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."
'You can't simulate everything.'
Yet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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 ...
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
Are you lamenting that they can't make any money tinkering with complex hardware? I built parts of the TDRSS(Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System) for NASA while working for TRW. These Satellites have been in orbit for 25 years, just about the only thing I have ever built that is still in use. In 1983, I was paid $5.39/hour. I took a pay-cut from the Army to go to work for TRW. Now, I make 10 times that. Is someone going to pay me what I make now to build components for TRW? Probably not.
Just as Henry Ford figured out, you have to amplify your manual labor with machines to beat the competition.
So, when you were done with the competition, what did you/they do? This was a one-off solution that very few people would buy. Where is the commercialization of their work?
If I remember correctly, the latest winner barely had room for the driver in the car. And the total cost of the vehicle is more than anyone, other than DARPA, would pay for.
So, what did the Challenge prepare them for? What were they going to do with the skill set they obtained while working on the Challenge?
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.
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.
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.
Why is that a bad thing? It's not just about individuals chasing money, it's about companies *gasp* hiring intelligent people to do important things like manage large amounts of resources. Their choices aren't contributing to the decline of the US, they're keeping it going. Eventually robitics will be an enough part of the economy to keep smart people, but it hasn't matured to that point yet.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
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.