Lowering Barriers to CAD Adoption: A Comparative Study of Augmented Reality-Based CAD (AR-CAD) and a Traditional CAD tool

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.

💡 Research Summary

The paper presents a comparative user study of an Augmented Reality‑based Computer‑Aided Design system (AR‑CAD) and the traditional desktop CAD software SolidWorks. Twenty participants with varying experience levels (8 novices, 6 intermediates, 6 experts) performed identical 3D modeling tasks on both platforms. AR‑CAD was built for the Meta Quest 3 headset using Unity and the Meta All‑in‑One SDK, providing hand/controller tracking, depth‑sensor occlusion, primitive creation, two‑hand direct manipulation, and a unique point‑cloud‑to‑mesh feature based on convex and concave hull algorithms. SolidWorks served as the conventional benchmark, offering full parametric modeling, assembly management, and high‑precision tools.

Metrics collected included task completion rate, completion time, NASA TLX (cognitive load), and System Usability Scale (SUS). Statistical analysis (repeated‑measures ANOVA with post‑hoc tests) revealed that average completion times were comparable (AR‑CAD ≈ 4 min 12 s, SolidWorks ≈ 4 min 5 s). However, novices achieved a significantly higher completion rate with AR‑CAD (78 % vs. 62 % in SolidWorks), indicating that the immersive spatial interaction lowered the learning curve. Experts showed similar high completion rates (>90 %) on both systems, with no significant time difference.

TLX scores were on average 3.2 points lower for AR‑CAD, suggesting reduced mental effort, and SUS scores highlighted a clear usability advantage for novices (AR‑CAD 81 vs. SolidWorks 68). Experts rated both tools similarly in usability but preferred SolidWorks for precision tasks, advanced features (sweeps, lofts), and complex assemblies. Qualitative feedback confirmed that novices found the “grab‑and‑move” interaction intuitive, while experts viewed AR‑CAD as valuable for early‑stage concept work but insufficient for detailed design.

The literature review situates the work within a broader context: prior studies have shown AR’s benefits for spatial cognition, conflict detection, and assembly guidance, but also noted limitations such as limited field‑of‑view, ergonomic fatigue, and lack of full parametric capabilities. Commercial AR add‑ons (e.g., PTC Creo AR Experience, Dassault eDrawings for AR) mainly support design review rather than end‑to‑end modeling. This study empirically confirms that AR‑CAD can serve as a complementary tool, especially for education and rapid concept development, while traditional CAD remains the workhorse for high‑precision, feature‑rich design.

The authors propose several avenues for future work: integration of high‑precision input devices (e.g., tactile feedback controllers, laser‑guided dimension entry), development of hybrid workstations that synchronize AR and desktop models in real time, and extended evaluations involving complex design processes (parametric modeling, simulation, manufacturing integration). Addressing ergonomic concerns (headset weight, prolonged use fatigue) and expanding the feature set (true Boolean operations, advanced assembly management) are identified as critical to moving AR‑CAD from a concept‑exploration aid to a viable professional design platform.

In summary, the study demonstrates that AR‑CAD lowers barriers for novice designers by offering intuitive 3‑D interaction and reduced cognitive load, while experienced users still rely on traditional CAD for precision and advanced functionality. The findings support a hybrid future where immersive AR interfaces augment, rather than replace, established CAD workflows.