Viewing a three dimensional computer model from many vantage points and through animation sequences, presents buildings and their surrounding environments as a sequence of spaces and events, rather than as static objects or graphic abstractions. Three dimensional modeling at the earliest stages of design tends to increase the spatial and formal properties of early building design studies, and diminishes the dominance of plan as the form giver.

The following paper is based upon the work of second, third and fifth year architectural students who have engaged in architectural design through the use of microcomputer graphics. In each case they entered the architectural studio with virtually no computer experience. Although the assigned architectural projects were identical to those of other "conventional" architectural studios, their design work was accomplished, almost solely, using four different types of graphic software: Computer-Aided Drafting, 3-Dimensional Modeling, Painting and Animation programs. Information presented is based upon student surveys, semester logs, interviews, impressions of external design critics, and the comparison of computer based and conventional studio final presentations.

Design assignments neither emphasized nor required the use of CAD techniques, as the experiment was designed to measure the students' acceptance of and adaptation to the use of CAD tools. The objective was to "teach" design in the traditional sense of a design studio, while making the computer an integral part of the setting in which the student learned designing and problem solving.

Measurements were made of (1) time for the "fundamentals" learning curve, (2) time for a "basic competence" learning curve, (3) hours utilized by categories of type of use, (4) hours utilized by equipment and software type, and (5) progress in design ability as evaluated by the traditional jury review methods.

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.

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.

Efforts in the area of CAD development are undertaken within the "computers in architecture" emphasis area in the PhD program at this university and are targeted at resolution of the CAD interface problems. This happens in both the teaching and research programs. Initially, the communication problems between the building design team and the building systems software are being approached through a PhD-level course in software development for building design problems. In this context, the non-graphical aspects of CAD are being addressed through the development of user friendly, tutorial- type software. Longer range research objectives are directed at the special three-way interfaces between the (1) Design Team, (2) Graphics Handler, and (3) Analytical Engine, and the linkages of these to the Common Data Base.

The paper argues that, through the use of the computer, the whole nature of Architectural History, as it is currently taught in schools of architecture, will need to be changed and that a more pragmatic, hands- on approach to the subject will have to be adopted. Thus we advocate that the computer, the tool of today and the future, will allow students to experience architecture in the way they did in the past, from the Grand Tour to the architectural apprenticeship, aU before the introduction of architectural academies.

It is the view of the author that a student can obtain much more from her or his first course in CAADD if some fundamental concepts are covered specifically and dramatically, rather than assumed or conveyed by osmosis. On the other hand, one does not want to significantly delay the teaching of he principal objective: how to use a computer as a partner in design and production. The answer to meeting these two divergent objectives is two-fold: (1) careful organization with computer based tutorials, and (2) integration of architectonic lessons during the introduction.

The objectives of he initial five weeks are (1) to demystify computers, (2) teach the fundamental concepts of computer systems relating to hardware (disks, cpu, memory, display), and software (programs, data, files), (3) illustrate programming and program design, and (4) convey the concept of discrete symbol manipulation and its relation to graphics and text.

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).