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

authors Shelden, D., Bharwani, S., Mitchell, W.J. and Williams, J.
year 1995
title Requirements for Virtual Design Review
source Architectural Research Quarterly 1(2), December
summary Requirements for Virtual Design Review: Fundamental Argument: This article deals primarily with the actual physical components of a virtual design review, and the difficulties associated with their integration. It is a rather refreshing approach to the problem of the virtual studio, in that it provides an empirical model of how the virtual and the real interact. Needless to say, there were numerous difficulties. 1. The reviewers and the students had to adapt to a new system of design review. Thus, traditional protocols and procedures may or may not work when dealing with a project in the virtual realm. The jurors and the students did become more comfortable as the jury progressed, but it is safe to say that those who went first most likely had a difficult and rather unhelpful session. 2. The technology itself was limited in what it could accomplish. The rate of transmissions across the line often hindered the review. Those students who used analog display, such as drawings or sketches, were not able to present these items effectively to remote viewers. The article does state that the virtual design review drew heavily upon the model of tradition review for its procedures. Was this the correct way of conducting the jury? With the introduction of technology into the process, one would think that there would be a significant shift in the model. Though the traditional model may be useful as a point of departure, we must critically engage the unique qualities that technology brings to the review. I would argue that a new model would need to be developed, whether it is a radical departure, a hybrid, or a modest adjustment to the existing model. For a traditional review, all one might need are a few push pins, a table for model display, and a surface upon which to pin his or her drawings. For the digital review, one requires monitors, computers, special lighting, video cameras, electrical outlets and phone jacks, and whatever else might be required to conduct a successful jury. It is in fact more akin to a television production than a traditional jury. The sheer complexity that technology inserts into the process can seem almost overwhelming. Yet if we can narrow our focus, find the essentials, by critically engaging those areas that will be affected by its introduction, then we can begin to imagine a true digital review.
series journal paper
references Content-type: text/plain
last changed 2003/04/23 13:14
HOMELOGIN (you are user _anon_4297 from group guest) Works Powered by SciX Open Publishing Services 1.002