Mediating cognitive transformation with VR 3D sketching during conceptual architectural design process

Communications for information synchronization during the conceptual design phase require designers to employ more intuitive digital design tools. This paper presents findings of a feasibility study for using VR 3D sketching interface in order to replace current non-intuitive CAD tools. We used a sequential mixed method research methodology including a qualitative case study and a cognitive-based quantitative protocol analysis experiment. Foremost, the case study research was conducted in order to understand how novice designers make intuitive decisions. The case study documented the failure of conventional sketching methods in articulating complicated design ideas and shortcomings of current CAD tools in intuitive ideation. The case study’s findings then became the theoretical foundations for testing the feasibility of using VR 3D sketching interface during design. The latter phase of study evaluated the designers’ spatial cognition and collaboration at six different levels: "physical-actions", "perceptualactions", "functional-actions", "conceptual-actions", "cognitive synchronizations", and "gestures". The results and confirmed hypotheses showed that the utilized tangible 3D sketching interface improved novice designers’ cognitive and collaborative design activities. In summary this paper presents the influences of current external representation tools on designers’ cognition and collaboration as well as providing the necessary theoretical foundations for implementing VR 3D sketching interface. It contributes towards transforming conceptual architectural design phase from analogue to digital by proposing a new VR design interface. The paper proposes this transformation to fill in the existing gap between analogue conceptual architectural design process and remaining digital engineering parts of building design process hence expediting digital design process.

[1]  Renate Fruchter,et al.  FRAMEWORK FOR A CROSS-BORDER TRANSDISCIPLINARY DESIGN STUDIO EDUCATION , 2007 .

[2]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[3]  P. Lloyd,et al.  Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition , 1995 .

[4]  Rahinah Ibrahim,et al.  Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design , 2010 .

[5]  A. Smith,et al.  Research Methodology: A Step-by-step Guide for Beginners , 2012 .

[6]  F. Pour Rahimian,et al.  Using IT/ICT as a new medium toward implementation of interactive architectural communication cultures , 2008, 2008 International Symposium on Information Technology.

[7]  Mi Jeong Kim,et al.  The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design , 2008 .

[8]  Rahinah Ibrahim,et al.  Impacts of VR 3D sketching on novice designers’ spatial cognition in collaborative conceptual architectural design , 2011 .

[9]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements , 2000 .

[10]  A. W. Melton.  Categories of Human Learning , 1964 .

[11]  John E. Sawyer,et al.  Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology , 2003, MIS Q..

[12]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[13]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[14]  Young-Ho Chai,et al.  Free-Hand Stroke Based NURBS Surface for Sketching and Deforming 3D Contents , 2005, PCM.

[15]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[16]  Halime Demirkan,et al.  An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media , 2003 .

[17]  John Marx,et al.  A proposal for alternative methods for teaching digital design , 2000 .

[18]  Rahinah Ibrahim.  Mitigating environmental characteristics with integrated design and automated construction approaches for AQH development , 2007 .

[19]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Analysing design activity , 1996 .

[20]  Renate Fruchter,et al.  Internet-based web-mediated collaborative design and learning environment , 1998, AI in Structural Engineering.

[21]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Comparing paradigms for describing design activity , 1995 .

[22]  Xavier Granier,et al.  3D Sketching with Profile Curves , 2006, Smart Graphics.

[23]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How designers perceive sketches , 2006 .

[24]  Claude Bédard,et al.  Specifications for computer-aided conceptual building design , 2003 .

[25]  Leandro Madrazo.  Types and Instances: a paradigm for teaching design with computers , 1999 .

[26]  Paul M. Fitts,et al.  Perceptual-Motor Skill Learning1 , 1964 .

[27]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions , 1998 .

[28]  Robert Biegler.  Handbook of spatial research paradigms and methodologies, vol. 2, Clinical and comparative studies. , 1999 .

[29]  Tom Cassidy,et al.  Comparing synthesis strategies of novice graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools , 2007 .

[30]  Paul P. Maglio,et al.  On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  John S. Gero,et al.  To sketch or not to sketch? That is the question , 2006 .