Black Background

I'm just curious, but why do most cad people still use a black background?

I know that in the early days of cad the monitors had low refresh rates
which caused the screens to flicker, and black bothered the eyes less,
but current monitors don't have that issue, and I would have thought
that having a screen that looks like the eventual page to be plotted
would make more sense.

That's what we do here, especially since we plot in color with layers
set to colors that are relatively consistent so that checking of the
drawings is easier.

It reminds me of the use of different pen settings for each color when
there are no pens on modern plotters. There we use layer lineweights,
and use plines or edit the per line lineweight when something in the
layer needs to be emphasized over other items in the same layer.

Similarly architects use tickmarks instead of arrows because it was
faster to dimension that way when drawing by hand, but now it doesn't
save time, and if one dimension snaps over another, it can cause
problems (example 2' dimension and 8" snaps on top of it so that it
looks like 2' + 8"). At least with arrows you can see that one arrowhead
is missing, and then you know that there is a problem with the string.

These are just some of my pet peeves, but I will listen to valid
explanations other than "I'm just used to it that way" or "Architects
need to have more style than engineers and ticks are more stylish"

 

In a previous post JG wrote...

I actually prefer "tick" marks for dimensions.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

 

personally I've always prefered using the ticks for dimensioning, I think
they look better.

As for using the black screen, my eyes cant take a white screen, simple as.
Monitor technology has nothing to do with it, a big white screen will always
take its toll on the users eyes, when I used to use autocad LT quite a few
yrs ago, I experimented with different colours, I found the lightest my eyes
can take is a beige colour, but I will always prefer black, plus all my
drawings are plotted in black an white anyway so the coloured lines are
purely for my benefit

 

but why? I do structural design work and the number of bad drawings due
to dimensions snapping on top of each other is frustrating, especially
since my design work is third party and some of the architects think
that that is a license to rip me off by charging for cad files where I
could at least verify if they did have that error. If you use an open
arrow it would look like a left tick and a right tick overlapping at the
extension line. Your response really fits into the category of "ticks
are more stylish" since you don't state a reason for your preference.

 

I agree about the yellow and cyan. They seem to think that the colors of
legal pads are magically right for every use. Paper is not a monitor and
I realize that that same statement can be applied to white backgrounds.
However I wonder if you ever tried using white with the brightness
turned down. Many beginners set the brightness at max, which on many CRT
monitors caused "blooming" which blurred the lines. I use white but I
have turned brightness way down to about 60% of max. Sharpness is not an
issue since the LCD has a native resolution, and that is the resolution
I use

 

In a previous post JG wrote...

Bad drawing is bad drawing no matter what dimension style you use. The
quality of cad drawings I receive from most architects is pitiful: lines
that don't meet properly at corners; dimensions that have been overwritten
to be correct, but the line work they are associated with isn't drawn
correctly; and my biggest complaint is a lack of properly layer standards
and adherence to those standards.

I mean what's up with naming a layer "Heavy" in a multi-story building?

With today's cad programs there is no excuse (other than laziness) for not
using lots of layers with only a single color on each layer and layer
names that are descriptive of their content.


--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

 

It all really comes down to preference, but as far as the colors are
concerned, most CAD people I know prefer black background. I personally
prefer this as well, because almost all colors show up well with a black
background. If your only dealing in black and white, apparently white is
better, according to the study linked below.

http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/AHNCUR.html

As you can see, though, it is different for every person. "I'm just used to
it that way" is apparently a very valid explanation when you're dealing with
the human eye. A couple more relevent links:

http://www.lighthouse.org/print_leg.htm

http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=40&TopicID=200&DocumentID=210

You'll probably find much more info if you Google it.

 

I agree with you as far as a WYSIWYG (white) screen for drawing. In all of
the years I've been associated with computing, I've never heard a complaint
from anyone about "eystrain" from Word, WordPerfect, Excel, Access,
CorelDraw, PhotoPaint, PhotoShop, or any other WYSIWYG application, other
than AutoCAD. Why are drafters more prone to "eyestrain" than secretaries,
authors, spreadsheeters, illustrators and other computer users? Perhaps they
haven't heard of the "brightness" or "contrast" controls, or perhaps they
still work in darkened rooms where screen glare is much more obvious than in
a well-lighted workplace. In any case, we've *always* used a white or light
gray background, and in the past 20+ years, no one here has ever complained
about "eyestrain" except when trying to see those yellow or cyan lines on
drawings from a "black screen shop."

As for tick marks, it's simply a matter of style. We use them because
they're the accepted mode in the architectural fields. They're available, so
why not? I *do* however, take exception to those who insist on applying
"squiggle" or some other phony technique to make CAD drawings look
"hand-drawn." In my book this would be like Random House publishing books in
a longhand font to make them look "hand-written."
___

 

I convinced one local architect to switch to arrows after I caught 3
separate occurrences of dimension strings snapping onto other strings in
one drawing. And it was tougher for him to switch because he uses a
different cad program specifically oriented to architects that didn't
have arrows built in as an option. But because he is a big promoter of
that product he got the software company to patch the software for him
in relatively short order.

 

As for tick marks, I personally don't care. My former workplace used
arrows, my current one uses tickmarks, and I've had no difficulty with
either. You just have to have a competent person doing the dimensioning.
Either one has issues if the person doesn't pay attention to snap points and
legibility of the final drawing.

That being said, there *is* value in consistency of standards. I always try
to make every drawing that I do for any particular employer consistent. No
matter who is doing the drawings, they should all look like the same person
did them. Once the company has set the standards, there should be a really
good reason to change them.

 

Amen, brother, you're singing my song. I'm not really trying to
Architect-bash here, but I have found that as long as it prints
correctly, most are not careful with what items go on what layers.

Also folks, why choose 9 or 10 colors for the .ctb when you have in
theory 256? (I say, in theory because I cannot differentiate most of
the colors ending in a "6, 7, 8, or 9".)

Ah, just my 2.5 cents (inflation, you know)

 

In a previous post Beatle wrote...

Exactly! Poor quality workmanship leads to errors no matter how good the
program or standards. It is possible to turn a high quality product AND
be fast if you know what you are doing.

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

 

colors are more distinct on a black background, and a black background
causes less eye strain.

arrowheads are not "architectural". Archtecture is an art, and the finished
product
must be as artistic architecturally and it is technical.
The artistic goal of a set of plans is to have it look as close to hand
drawn as possible,
not look like a technical drawing.

you'll listen to valid explanations only if they agree with what you said
apparently.

jojo

 

once you go black...

 

I have been using autocad for the past 20 years, I use a black
background and prefer solid arrow heads over either tick marks or
dots... but thats only because I have used them for the majority of
those 20 years.

But as some other posters have noted, it doesn't really matter which one
you use... what *does* matter is that the drawing being produced is easy
for your clients (or other disciplines) to follow when printed. That is
the point of creating the drawing in the first place.

*BUT*, working with someone else's drawing in autocad has always been
interesting to say the least. It's kinda like listening to a foreigner
to your country that is unfamiliar with your language describe something
to you, you can only make out some of the words and have to piece
together meaning by interpolation

As far as the background thing... I have never put *much* thought into
changing my background from the default. The one time I did think about
it, I tinkered with the background color a bit, but then felt that I was
'playing around' on company time and dropped it.

Greg

 

Simple really, those users aren't focusing in on the intersection of the
two strokes that make up a tee or other character ...
When I'm in other software, even sketchup, I'm not concentrating on small
areas to the same detail as I am in cad, zooming factor making little
diffence...
Ron

 

Don't know whether its 'most' any more, but black = all screen guns are off

 

That's one take on it, I guess. But, interesting is hardly the word
I'd use. How about maddening! I used to have to change many CAD dwgs
for design revisions and some of the methods used by originators were
so bizarre, I'd have to redo the drawing from scratch. The worst were
3D drawings turned so they only appeared to be orthographic. None of
the points were on the viewed plane and dimensions floated in space.
We had one fellow who refused to stop this silliness and since his
drawings wouldn't pass quality inspection, he quit rather than
conform. All his work had to be redone.

Oh yeah ....I use a black background.

nb

 

Black for me, less strain, Ticks when doing building work and arrowheads
when doing Mechanical. Zoom in to make sure snaps are where they should be
and take not of Z position carefully when working in 3D. It isn't really
rocket science.

JD

 

Not at all. Those simply aren't reasons that have any validity. If you
say that ticks are more effective in small areas because they don't
intrude, or they make the drawing more legible, then it is a valid
reason. Saying I want to be an artist rather than a professional is not
a valid reason. I'm just used to it that way is a cop-out. Why use cad?
Use a drawing board with a Mayline and a pencil. Weren't you used to it
that way at one point? The set of drawings that an architect produces
are supposed to be accurate and functional. Art does not have
functionality. That is where you miss the point. Good schools of
architecture are affiliated with engineering departments. The bad ones
are part of the fine arts department. (Unless you think that
non-functional monuments are architecture) To quote Le Corbusier "Form
follows function" and if you forget about the function, no body will
build your artistic form.