Inside Track
Terminology - Area Section vs Area Object
Just some terminology discussion for anyone who wants to share thoughts:
Currently anything drawn on the page (area, linear, count, arrow, cloud, note, etc.) is considered an "object".
So by definition all of these things on the page are "objects":
We categorize these Objects into 2 primary types:
- Takeoff Objects (also called Sections) - these are related to a parent "takeoff" and can have multiple per takeoff that share common properties
- Annotation Objects
According to current terminology, this image below is showing 2 Area Sections that are part of the same "Test Area" takeoff. Technically it's also correct to say this is showing 2 Area Objects. This applies to any type of takeoff: Area, Linear, Segment, Count.
Throughout the software, videos, and documentation we have various references to the term "Section" such as [Section Count] in formulas, which is the # of area objects that are part of a particular area takeoff.
The core question:
Are you guys good with us sticking with the term "Section" to reference an individual area object? Or do you think we should standardize the term "Object" throughout (and dump using the term "Section"), including renaming [Section Count] in formulas to [Object Count]?
There is some value keeping the term "Section" as a shortcut term for "Takeoff Object" (and also value in just not rocking the boat with what we have so far), but we realize the term Section has other meanings in construction.
Any thoughts welcome.
I have few thoughts.
If this system were being designed from scratch today, “Object” would be the natural, consistent choice. But that’s not the situation we already have:
- established users
- existing formulas
- existing training material
- existing mental models
So, the real decision becomes:
Is the current confusion around “Section” significant enough to justify the disruption of changing it?
Based on what we’ve seen so far, the confusion is minor. It doesn’t cause measurement errors or workflow issues, it only creates occasional uncertainty about terminology.
Because of that, the most practical approach is:
My Recommended Path: Keep “Section,” but define it clearly and consistently
- Keep [Section Count]
- Continue using “Section” anywhere it refers to a takeoff-related object
- Add a clear definition in documentation: “A Section is an individual Takeoff Object belonging to a Takeoff.”
- Use “Object” only when referring to the broader category (takeoff objects + annotation objects)
This preserves stability for users while tightening the terminology.
If you decide to standardize later
Treat it as a planned terminology update, not a silent change.
- Phase out “Section” gradually
- Introduce “Object Count” alongside “Section Count”
- Provide migration notes
- Update training material at the same time
- Use tooltips or transitional labels to help users adjust
I think, this approach avoids user confusion and prevents backlash.