Despite the apparent advantages of and recent advances in the use of visualization in engineering design and optimization, we have found little evidence in the engineering literature that assesses the impact of fast, graphical design interfaces on the efficiency and effectiveness of engineering design decisions or the design optimization process. In this paper we discuss two examples—the design of an I-beam and the design of a desk lamp—for which we have developed graphical and text-based design interfaces to assess the impact of having fast graphical feedback on design efficiency and effectiveness. Design efficiency is measured by recording the completion time for each design task, and design effectiveness is measured by calculating the error between each submitted design and the known optimal design. The impact of graphical feedback is examined by comparing user performance on the graphical and text-based design interfaces while the importance of rapid feedback is investigated by comparing user performance when response delays are introduced within each design interface. Experimental results indicate that users of graphical design interfaces perform better (i.e., have lower error and faster completion time) on average than those using text-based design interfaces, but these differences are not statistically significant. Likewise, we found that a response delay of 0.5 seconds increases error and task completion time, on average, but these increases are not always statistically significant. Trials using longer delays of 1.5 seconds did yield significant increases in task completion time. We also found that the perceived difficulty of the design task and using the graphical interface controls were inversely correlated with design effectiveness—designers who rated the task more difficult to solve or the graphical interface more difficult to use actually performed better than those who rated them easy. Finally, a significant “playing” effect was observed in our experiments: those who played video games more frequently or rated the slider bars and zoom controls easy to use took more time to complete the design tasks.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
Visualization, Human-computer Interaction, Multiobjective Optimization, engineering graphics, graphical user interfaces, data visualisation, optimisation, CAD
Topics:
Design
1.
Jost
,
K.
,
1998
, “
Chrysler’s “Clean Sheet” V6
,”
Automotive Engineering International
,
106
(
1
), pp.
79
–
81
.
2.
Mecham
,
M.
,
1997
, “
Raytheon Integrates Product Development
,”
Aviat. Week Space Technol.
, October
6
, pp.
50
50
.
3.
Mecham
,
M.
,
1997
, “
Aerospace Chases the Software Boom
,”
Aviat. Week Space Technol.
, October
6
, pp.
46
–
48
.
4.
Sabbagh, K., 1996, Twenty-First Century Jet: The Making and Marketing of the Boeing 777, Scribner, New York, NY.
5.
Messac
,
A.
, and
Chen
,
X.
,
2000
, “
Visualizing the Optimization Process in Real-Time Using Physical Programming
,”
Eng. Optimiz.
,
32
(
6
), pp.
721
–
747
.
6.
Eddy, J. and Lewis, K., 2002, “Multidimensional Design Visualization in Multiobjective Optimization,” 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA, AIAA, AIAA-2002-5621.
7.
Stump, G. M., Yukish, M., Simpson, T. W., and Bennett, L., 2002, “Multidimensional Visualization and Its Application to a Design by Shopping Paradigm,” 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA, AIAA, AIAA-2002-5622.
8.
Winer
,
E. H.
, and
Bloebaum
,
C. L.
, 2002, “Development of Visual Design Steering as an Aid in Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. Part I: Method Development,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 23(6), pp. 412–424.
9.
Winer
,
E. H.
, and
Bloebaum
,
C. L.
, 2002, “Development of Visual Design Steering as an Aid in Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. Part II: Method Validation,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 23(6), pp. 425–435.
10.
Anderson
,
R. K.
, and
Dror
,
M.
,
2001
, “
An Interactive Graphic Presentation for Multiobjective Linear Programming
,”
Applied Mathematics and Computation
,
123
(
2
), pp.
229
–
248
.
11.
Kihonge
,
J. N.
,
Vance
,
J. M.
, and
Larochelle
,
P. M.
,
2002
, “
Spatial Mechanism Design in Virtual Reality with Networking
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
124
(
3
), pp.
435
–
440
.
12.
Jayaram
,
S.
,
Vance
,
J. M.
,
Gadh
,
R.
,
Jayaram
,
U.
, and
Srinivasan
,
H.
,
2001
, “
Assessment of VR Technology and its Applications to Engineering Problems
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
1
(
1
), pp.
72
–
83
.
13.
Jones
,
C. V.
,
1994
, “
Visualization and Optimization
,”
ORSA J. Comput.
,
6
(
3
), pp.
221
–
257
.
14.
CAD/CAM Update, 1997, “IBM and Daussault Awarded Boeing CATIA Contract,” CAD/CAM Update, 9(1), pp. 1–8.
15.
National Research Council, 1998, “Visionary Manufacturing Challenges for 2020,” Committee on Visionary Manufacturing Challenges, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
16.
Evans
,
P. T.
,
Vance
,
J. M.
, and
Dark
,
V. J.
,
1999
, “
Assessing the Effectiveness of Traditional and Virtual Reality Interfaces in Spherical Mechanism Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
121
(
4
), pp.
507
–
514
.
17.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A., 1983, The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
18.
Sturman, D. J., Zeltzer, D., and Pieper, S., 1989, “Hands-on Interaction With Virtual Environments,” Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 19–24.
19.
Ware
,
C.
, and
Balakrishnan
,
R.
, 1994, “Reaching for Objects in VR Displays Lag and Frame Rate,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1, pp. 331–356.
20.
Watson
,
B.
,
Walker
,
N.
,
Hodges
,
L. F.
, and
Worden
,
A.
, 1997, “Managing Level of Detail through Peripheral Degradation: Effects on Search Performance in Head-Mounted Display,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 4, pp. 323–346.
21.
Waern, Y., 1989, Cognitive Aspects of Computer Supported Tasks, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
22.
Goodman
,
T.
, and
Spence
,
R.
,
1978
, “
The Effect of System Response Time on Interactive Computer-Aided Design
,”
Comput. Graphics
,
12
, pp.
100
–
104
.
23.
Foley, J. D., and Wallace, J. D., 1974, “The Art of Natural Graphic Man-Machine Conversation,” Proceedings of the IEEE, 4, pp. 462–471.
24.
Hirschi
,
N. W.
, and
Frey
,
D. D.
,
2002
, “
Cognition and Complexity: An Experiment on the Effect of Coupling in Parameter Design
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
13
(
3
), pp.
123
–
131
.
25.
Gu, L., 2001, “A Comparison of Polynomial Based Regression Models in Vehicle Safety Analysis,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences-Design Automation Conference, A. Diaz, ed., Pittsburgh, PA, ASME Paper No. DETC2001/DAC-21063.
26.
Kleijnen
,
J. P. C.
,
1975
, “
A Comment on Blanning’s Metamodel for Sensitivity Analysis: The Regression Metamodel in Simulation
,”
Interfaces
,
5
(
1
), pp.
21
–
23
.
27.
Barton, R. R., 1998, “Simulation Metamodels,” Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference, D. J. Medeiros, E. F. Watson, J. S. Carson and M. S. Manivannan, eds., Washington, DC, IEEE, pp. 167–174.
28.
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Peplinski
,
J.
,
Koch
,
P. N.
, and
Allen
,
J. K.
,
2001
, “
Metamodels for Computer-Based Engineering Design: Survey and Recommendations
,”
Eng. Comput.
,
17
(
2
), pp.
129
–
150
.
29.
Haftka, R., and Gurdal, Z., 1992, Elements of Structural Optimization, 3rd Revised and Expanded Edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
30.
Barton, R. R., Limayem, F., Meckesheimer, M., and Yannou, B., 1999, “Using Metamodels for Modeling the Propagation of Design Uncertainties,” 5th International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, N. Wogum, K.-D. Thoben and K. S. Pawar, eds., The Hague, The Netherlands, Centre for Concurrent Enterprising, pp. 521–528.
31.
Meckesheimer
,
M.
,
Barton
,
R. R.
,
Simpson
,
T. W.
,
Limayem
,
F.
, and
Yannou
,
B.
,
2001
, “
Metamodeling of Combined Discrete/Continuous Responses
,”
AIAA J.
,
39
(
10
), pp.
1955
–
1959
.
32.
Athan
,
T. W.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
1996
, “
A Note on Weighted Criteria Methods for Compromise Solutions in Multi-Objective Optimization
,”
Eng. Optimiz.
,
27
(
2
), pp.
155
–
176
.
33.
Das
,
I.
, and
Dennis
,
J. E.
,
1997
, “
A Closer Look at Drawbacks of Minimizing Weighted Sums of Objectives for Pareto Set Generation in Multicriteria Optimization Problems
,”
Struct. Optim.
,
14
(
1
), pp.
63
–
69
.
34.
Messac
,
A.
,
Sundararaj
,
J. G.
,
Tappeta
,
R. V.
, and
Renaud
,
J. E.
,
2000
, “
Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on NonConvex Pareto Frontiers
,”
AIAA J.
,
38
(
6
), pp.
1084
–
1091
.
35.
Simpson, T. W., Frecker, M., and Barton, R. R., 2003, “Impact of Metamodel-Driven Visualization on Design,” Proceedings of the 2003 NSF Design, Service and Manufacturing Grantees and Research Conference, R. G. Reddy, ed., Birmingham, AL, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, pp. 478–494.
36.
Mason, R. L., Gunst, R. F., and Hess, J. L., 2003, Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments, with Applications to Engineering and Science, 2nd Edition, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
37.
Hicks, C. R., and Turner, K. V., 1999, Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments, 5th Edition, Oxford University Press, New York.
38.
Gardner, H., 1983, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books, New York, NY.
39.
Edwards, B., 1989, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, Torcher/Putnam, New York.
40.
Harb, J. N., Terry, R. E., Hurt, P. K., and Williamson, K. J., 1995, Teaching Through the Cycle, 2nd Edition, Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT.
41.
Volkov
,
S.
, and
Vance
,
J. M.
,
2001
, “
Effectiveness of Haptic Sensation for the Evaluation of Virtual Prototypes
,”
ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng.
,
1
(
2
), pp.
123
–
128
.
Copyright © 2003
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.