Slashdot Mirror
Getting Human Hands Back Into Digital Design
Hugh Pickens writes "Using computers to model the physical world has become increasingly common as products as diverse as cars and planes, pharmaceuticals and cellphones are almost entirely conceived, specified, and designed on a computer screen. Typically, only when these creations are nearly ready for mass manufacturing are prototypes made. But the NYTimes is running an interesting essay highlighting a little-noticed movement in the world of professional design and engineering: a renewed appreciation for manual labor, or innovating with the aid of human hands. 'A lot of people get lost in the world of computer simulation,' says Bill Burnett, executive director of the product design program at Stanford. 'You can't simulate everything.' Fifty years ago, tinkering with gadgets was routine for people drawn to engineering and invention, and making refinements with your own hands means 'you have to be extremely self-critical,' says Richard Sennett, whose book The Craftsman examines the importance of skilled manual labor. Even in highly abstract fields, like the design of next-generation electronic circuits, some people believe that hands-on experiences can enhance creativity. 'You need your hands to verify experimentally a technology that doesn't exist,' says Mario Paniccia, director of Intel's photonics technology lab."
Digitize your hands and use them in your digital environment.
What... no good?
Modeling doesn't actually model everything, and an unknown factor can easily arise. It's easy to design a product, but hard to actually design one that works the first time around flawlessly.
Craftsmen are still needed in meat-space.
It's true that in the world of building design as well that designing solely with computer allows you to overlook flaws with a design, and that a physical model is still the best way to test design. It's also true that you can't sketch an idea in AutoCad, and that the beginnings of a design in any field should be sketched/modelled. It's almost as if when something is conceived on computer it's automatically granted legitimacy.
I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
Warning: TFA requires registration, or, bugmenot.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett
Three girls using the "art of soldering"? Haha! Right! Nice place to work this Adobe place...
'You can't simulate everything.'
Yet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Americans can't afford to waste their time doing things with their hands. That's what low wage countries are for. Americans have to concentrate on the profitable things, like banking, hedge funds, and real estate speculation. You can't get rich with machine shop skills. Or even with the skills to set up an production line. You don't get any respect for that.
A few years ago, I ran a DARPA Grand Challenge team. We had some bright young people with an interest in robotics and the ability to make complex hardware work. Where are they now? One is running a hedge fund in Santa Fe. One went to Bermuda to work for an offshore financial operation. One went to a search engine company. One headed a group developing software inside the iPhone. They're all making lots of money, but they're not doing robotics. They can't afford to.
Yes, it's sad, Yes, it's leading to the decline of the United States. But if you're young and have college loans to pay off, what can you do?
A pedant could argue that if you're using your fingers it's already digital.
good luck with that!. (walks back to computer screen).
"The quality of life is inversely proportional to the number of keys on your keyring."
If the device being modeled is already well understood, then computer modeling saves time and money. Giant aircraft are almost never prototyped any more. They are designed, modeled and tested on the computer. The first physical plane is ready to fly.
Another thing computer modeling is good for is trying many different things. For instance, in microwave class we used to build a microstrip amplifier. It was a real pain and not all students were successful. The students get much better experience using Microwave Workbench.
I do agree that hands-on is necessary for some purposes but ...
Gene
Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
The first Boing 777 flew and flew exactly as the model predicted.
There was a time when you would make a physical model to see how it will behave, but no longer. They sort of do it with cars but only for the sake of styling. Aerodynamic models are more accurate and styling is more important so there is no need for wind tunel testing.
Modern Cad pakages like SolidWorks, Catia, ProE are amazing and almost a comodity.
Skilled manual labour is a beautiful thing, but is becoming more distant
I am sure there is a SciFi script in this.
G
Luckily the project manager was "old school" and had an SLA made which showed up the problem before the big-cost plastic injection molding dies were made.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Handmade work is still in use, but good designing practices has taught us that it's easier to reduce 'common mistakes' with the use of automated tools at some stages. You can't make all step of modern microelectronics by hand and still be competitive (you'd use much more manpower and your product certainly will be delivered too late), as you can't use a rule and a pencil to design a modern building.
The perfect workflow (or perhaps the more efficient) is to use the best tools available to reach an advanced point of your design- the same point that your competitors can reach with the same tool, and then use your expertise/handwork/experience to refine it and differentiate your product from others.
OTOH, modern CAD software is very complex and saying that working with it is 'less creative' is a kick in the ass to those great engineers who have created authentic pieces of electronic art with it.
Rest assured, laying out a complex circuit board is still very much a "hands on" process, because interacting with the software is a real pain.
If I'm not mistaken, Isaac Asimov wrote in Foundation's Edge that the reason why humans have developed a technological society is because we have hands. Dolphins and whales have sizeable brains but they lack hands. He even goes as far to say that humans 'thinks' with their hands, in that the hands are manifestations of intelligence.
What you do, is build stuff and fuck the rest of them.
It's that simple.
Perhaps you can't do it on the job --that's the case with me. You can however, do what you want to on your time and the skills you build will provide value for you later on.
There is absolutely no place on this earth where the simple equation for wealth, which is innovation applied to labor over time, does not apply.
We are being told it does not apply here, that we are a consumer economy and that the world would crash if we quit consuming shit.
Don't believe one word of it.
We have the trade deficits today, the economic trouble we do today, for one reason and one only:
We don't carry our weight as Americans. Until we fix that, we will slowly be owned by the rest of the world perfectly willing to carry theirs.
Blogging because I can...
Take the "planet" bit with appropriate humour, but I'm serious about the rest.
In the fairly developed nation of planet Earth that I come from (UK), the majority of people no longer work at whatever job they can get, regardless of interest. The *vast* majority have at least some passing interest in their line of work (and that's how they choose it in the first place), even in jobs that some might think of as "menial", in the services, or building site labour, counter and cleaning staff. Many of these jobs are not particularly pleasant (plumbers fixing broken toilets are not always delighted with their environment), but in general, people do have some initial interest in their choice, quite apart from later finding satisfaction in acquiring some competence in their area of work.
I have always found the above to be true of all working people in "the West", and I have always believed that this is true of Americans as well, since the US is as advanced a country and society as any European one. I think.
I have many friends in the US, including ex work colleagues who moved there, and your description of Americans does not ring a bell at all. But maybe my friends are not representative.
So, tell me, even if what you wrote was partly tongue-in-cheek (but not all of it was, since you regret that those bright young people of yours no longer work in robotics), how can it be that Americans can't afford to waste time doing what they enjoy and what interests them? The need to make money is not a satisfactory answer, except for the unfortunate bottom layer who are not very well covered by the welfare safety net in the US (or so I hear).
I can't even begin to envisage the kind of "developed country" in which your premise is true.
If you are being serious, then perhaps the "other planet" angle isn't so far fetched. Please explain.
A computer model is far more useful than a piece of hardware on your desk. It does more and costs less.
One important aspect is measurements. There is no easy way to do any meaningful measurements in a microwave circuit unless it is specifically designed for that (and for nothing else.) However a CST or Ansoft model allows you to measure the field, or the current, or whatever else you want in any point of the model (and of the space around it, if you build an antenna, for example.) These measurements will be totally non-invasive, as opposed to a real-world probe that you would have to use. Some RF designs require hundreds of iterations before you achieve the desired compromise between all your design goals. Doing this in a computer will take a month. Doing this in metal will take 10 years.
Another advantage is in parametric design. Usually models are not hardcoded, but defined with a set of parameters (Excel for Autodesk Inventor, built-in spreadsheets for SolidWorks, etc.) You can manipulate these parameters and [almost] instantly see their effect. To do this in a real-world hardware you'd need weeks and thousands of dollars.
Per my current practice, the model is built only as a working prototype, when the design has been done and validated on the computer. This model can be also used as a sales demo, but the main purpose of building it is to verify the calculations, and the quality of the overall design (such as "can it be assembled?")
I know he will first convert those digital hands into $$$$$.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
"Yes Daddy, it's something you know with your skin."
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
This topic has been in the back of my mind for a while now. Some musings.
If we continue to use expert systems to design things using coded models of behavior, we need to be cautious about interpreting the output of those models. Airplane wings are wind-tunnel tested to see that they conform to the model's predictions. This is well and good. But as more complex non linear chaotic objects are modeled, one needs to be crucially aware of the model as being just a "model" not the actual object (with all it's nuances and quirky behaviors). Look at the level of detail and redundancy in the space program for a lesson in exhaustive modeling, and still resulting in tragedy and gross error (Hubble comes to mind).
I remember when the Star Wars initiative was the talk of the Friday night grogs. Most engineers (at least the software designers) thought it impossible to design a bug-free mission critical system to support it, but were happy to give it the good ole college try in any case.
Rely on tools to design robots to design machines, didn't someone write a sci-fi story about that once?
is different from mimicking.......
100% agree
what the real world item will be like then improve the model. Next time you can use the model. With all due respect to the Old School of Engineering, I wouldn't plant a farm using a mule, I wouldn't design a house with an abacus, I wouldn't write software without a compiler, and I wouldn't walk the 30 kilometers to work every day.
Technology is used because it has proven itself to be better for the task. Yes! you will have mistakes and discrepencies. But today's models are only unhelpful when they are misused. For example, the computer modeled piece of electronics someone mentioned did not include modeling the assembly process.
From a spoon to a Boeing 777, everything in the realm of common physics can now be properly and completely modeled on a computer. Building a model by hand is no longer useful than to let you reach out and touch your creation, or to let more tactile learners understand engineering better.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
My digital design IS hand-crafted!
What, isn't a mouse or a stylus a tool for accomplishing precision handiwork? Doesn't it take skill and concentration to pull beziers into just the right position for a smooth flowing and eye-pleasing line? Is there less need for building a harmonious pallete when it's pixels and not paint? (Try not to bring gamut or precision into this. Since it's not likely to ever be consistent anyways.) Doesn't pulling vertices about to build proper form on a 3D mesh take practice and patience? And not to count the time for going over texts for special characters, ligatures, and manually kerning where the automatic features only manage to fail. And don't even get me started if any animation is involved!
* Of course it doesn't hurt to occasionally practice and further develop using traditional media, but not everyone can actually afford to do so. (Costs of decent paints, printing materials, or traditional modeling materials can add up pretty fast.)
I sometimes think that an over-reliance on success at the modeling stage can lead to things like unusable software. I'm currently working with a product that theoretically replaces me. but because it can't break its own rules, it ends up coming short in real-world applications, and here I am not only operating a product that is too sophisticated for the average user, but that is also intrinsically incapable of doing some very simple things that are only called for about 2% of the time. but when you need em, you need em. and those last 2% can make the difference between success and failure. but that doesn't make the product a failure; it's unquestionably good at what it does do. the failure lies on the part of users/planners/managers who mistake power and complexity for universality.
Having said that, we can get too dependent on the tools. Sometimes for certain circuits we learn that if this line cross that point, we're good. But it's too easy to forget why it would cross that point or even what the line measures. Today more than ever it's essential that good designer's understand what's physically going on. The tool can't truly model everything accurately, and even if it could it can't truly run all possible scenarios even with today's compute resources (my top level sims run for about a week). So the tools have limitations and we must be aware of them. A guy with a wrench can't assume everything is hexagonal, or that everything should be torqued in the first place.
Also, software tools can pidgin-hole us. They are written with a certain design paradigm in mind. That might represent good practice over a long period of time and over many different types of circuits, but eventually you'll hit limitations. You need to understand those limitations to build a better tool. We need to know when it's time to shift paradigms. Now new paradigms come along before the old ones even get broken in because we're working with tens of nanometers for features sizes.
Anyway, this is just the perspective from the integrated circuit industry (and specifically on the analog side). But I suspect that in this world of so much device integration that we'll really need computers to keep track of all the amazing richness of technology that these new widgets contain.
The ultimate goal of science is to unify all forces of nature to a single law that can be silk-screened onto a T-shirt.
a sketch pad counts as manual labor, and I don't see sketch pads along with white boards going away anytime soon. And any decent designer has a sketch pad.
But please don't throw away your rulers and compasses if what you are drawing is the final blueprint.
I see plenty of ads in Craigslist for artists, but for the most part, they also involve your ability to code and require experience with very expensive software (hard to afford for a traditional artist trying to move INTO digital). But the coding thing is ridiculous.
Seems to me that all they're really doing is looking for a way to get one employee to do three jobs for one set salary. Either that, or they're just clueless, and think every picture or painting starts out in Photoshop, and THEN artists move into sketching the image to paper.
But most ironically, a lot of them will AVOID hiring traditional artists for the same reason they're supposedly looking to hire them for.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
I agree that there's a place for simulation, but some commenters seem to think that it is sufficient. So Boeing built and successfully flew a 777; that says nothing about how easy it is for the pilot to use the controls, or the mechanic to repair a tailfin assembly, or for a passenger to put their pants back on after using the restroom. Can a simulation package replace feedback from a pilot's attempt to use a control panel? (For that matter, DOES it even make sense to simulate this with a CAD model? Well, I suppose there's always a virtual reality setup ...)
Ditto with antenna design. The value of the simulation software is in optimizing effectiveness at receiving a signal. That has nothing to do with the ease or difficulty of installation.
Have you tried to change motor oil and filter on a recent model subcompact car? It's much harder than it was 25 years ago, unless you have a lift (or mechanic's pit), sometimes special tools, and can reset the onboard computer so that it doesn't report you as voiding the warranty. It's obviously not a design objective to facilitate owner-performed maintenance. There could be any number of reasons for this, but it seems to me that "easy to change the oil" would also translate into more productive mechanics at service stations and car dealerships, maybe even lower prices and/or higher profits. We may never know.
I object to the dismissal (or de-emphasis) of issues or concerns that can't be simulated by hand-off software packages -- such as installation and upgrades; ease of use; maintenance and repairs; you know -- all that stuff that involves a messy human. (And maybe someone who ultimately might determine whether you remain employed and/or your employer remains in business. Ah, if only it were that simple ...) Alas, your Pointy-Haired Boss can sabotage any attempt to do the right thing, so you might need to use people skills -- you do have some, don't you? -- to make your case.
Certainly there's a place for simulation(s). If it makes it any more palatable, then think of prototyping as a hands-on simulation that attempts to address the interface(s) where user meets product. Of course, you need a lot more intelligence in the data analysis stage, as there's no software to substitute for thinking.
Check out the examples cited in "The Craftsman" by Richard Sennett, along with anecdotes in "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman in order to broaden your perspective on design to include a "user". Just maybe you can rise above the undesirable consequences of designs that don't account for the ultimate consumer of a product.
Growing up and around the auto industry I've been able to see the heavy shift to reliance on computers. While they have been able to achieve great things towards building a better, safer and cheaper product with far less waste I've seen the practicality of design swept away in the same stroke. Most modern cars are designed with little thought to serviceability. When they designed the Dodge Intrepid all on computers in '99 I think it was, sure that was a great accomplishment. However there wasn't a single practical thing about the layout of the engine from a serviceability standpoint. There are some of the flaws that I've see with the over reliance towards doing everything virtually. Building something with your hands forces you to deal with real space and constraints. It's time consuming and will cause you to stumble at times, but ultimately I feel it will build a better product.
I find this article relevant, as I am currently in the process of doing a "hands-on" test design of a modern CPU, using solderless breadboards and individual transistors.
It's the size of a football field and won't run reliably at clock speeds higher than 0.004 GHz, but hey.
Driver: "An hour in labor charges for an oil change? Screw it, I'll drive another 5000 miles before changing."
Independent Mechanic: "Well, your bearings are all shot to hell. Cost you $5000 for a new engine. Even at an hour an oil change, you shoulda changed your oil on schedule. You coulda gone a million miles with this car."
Dealer Mechanic: "Well, your bearings are all shot to hell. It's got 200,000 miles on it, though. Guess you'll wanna talk to our sales department about a trade-in."
A productive independent mechanic doesn't add any profit for the car's manufacturer, no matter how good (or bad) the consumer's maintenance is.
A productive dealer service bay probably makes more money for the dealer when the maintenance is complicated/expensive enough to either (a) make more hourly profits for the dealer's mechanic, or (b) discourage the consumer from doing good maintenance, and ensure a repeat visit a few years down the road.
on things at the scale of the DARPA bit.
However, that does not extend to "cutting edge" technologies in general. Of course, with computers it's easy to do stuff as it's mostly virtual.
Other examples include, prototypes for product design, micro controller applications, niche products to be consumed locally, infrastructure things (farming water systems, wireless, your own shop with lots of capability, etc...), a small business of contract work, and others.
Also there is the enabling factor.
Let's say somebody does something simple, like do car mufflers or something. From there, they leverage that income to purchase gear they need to extend the business, or perhaps acquire new skills. That's what I was talking about, more than I was just build DARPA quality things.
Blogging because I can...
I think Mythbusters is a nice example of how hands on is a good thing when it comes to this sort of thing. I can see it being helpful to a lot of people.
On the other hand personally, as much as I love to know how things work, I've never been one to like having to constantly jack with stuff... hardware or otherwise. Maybe I'm just lazy... but I'd rather read about it and do it on a computer if I can.
At this point there is a 65 year old wood worker I am trying to figure out how to hire over a bunch of MSEEs because he thinks like an engineer, solves problems in the real world and I believe I can teach him calculus and circuit design faster than I can teach the MSEEs that I'm seeing how to handle ESD, manufacturerability, the impacts of mechanical issues, PCB layout, or to even have enough common sense to include a FUSE in their power designs!!!!!
("anonyomous" as I'm using, with permission, another posters handle!)
A tangental comment about using your hands in this techno-world as the human tactile experience is of particular interest to me;
Two years ago I started a schools teaching architects in Australaia freehand drawing called "Draw Like an Architect" (www.art-architecture.com.au). There are free YouTube vids I've made as well.