Lowering Barriers to CAD Adoption: A Comparative Study of Augmented Reality-Based CAD (AR-CAD) and a Traditional CAD Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper presents a comparative user study between an Augmented Reality-based Computer-Aided Design (AR-CAD) system and a traditional computer-based CAD modeling software, SolidWorks. Twenty participants of varying skill levels performed 3D modeling tasks using both systems. The results showed that while the average task completion time is comparable for both groups, novice designers had a higher completion rate in AR-CAD than in the traditional CAD interface, and experienced designers had a similar completion rate in both systems. A statistical comparison of task completion rate, time, and NASA Task Load Index (TLX) showed that AR-CAD slightly reduced cognitive load while favoring a high task completion rate. Higher scores on the System Usability Scale (SUS) by novices indicated that AR-CAD was superior and worthwhile for reducing barriers to entering CAD. In contrast, the Traditional CAD interface was favored by experienced users for its advanced capabilities, while many viewed AR-CAD as a valid means for rapid concept development, education, and an initial critique of designs. This opens up the need for future research on the needed refinement of AR-CAD with a focus on high-precision input tools and its evaluation of complex design processes. This research highlights the potential for immersive interfaces to enhance design practice, bridging the gap between novice and experienced CAD users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".