comparison of designers’ modeling approaches during architectural design...

eCAADe 27 753-Session 21: Design Tool Development 2

Comparison of Designers’ Modeling Approaches During Architectural Design Process

Sema Alaçam Aslan1, Gülen Çağdaş2

1Istanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology,Department of Informatics,Turkey, 2Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: This study has been started as a part of a research, related to exploring impact of novel interfaces during collaborative architectural design process on designers’ way of thinking. However, in this paper it is intended to focus on how the input devices reflect on designers’ modeling behavior in computer environment. Therefore it is intended to compare designer’s modeling approaches in computer environment via a case study. Four master students in architectural design computing graduate program have attended to the case study. The findings of the case study is presented and evaluated in the discussion section.

Keywords: Architectural modeling; design interface; interactive techniques, human-computer interaction

beginning of the study was that if the second hand is provoked with additional input devices in the 3D architectural modeling process, could it improve the quality of the communication between designer and the computer.

Although there is a rapid change in the types of design media and a plurality in the representation methods, current desktop environments can be as-sumed that they provide the same way of commu-nication to the designers. Keyboard, mouse and the screen are the components of the common interface components. During the architectural modeling phase in computer environment, these common data input and display devices might have negative effects on designers’ way of thinking. Nevertheless, in physical world there are various modalities of communication between the designer and design

Introduction

“We make possibilities rather than discover them or have them imposed on us” PlattelThroughout the centuries human are accustomed to use the tools with their two hands. Although the opposite idea might be there is a hierarchy between two hands – one of the hands is more specified for designated tasks - still communication and interac-tion styles of human may influenced by reflection of two hand using. Moreover, Hsiang (2005) states that ‘hand’ was the earliest inspiration for input device.

Human behaviors may change slowly comparing with development in computer technology. Regard-ing this evolutionary development process between human and the tools, one of the questions in the

754 eCAADe 27 - Session 21: Design Tool Development 2

object. However in computer environment these modalities are more reduced.

The scope of this paper is limited to analysis of one case study including two sessions. The duration of the each session is 30 minutes. The findings of case studies are evaluated in the discussion section.

Related Works

There are a variety of studies on design tools and design media. The current studies might be classi-fied from different point of views. For example they might be listed such as augmented reality studies, tangible user interfaces, graphical user interfaces; modeling or drawing environments. However (i) the reflection of new studies to architectural design edu-cation is too slow; (ii) there is not enough experiment about impact of new technologies; (iii) there are not enough applications with multiple input devices.

Artoolkit (URL 2), as an augmented reality en-vironment provides dimensional freedom to the designers. ‘iSphere’ is an interface application with 12 faces. It provides flexibility in direction for taking

data and direct manipulating process of 3D models with a haptic interaction (Lee, 2005). Hsiang (2005) has presented a simulation of mouse movement by hand movement. Schieck (2004) has studied on us-ing two mice simultaneously however; this example was restricted with manipulation of a defined topol-ogy and has not integrated enough to the existing 3D modeling environments in the further steps. In addition multi-touch surfaces might be listed among current studies which are both proper for fo-cusing on 2D and 3D applications at the same time. The handicap of the multi-touch surfaces is their high cost during the studies of this paper.

Methodology and Implementation

We focused on designer’s behavior during architec-tural design process. How do designers use physical and digital media? Do the designers use their both hands simultaneously in correlation with the key-board and the mouse?

In order to prepare the implementation the fol-lowing steps were done:• The program code for capturing the keyboard

commands has written in C# environment;• 3ds Max software was used as an 3D modeling

graphical user interface; • For comparing the modeling behaviors of the

designers, the record history of the 3D modeling environment was activated.The modeling behaviors of the designers are

tested within a case study in two separated sessions with participation of four students. It is expected from participants to select some of the five 3D model

Figure 1 Classification of Interfaces for Design Purpose (Alaçam Aslan, 2008)

Figure 23D objects that are expected to regenerate by the partici-pants in 3D graphical user interface


Figure 3 Plan and section views of the project area and a photo from the site

Figure 4 (left) Screenshot from Turan Altıntaş’s work

Figure 5 (right) Re-modelled by Bihter Yılmaz from Figure2-Model 1

Figure 6 Illustrations by Muhammed Ali Örnek


Table 1 The transcript of the case study including the relation-ship between input devices and the correlated actions in 3D graphical user interface

Transformation Modification Selection View Control

Move Scale Rotate Modify* Select **

Student1

Session1

Keyboard - - - - - 4Mouse - - - + 65 16Both 42 5 30 + - 47

Student1

Session2

Keyboard - - - - - 13Mouse - - - + 79 21Both 48 4 29 + - 53

Student2

Session1

Keyboard - - - - - 7Mouse 12 2 2 + 38 42Both 29 3 5 - - 42

Student2

Session2

Keyboard - - - - - 1Mouse 9 23 4 + 44 16Both 4 2 1 - - 56

Student3

Session1

Keyboard - - - - - 15Mouse 73 - 1 + 168 65Both 16 7 13 + 7 136

Student3

Session2

Keyboard - - - - - 9Mouse 38 - - + 95 108Both 60 28 72 + 10 58

Student4

Session1

Keyboard - - - _ - 4Mouse 173 - 11 + 62 44Both - - - - - -

Student4

Session2

Keyboard _ _ _ _ _ 10Mouse 41 5 5 + 43 44Both - - - - - -

images (Figure 2) and regenerate the selected 3D models in 3D modeling software in the duration of 30 minutes. They were free to decide how many models they would regenerate and keep the unity of the original model or reinterpret it.

Following this application in the second session, the participants are expected to adapt their 3D mod-els to the given open area as public elements such as roof/shadow elements or sitting units. To narrow down the topic for a short term workshop, an open public area is selected for re-designing the relation-ship between sea and the city (Figure 3). The area

might be interpreted both open and semi-open. Be-sides these, the design process was expected to be-gin and finish entirely in 3D modeling environment. After the sessions, the transcripts of the record of the screen and the command record of the graphical user interface were used for analyzing the process.

Based on the analysis, the results of the process will be examined according to following questions:• If there is a continuity/consistency in designer

behaviors between the two sessions or not;• What kind of approaches affect the designers’

speed of manipulation of 2D and 3D models;

* Some of the modification commands in 3ds Max can be listed as: Extrude, Twist, Bend, etc.** This column represents the number of the changes in the view control, either with the keyboard or the mouse or both of them.


physical environment, in digital environment the de-signers change the viewport instead of the object it-self. If we regard “viewport” paradigm, then the input devices and the interaction between the designer and the computer should be revised and developed according to this paradigm. On the other hand, if we take into account the physical interaction between designer and the model in physical environment and in digital environment the existing input devices are not appropriate enough to provide tactile interac-tion. Besides tactile and tangible interfaces, multi input devices can improve the interaction during architectural modeling process.

Moreover using two hands simultaneously might improve the speed of the interaction. Thus, the designers might gain time for concentrating on the design process, generating more alternatives instead of dealing with too many steps in order to execute simple commands. For example Student 3 (Table 1 and Table 2) could have generated 4 models over 5 models. This might be because of using both hands in the modification and selection commands and also the view control. Therefore, the applications with multi input devices might provide better inter-action with the digital environment, which are de-veloped specifically for architectural design purpose.

This study might be assumed as a base for the further studies considering the design process and the interface relation. On the other hand, the scope of the case study is limited by time and media; the outcomes might be arguable and change in other contexts or personal design approaches of the each designer.

• What is the percentage of the usage of the key-board or the mouse separately and the integrat-ed usage of these two input devices ;

• If the designers can use their two hands simulta-neously or not;

• If familiarity with an existing modeling software affects designers’ behavior and designers’ adap-tion period to new tools or not.

* Some of the modification commands in 3ds Max can be listed as: Extrude, Twist, Bend, etc.** This column represents the number of the chang-es in the view control, either with the keyboard or the mouse or both of them.

Discussion

How do the designers’ behaviors be influenced by the interfaces? Do the designers get used to use the mouse and the keyboard as an input device? Do the designers tend to use their two hands simultane-ously? Do the existing input devices be a limitation for the designers?

One of the findings is the shift in the “rota-tion” paradigm in digital environment. On contrary

Table 2 Software experience and the number of the regenerated models

Table 3 The percentage of the usage of the input devices

Student Software Experience

Number of the models that have regenerated from the

given 5 modelYears

S1 5 1

S2 8 2

S3 6 4

S4 4 1


Acknowledgements

This study is partially supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey and ITU Scientific Research Fund (project number is 32428). The authors thank all the participants of the case study: Bihter Yılmaz, Çağrı Hakan Zaman, Mu-hammed Ali Örnek and Turan Altıntaş. The program-ming part of this study would not have been able without the lectures of Kaan Aslan at the Association of C and System Programmers.

References

Alaçam Aslan, S.:2008, An Interface Proposal for Archi-tectural Design Process (in Turkish), Master Thesis, (Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Gülen Çağdaş), Istanbul Tech-nical University, Institute of Science and Technol-ogy, Architectural Design Computing Graduate Program, Istanbul

Alaçam Aslan, S., Çağdaş, G.: 2008, An Interface Proposal for Collaborative Architectural Design Process, architecture ‘in computro’: in eCAADe 2008 26th International Conference, Antwerp, Belgium, pp. 319-324

Basalla, G.: 1998, The Evaluation of Technology, Cam-bridge University Press

Bongers, B. :2004, Interaction with our electronic envi-ronment an ecological approach to physical inter-face design, Cahier Book series (no 34) of the Facul-ty of Journalism and Communication, Hogeschool van Utrecht

Hsing, S.:2005, Using Hand Movement System to Oper-ate 3D Objects in Virtual Environment, new media, user interface and communication technologies: in eCAADE 2005 23rd, pp.779-786

Lee, C. H., Hu, Y. and Selker, T.: 2005, iSphere: a Proximity-Based 3D Input Interface, Full paper in proceedings of CAAD Futures, Vienna, Austria.

Schieck. A.:2004, “Interactive form generation: using multiple input devices in: eCAADe 2004 22nd con-ference, September 15-18 2004, Copenhagen, Den-mark.

Seichter, H., Kvan, T.: 2005, Tangible Interfaces in Design Computing, Virtual Environment 2, pp. 159- 166

URL1: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/artoolkit/ (03.02.2009).

comparison of designers’ modeling approaches during architectural design...

Documents