CumInCAD is a Cumulative Index about publications in Computer Aided Architectural Design supported by the sibling associations ACADIA, CAADRIA, eCAADe, SIGraDi, ASCAAD and CAAD futures
Hits 141 to 160 of 172
Reformat results as:
short into frame
detailed into frame
Part One establishes facts: the human and financial investment that universities have made in CAD, based on results from publications and a national ACADIA survey, and the investment of architectural firms in CAD, based on recent national and regional in-depth studies.
Part Two examines goals of the use of CAD in the design studio. For better analysis, goals are divided into two extreme categories: tool independent and tool dependent. Tool independent goals are born out of the need to improve the existing design education, independent from technological development. Tool dependent goals are tailored to the alleged capabilities of new software and hardware and to pressure from the professional community. The actual definition of goals for design education will lie somewhere in between.
Part three examines the reality in the design studio. It tries to determine the place of the computer in the design process from a student's view, and an educator's view. The last section is dedicated to the testing of the developed theory against actual studios.
This paper will give a short history of IGES, discuss its reason for being, list its strengths and weaknesses, examine its inner workings, and introduce the current effort of the IGES committee: a total "Product Design Exchange Specification", PDES (and internationally as STEP). It will also discuss the techniques used by the PDES application committees to model their various products, and give a case study of the effort of the AEC committee in modeling an architectural "product".
The paper will conclude with the opinions on the future of IGES by the author (a four year member of the IGES/PDES organization).
An interview technique was developed to address three main concerns: (1) how computers are and should be utilized in areas--i.e., research, course preparation, lecture delivery, computer-aided instruction, grading and monitoring, and student exercises; (2) what kinds of applications are and should be utilized--i.e., word processing, statistics, graphics, drafting, modeling, audio-visual, database, etc.; and (3) what problems or concerns stand in the way of achieving the desired levels of computer usage.
The twenty-three full-time faculty surveyed (96% participation) represent 65 curriculum courses varying in format from design studio and labs to lecture. This paper outlines the methods of the study and presents the findings via graphs of current and desired computer usage by both area and application along with a graphic summary of statistics and trends. Also presented are a summary of root problems and concerns noted during the interview process and conclusions and limitations of study.
For more results click below: