On Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:18:28 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" on Mon, 1
Mar 2021 23:13:28 -0500 typed in rec.woodworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
. ..

Was pondering the whole "it is good to learn the manual skills
first" school of thought, and made the analogy to writing vs
keyboarding. Not a smart statement to make in the hearing of an early
childhood education specialist B-). She pointed out that children at
that age learn "though the hand." They need to use their hand to make
the shape as part of how they learn the letters. "So much for that
idea."

She might find Doug Stowe's "Wisdom of the Hands" blog interesting. He is an
advocate of educational Sloyd. Without using the formal Sloyd process I used
that approach with my sons from the time they were very young.

She's Montessori based.

Same with drafting - you don't need to know how to set an ink pen
in order to use AutoDesk, Catia, Solidworks, etc. Just know that line
thickness and their meanings were settled (in Court). You do not need
to know about descriptive geometry to understand the origins of 3rd
Angle projection vs 1st angle projection, just know that they are
there.

I took two years of "mechanical drawing" in school back in the '70s. I was
good at it... Flash forward nearly 5 decades and at best I sketch
woodworking projects out on a yellow sticky note pad, an envelope, or maybe
a piece of printer paper. My drawing board and tools seldom see daylight. I
don't use any CAD software either. This as I only need some key dimensions
and proportions and the rest I build to fit as was common in the 18th
century. My point: What design tool you use should be dependent upon the
type of projects you build, how much detail you need, how dependent you are
on machines, jigs and fixtures, and how well you can visualize how things
will go together. We are all different in that respect.

I remember in one of the classes, that one is not to put
dimensions on a three-d drawing, because either the shape or the
dimensions are not correct.

Do not _scale_ a perspective drawing makes perfect sense. But not
putting dimensions on it is another story, the only caveat I can see
is to make sure that the endpoints are absolutely clear.

OTOH, when I am 'designing' a thing, that three-D sketch gets all
sorts of dimensions added, because, well if there is any questions,
the design committee and production lead can go get a cup of coffee
and figure it out.

Part of my approach is that I am a history geek. How did this
come into existence? What was the development process? Why this way
and not that? Current 'crank' is time: "why twelve o'clock?" (It has
to do with the Roman fractional practices, and Babylonian base sixty
astronomy.)

Back in tech school, I noticed that most of the class were of the
"Do this on the machine, then the books make sense" sort while I was
one of "the book says X, ah, that's how that works on the machine"
types. (And then there are the uber geeks, who not only know how it
works 'one the machine', but how it works on the blackboard.)