cadmaster — three interface mockups

Commissioned by Aristide 2026-08-19 ("using that as a basis, and the feedback from the forums, come up with 3 design mockups"). Basis: Jordan's canvas-first picture, recorded at /design/look/. Forum evidence: the love/hate operator research. These are look-and-feel mockups only — static drawings, nothing functional; the signed-off paper design remains the spec for the engine.

Design philosophy (2026-08-19): Aristide's design-led thesis — CAD interfaces are accreted button piles and users don't know what they're missing — plus Jordan's two firsthand stories (the healer whose output couldn't be modified, the industry-wide seamless-integration gap) are recorded at /design/philosophy/. It is the lens the winning layout gets executed through, and it makes the editable-everything principle binding.

Decision brief: Aristide asked for the case for each — an advocate's argument, pros and cons, and a sharpened recommendation are at the cases page.

Addendum 2026-08-19: Aristide asked what the interface looks like under the suggested 1+3 combo (Workbench base + Graft workspaces) with the research feedback included — drawn end to end at the Combo (Jobs home · Heal · Nest · Cut Plan, plus a finding-by-finding map). The three mockups below are left intact as the decision record.

What is fixed and what varies

Fixed in all three (the accepted direction — Jordan's picture, confirmed by Aristide): the drawing owns the screen; eight workflow tabs across the top (Import · Heal · QC · Review · Nest · Cut Plan · Post · Deliver) wearing status colours so the job state reads from across the room; contextual left toolbar; checks living ON the geometry with numbers in a panel behind them; customer's original as a toggleable gray base layer; Jobs home + folder browse + draw-from-scratch behind the ⌂ door; per-user remembered layouts. Also fixed, from the research: auto-nest as a frictionless-override draft (finding 6), repeat-one-nest-×N (finding 7), an always-visible "arcs preserved, 0 polylined" gauge (finding 5), live sliders (finding 2).

What varies is the one open decision — the panel system. Each mockup draws the same Nest-stage screen of the same job (the real numbers from build -93) under one of the three panel proposals:

A — the Workbench

Docked slots everywhere; tear-off only for the second monitor. Cheapest, novice-proof, panels can never be lost. Ceiling: real-estate control stops at the slot system.

B — the Studio

Full Adobe: every panel floats anywhere on any monitor, tabbed clusters, named workspaces, Reset as escape hatch. Maximum control and Adobe muscle memory; heaviest to build, classic lost-panel risk on shared stations.

C — the Graft

A's docked base with B's tear-off + named per-user workspaces grafted on. Both partners' stated wants covered; lost panels structurally impossible; costs most of B's plumbing, floats one notch less free.

Side by side

A — WorkbenchB — StudioC — Graft
Panel homedock slots onlyfloating windowsdock slots, tear-off optional
Second monitor (Aristide's case)via tear-off (exception)nativenative via tear-off (remembered)
Adobe workspaces (Jordan's ask)slots remembered per userfull named presetsfull named presets
Lost-panel risk (shared shop PC)nonereal; mitigated by Resetnone — dock is ground state
Canvas pixels on a 60×120 nestcanvas minus drawerfull width (panels overlay)canvas minus drawer; tear off to reclaim
Build costlowesthighesthigh (most of B's plumbing)
Forum-evidence fitThe research rewards learnable/visual/consistent (findings 1, 3) and is silent on floating panels specifically — no verified complaint either way. Nothing in the evidence forces B; nothing forbids it.

What the mockups deliberately do NOT decide

The decision this asks for

Pick A, B, or C (or mark up what to change). That closes the panel-layout question from the look record, and detailed look-and-feel design proceeds on the winner.