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 1 to 20 of 520
Reformat results as: short short into frame detailed detailed into frame
Pairs of participants were set a design problem and asked to solve it in face-to-face settings. The same problem was then tackled by participants in settings using two different modes of computer-supported communication: email and an electronic whiteboard. Protocols were collected and analyzed in terms of the constraints of each tool relative to the task and to each other. The GOMS methodology was used as a way to represent the collaborative design process in a way that yields information on both the productivity and performance of participants in each of the three experimental conditions. It also yielded information on the component elements of the design process, the basic cognitive building-blocks of design, thereby suggesting fundamentally new tools that might be created for interaction in virtual environments.
A further goal of the study was to explore the nature of task differences in relation to alternative platforms for communication. It was hypothesized that design processes involving significant negotiation would be less aided by computer support than straight forward design problems. The latter involve cooperative knowledge application by both participants and are therefore facilitated by information-rich forms of computer support. The former, on the other hand, requires conflict resolution and is inhibited by non face-to-face interaction. The results of this study point to the fact that the success of collaboration in virtual space is not just dependent on the nature of the tools but also on the specific nature of the collaborative task.
The projects presented here are of three types: (1.) The first project compares people's evaluation of several slightly modified virtual models of a space. (2.) The second project compares how people evaluate a foam core model of a space to how they evaluate a virtual representation of the same space (3.) The third project compares people's evaluation of a real space to that of a virtual representation of this space. //
The wide range of results presented provides one argument in support of using VR simulations to study spaces and how they are perceived. For example, results shows that a virtual window serves to alleviate perceived crowding and that added furniture serves to make a virtual room feel slightly larger and less constraining. However, problems did emerge with using virtual reality simulations to gain information about peoples' behavioral reactions to a space. Thus, not all circumstances under which VR representations are used creates valid results. Differences appear to be in the type of evaluations measured (e.g. dimensional versus behavioral). More research is needed to clarify this issue.
For more results click below: