So far I´m a little bit shilly-shally about the new UI of 2016. The UI concept is nearly the same as for years: toolbars + command manager + shortcut S bar + command search + (new) breadcrumbs. The changes are only affecting the size, the graphics and the colors of the icons. One should assume, that these kind of changes are not so critical, but the resonance is stunning.

I personally like, that the more space around each icon and the less amount of color look a little bit more tranquil and modern. At the first sight, the UI is more relaxing for the eyes, and it reminds me more of Win 8/10 than of Win 95. But I dislike the second impression. Due to the blue-in-grey sludge, one can not differentiate the icons from some distance and one can not differentiate the icons by workbench, such as sketching vs surface modeling vs solid modeling vs sheet metal vs assemblies.

Parts of the discussion seem to be very emotional. They are dressed in red t-shirts (alert: SWX folklore at the conference last year) to develop us blue icons (alert: Catia look-alike). But besides the emotional aspects, one can summarize some aspects as being common sense. Just around 5% of the people are affected by some kind of color blindness. Just a small part of them are 100% color-blind. Best solution for them would be to make SWX UI switchable from colored to greyscale or to implement some software solution for the whole PC, not only for the CAD system. Blue is not the best color to see small details very sharp. Most users dislike the new UI. Due to these facts, I can not believe, that the new UI was driven just by taking care of some color-blind people. And I can not believe, that blue is per se a more pleasing color by flavor than red, yellow, green or whatever. It seems to be a strategic thing.

IF WE were at the higher DS management: what are the potential issues for actual business targets, technologically trends and long term plans?

IF WE would like to connect two different product ranges and expand them by new technology: would it be smart to build on the product range, which is known to be bought by customers just because they are forced to use it? Or would it be smarter to build on the product range, which is widely recognized and respected to be the CAD environment with the best usability?

IF WE would really like to connect these different product ranges: would it be smart to not allow native file exchange and to push users to third party solutions or competitive systems? Or would it be smarter to allow native file exchange between both products?

IF WE would like to offer more multi product stuff to the MCAD community: does it make sense to streamline the UI between the full blown MCAD system and a small cloud subset? Or does it make more sense to streamline the UI between the full blown MCAD system and the adjacent ECAD system, the adjacent communication products and other tools of the same offline universe?

IF WE would like to offer new cloud tools: does it make sense to move the UI from the new, widely unknown cloud subset to the established flagship product? Or does it make more sense to move the UI from the established flagship product to the new, widely unknown cloud subset?

IF WE would like to explore new technologies such as mobile devices: would it be smart to give a CAD viewer, running on a PC / workstation, the same UI than the CAD viewer, running on a cell phone?

Do you have other IF WE ideas and aspects? Do you plan, or simply can imagine to use the full blown SWX MCAD with a touch screen without mouse? Or do you prefer a Nintendo Wii Sport style to place your surface finishing symbols and BOM balloons by fidgeting around 8 hours a day :-)