Upper vs Lower

[Kernal_CAD_Monkey]

I've recently joined a new Civil/Structural/Energy company, and have been tasked with developing a new set of CAD standards based on current BS & ISO standards.

Now to put this task into context; on my first day the senior draftsman proudly explained how all their drawings are already standards complient, have full block capitilised text etc, all according to BS 308.

BS 308.

They don't even use Xref's here yet, everythings blocks copied and pasted into hundreds of drawings. And there's worse... dimensioning in paperspace, overriding dimensions! And don't get me started on the layering, actually I can't, because there is none!

Now having presented the standard there is the inevitable backlash, from the same people who tasked me with developing it, and especially from Mr 308 who ended his contribution to the meeting with "Well I'm going to keep on doing things properly and you can stick that in your standard'.

*sigh*

I'm glad that's off my chest. I feel better.

But am I wrong?
I believe in the benefits of AEC layering convention, and the use of well structured XRef's will cut out most of the mistakes that keep on going unnoticed, as will not dimensioning in paperspace. And lowercase text is far easier to read than block capilisation.
Or am I right? Am I being just as stuborn?

Anyone have any advice?

[Paul.84958]

From your comments I would gather that instead of joining a new Company that you are new to an old company that is stuck in its ways.

Quoting British Standards is an industry trick carried out by many, as most people have not read them and are probably unlikely to ever read them, and for most if they did read them they probably would not understand them anyway. However BS308 was withdrawn over a decade ago.

Paul Munford on his blog list below can enlighten you and point to the relevant ISOs etc…

http://cadsetterout.com/drawing-stan...-and-all-that/

However, there are standards and there are also good working practice and conventions. Use of Xrefs and many of the other hugely beneficial items fall into the latter. My personal view on overriding dimensions is that it should only be allowed on the basis it automatically generates a P45 for you and escorts you to the door. Apparently automatically delivering 240 volts to the chair now infringes Health and Safety legislation and you know hat the paperwork is like on that...

I could equally get flabbergasted about using the AEC Layering convention. Either BS1192:2007 or ISO13567 should be used.

I have for over twenty years had similar experiences where uses try to dictate that they do not need to follow CAD Standards etc. I have pushed similar change through many companies, but the only option is to prove the case to senior management. The issues I highlight are:
• Productivity
• Resourcing
• Risk
• Liability
Then for the Users you need to make it easier to follow the standards than not.

If you arrange for the CAD Standards to be included as part of the IT protocols these are usually included as part the terms and conditions of employment.

As your Senior draftsman quoted a BS a decade out of date. I would also conclude that his CAD skills are likely to be also antiquated. CAD standards, best practices and methodologies have all developed as CAD software has improved. I would suggest that training on the latest versions of the software should be encouraged as part of any standards drive. This is also the productivity boost that senior management will be looking for to drive this through.

Good luck and keep banging your head n that standards wall.

Paul Oakley

[Kernal_CAD_Monkey]

I ave copies of 8888, 3098, 1192, etc, and have spent months writing up this standards manual, including current best practice, examples from throughout the industry, and how how this will improve quality and consistency.

Good idea about tieing into the IT system.
I'll talk the the IT guys about having everyones computers locked to the standard templates, paths, files, blocks, etc and make them read only.
Management are already sold, fortunately, it's the tech staff now. ANd that's one hard unyeilding wall.

[jaberwok]

I agree entirely with the above.
I'd comment further but I suspect it's all covered in the link in Paul's post - which, for me, keeps resetting

[Kernal_CAD_Monkey]

Thoroughly agree with the electric chair scenario as well.
A very satisfying thought

[dgorsman]

Large changes can lead to backlash from established workers. Sometimes its better to roll things in a little bit at a time, particularly in areas where there is an obvious improvement in time saving and quality improvement. It also makes it easier to point out you don't have time to fix their problems from doing it the old way since you are busy working on the next update area.

[Alan aka cadalot]

OK a clear vote for Lower CASE

I feel your pain, having been there and done that............

XREF's are not always the answer there is a lot for a KISS system for some situations

Never ever dimension in paper or layout space

A good template should make it EasyCAD and Lazy CAD which the sheep will just follow, then sort out the Maverick, tell him bottom like if you don't like the new system, then find another firm that has not got one. Joking aside there is a mixture of carrot and stick (as long as you have the support from Senior Managers who become the Bad Guy for you when THEY use the stick.

[Kernal_CAD_Monkey]

Cheers for the encouragement guys.
My copies of British Standards are beginning to arrive (I have no idea why they haven't all arrived in one pack).
8888, 1192, 13576 and 3098 so far.
What else would you advise?

I agree that Xref's aren't always the best option in all circumstances, and flexibility is key, but a flexible standard rather than a hotchpotch.

Gyuh. I found a bunch of drawings (produced in ACAD 2010) with the dimensions exploded and single line text throughout. Half the geometry was on layer ._BORDER and the other half on 0, with colours and line weights and types set via the pull down menus.

I found a small quiet room to scream.
The Kernal[sic]'s going to have to whip the cad monkeys a bit harder

[Kernal_CAD_Monkey]

When and why did drawing text change from being block capitals to paragraph case?


I've read through BS8888 (3098 was deemed unnecessary and refused) and noticed that in section '8.2 Lettering' it states "It is recommended that capital lettering is used wherever possible".

Now I remember producing drawings, writing out notes and annotation in block capitalisation 11 or 12 years ago, but really haven't come across it since.
All clients, contractors and suppliers drawings text has been leading capital lowercase, with block capitalisation for titles and borders.

At this new place (their own drawings aside) it's a bit of a mix. Most are lowercase (with selected capitalisation), but some are block capitalised.

I can't find anything online, not in AEC, BS, EN or ISO.

[jaberwok]

Let's bear in mind that BS308 (and ANSI Y14 etc) were created whan ALL technical drawings were produced by hand. What was the first thing you did as a young wannabe draughtsman? You practised hand lettering. Over and over again.
Many people seem to believe that computer-generated (and plotted) text is so much clearer, cleaner, more consistent that they can both ignore the "all upper" rule and use smaller text heights. I've yet to see a national or international standard that agrees with this attitude whether the attitude is right or wrong.

AutoCAD's (metric) default dimension text height is 2.5 mm. AFAIK, BSI still says it should be 3.5 mm.