A Study of the CAD Interface; Past Present and Future

A Study of the CAD Interface:Past, Present and Future

Independent Study ModuleSubmitted to Dr J. Findlay

Stuart Coutts ‐ B00189664

iiA Study of the CAD Interface: Past, Present and FutureStuart Coutts ‐ B00189664

Table of Contents

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. iii

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Scope of the Study ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Goals of the Study ...................................................................................................................................... 1

The Past ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

The First CAD Systems ................................................................................................................................ 2

Microprocessor Computers ....................................................................................................................... 4

The Present .................................................................................................................................................... 5

The Current Human Computer Interface ................................................................................................... 5

Autodesk’s AutoCAD .............................................................................................................................. 5

The Interface Hardware Peripherals .......................................................................................................... 8

The Keyboard .......................................................................................................................................... 8

The Alternative Keyboard ....................................................................................................................... 8

The Mouse .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Making Use of the Left Hand ................................................................................................................ 10

Future ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

Science FACT ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Speech‐driven Commands .................................................................................................................... 12

Virtual Reality ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Neural Interfacing ................................................................................................................................. 15

The Ultimate CAD Human Computer Interface ....................................................................................... 17

The hardware layout ............................................................................................................................ 17

How the system will be used ................................................................................................................ 17

Advantages over the current human computer interfaces ................................................................. 18

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 19

References ................................................................................................................................................... 20

Web Based Research ................................................................................................................................ 20

Software ............................................................................................................................................... 20

Hardware .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Reports ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Additional Images ................................................................................................................................. 20

Book Based Research ............................................................................................................................... 21

Experimental Based Research .................................................................................................................. 21

iiiA Study of the CAD Interface: Past, Present and FutureStuart Coutts ‐ B00189664

Table of Figures

Figure 1 ‐ An Early Computer System [14] ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 ‐ The light pen [11] ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 ‐ The construction of the light pen [11] ...................................................................................... 3 Figure 4 ‐ The Sketchpad system [11] ....................................................................................................... 3 Figure 5 ‐ The Xerox Star [15] ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 6 ‐ The Xerox Star OS [16] .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 7 ‐ AutoCAD on IBM computer (1982) [18] ................................................................................... 4 Figure 8 ‐ Microsoft Windows v1.01 (1982) [17] ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 9 ‐ AutoCAD 1990 [23] ................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 10 ‐ AutoCAD 2000 [24] ................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 11 ‐ AutoCAD 2010 [25] ................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 12 ‐ AutoCAD 2010 Ribbon [25] ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 13 ‐ Dassault's Solidworks 2010 (with Ribbon tabs) [26]............................................................... 7 Figure 14 ‐ PRO Engineer v5 (2010) [27] ................................................................................................... 7 Figure 15 ‐ DVORAK layout option in Windows ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 16 ‐ DVORAK keyboard layout [19] ................................................................................................ 9 Figure 17 ‐ MALT keyboard layout [20] .................................................................................................... 9 Figure 18 ‐ MALT contoured keyboard [21] .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 19 ‐ The first trackball (1952) [22] ............................................................................................... 10 Figure 20 ‐ The first mouse (1963) [22] .................................................................................................. 10 Figure 21 ‐ OptoMechanical Mouse [22] ................................................................................................ 10 Figure 22 ‐ One button [22] .................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 23 ‐ Three button [22] .................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 24 ‐ Ergonomic [22] ...................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 25 ‐ Advanced [22] ....................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 26 ‐ The Belkin n52te [7] .............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 27 ‐ The Belkin n52te in use [7] ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 28 ‐ The 3Dconnexion Space Pilot (6 degrees of movement) [8] ................................................ 11 Figure 29 ‐ The Space Pilot in use [8] ...................................................................................................... 11 Figure 30 ‐ An image of a standard headset [28] .................................................................................... 13 Figure 31 ‐ The VR head mounted display unit [29] ............................................................................... 14 Figure 32 ‐ The VR HMD in use [30] ........................................................................................................ 14 Figure 33 ‐ 3D surround sound [31] ........................................................................................................ 14 Figure 34 ‐ Cyber equipment [32] ........................................................................................................... 14 Figure 35 ‐ A single brain wave pattern [33] ........................................................................................... 15 Figure 36 ‐ A non‐invasive system, controlling lights and sound [34] .................................................... 16 Figure 37 ‐ OCZ Technology’s Neural Interface Actuator [9] .................................................................. 16 Figure 38 ‐ The interface seating layout [35] .......................................................................................... 17

ivA Study of the CAD Interface: Past, Present and FutureStuart Coutts ‐ B00189664

Abstract

The human computer interface is a medium used by a human for communication with a computer system and its software. This study specifically looks at the human computer interfaces used for computer aided design software and how it has evolved from its initial conception to the current human computer interfaces. A possible future interface system will also be looked at.

The Past and The Present The first version of the CAD human computer interface was made up of a pre‐microprocessor computer, a light‐pen and a button box which controlled the functions of the CAD software. The later versions used a microprocessor computer along with a form of mouse/button box combo and a keyboard for text based command entry. The latest versions use the latest computer systems, the latest mouse technology, an advanced graphical user interface with object orientated programming, a keyboard and CAD specific peripherals to obtain the highest level of user friendliness so that the CAD software can be used in the most effective, efficient, productive and easiest way possible.

The Future The future of the CAD human computer interface is uncertain however it is possible to assume that in the future the human computer interface will not need devices such as the mouse or keyboard or even the computer screen as we know it. The future systems will include technologies such as virtual reality and neural technology for a fully immersive design and communication environment experience. These new and future technologies will be explored and a concept description of how the new system will work will be put forward and evaluated.

1A Study of the CAD Interface: Past, Present and FutureStuart Coutts ‐ B00189664

Introduction

Interaction takes up a large portion of our lives. Without the process of communication and understanding society as a whole would cease to function. This statement would then imply that; the easier it is to interact with one another, a better quality of communication and understanding can be achieved. To this end, software used on computers is designed so that they can be easily learned, understood and then used to produce high quality work at a faster and more productive rate than the job could be done without the aid of computers. Even though ease of use is the designers aim, the way one person performs a task compared to another, can be very different; which makes it very difficult to achieve a balance between everyone’s ‘most efficient way of using software’. This is why, even though computers have been in the public domain for around half a century, we are only now starting to see the pinnacle of balanced, easy to use software.

Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is to focus on CAD software and the tools used for human computer interface. The study will initially look at the history of CAD and its human computer interfaces, then move on to the advances made since CAD’s initial conception in 1958. A view of the future CAD interface possibilities will then be put forward as well as an array of technologies available today which could be used to create the ultimate CAD human computer interface.

Goals of the Study

The goal of this study is to firstly give an overview of the origins of the CAD human computer interface. The next step is to show how the CAD human computer interface has evolved from its initial conception into the current systems available today. And lastly show that with some research and development into some advanced technologies, CAD can become a fully interactive, easy to use, immersive experience.


The Past

To gain an understanding of why the current user interfaces are, the way they are, it is necessary to have some knowledge of where the CAD human computer interface originated. This section will give an overview of where the user interface came from and how it has progressed.

The First CAD Systems

Sketchpad is a system created by Ivan Sutherland in his 1963 dissertation; Sketchpad: A man‐machine graphical communication system [11]. It was designed around a condensed version of a transistor based computer system, Figure 1, as a direct replacement for the pencil and paper draughtsman. In 1957, using a similar computer system, Dr. Patrick J. Hanratty developed a system known as PRONTO. This was a numerically controlled programming system which allowed complex calculations to be carried out, allowing a fast way of improving design efficiency. It is for this reason some people consider PRONTO as the first step towards a CAD system. However since it was designed as an aid to the draughtsman rather than a replacement then it is the evaluation of this report that it is no more than a glorified, but at the same time, extremely advanced calculator.

PRONTO vs Sketchpad Since, at the time, these were the only two computer systems related to CAD, a comparison has been made between Sketchpad’s user interface and the PRONTO user interface.

PRONTO o Text based command input

Using keyboard o Text based output

On screen On printout

Sketchpad o Text and button based command input

Using keyboard Using button box peripheral (see Figure 4)

o Graphical and text based output On screen On printout

o Direct manipulation of the graphics on screen Using the light pen (see Figure 2 and Figure 3)

The main advantage of Sketchpad over PRONTO was the ability to directly manipulate the graphics shown on screen by pointing the light pen and pressing the buttons on the button box. Standard operations such as drawing a line are easy.

a) Point the light pen at the start point b) Press the line button on the button box c) Point the light pen at the end point d) Press the line button again

Figure 1 ‐ An Early Computer System [14]


The process took seconds to complete, where as programming this function would have taken many minutes, depending on the programmers ability. This process of pointing and selecting not only bypassed the need for intensive programming input, it also removed the need for sorting through massive amounts of code to make changes; this massively increased production time and reduced the amount of errors made. This simple and logical idea changed the way anyone thought about interacting with computers. For the first time, it was possible to focus on the design of the object, rather than the process of programming it into the computer. Ideas were generated from perspectives never considered before, which led to a mass of commercial research into direct manipulation systems and their peripherals. For instance:

The light pen, key to Sketchpad’s success, became the mouse

The button box became program embedded icons (graphically based commands selectable by the mouse)

o This led to graphical user interfaces such as the Windows Operating system

Because of this sudden increase in research, corporate interest and most importantly computer and interface advancement, the invention of Sketchpad was a defining point in computer history.

Figure 4 ‐ The Sketchpad system [11]

In Figure 4 Ivan Sutherland can be seen operating the Sketchpad system. Using the light pen in his right hand he picks points on the screen and then using the button box shown next to his left hand he presses a button for the desired operation.

Figure 2 ‐ The light pen [11] Figure 3 ‐ The construction of the light pen [11]


Microprocessor Computers

With the invention and development of the microchip, in 1969, CAD was taken from the massive transistor based computers and placed inside the compact desktop computer. The first of which was the Xerox Star, Figure 5. The reduction in computer size meant that the systems could be used at home or in an office. This realisation created a focus towards a system that was easy to use and had very little programming involved in its operation i.e. user friendly. This along with extra processing power and evolution in visual display units, allowed the CAD interface to progress in its development.

To satisfy this new pursuit for a user friendly interface, icons and windows were used extensively throughout the software. This removed the need for entering in lines of code in the main operation system, Figure 6, however the CAD user interface advancement was merely a cosmetic change of the Sketchpad system. The real advancement came much later on after the creation of one of the most well known pieces of CAD software; Autodesk’s AutoCAD. Created in 1982, Figure 7, this system ran using the first version of windows, Figure 8. It was during the development of this software that the CAD interface started to become really advanced. (see Autodesk’s AutoCAD, page5)

Figure 7 ‐ AutoCAD on IBM computer (1982) [18] Figure 8 ‐ Microsoft Windows v1.01 (1982) [17]

On evaluation the CAD user interface had not yet advanced much beyond the Sketchpad’s base example. The software had rapidly increased, moving from 2D to 3D to solid modelling to surface modelling, but the modelling environment was still very similar although cosmetically different. The direct manipulation and object orientated programming idea’s generated by Sutherland were really only discussed and researched. The mentioned user friendly focus of these systems was not considered the most important feature. The attitudes of the time wanted better design ability and shape generation; user friendliness was a side note. Therefore the major advances to the CAD interface took a long time to become an important characteristic in the use of these systems.

Figure 5 ‐ The Xerox Star [15]

Figure 6 ‐ The Xerox Star OS [16]


The Present

This section gives an overview description of the CAD interface from the point at which it became recognisable as a similar system to the applications available today. It also gives a condensed history and description of the main peripherals used alongside the software based interface.

The Current Human Computer Interface

Today’s CAD systems use an advanced graphical user interface with selectable icons, representing the functions of the CAD system. The icon; a virtual button, selectable with a mouse, was created to replace the array of buttons on a button box peripheral shown in use by Sutherland in Figure 4. Books such as Shneiderman’s ‘Direct Manipulation’ [36] and Smith’s ‘Pygmalion’ [37] foresaw the development of this kind of interaction and made a concrete argument to its cognitive benefits. On evaluation of these books and their view of the future of the CAD interface it is understood that the point being made is that since the majority of thought is taken away from the command entry process, more energy can be used on the design process and hence better possible design results can be achieved. A very logical analysis of the way the mind works. On personal experimentation, it is also found that the more used to the command entry someone is or the better one is at CAD, the least likely text based command entry has any effect. However from watching other people, who are not as proficient at CAD, try to use text based command entry it can be seen that the ability to create an interesting design with unusual or complicated features is hampered. They become weighed down with the commands, thus proving the points made by Shneiderman and Smith.

Autodesk’s AutoCAD When AutoCAD was released in 1982 the user interface development had stalled. However with the release of the second version of AutoCAD the user interface began to advance once more. Each version Autodesk released started to include more and more icon based macro commands so that entering text commands could be minimized. AutoCAD versions 1990, 2000 and 2010, Figure 9 to Figure 12, show key stages in interface development; stages which can be easily compared.

Figure 9 ‐ AutoCAD 1990 [23] Figure 10 ‐ AutoCAD 2000 [24]


AutoCAD’s Key Stage Comparison There are some software features which standout as being simple additions to the program but allow for a more user friendly and easier drawing experience. They might not be described as main features of the software however when it comes to the user interface, they are very important. So, in order to show the progression of the software based user interface, the following comparison between a selection of AutoCAD versions and their main features has been made.

Main Features 1982 1990 (Figure 9) 2000 (Figure 10) 2010 (Figure 11)

Text based command entry

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Icon based command entry

No Only some commands

Yes Yes

Drop down menus

No Yes Yes Yes

Customisable buttons

No No Yes Yes

Customisable bars

No No Yes Yes

Customisable menus

No No Yes Yes

Floating or Fixed bars

None Floating Both Both

Multiple working sheets

No No Yes Yes

The Ribbon System

No No No Yes

It might be assumed, from this table, that once AutoCAD reached 2000 the advancement stopped, this is not the case. Although seemingly cosmetic, all these minor changes had a huge effect on the way the user communicated with the system. AutoCAD 2000 was a strong and stable piece of software, not because it had the main CAD user interface features expected of a good CAD system, but because it was fully customisable. Every user could have their own set up for the way they used the system. This made everything very user friendly but only after you had learned to set it up. After the customisable interface, came the biggest change to the way the user interface was operated. This was when ‘The Ribbon System’ was introduced, Figure 11 and Figure 12. The Ribbon, designed by Microsoft for their office software has been adapted to the Autodesk software so that a more universal layout can be achieved.

Figure 11 ‐ AutoCAD 2010 [25] Figure 12 ‐ AutoCAD 2010 Ribbon [25]


The Ribbon System Instead of multiple bars locked around the screen, an area at the top of the graphics window contains the icons. At the top of this area are multiple tabs, Figure 12, when a tab is selected it shows a group of icons. When another tab is selected it shows another group of icons and so on.

Figure 13 ‐ Dassault's Solidworks 2010 (with Ribbon tabs) [26] Figure 14 ‐ PRO Engineer v5 (2010) [27]

Other software from Autodesk [1] and some from Dassault [2], Figure 13, have begun using the Ribbon layout with great effect. They have also completely removed the text based command entry so that the only time the keyboard needs to be used for data entry is when objects are being named and dimensions are being entered. On evaluation of the progress or the CAD interface, it has come a long way since its conception. The hardware has improved allowing the software to improve. And since computers are used by almost everyone these days, most of the focus has been placed on creating a user friendly system. This in the opinion of this report is the most important aspect of a human computer interface. Even though the CAD interface has reached the peak of user friendliness, with the current hardware, CAD software such as PRO Engineer [3], Figure 14, still refuses to update. They still use an antiquated icon and menu system which feels old, clunky and out‐of‐date. Unfortunately the attitudes of the creators of PRO Engineer still think that, since they market to the ‘serious engineer’, they don’t need to take user friendliness into account. A very large close minded mistake which may need rectifying in the near future, as even though PRO Engineer is considered an advanced system with lots of analytical tools Dassault’s Premium release of Solidworks 2010 is just as advanced as PRO Engineer. Therefore this advanced ability along with its inherent ease of use and user friendliness, Solidworks will surpass PRO Engineer on it next release and may even cause some of the ‘serious engineers’ to open their eyes and convert to Dassault’s way of thinking.


The Interface Hardware Peripherals

Hardware peripherals used to communicate with the computer system are just as important as the software based interface. In this section a history and description of each peripheral is given.

The Keyboard The roots of the keyboard can be traced back to the first typewriter created in 1873 by Christopher Latham Sholes. Unlike today’s QWERTY layout the keys were arranged alphabetically so that typing was kept as simple as possible. Unfortunately due to the technology of the time, users became so adept and so fast at using these machines, the keys would jam. To solve the problem Sholes decided to forcefully slow down the operators by rearranging the keys into the most inefficient arrangement possible while maintaining a minimal level of organisation. The QWERTY keyboard was born. The most frequently used keys were placed as far apart as possible and the rest were scattered in such a way which confuses the brain. This led to an extremely high error rate but the typewriters no longer jammed. On evaluation it would have been more appropriate for Sholes to fix the jamming problem by redesigning the technology. However it is possible that he was unable to or didn’t have enough time to solve the technological reason for the jamming issue. Therefore to save face with the people and companies who bought his product, he decided to take the quick and easy route. There is no evidence to prove or disprove this theory, but it does seem to be a logical reason for his actions. So now, due to Sholes’s inability to solve his designs problem, 137 years later we are still stuck with an appallingly inefficient keyboard layout, designed by a man who didn’t want to lose money and admit that his typewriter wasn’t up to the user’s ability. There are alternatives available but because of several reasons QWERTY is the layout which is mass produced. Some of these reasons include:

The country has become comfortable with the current system.

The country has become too acceptant of the status quo.

People do not like change, even when it should be done.

It is the accepted standard.

It is the layout taught in schools.

QWERTY has large corporate financial backing.

Very few people know that there are alternatives.

In short people have become complacent with what they are told and what they are given. Very few people nowadays stand apart from the crowd and question, is there something better?

The Alternative Keyboard The DVORAK keyboard layout [10], Figure 16, was designed by August Dvorak in 1932. This alternative layout put the nine most commonly used letters into the middle of the keyboard thereby reducing the distanced travelled by the users fingers. If an operator using the QWERTY system moved around 20 miles in a day, the DVORAK operator would only have to move about 1 mile. This reduction in effort clearly makes the system more user‐friendly and would reduce the cases of repetitive strain injury common in the computer operator working environment.

Since the DVORAK and QWERTY keyboards are similar in design, there is an option in Windows, Figure 15, for switching to this alternative layout. Before doing this, it is recommended that a picture of the original keyboard layout be taken before the physical keys are reorganised, just in case.


Figure 15 ‐ DVORAK layout option in Windows

Figure 16 ‐ DVORAK keyboard layout [19] Figure 17 ‐ MALT keyboard layout [20]

The MALT keyboard layout, Figure 17, is another alternative which needs to be considered. This keyboard is not the same shape as the QWERTY or DVORAK keyboards as it has been completely redesigned from scratch for maximum user friendliest and comfort. Created recently by Lillian Malt the system replaces the staggered row configuration with a contoured format, Figure 18, which removes any physical drawbacks of the old

style keyboard. The system also sets the keys out in a fashion which seriously improves on the DVORAK system. The main advantage to the layout apart from the obvious key reconfiguration is the way the keyboard makes use of the thumbs. On a QWERTY keyboard the thumb, on both hands, is limited to the spacebar; using two thumbs for one button just doesn’t make sense. The MALT system allows 8 buttons to be operated by each thumb. It is a marvellous design but it does need time to get used to it, however the time spent deprogramming the QWERTY mindset is well worth the effort. This system does require the purchase of a new keyboard and it does cost quite a bit more than a standard QWERTY system. So if someone wasn’t sure about a change then the best option would be to try out the DVORAK key arrangement first until he or she realised the potential of the non QWERTY systems. After which the MALT keyboard is the best option that one should go for.

The Mouse Being able to directly select objects on a computer screen has been the main focus of the computer interface since the beginning of CAD. Many devices have been invented to allow this operation, some of which evolved and others died out. Unusual devices include, a trackball which used a bowling ball, Figure 19, and strange balance controlled devices which attached to the head, chin or nose. After much toiling, the most suitable device for human computer interaction was considered to be the mouse. Invented by Douglas Engelbart, Figure 20, the first mouse was designed to be held constantly in the right hand while the operator used a five button pad in the left hand for selecting objects.

Figure 18 ‐ MALT contoured keyboard [21]


Figure 19 ‐ The first trackball (1952) [22] Figure 20 ‐ The first mouse (1963) [22] Figure 21 ‐ OptoMechanical Mouse [22]

This mouse used two perpendicular gear wheels to translate X and Y movement to the computer. The system worked well but if a diagonal movement was required one would have to move the mouse in a zigzag motion. A ball was later added so that a diagonal movement could be achieved without the gear wheels catching on the operating surface. This resembled an upturned trackball device. In 1972, the design was modified for a more accurate movement. The wheels which originally drove electrical pickups by a shaft were replaced by unconnected wheels which incorporated gaps at incremental angles. Light was then passed through these gaps to a pickup on the opposite side of the wheel. The direction and speed at which the light was broken translated into the X and Y movement, Figure 21. This mouse also had two buttons placed on the top so that the left hand could be freed up for other command entry. A third button was later added and then replaced by a scroll wheel button. Optical sensors are now used instead of the ball driven device as well multiple buttons with fully programmable functions. For instance the Razor Lachesis has nine buttons and a scroll wheel button. Multiple button profiles can also be set up depending on the software being used. It is also possible to add weights to the mouse depending on the user’s preference as well as being able to increase and decrease mouse sensitivity and the touch of a button.

Figure 22 ‐ One button [22] Figure 23 ‐ Three button [22] Figure 24 ‐ Ergonomic [22] Figure 25 ‐ Advanced [22]

On evaluation the mouse has reached its maximum potential. There are new designs being created regularly but the main idea is the same. It is a comfortable, easy to use and important piece of equipment, but it is time for a change. These devices are limited by their two dimensional function and will, one day, become superfluous when we are able to physically reach out and manipulate the computer objects with our hands. This idea may seem like disrespect, as the mouse has become well established, but to move forward it is necessary to look beyond the current benchmark even if some people believe the idea to be an impossibility or just plain wrong.

Making Use of the Left Hand Since the mouse was designed for single hand operation, it seems inefficient that the other hand has to use a device designed for two i.e. the keyboard. Companies such as 3Dconnexion and Belkin have come up with peripherals designed solely for left hand operation. These devices allow the left hand to operate the maximum amount of functions without the need to remove the right hand from the mouse or look away from the screen.


The Belkin n52te [7], Figure 26 and Figure 27, is primarily targeted at the gaming market however it can be successfully utilised for CAD purposes. The design incorporates the following;

Sixteen keys

Scroll wheel button

D‐pad with joystick attachment

Three hardware accessible profiles

This means that the left hand has comfortable access to fifty one customisable buttons and the joystick can be used as a second mouse thereby taking some of the strain off the first mouse.

An alternative to the n52te is more of a CAD specific peripheral; 3Dconnexion’s Space Pilot [8], Figure 28 and Figure 29. There are less buttons on the Space pilot compared to the n52te however the focus of this device is the 3D mouse. The large knob for instance does more than a joystick, mouse or trackball; it uses 6 degrees of motion, Figure 28, to increase the ability to move around a 3D object in the model space and as a result, increasing productivity.

Figure 28 ‐ The 3Dconnexion Space Pilot (6 degrees of movement) [8] Figure 29 ‐ The Space Pilot in use [8]

On evaluation both of these products can be used successfully as an aid to the CAD user, however it seems that the current solution to the interface problems is to increase the number of buttons available on the user’s peripherals. This has a negative effect; with more buttons comes a higher level of complexity and thus a decrease in user friendliness. The development of the user interface is therefore beginning to move in reverse; another sign that a change is necessary.

Figure 26 ‐ The Belkin n52te [7] Figure 27 ‐ The Belkin n52te in use [7]


Future

When looking at the future of the CAD interface there are many points and views that need to be considered before hypothesizing on what might happen and what one wants to happen. From the CAD interface past it is possible to see many areas where technologies were touched on or wanted but were unattainable due to the technological ability at the time.

One of the earliest of these technologies was the virtual reality head unit envisioned by Ivan Sutherland; see Virtual Reality on page 13. This also made use of a similar technology as the discard balance based mice spoken about in The Mouse on page 9.

Another problem that occurred was the complex and indirect methods of information entry. The keyboard issues made note of on page 8, the need for a new mouse and way that function have become so many that there cannot be enough physical buttons available on the peripherals as one would need and too many icons make for a complex user interface.

What direction is there left for the CAD interface to go?

Why is it necessary the CAD systems are just fine the way they are?

The main issue described by all the problems is that a more interactive, immersive user interface is needed but people are too comfortable with the current system, but then again at one time people were comfortable walking from town to town but now we take other, easier means. Progression is a fact of life and it needs to be explored. So can we finally create this ‘Ultimate’ interface? Is the technology available or in the process of becoming available for the interface to be more than just a cosmetic upgrade? It is the opinion of this report that the technology is available and the system is required as the current method of human computer interaction has reached the maximum possible development stage. There is no denying that their use and design have been critical to the CAD user interface; however under some circumstances the ability to move forward requires the capacity to discard current technology and standards so that a fresh, out of the box perspective can be achieved.

Science FACT

This section gives descriptions of technology which could be used to take direct computer interaction to the next level. Even though these systems might not be currently commercially viable or even compatible with the current CAD software and user interfaces, they are the next step and should be considered, researched and focused upon if we are going to take computers from the information age into the age of understanding.

Speech‐driven Commands Giving a computer commands without the use of a keyboard has been a reality since the middle of the 1980’s. The designers and purveyors of this software claim that the computer has the ability to understand what is being said, however the process is a simple piece of voice pattern recognition software with a large database of words, phrases and commands which are pre‐programmed. To be able to hear these commands the recognition software uses a microphone headset, Figure 30, to send the voice wave patterns to the computers soundcard which then converts the patterns into a series of binary codes. These codes are then compared to the binary codes in the database. When a suitable match is found the words are then displayed as text or the commands are carried out.


However being able to simply hear a person’s voice isn’t going to be able to give a 100% accuracy; the problem with this technology is that people do not speak in the same way or with the same accent. The voice is like a finger print, no two are exactly alike. It is possible to imitate another’s voice; however a computer can always spot the variations. It is for this reason the sound of a person’s voice can be used as evidence in court. It is this problem which caused the database driven voice

recognition software to be used by only a minority of people. These systems are just too user unfriendly to be used on a large scale, however every single automated phone service which make a person want to tear their hair out for not being able to understand a word you say is thanks to the voice pattern recognition software. Can this problem be solved? How can we control a computer when it can’t understand the voice? To answer this, scientists from many fields have been for many years experimenting with the most advanced computer known to man; the human brain. It is an amazing piece of biological computer evolution which actually understands what is being spoken most of the time, but also successfully fills in what it doesn’t. It does not just ignore the differences in imitations of voices, it compensates for different accents. However this is not the most amazing ability that the brain has to offer; it is the ability to hear a word spoken in someone else’s slang terminology or language and translate it, in real time, into their own and even someone else’s proper or slang terminology, or language. Computers nowadays appear to be able to do this, thanks to advanced programming and trickery; however that’s all it is, programming. There haven’t been any computers which truly understand what is being said, in the full sense of the word, until very recently. Neural networks, brain imitation learning computers, have been implemented and advanced to the point where voice recognition specialists have been able to understand how a brain makes sense of the billions of differences necessary to understand a simple word like ‘hello’ for example. This has culminated in a system which actually understands the spoken word and its meaning. It won’t be long before this technology will have advanced to the point of a system which is commercially available and user friendly enough to be implemented as a tool which can be used successfully as either an aid to the mobility impaired or just as a tool to gain greater production efficiency and an easier way of life.

Virtual Reality The virtual reality technology is not only a fancy visual display system; it is a doorway which can be stepped through into a world where the mind isn’t limited by the human body. First envisioned by the father of CAD, Ivan Sutherland, virtual reality was described as the definitive user interface. Unfortunately, Sutherland’s paper ‘The Ultimate Display’ published in 1965 [12] was created in a time where the equipment couldn’t keep up with his ideas. However not being deterred by these technological short comings, in 1968, he created a head mounted display unit with two screens. These screens displayed a stereoscopic left and right view of an object which, thanks to the way the brain perceives objects, created an image of a 3D object. This was hardly a virtual world but it did create the basis to all virtual reality systems. It also generated two different forms of head unit; the fully immersive and the non immersive. Sutherlands head unit was of the non immersive classification due to the user being able to see the real world as well as the virtual world. The fully immersive head units were developed soon after Sutherland’s invention. These actually isolated the users view so that the real world was blocked out. This was a simple and yet highly effective idea as it

Figure 30 ‐ An image of a standard headset [28]


allowed the mind to get drawn into the images and even if they don’t appear to be realistic, the environment feels real.

Figure 31 ‐ The VR head mounted display unit [29] Figure 32 ‐ The VR HMD in use [30]

Current Technology Today’s virtual reality systems are no longer restricted to visual sensory input; they draw on the ocular, auditory and somatic senses to create a very convincing representation of the real world. The head mounted display units, Figure 31 and Figure 32, have positioning sensors which communicate with a static sensor on a fix object like the nearest wall or desk. These sensors track where the head is in 3D space and where the user is looking to allow for movement in the virtual world. These units also contain auditory input, however the system are no longer just a set of headphones. They are a multi channel 3D surround sound emulation device, Figure 33, which creates the illusion of the environment which is being seen through the head mounted display. The system makes you feel like you are walking through an echoing cave, swimming through the ocean or flying through the air. The vision and sound created by these devices are spectacular but what makes the system fully immersive, turning the illusions into reality are the somatic devices which give the user the ability to actually feel the environment. Force feedback systems, Cyber gloves and even suits are worn to allow the computer to sense the user’s body and place it in the virtual environment. The cyber equipment, Figure 34, contains a network of feedback sensors which give the illusion of tactile contact, making interaction with the object being seen and heard that little bit more real. It also allows for a highly advanced user interface which hasn’t yet been fully taken advantage of. An interface that allows us to physically manipulate the objects we see, thereby bypassing the keyboard and mouse altogether.

Figure 33 ‐ 3D surround sound [31] Figure 34 ‐ Cyber equipment [32]

It would be great to physically grab objects and manipulate them using ones hands inside the computer but since these systems create the world in a computer, then communicate this world back to us by means of analogue devices, the systems will always be limited by the digital to analogue translation technology. For the time being this virtual reality analogue interface will have to suffice and should be researched further to at least move past the current indirect communication systems, but we are on the verge of change. A change which could combine the brain, with the computer.


Neural Interfacing The brain computer interface [38] falls under the realm of the human computer interface however even though the operator is in fact human, the system bypasses the body entirely. It is like being able to fly without the need for wings. The brain computer interface removes the need for a mouse and keyboard, it may even remove the need for the visual display unit altogether. To describe this type of interface it is necessary to break it down into groups. There are three specific groups which all have differing levels of ability, risk and desirability. The names of these groups are invasive, partially invasive and non‐invasive.

Non‐Invasive The non‐invasive system uses a technology called electroencephalography to monitor the brain through sensors mounted on the scalp. This system measures the electrochemical changes in specific areas of the brain and has been around for many years, being mainly used to monitor patients in comas or with brain damage. When a person thinks about different things, like images, the changes in brain electrochemistry are plotted using a simple computer system causing them to appear as wave patterns, Figure 35. However these brain waves provide more than just information about what the person is doing or thinking they also include subconscious acts like emotions and expressive movement. The brain wave pattern is therefore decoded by a piece of software with three main sections with very different tasks.

The Affective suite measures the user’s emotional state.

The Cognitive suite allows the user to control objects and movement.

The Expressive suite measures and interprets a user’s expression. This suite doesn’t really play a part in controlling a computer system; however it is used for a more realistic avatar.

Even though the system of reading and understanding the brain waves is a relative simple task, the training required to use this system is extensive as the sensors pick up on noise echoes from other neural areas of the brain. Since the brain is not in direct contact with the inner part of the skull, but is encased in a layer of fluid, electrochemical signals from nearby neurons get transmitted through the fluid and interact with the desired neural signals. Think of it like an old cathode ray tube monitor; when a fan, hairdryer or something which creates a magnetic field is placed near the CRT monitor the signal becomes distorted, creating a sort of static. Even with this major problem advances have been made and the system has become more useable with increased sensitivity and focus. This has dramatically reduced the training time and it has allowed people to develop easy to use systems.

Figure 35 ‐ A single brain wave pattern [33]

For instance, OCZ Technology [9] has recently released a commercially viable non‐invasive brain computer interface called the NIA, Figure 37. The main market for this device is for gaming however the system works by converting the electroencephalography signals into specific keystrokes thereby allowing the NIA to be used with any piece of computer software. The keys are also fully customisable by the user for a more user specific, natural feeling.


Figure 36 ‐ A non‐invasive system, controlling lights and sound [34] Figure 37 ‐ OCZ Technology’s Neural Interface Actuator [9]

The NIA is the first of its kind but even so, it’s not a gimmick; on evaluation the system actually works and works well. The system allows the player to become the avatar, not just control it. The avatar will walk, run, jump, crouch, prone and fire without the need to press a single button. It does take a while to get used to but with practise the movement of the avatar will come without the need for conscious thought; it will be second nature, like the way the brain controls a limb or an appendage. There is however an issue over directional control; the system can’t pick up on where to make the avatar run or where to make it shoot so there is minimal mouse control. If this system were to be used in a fully immersive user interface, the combined immediate keystrokes with head mounted display with 3D space sensor would make for a powerful tool.

Partially Invasive Electrocorticography is another form of brain computer interface but this time it is partially invasive. The system uses the exact same process as the non‐invasive electroencephalography however the sensors are placed between the bone of the scull and the grey matter of the brain. Because the skull has been bypassed the resolution of the sensor results is increased due to the reduction of noise. The sensors can also be focused on a narrower area of the brain for a more neuron specific pickup. This increased accuracy means that the user doesn’t have to control their brain wave patterns as much as the non‐invasive system which in turn allows for a faster learning time.

Invasive The most effective form of brain computer interface is the invasive variety. Electrodes, placed directly into the grey matter of the brain pick up of the electrochemical changes with near no signal loss. This direct connection to the brain allows for a two way transmission of signals, not only can the brain control objects such as robotic hands and computer cursers but it has also proven itself when the flow of information is reversed. In 1978 a system of direct neural input was used to partially restore the sight of a person who lost it due to an optical disease. If this idea was research and advanced enough it could replace the visual display unit altogether as the computer would have a direct feed into our brains; a daunting proposition. There is one drawback to this type of interface; brain surgery. The risks are unbelievably high and there are no guarantees that it will work or work for long. Scar tissue sometimes builds up around the sensors due to the brain rejecting the foreign body causing the signal to be lost. But even so, this technology should not be casually dismissed as it could one day allow us to evolve the computer from a simple tool into a symbiotic entity used in all aspects of daily life. It may also allow the human brain to unlock the other 90% of its currently untapped potential. On evaluation of these brain computer interfaces it is possible to see potential in all of them however since the NIA system works so well it will be a long time before a method of direct brain connection is created that has more positive aspects than the non invasive system.


The Ultimate CAD Human Computer Interface

The hardware layout The user will sit on a posturepedic kneeling chair, Figure 38, with a possible front support. The chair will be modified in such a way that it feels as if there is no chair but at the same time being perfectly secure in the fact that there is no way of possibly falling off. The chair will also be placed in a soundproof cubicle with its own environmental system controlled by the user and the computer. Inside the cubicle will be a small desk in front of the chair with a MALT keyboard, a left hand peripheral such as the 3D Space Pilot, an advanced optical mouse and a monitor mounted above the desk. These input and display devices will only be a secondary input until the other technologies have advanced enough to be able to get rid of these antiquated systems. The user dressed in a full body cyber suit or just cyber gloves will be wearing a head mounted display unit containing additional systems like the 3D environmental headphones, voice command microphone and a non‐invasive neural interactive actuator.

Figure 38 ‐ The interface seating layout [35]

How the system will be used The CAD user will not need to leave the house instead the user will put on the cyber suit and enter the virtual reality cubicle. The user will then press the ‘on’ button on the computer and wait for the computer to load. The computer screen will display the computer loading and then it will request the user to turn on the cyber suit and head unit since these devices will both be wireless. The computer screen will display the connection process and whether it was successful in connecting to the devices. Statistics such as remaining power and connection signal will be displayed along with current light and environmental settings. The head unit will be placed on the users head and the mounted screen will switch off. The 3D operating system will load when the head unit senses the head. Immediately the user will feel immersed in an entirely virtual 3D desktop similar to a 2D desktop. The user will be able to move around the virtual environment with a combination of head turning for direction and neural interface for movement. Selection of programs and folders, rotation and dragging of objects etc will be done using customisable hand movements. Commands such as copy and paste will be carried out by a process of selecting the object to copy and speaking the words [COPY OBJECT]. The user will then navigate to where the object is to be pasted and then the user will speak the words [PASTE OBJECT].


Typing will be a case of opening up a new word document as usual but this time the word interface will appear on a virtual screen inside the virtual environment. Words can be either spoken using the speech driven command system, typed using the virtual keyboard or the words will appear through thought impulses from the neural impulse actuator. The CAD system will be the main focus. When the CAD system loads it will be like walking into a virtual workshop. There will be a choice of different forms of CAD inside the one interface. Systems such as structural, architectural, part modelling and polygon sculpting will be a few of the possible functions. The part modelling system will work saying commands such as [SKETCH OBJECT] and [LOFT OBJECT] while using the hands as point and select tools. There won’t be many buttons in view since this is an environment and not a desktop. There will be pop up dialogue boxes when the system needs text input. Commands, such as [COMMAND LIST] will cause a pop up dialogue box to appear with a list of command names so that commands don’t have to be learned immediately. The polygon sculpting tool will be the real masterpiece of the CAD system. Like sculpting clay the user will be able to physically sculpt the object using their hands directly. Again most tool commands will be speech or neural driven and the feeling of touching the object will be created by the cyber suits force feedback systems. The most intriguing aspect of this system is being able to have CAD users from around the world work in the same virtual office even if they’re in different countries. The users will walk around as avatars and may even be able to work in the same virtual workshop and work on the same model as you.

Advantages over the current human computer interfaces The main advantage to this ultimate system is freedom. The ability to go beyond the restrictions caused by the old mouse and keyboard input systems. A new definition of ‘workplace’ would have to be coined as well as a new definition of ‘going to work’. The biggest advantage would be showing off the final product to the client. They wouldn’t have to travel to see you or you to see them they would simply step into the virtual world and you could speak to them face to face. Show them around the house you built for them or let them drive the new car design. It will free our minds and let us move forward into a new age of interaction. We will finally be able to experience things we have never dreamed of or were unable to afford to do.


Conclusion

From the research, descriptions, evaluations and theories carried out throughout this study it is clear that the CAD human computer interface is a highly complex piece of design with many features and possibilities. It has also played a major role in the advancement of not only CAD software but every piece of computer software and hardware that could ever be connected with a computer system. For instance without CAD and Ivan Sutherlands quest for a user friendly computer we would never have had a graphical user interface like the latest Windows 7, we would still be typing our commands or worse, not bothering at all. The CAD human computer interface has therefore improved everyone’s life with new technologies and new sciences but the evolution of these systems is not yet over. We will one day be able to walk into a room and call up virtual environments without the need of wearable equipment or a mouse and keyboard as we know it. The software will not have to be learned in the usual fashion as we won’t need the skills to build anything virtually. We would simply imagine what we wanted and it would be created by the computer. The systems will be for the most sense automated with the user as just a mere passenger who gives course suggestions from time to time. For now the current systems work just fine, but it would be good to see some of the future possibilities come into existence.


References

When creating this report it was necessary to research some areas to build on the personal knowledge and experience already acquired on this subject. All images and additional research was carried out using the sources mentioned below. To aid the search for information the main site used was an internet search called Google ‐ http://www.google.com

Web Based Research

Software

[1] Autodesk ‐ http://www.autodesk.com [2] Dassault ‐ http://www.3ds.com [3] PTC ‐ http://www.ptc.com

Hardware

[4] Saitek ‐ http://www.saitek.com [5] Logitech ‐ http://www.logitech.com [6] Microsoft ‐ http://www.microsoft.com [7] Belkin n52te ‐ http://www.belkin.com [8] 3Dconnexion Space Pilot ‐ http://www.3Dconnexion.com [9] OCZ Technology’s NIA ‐ http://www.ocztechnology.com [10] Maltron Keyboard ‐ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltron_keyboard

Reports

[11] A dissertation, ’Sketchpad: A man‐machine graphical communication system’, submitted in January 1963 by Ivan Sutherland for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://theses.mit.edu/

[12] A published paper, ’The Ultimate Display’, submitted in {month} 1965 by Ivan Sutherland. http://theses.mit.edu/

[13] A technical report, ‘Sketchpad: A man‐machine graphical communication system. A new preface and electronic edition’, submitted in September 2003 by Alan Blackwell and Kerry Rodden, at the University of Cambridge. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/

Additional Images

[14] [15] http://www.digibarn.com/collections/systems/xerox‐8010/index.html [16] http://www.aresluna.org/attached/usability/articles/biurkonaekranie/pics/xerox [17] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/Windows1.0.png [18] http://cadit.typepad.com/my_weblog/WindowsLiveWriter/AutoCAD_PC_AT.jpg [19] http://www.klippert.com/tcc/blog/pics/Dvorak.jpg [20] http://mindprod.com/image/keyboard/maltronlayout.png [21] http://www.kinesis‐ergo.com/images/contour.jpg [22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_(computing) [23] http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3746396253_2d36af26f4.jpg [24] http://img.brothersoft.com/screenshots/softimage/a/autoxlstable_for_autocad_2000‐

62990‐1.jpeg [25] http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3482/3255814221_92af9e4cc3.jpg [26] http://www.develop3d.com/uploaded_images/solidworks‐710985.jpg


[27] http://www.ptc.com/community/proewf/newtools/images/eng_am_063_static.gif [28] http://www.ishopinseconds.com/store/images/headphone_microphone_headset.jpg [29] http://gearmedia.ign.com/gear/image/article/778/778513/trimersion‐virtual‐reality‐

hmd‐20070404052805106‐000.jpg [30] http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/virtual‐reality‐8.jpg [31] http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1584/speakerplacement61.gif [32] http://www.thinkartificial.org/wp‐content/uploads/2007/11/vr‐system‐components.jpg [33] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectroEncephalogram.png [34] http://www.thinkartificial.org/wp‐content/uploads/2008/02/regen‐brainwave‐music.gif [35] http://stevedamien.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/angle_chair_kneeling_high.jpg

Book Based Research

[36] Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages by B. Shneiderman (1983). [37] Pygmalion: A Computer Program to Model and Stimulate Creative Thought by D. C. Smith

(1977). [38] Toward Brain‐Computer Interfacing by Dornhege, Millán, Hinterberger, McFarland and Müller

(2007).

Experimental Based Research

All software evaluated was either procured from the software company directly as a student copy or is currently available to students of the CAD class on the UWS computer network.

[39] Autodesk

o AutoCAD 1998 to 2010 o Inventor 2009 to 2010

[40] PTC

o Pro Engineer v2 to v4

[41] Dassault

o Solidworks 2007 to 2010

A Study of the CAD Interface; Past Present and Future

Documents

Transcript of A Study of the CAD Interface; Past Present and Future