hear the back story, and perhaps Xienchen, can just use the new GP menu for the Spatial Analyst tools, which may make it easier to view and use.

Thanks Eric.

[XienChen]

Hi, Ted,

I personally like GP tools, and I don't need those pull-down menus.

But, some of our clients use ArcGIS since ArcView 3.x, they got used to use those pull-down menu.

I remembered that many users asked me "Where can I find Buffer Wizard?", "Why did ESRI remove that convenient commnad in ArcGIS 9.0?"

I'll try to convince our clients.... but they need time to get used to this change.

[TedCronin]

Hi, Ted,
I remembered that many users asked me "Where can I find Buffer Wizard?", "Why did ESRI remove that convenient commnad in ArcGIS 9.0?"

Love it.  I remember those questions.

[JanBenson]

Eric, what you are seeing is the diverse community of users.  GIS professionals are adaptable and can deal with the changes much easier.  ESRI has a large community of users who use the software to accomplish a specific task.  GIS is not their profession.  There is a fair amount of training involved for these users to accomplish their task.  When you change a common feature many of these users have to be re-trained to accomplish a task they previously could perform.  These users see it as a great waste of time.  They remember.  I still get complaints about how easy a task was in arcview 3x and can't they go back.  

In the 90's the move was away from command line to GUI's.  Let the masses do GIS.  GIS and ESRI grew as the field exploded.  The shift was away from GIS shops to making the software accessible to everyone.  Then developers came with all their needs.  Now it seems the push is back to command line.  By removing the GUI's you are changing who can use the software.  Many of these users do not know how to customize, nor do they want to learn.  What does it mean if the software has to be customized?  Is the intent to create jobs for developers or to go back to GIS shops?  I have no problem with command line.  In fact I still have an atlas I maintain with amls.  However, my job is to represent my users.  Some appreciate the ability to program with python.  Some appreciate an easy to use interface.  Somehow ESRI needs to enable the casual user while still meeting the needs of the professional.  If the intent is to build the foundation without GUI's and everyone has to customize what they want, then let us know.

[EricRice]

Hi jbenson,

Thank you for your feedback and for your email to the Program Manager of the User Advocacy Group.  Along with some other members of the team we reviewed your specific concerns and I'm sure Mike will be getting back to you shortly if he hasn't already.  Please be assured we take the information you present very seriously and definitely make sure that the feedback you provide lands in the correct persons hands.  It seems we have similar jobs; to represent users.

As Ted pointed out, we are referees sometimes and it definitely is a juggling act for development to meet the needs of all the various types of users out there.  We have beginner users and very sophisticated ones, as well as the full spectrum in between.  My personal goal would be to have software designed to assist users with their tasks, not have software that becomes a task in and of itself.  I think that is the aim of everyone here. There is always some learning curve as with all software.  

With that said, I do not believe the intent at ESRI is to build a foundation without GUI's.  There are still many UI's in the software.  I do not think there is any intent wrt 9.4 to create jobs for developers or go back to GIS shops either.  I do think the intent is to enhance the products and enable users to be successful with our products.

My area of the software deals with raster data/analysis.  I know you have expressed concerns about the raster calculator being removed.  Did you have an opportunity to see Steve's post?  If not, I've quoted it below.

Several threads have touched on the changes to the Spatial Analyst Map Algebra and disappearance of the Raster Calculator. For all you who love Map Algebra and the Raster Calculator, the team agrees with you! The changes we have made to the Map Algebra language to make it integrate well with Python do change the language, but we feel it still looks and behaves enough like Map Algebra that you�??ll feel the benefit is worth it.

There are two Map Algebra experiences, the scripting experience and the raster calculator experience. Improvements to the language were made to improve the scripting experience. Having Map Algebra tightly integrated with our native scripting environment, Python, has not been possible except in Workstation when we wrote our own version of both. Python provides a rich set of capabilities for you to take advantage of and integrate with our out of the box tools. We believe that Python will be the language of GIScience and this integration will play a key role. A feature you will see in beta2 that compliments this is  the ability to move blocks of pixels back and forth between ArcGIS rasters and Python arrays, allowing you to write your own raster analysis tools.

The other side of Map Algebra is the raster calculator experience. We know that the Python window is not a substitute for the point and click experience and direct output of the raster calculator. We plan to build a calculator-like tool that will provide the point and click experience but also be something that you can drop into a model. Envision a combination of the old raster calculator and the SOMA tool. Unfortunately it won�??t make it into beta2.

And while I have your attention I�??d like to suggest that if you have colleagues who seldom use Spatial Analyst, don�??t make them learn Map Algebra. Show them where to find the tools and run it from the dialogs, or better yet build them a little ModelBuilder model with a couple parameters exposed and hide all the details.

Steve

If you have specific functionality missing by the removal of the raster calculator, please let us know as soon as possible.

Best Regards,

[BartHound]

ESRI has a large community of users who use the software to accomplish a specific task.  GIS is not their profession.  There is a fair amount of training involved for these users to accomplish their task.  When you change a common feature many of these users have to be re-trained to accomplish a task they previously could perform.  These users see it as a great waste of time.    

In the 90's the move was away from command line to GUI's.  Let the masses do GIS.  GIS and ESRI grew as the field exploded.  The shift was away from GIS shops to making the software accessible to everyone.  Then developers came with all their needs.  Now it seems the push is back to command line.  By removing the GUI's you are changing who can use the software.  Many of these users do not know how to customize, nor do they want to learn.  What does it mean if the software has to be customized?  However, my job is to represent my users.  Some appreciate the ability to program with python.  Some appreciate an easy to use interface.  Somehow ESRI needs to enable the casual user while still meeting the needs of the professional.  If the intent is to build the foundation without GUI's and everyone has to customize what they want, then let us know.

I think esri is doing all these things.  They are simplifying the user experience.  They are replacing duplicate functionality, to simplify the learning curve and to standardize the tools.  They just have to remove some older technology to accomplish this task.  Using a gp tool, is a much simpler experience than using the older interfaces.  Besides as they replace these older interfaces, this is going to make the software more agile, more fluid, and more stable.  Test Once, rather than test all the duplicate functionality.  The users are not being forced to use python.  The python command line window is just adding more capability for a piece of the software (The old 93 Command Line) that was being underutilized.  Your users could use ModelBuilder, which is extemely easy to use, and now has better iterator support.  Really, outside of If statement and other modules, everyone can just use ModelBuilder rather than python anyway.   Now Professionals, yes, they should use and be familiar with both python, and modelbuilder.

Now in regards to the Raster Calc, absolutley you are on point.  It is absolutley ridiculous to get rid of something without having a fully functional newer replacement (Think Red Toolbox and Search Window).  Now hopefully at beta 2, this new tool, is a gp tool, but gives the user experience a similiar ux as before.  Now, you had stated that your workers do a specific task.  What about building GP tools that handle that specific task.  If there is 1, 2, 3 different things your users perform, I think it is even easier for them to use a custom gp tool, rather than having to navigate the raster calculator.  GP tools are extemely easy to use.