## 3 Results
### AutoCAD vs. AutoCAD Mechanical Efficiency
The efficiency gains with AutoCAD Mechanical are evident throughout the data. The reduction in command usage and command access frequency leads to significant time savings and a reduced workload for users. With fewer commands required and fewer interactions needed, users can complete tasks more quickly while maintaining accuracy. The lower standard deviations in AutoCAD Mechanical suggest that it provides a more consistent and optimized user experience, minimizing inconsistencies and reducing manual effort. In conclusion, Table 3 clearly demonstrates how AutoCAD Mechanical outperforms AutoCAD in terms of efficiency, reducing both the number of commands needed (by 40-50%) and the frequency of command access across all tasks. The data confirms that AutoCAD Mechanical offers a streamlined, more consistent, and automated drafting process, making it a superior choice for mechanical design workflows. The lower standard deviations in command usage and access further reinforce the idea that AutoCAD Mechanical leads to more predictable and standardized workflows, ultimately improving productivity and reducing the cognitive load on users. A comparative analysis of task completion times between AutoCAD and AutoCAD Mechanical, including average time, standard deviation, time reduction percentage, and statistical significance through \(p\)-values, is provided in Table 4. The data underscore the efficiency gains that AutoCAD Mechanical offers in reducing the time required for various drafting tasks. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**AutoCAD**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**AutoCAD Mechanical**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Task**} & **Avg. Command** & **Std. Dev.** & **Avg. Command** & **Std. Dev.** & **Avg. Command** & **Std. Dev.** & **Avg. Command** & **Std. Dev.** \\  & **Used** & **(Comments)** & **Access** & **Used** & **(Access)** & **Used** & **(Comments)** & **Access** & **Std. Dev.** \\ \hline Screw connection & 18 & 2 & 42 & 5 & 9 & 2 & 20 & 2 \\ \hline Shaft assembly & 22 & 3 & 55 & 7 & 11 & 2 & 25 & 3 \\ \hline Hidden geometry & 19 & 2 & 38 & 5 & 8 & 2 & 18 & 2 \\ \hline Enlarged view & 21 & 3 & 50 & 6 & 12 & 2 & 27 & 3 \\ \hline Dimensioned and annotated shaft & 23 & 3 & 58 & 7 & 13 & 3 & 28 & 3 \\ \hline Balloons and parts list & 20 & 3 & 53 & 6 & 11 & 2 & 24 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of command usage and access frequency between AutoCAD and AutoCAD Mechanical for several drawing tasks. The results indicate that AutoCAD requires significantly more time to complete tasks compared to AutoCAD Mechanical. For example, in the \"screw connection\" task, the average completion time in AutoCAD is 15.20 min, whereas AutoCAD Mechanical completes the same task in just 7.40 min. Similarly, in the \"dimensioned and annotated shaft\" task, AutoCAD users take an average of 17.00 min, while AutoCAD Mechanical reduces this time to 8.50 min. Across all tasks, AutoCAD Mechanical consistently reduces task completion time, with time savings ranging from 49.70% to 53.33%. The standard deviation values highlight the variability in task completion times. AutoCAD exhibits higher standard deviations across all tasks, ranging from 2.20 to 3.00 min, indicating greater inconsistency in task execution. In contrast, AutoCAD Mechanical shows lower standard deviations, ranging from 1.75 to 2.30 min, suggesting a more predictable and structured workflow. This reduction in variability implies that AutoCAD Mechanical offers more uniform drafting experience, likely due to its automation features and specialized mechanical tools. The time reduction percentage quantifies the improvement in efficiency, with all tasks showing reductions of approximately 50% or more. The greatest time reduction occurs in the \"hidden geometry\" task, where AutoCAD Mechanical achieves a 53.33% reduction in task completion time compared to AutoCAD. The smallest, yet still substantial, reduction is observed in the \"balloons and parts list\" task, with a 49.70% improvement.