Cumincad : CUMINCAD Papers : Search Results

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

PDF papers
References

Hits 1 to 3 of 3

Reformat results as: short short into frame detailed detailed into frame

_id	4bf6
authors	Akin, O. and Lin, C.
year	1995
title	Design Protocol data and novel design decisions
source	Design Studies, 16 (#2, April), 211-236
summary	This work is a part of The Delft Protocols Workshop which is an international gathering of experts on design research. The objective is to study the behaviours of designers using techniques of cognitive psychology in general and protocol analysis in particular. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between visual-graphic data processing and novel design ideas. Several analyses dealing with verbal-conceptual and visual-graphic data have been conducted; and the relationships between design activities and design decisions have been explored. The findings indicate that phases of the design process and the activities correlate with key design decisions.
series	journal paper
email
last changed	2003/04/23 15:14

_id	8a8a
authors	Akin, Ö., Sen, R., Donia,M. and Zhang, Y.
year	1995
title	SEED-Pro: Computer-Assisted Architectural Programming in SEED
source	Journal of Architectural Engineering -- December 1995 -- Volume 1, Issue 4, pp. 153-161
summary	Computer-assisted architectural programming is in its infancy. What there is in terms of architectural programming theory often differs from practice. In the first half of this paper we define relevant terms, provide abrief review of the state of the art, and draw attention to the primacy of architectural programming in design. SEED-Pro is introduced as an intelligent assistant providing structure to the normally open-endedactivities of design. This includes the creation of an architectural program from scratch. In the second, more technical, part of the paper we emphasize three specific topics. The design problem specificationfunctionality is described. The generation and evaluation of the emerging architectural program is discussed. An approach to the decomposition of the architectural program into alternative hierarchies is provided.The paper concludes with a discussion of what is and remains to be accomplished.
series	journal paper
email
last changed	2003/05/15 21:27

_id	ec17
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
last changed	2003/04/23 15:14

No more hits.