FRIEZE NEW YORK 2013
INTERNATIONAL HOME + HOUSEWARES SHOW 2013
TOKYO DESIGN WEEK 2012
BEIJING DESIGN WEEK 2012
Image Courtesy of Michael DiTullo
A continuing issue in industrial design education is when to allow students to move from sketch work to 3D CAD modelling during studio practice—or whether to let them use CAD at all! I've heard of first year undergraduate modules where students are 'banned' from the use of CAD in an attempt to encourage sketchbook work and more explorative conceptual design practice. In my view this approach is somewhat draconian and does little to deal with the underlying reasons that attract less experienced designers to the comparative certainty of 3D CAD.
Instead of setting constraints or limitations to dictate where and under what circumstances design tools must be used, design education needs to provide opportunities for young designers to reflect upon the nature of their own design activity and how this informs their use of design tools. Design students should consider the bigger picture that constitutes the various requirements of a design process in order to think about how tool use locates within and is informed by a requirement to design. This awareness will then provide opportunities for students to make more informed decisions when working with design tools; to be more critical in their use of CAD tools and more confident in their own sketching abilities.
My own research has explored the increasing variety of tools the industrial designer has at their disposal to support the development and communication of design intentions. Findings indicate that sketching continues to underpin design activity. Professional experience also influences the use of sketching in support of design activity. Less experienced design students tend to lack confidence in their sketch ability and they find the dynamic, unconstrained medium at odds with an approach to design activity that errs towards fixation and attachment to concept.
Figure 1: Design sketches used to support explorative design activity. Courtesy of Michael DiTullo
As part of my research I visited practicing designers at their places of work and interviewed them about their use of design tools. Interestingly, the designers often juxtaposed the affordance of sketching against the limitations of 3D CAD tools. Like many in design education, practitioners stressed the explorative, divergent affordance of sketching over the more constrained convergent nature of CAD. Of course they understood the value of CAD, but spoke of a concern for the ways it may limit student creativity, 'a student's design being too influenced by the constraints of this or that software.'
Of course, when used to support design activity, both sketching and CAD tools have the ability to complement one another in a process that has at its heart the representation and communication of design intent. Rather than limiting the use of a given tool, design education must provide opportunities for students to consider the relationship between their use of a given tool, the tool's possible influence on their own design activity and how tool use is located within and informed by the wider requirements and responsibilities of the design process. Much criticism has been leveled at the inability of CAD to support the kinds of explorative design activity required for conceptualisation. There can be no doubt that the tool-in-hand has an influence on the character of the design representation. However, it is also true that a tool is only a tool insofar as it is used as such by the tool-user. In turn, the user is motivated by their own perception of the purpose of tool use. For students to make best use of the availability of an ever-increasing variety of conventional, digital and hybrid design tools, they require an understanding of tool use within a context of the dynamic requirements of the process of industrial design.
Figure 2: Like chess, CAD can be described as a process of 'moves', defined and constrained by the system. Courtesy of Michael DiTullo
Experienced designers know this and tend to take a process-first approach to the use of design tools. They think more about what is required in terms of the design process; stakeholder expectations; budget; communication of intent: from explorative, divergent conceptualisation to more constrained, convergent specification. In short, they draw upon a wealth of knowledge and past experience to guide their approach to design activity and tool use.
By contrast, my research suggests the less experienced student of design can be both reassured by the command-based affordances of CAD and dazzled by its ability to create slick, glossy images. A problem with this tool-first approach is that the designer becomes more restricted by what is achievable within the tool's constraints. The objective of design activity and the purpose of tool use shifts away from thoughts of the requirements of design practice towards the production of the CAD model as the motivation for design activity. This results in the, "This is what I did at the weekend" CAD model. "Doesn't it look good?"
Rather than design activity and tool use locating within and informed by a wider design process, the emphasis and motivation for design becomes design embodiment itself. The design embodiment becomes the outcome of design activity and the driving motivation for the purposeful use of the design tool.
It may look good, but is it good design?
After my first few trips to design studios in and around London and the South East of England, it soon became apparent that industrial design practitioners were most interested in and motivated to talk about the differences between two design tools: hand sketch and 3D CAD. This polarisation centered on the alignment of CAD with a more convergent, generic way of working that resulted in the constrained representation of design ideas. This contrasted with a perception of hand sketching as supporting a more divergent, explorative design activity able to provide insight into design thinking and ability.
Figure 3: Concept sketch supporting explorative design activity. Courtesy of Michael Ditullo
Evidence of this dichotomy can be seen in discussion of tools within the design research community. Brian Lawson, an experienced practitioner and academic, describes the use of CAD tools as a halted, clumsy interaction when compared with the flowing, more reflective process often seen when observing the sketcher at work.
A search through the discussion forums of Core77 reveals comments by those that see sketching as something of a holy grail of design abilities; the 'analogue dreams' (to borrow a phrase) camp. Sketch-A-Day, a popular weblog where sketch work is uploaded and discussed, is an example of the outstanding skills these expert sketchers have. And then there are those that might somewhat derogatorily be termed 'CAD junkies'. These designers speak fondly and with some pride of losing all track of time and space while engaged in marathon CAD sessions; the end result of which are stunningly slick digital embodiments of their conceptual ideas. Two very different embodiments of design intent, the result of two very different design tools.
This is of course true. The tool will have an influence on the design representation and the nature of design activity. This distinction is, however, somewhat artificial: it fails to take into account the designer's skills, experiences and understanding of the activity as an influence on the ways the tool is used. An awareness of the ways in which various tools best support the dynamic requirements of the design process will inform the character of design activity. This awareness of and engagement with the various requirements of the design process, influence the designer's approach to design activity, choice and use of design tools.
A tool is only a tool insofar as it is used as such to achieve the purpose of an activity.
Returning to my own research, the experienced designers seemed more inclined to take a holistic approach to their design activity and use of tools. Those with experience of practice possess a stronger awareness of tool use as located within and informed by the requirements of the design process. They understood how tools may be best deployed to support this process.
In contrast, design students tend to take a more constrained and fixated approach to their design activity. Their use of CAD tools only compounded a pre-existing tendency towards attachment to concept and fixation. This approach influences the ways in which students approached design activity and tool use. A tendency to fixate reflects the students' lack of confidence in their own design ability derived from a limited understanding of why and how design tools are used.
Design education needs to foster confidence in less experienced designers. One way this may be achieved is to provide students with greater awareness of the character of design tools, their strengths and limitations. This awareness would help them better understand the role tools play as they are used in support of the design process as well as providing students with opportunities to reflect upon their own approaches to design activity and tool use. This awareness will come from opportunities to use tools in studio work. However, knowledge must also be developed through an education that describes and makes more explicit the relationships between tool, tool user and context of use.
Merely stating the benefits of one tool over another is not enough.
With these aims, my research has tried to develop knowledge that can be used in teaching, alongside studio work, as a way to help student designers to understand and critically analyse their use of design tools.
About James Self
Dr. James Self has just completed a Doctoral Thesis, exploring the designer's use of design tools (sketching, CAD, RP) during design activity. Results make explicit a relationship between design expertise and the designers understanding of and approaches to design activity and tool use.
Findings continue to be disseminated through paper presentations and publications in the proceedings of national and international conferences including iasdr2009 Seoul, EKSIG2011 Farnham and DRS2012 Bangkok.
Before returning to the UK to study for an MA in Digital Modelling and RP, James worked for several years as a professional model maker both in the UK and Sydney, Australia. James is a member of the Design Research Society.
Comments
Good article. In my experience sketching helps transform a designer's way of thinking. At first, design students just learning to sketch, design what they can draw. Later, as the design students begin to become more familiar with spacial relationships and how they translate from 3D to 2D and back, they draw what they can design. This is important because sketching encourages an unconstrained exploration of possibilities.
So often designers get constrained by what is familiar. This is partly due to the fact that the clients and companies they work for already have particular channels set up. For instance, an electronics company might already have channels set up for injection molding, printed circuit boards and automated fabrication. So, instead of a new product being made of wood, aluminum or paper, it most likely will be made using the familiar channels.
This relates to sketching as CAD is usually set up for a particular type of fabrication, and sketching allows for an open exploration of alternatives. I'm convinced that in order for innovation to thrive (and I define innovation as being the incorporation of unique materials, forms and technologies) a product must be designed holistically. And in order to design a product holistically, a designer needs to have an open medium that allows original, out-of-the-box thinking.
Just my $0.02.
Harry
This is a great article and very import for the professions too. We sometimes forget where they true exploration happens. The ideal studio would allow time for the exploration but what I have experienced and found is that this very crucial aspect of our skill set is set aside for quick turn around time and deadlines. Hence why we have so much landfill being pumped out and less truly great products every where. My .02 is more sketching always. It's the thing that makes us a notch above an engineer.
Great Article, mirror of my thought I think.
A sketching pencil and a cad software should always be considered as tools. Design education is another thing where conceptual and thematic designs are created. Transition of a design is always developed in the mind of a designer, and yes paper sketching is a fast way to express those feelings and thoughts and should not be skipped during the design development, once a concept is transferred on paper, Cad is a popular tool that would take the concept at its best level of skills and accuracy.
Both these tools are like a paint brush if picked by a thinking head could paint a MonaLisa, Otherwise blank... :)
Excellent! Honestly I've been a bit "bleh" about Core77 only covering all these awesome events in NYC and London, with nothing near me whatsoever (Go midwest... yawn). Anyway, this is an article I can definitely relate to. Yeah, sketching is great, and the constraints are a LOT less than in CAD; the real problem is when you come up with a FANTASTIC sketch with complex surfacing, then have to get it into CAD somehow. I'm at the point now where I can create almost anything, EVENTUALLY, but the limitations of software require a lot of trial and error to figure out which feature will work, and which one will inexplicably NOT work (I'm looking at you, Solidworks). Cheers!
Excellent article. I am a what I guess you would term today as a machine designer/model maker, not a product designer. My training was done 'at the board' so that will give away my age.
A tool is just that a tool, neither good nor bad per-say. The question is, is it appropriate to the task at hand. For me, and this may be my age, it is always pencil first to 'get the idea out' and then CAD to do what used to take forever on the drawing board the design layout to check dimensions and clearances etc.
I just find that CAD alone does not allow me to just let my ideas flow like sketching with pencil and paper.
Just what I found works best for me.
The article states:
The objective of design activity and the purpose of tool use shifts away from thoughts of the requirements of design practice towards the production of the CAD model as the motivation for design activity. This results in the, "This is what I did at the weekend" CAD model. "Doesn't it look good?"
The requirements should be put first and foremost regardless of the tool used. Even sketching can lead to the same "doesn't it look good?" place too. Some people are impressed by pretty pictures, whether they are computer generated or Sharpie on bond paper.
I'm a first year student, studying Industrial Design, and our first year so far, has primarily been focused upon sketching. We have been told that we will learn CAD in our second year. However this does not mean that it cannot be used at all in our first year.
Great article I must add by the way!
I am teaching Design Drawing to first year students within a well established ID program in Canada. My teaching experience spreads in the last 20 years and I consider the necessity to master the solid modeling tools both to support the education process and to reflect the practice in the design industry as obvious. The sketching process (exploration, investigative, ideation and conceptual) starts with a strong analytical component that we learn first. Without studying and manipulating the conceptual elements in the 3D world first we cannot move forward to light resolution and surface modeling. That is where the analytical drawing parallels the tools and techniques of the CAD construction and uses the same thinking and operations to add/subtract, split (similar to the Boolean), to shift points, planes and volumes, to round, fillet, create curves with fluidity, dynamics and sensitivity. In other words the hand sketching prepares the student for the subsequent solid modeling experience and both analog and digitally generated constructions remain inextricably interconnected as tools. Bottom line is: there is no solid modeling mastery without studying and understanding the 3D world through conceptual drawing (so different from the observational drawing, still borrowing large portions of skills and techniques from it).
All 3D CAD programs should NOT be lumped together. It's just ignorant to place NURBS modelers in the same basket as the Solids.
While I agree that Solidworks, Pro-E, Inventor, Catia, and all other "clunky/clumsy" engineering-friendly tools are best left until after the idea is there, my use of Alias in the sketching phase has taken my work to a level far beyond what it would otherwise be.
By combining Alias into my sketching workflow, the proportions are better, my sketches look more real, and people are left scratching their heads, wondering how so much work was done so quickly. "Mock" surfaces can be built in seconds, and painted over many times, turning a sketch into a clay-like workflow, with constant refinement on the spot.
With the proper use of Alias in the sketching phase, i'd wager that any designer will double their ideation speed and quality, and produce more realistic solutions.
This is really a no brainer.
I worked for many years for an automative supplier and even though we where modelling on high end packages, like IDEAS Catia and Unigraphics, I also used Alias and other surface modelling packages.
I still found that the quickest and easiest way to resolve 3D spatial issues was simply by drawing them down on paper first.
This is important because it achieves two fundamental things.
1. It lets you picture what you are modelling very quickly and you can iterate very very quickly (the more sketching practice you get the quicker you can smash through ideas)
2. When ever you model anything in 3D (either parametric or surface) you have to visualise the modelling procedures and process that you will have to go through to achieve the desired outcome, whether you use sweeps, lofts, boolens, a bunch of surface intersections and trims, when you sit down and draw it first you can start to actually critically think about how you might build it in 3D.
If you go straight to 3D you will not only have to resolve the spatial issues but you will also have to resolve the modelling process at the same time and this really is a waste of time, especially when I see young designers start messing around with lighting, composition and textures way before the final form has even been worked out.
As an aside note, the engineers who I used to work with would also never go straight to CAD, they would sit down and draw in their very clunky some times strange but effective drawings first and then go to CAD. So if its good enough for engineers then as a designer you should seriously be ashamed of yourself if you go straight to CAD.
I would like to congratulate Dr. James Self's article I also believe that there is an ongoing misleading in academy on the purposes of using which or what design tools and many students get lost in the process of thriving to mature their design form of expression, in my experience after having multiple struggles with different cad systems
I've come to the conclusion that there is no more fidelity to your ideas than hand sketching for yourself and many times also to others. I also agree with Harry Smith when he says students design what they can draw" but I also think this applies to anyone. I'm interested in any further writing on this subject if anybody knows of where one can find further reading, I would be pleased to find out.
A take DJ's point about the choice and use of CAD tools depends - depends upon the knowledge, skills and expertise of the designer. You are right to point to the variety of CAD tools - but that also indicates the ways in which the CAD system influences the design activity. It is the designer's awarness and understanding of this influence as it relates to the purpose of tool use that makes for a more effective use of design tools. That is, the use of a tool exists as part of a wider context - you mentioned the reaction of others to your work rate. Understanding the context of tool use as it relates to the design process, kinds of communication required, how the tool influences the activity, the designer's own influence on tool use. In this way, thinking only about how the tool influences activity is limiting.
Aris, drop me a PM or email with what it is your most interested in and I'd be happy to provide reading.
Used to be, we would draw typography. Now we don't, and look how it's been maligned through the use of technology: Skewed when it shouldn't be; stretched beyond the limits of character design; and generally made unreadable by bad (or lack of) kerning, and so on.
So does drawing play in design? If you can't draw it -- put a 3D concept into 2D -- then the design is kaput.
Ask anyone, and they'll tell you it takes at least 2X longer to create a design by computer, as compared to putting it on paper.
Computers, like other machines, take the monotony out of the building process; but for the process of design, graphite gets it done, baby.
Thanks for this thread,the debate after years is nearly over since now you can sketch in 3d leaving behind splines that look like pencilwork,using construction planes.
the only reciepe for innovative design is "error" and unfortunately what's never abundant enough,"time".
James Self -Thank you for this article. It is great to see the attention to what I believe to be the number one skill that defines a designer. I grew up on sketching and use it to this day in my profession of ID. I am starting a teaching position this fall on the subject and wonder what you may have come across as practices that stand out as good techniques or projects for sophmore level students. I would like to discuss more on the subject if possible. Thanks.
good article... im amazed it took 20 years for it to arrive....
i wrote this in one of the first "practice" sections in ID magazine back in 92-3... i asked the question and posed the question of what was to become of design when the design process became reversed by these tools and the new medium they would create....
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Business/A-practitioner-asks-can-you-sketch-on-a-computer-Where-does-CAID-fit-in.html
would be nice to find a full copy of the article online....oh well.
It's a good question! Why ask when you can do both.
Hand sketch is free, quick and expressive.
CAD is precise, displayed in 3D, managing mechanical constraint.
So the best is probably to take advantage of both being able to sketch in 3D Space as you do in software like CATIA Natural Sketch.