## 3 Results  
### AutoCAD vs. AutoCAD Mechanical Efficiency  
Table 3 provides a comparison between AutoCAD and AutoCAD Mechanical based on the average number of commands used, their standard deviations, the average frequency of command access, and the corresponding standard deviations across various mechanical drafting tasks. These results offer valuable insights into the workflow efficiency and productivity improvements that AutoCAD Mechanical offers over standard AutoCAD. In terms of command usage, AutoCAD consistently requires more commands to complete each task compared to AutoCAD Mechanical. For example, in the \"shaft assembly\" task, AutoCAD users employ an average of 22 commands, whereas AutoCAD Mechanical users only require 11. Similarly, in the \"dimensioned and annotated shaft\" task, AutoCAD uses 23 commands, while AutoCAD Mechanical reduces this to 13. This pattern is consistent across all tasks, highlighting that AutoCAD Mechanical simplifies the design process by reducing the number of commands needed to achieve the same outcomes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Weight (\%)** & **Rationale for Weighting** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Originality**} & \multirow{4}{*}{20\%} & While creativity is important, it must be balanced with functionality. In mechanical design, excessive innovation without feasibility can lead to impractical solutions. Thus, originality is valued but not prioritized over functionality. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Functionality**} & \multirow{4}{*}{35\%} & Functionality is the most critical factor in mechanical design because even the most innovative and visually appealing design is useless if it cannot be manufactured or assembled correctly. It must adhere to realistic tolerances, material considerations, and practical engineering constraints. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Functionality**} & \multirow{4}{*}{30\%} & CAD proficiency is essential for an efficient workflow. Mastery of automation tools, parametric design, and feature libraries directly impacts productivity and quality. Using CAD tools effectively minimizes design errors and accelerates modifications. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Graphical quality**} & \multirow{4}{*}{15\%} & While essential, graphical quality has less impact than functionality or efficient CAD use. Aesthetics and drawing clarity enhance communication but do not directly affect manufacturability. A design can be functional even if the drawing is slightly imperfect, if it is interpretable. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Assigned weights to each key criterion. The frequency of command access follows a similar trend. AutoCAD users access commands more often, indicating a higher number of repetitive manual operations. In the \"dimensioned and annotated shaft\" task, AutoCAD users access commands an average of 58 times, while AutoCAD Mechanical users access them only 28 times. The \"shaft assembly\" task shows a reduction from 55 accesses in AutoCAD to 25 in AutoCAD Mechanical. These findings emphasize that AutoCAD Mechanical significantly reduces the number of interactions required, leading to a more efficient and less labor-intensive workflow. The standard deviation values further illuminate the consistency of the workflow. The standard deviation of command usage in AutoCAD Mechanical is consistently lower than in AutoCAD, suggesting a more predictable and optimized workflow. In contrast, AutoCAD has higher standard deviation values, reflecting greater variability in user input and execution. For instance, the standard deviation of command access in AutoCAD reaches up to seven in both the \"shaft assembly\" and \"dimensioned and annotated shaft\" tasks, while in AutoCAD Mechanical, the maximum recorded standard deviation for command access is only three. This indicates that AutoCAD workflows are more prone to fluctuations due to manual inputs, whereas AutoCAD Mechanical offers a more structured and automated approach, reducing unpredictability.