DIGITAL DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY:
EVOLVING A FORMAL LANGUAGE FRAMEWORK FOR PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE
INTRODUCTION
The impact of the computer is now ubiquitous in society and, no less so, within the profession of architecture. The use of the computer has evolved slowly in architecture; early architectural theorists predicted the “rationalization” of architecture (Alexander, Rudolphsky, 1964). One can argue that some of this has occurred based on the evolution of performance requirements (i.e. energy modeling,
performance simulation, work production analysis, etc.). However, most agree the essence of architecture still remains in the ideation of “human” creative endeavors and ephemeral glimpses and visions of owner(s), designer architects and builders (Barrow, 2000). These “path-finding” exploratory dreams and visions exist beyond formulas and rational machine models (Barrow, 2000). Hence, over the last twenty years, we have seen the slow emergence of computing into the process of architecture; initially this migration has been in the areas of quantification (accounting), engineering (science), scheduling (management), production (drafting) and visual rePRESENTATION (marketing). We emphasize
presentation here to be explicit regarding our position and establishment of the current condition and
problem. Initially, in practice, we have seen the computer used in areas outside the design studio (i.e. typically not in conceptual design), as a drafting and production tool. Essentially, this approach has automated the centuries old “orthogonal-drafting” process. In academia, where research and exploration is encouraged (i.e. required) the boundaries of computing and digital design have been more aggressively explored. As early as 1993 Mississippi State University’s College of Architecture required the use of the laptop computer in their studio process (the first academic architectural program in the US to do so) (Berk, 1993). However, digital design tool exploration has been the exception, not the rule. Most architectural design processes, both in academia and practice, have maintained a barrier between design ideation, representation and the construction/making process of architecture. This “automated-island” process has been, and remains problematic. We believe the maturing of technology (i.e. hardware, software, and brain-ware) now affords new possibilities and opportunities in the core value of architecture, the design and construction of buildings (Barrow, 2000). However, we in the profession grapple for a common “language” regarding these newly emerging design-representation-making processes. Hence, the intent of this paper is to establish a common terminology framework by which we can communicate within the academic and practice arenas regarding digital design.
BACKGROUND
Of the five senses of the human physiology, vision is by far the most relied upon sense. It is through this visual system that we work our way through the environment; recognize subtle visual cues of
conversation; and derive spatial relationships. It is no wonder then that the profession of design relies most on ‘visualization’ to communicate it’s ideas. In architecture, drawings are the primary form of representation; they carry a design from conception to construction. Except for physical models (which can be considered a kind of three-dimensional drawing) all external design representations in
architecture are drawing (Do and Gross, 2001).People draw by instinct; our cognitive visualization skills enable us to represent our ideas in the form of drawings.
This innate ability to draw and express our ideas is developed during childhood; and often, very young children, with limited cognition skills, can draw using three-dimensional representations.
Figure 1. Three-dimensional drawing made by a 5 year old child with no analytical perspective knowledge or training. (Vasquez de Velasco, Davidson and Angulo, 2001)
Representations serve many cognitive purposes; some are external, formal and well specified, while others are personal and may exist for only a few moments in time (Eastman, 1999). Thus, the use of representation to explain design is a natural form of communication. In architecture, …. the pre-Renaissance architect used limited 2D and 3D representation; [hence,] the primary means of accomplishing architecture was on site verbal communication and full-scale layout in the field with craftsman cohorts (i.e. stonemasons and carpenters). This required the architect to be onsite and produce one project at a time. (Barrow, 2000) The Master Builder was slowly decomposed during, and following, the Renaissance into specialist roles (i.e. designer, practicing architect, builder, and craftsman).
Fundamentally, this transforming organizational model change was enabled via the development of perspective and orthogonal communication “languages” (i.e. “drawings).” These visual representation strategies enabled the designer/architect to communicate with the owner and builder/craftsman non-synchronously and remote from the site (Barrow, 2002).
Digital Media and computer applications now allow us to reformulate design representations, once again, to improve dissemination of design information, initially to ourselves as designers, and then the owner, user, public agencies as well as our building cohorts and collaborators (i.e. engineers, builders,
manufactures and craftsman) (Barrow, 2000).
What are some of the qualities of the computer as a medium for representation and information transfer? 1. Individual and low-cost production of dynamic digital representations (i.e. images).
2. The development of hyperlinks between presentations.
3. Representations with built-in processing that can move or process information.
4. The ability to quickly -- often instantaneously -- convert information between one representation and another.
5. The ability to transmit 3-D images, optionally with dynamic capabilities, offering four dimensions of variation.
6. The ability for anyone to use these representations and to "publish" them to a world audience, at almost no cost. (Eastman, 1999)
Although there is general consensus on the power of the digital media, sweeping changes like a “paperless design studio” have not occurred. Like their predecessors of the 19th century, 20th century architects were often skeptical of technology, often viewing it as a threat to traditional classic forms of architectural practice (Barrow, 2002). Why use digital media where traditional media and methods have worked well? With the advent of modern computing (cheaper and faster), digital media is easily available to most architects and designers. There is an increasing demand on architects and designers to re-invent the process of representation and to present information at the “click of a button.” Today’s architectural firm is often a global entity: designs are done in the United States; construction documents are done in India; pre-fabrication is done in Sweden while the construction is done in Italy. It is important for architects to realize the power of the digital media in such collaborative environments.
Architectural education plays an important role in teaching young architects ‘how to use the digital media’. Other fields use the digital media as a means, while architects and designers often qualify digital media as an end. For example, if you ask a mathematician how he/she uses the computer, the likely answer is that the computer is used to generate a model or simulate a phenomenon; whereas pose the same question to architects and they are more likely to express their proficiency in the use of a particular software (like AutoCAD or 3ds MAX). This is a dilemma. Do we really need to learn how to use
particular software? Or do we need to know how to integrate the digital media (any software) in the design process? We argue the latter.
In professional practice designing often begins with a diagrammatic depiction of the architectural
program that is gradually transformed to more complex graphic representations by adding detail (Do and Gross, 2001). Designers often prepare traditional representation techniques (hard copy physical drawings, diagrams and sketches) in the conceptual design process, thereafter, digital techniques are often employed for presentation or production documents. Currently, most Computer-Aided Architectural Design (CAAD) applications are used at the later stages of the design process after the crucial decisions of creating design artifacts have been considered (Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002). This is the fundamental problem.
If the computer is such a powerful tool, then why should it not be used through the process of this diagrammatic depiction? Why should it be used only after all the crucial decisions have been made? Based on our research over a period of seven years which includes 3D modeling as personal users in practice and within academia, we see the following as contributing factors for the current digital design scenario:
1. Hardware processing speeds heretofore have been deficient.
2. Most heretofore architectural software has been complex and awkward (i.e. with steep learning curves).
3. A lack of specialized software for early design ideation in 3D digital design process for the computing novice, who unfortunately are often the mature senior experienced design architects (i.e. we have needed conceptual design SW with a short learning curve).
4. Deficient knowledge of the process of architecture and design complexity on the part of software developers.
5. Human-Computer-Interface (HCI) input not natural to human hand-eye-brain cognition and tactility.
6. Over zealous marketing by software companies and lack of real improvement for the end user. 7. Complexity of the tasks at hand for both academic instructors, practicing architects and
technology trainers regarding skill development and integration of technical skills into the design process.
8. Too much emphasis on hardware and software and not enough focus on learning and organizational strategies.
9. Negative attitude, and or lack of knowledge, by user or management (administrators) toward technology at all levels in many architectural academic institutions and practicing firms. 10. Lack of understanding of digital design tools and a common language to build a knowledge and
communication base.
Digital Design is a complex topic with many factors and influences, in this paper; we will be focusing on the latter item 10, a common language and communication framework.
We believe, based on the recent improvements in architectural technology, that the computer and digital media can be used through the design process in its entirety. Digital media should not be relegated to the position of a ‘presentation’ tool; instead it should be elevated as an alternative to traditional design tools. A ‘digital’ architect is not one who is an expert in particular software or one who can present someone else’s idea; rather, a ‘digital’ architect is one who uses the computer integrally in his/her design ‘processes’.
Often digital media is relegated to a ‘presentation’ tool instead of a ‘representation’ tool. Cheng talks of how learning to use the digital media is akin to learning how to write. The process of writing, irrespective of the language, involves the use of precepts; a formal set of rules that define the process of writing (Cheng, 1995). The developments of ‘representations’ were a rare and difficult social invention. They must be known to at least a few people if they are to be used as a medium of communication (Eastman, 1999). However such a formal language of ‘digital design’ is absent in the profession of architecture. We often make use of the computer in our own individual ways; and there are multiple platforms and
software with a myriad of uses of the same software. With the increasing use of the computer as a representational tool, architects need to develop a language to communicate this evolving process of ‘digital design’.
The written language is an invention, much like the wheel. However, its ubiquitous nature often prevents us from thinking of it as an invention. Analogously, ultimately we believe the use of the computer in the design processes will become ubiquitous and similar to the written language. Tools of craft historically were extensions of the hand, and skilled craftsperson’s developed good hand/eye/mind co-ordination. The industrial revolution extended these tools of craft with a mechanized extrusion of mass produced
repetitive units…the computer, as a tool, is more akin to an extension of the mind. (Klinger, 2001) This claim is substantiated by Mark, Martens and Oxman who assume that the use of computers in design education will:
1. Integrate into the background of most courses such that their basic use will no longer carry any special significance
2. Design disciplines no longer need to awaken to the use of computers
3. Basic computer literacy is no longer a necessary objective of an architectural design curriculum. (Mark, Martens and Oxman, 2001)
We do not suggest that the use of computers is so ubiquitous that we no longer need a class, or classes devoted to digital processes at this time. Nor do we propose the complete abandonment of traditional paper/hard media methods at this time; we see the possibility of multiple means of integrating the computer into “ones” way of “thinking and doing.” There are many ways to design and each digital user will have to find their way based on their current computing skills and what works for them. In fact, we see the increasing use of hyper-media in the current context, particularly as a bridge to full use of digital input/output methodology as we move slowly through this transforming change in ‘digital design’ processes. However, the discussion of hypermedia is beyond the scope of this paper. We believe that it is as important to teach the use of computers for the purpose of design, as it is to teach the use of the pencil to draw. Just as with hard media, digital media is used in different methods dependent on the user’s aptitude, skill level and individual preference for working. Just as the early experiments in CAD in the late 1960s brought forward advances in design theory which in turn provided the teaching and learning framework for the following three decades, so the current experiments in the use of computers [in
architecture] will require a philosophy linking reality with virtuality which in turn will provide a teaching and learning framework for, at least, the next decade (Petric and Maver, 2001). Thus, we suggest a methodology to integrate the process of architectural design through the use of virtual design techniques, additionally; we will introduce a formal language/terminology framework that can be used by architects and designers for communication relative to ‘digital design’.
Much work has been done in the field of architectural education to qualify the use of the computer as a tool. Mark, Martens and Oxman talk of an ideal computer curriculum that will re-integrate the use of computer technology into the design curriculum without necessarily displacing the traditional subjects (Mark, Martens and Oxman, 2001). Cheng explores the learning of digital media in the architectural studio in a similar manner to the learning of the written word. She describes the process in three steps:
1. Basic Skills followed by content – based learning (basic concepts, individual media, media in series).
2. Learning to use the media in parallel. 3. Fluid mix of media (Cheng, 1995).
Figure 2. Stages of a CAD Curriculum (Cheng, 1995)
Studies by Gero, Maher and Reffat describe what designers do when they design and suggest directions for design computing research (Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002).
Do and Gross talk of integrating digital media in the design studio by outlining six models to integrate computation and digital media into design teaching. Their paper describes models for alternate “Digital Design Studios”, namely:
1. The CAD Studio as a computer augmented design studio. Up-to-date design software is used to teach a conventional design studio.
2. The CAD-Plus Studio addresses the integration of knowledge in design.
3. The Virtual and Web Design Studio explores new opportunities for collaboration using the Internet and Web.
4. The Cyberspace Design Studio addresses the integration of virtual and physical communities. 5. The Intelligent Buildings Studio explores embedding computation and smart materials into the
built environment.
6. The Tools and Toys Studio employs experimental digital design media that may become future tools of practice (Do and Gross, 1995).
These studies prove the field of design computing is changing rapidly to accommodate the increasing use of the computing technology by architects and designers. Using our engagement of digital design issues over seven years, as well as our colleagues referenced above, the author’s struggle to define our goals and pedagogy within the Design and Technology (D&T) Emphasis Area (EA) of the Graduate Program at Mississippi State University’s (MSU) College of Architecture (COA). We are fortunate to be associated with an institution that has been a forerunner in architectural education and digital design tactics over the last ten years. Our pre-professional studio faculty cohorts are very open to digital design exploration and we feel we are now ready to move to the next level of digital design exploration in the studio and graduate program D&T exploratory courses Digital Design I & Digital Design II (DDI & DDII respectfully). Additionally, our research in the MSU COA’s Digital Research and Imaging Lab (DRIL) offers additional support to analysis of emerging hardware and software relative to architectural design education and the ‘digital design’ process.
DIGITAL RESEARCH AND IMAGING LAB
The Digital Research and Imaging Laboratory (DRIL) is a multi-platform visualization, web based design and CAD/CAM environment for carrying out interdisciplinary research projects. In this environment digital modeling, visualization, and web based communication tools are applied in new ways and in novel areas. Projects done in the DRIL include website development, 3D modeling and visualization, animation, and CADCAM. The lab supports various research and outreach activities involving undergraduate and graduate students as well as affiliated research/graduate faculty.
The exploratory environment of the DRIL enables the authors to carry out multiple levels of design research, including research into the use of digital media at various levels of architectural design and education. Our recent research has been conducted primarily with post-professional graduate students enrolled in the Masters of Science in Architecture program at the College of Architecture. Over the last 3 years, the entering D&T EA class has consisted of an average of 8 students, approximately 70% are architecture students with a professional degree and the remaining 30% are from various related design fields to include Interior Design and Landscape Architecture. We are experimenting with pre-professional enrollment (i.e. undergraduate students) in the Digital Design Labs 1 and 2, but for this paper we will focus on the post-professional graduate student’s digital design work. Post-Professional graduate students have a foundational ‘design process’ educational underpinning thus enabling them to more easily learn how to integrate various levels of digital media into their traditional hard copy design processes. Post-Professional Graduate students offer a malleable group as they are often transitioning between
architectural education and practice/career moves. Most of these students have been out in the practice arena for a minimum of one or two years, and at times have as much s 10 or 15 years of practice
offers a relatively small group of students that have some understanding of both the academic and practice aspects of the profession. Additionally, the multi-disciplinary mix of students in the program, while challenging, offers us as instructors and researchers, various perspectives on digital media strategies in related design disciplines.
THE PROCESS OF DESIGN
The D&T EA graduate students are encouraged to use the computer at all levels of the design process. We believe the foundational digital design tool in the design professions for the built environment (i.e. objects to be “constructed/manufactured” are software (SW) that generate 3D geometric algorithms by which “form” (i.e. geometry, shape and structure) of the designed artifact is established. Hence, the DDI and DDII courses, taught in the first (Fall) and second (Spring) semesters, are focused on emerging digital design “input” and “output” strategies. The core tools are 3D modeling software with ancillary digital media tools that are taught in ancillary support courses concurrently. In the DD courses, as opposed to the traditional method of “think” with paper and “execute” with the computer; the students were asked to “think” as well as “execute” with the computer. We agree with Cheng when she says that designers must be taught different media to give access to lateral thinking. A well-informed designer needs to act as a conductor, knowing exactly which voice to call on for a particular kind of expression (Cheng, 1995). Over the past three years the DDI the students have been assigned a “major” 3D modeling software as a constraint, as well as a comprehensive research and learning contribution to their fellow cohort students. In this manner, the course is not focused on one software application; rather, the anti-thesis is promoted where the aggregate total of 6-8 software’s, used on the same design problem, allows each student to see a myriad of digital design tools, and their inherent strength and weakness, as a comparative study with their collaborative cohort classmates. Thus, the software applications, while significant to the research, are not the focus of the course, rather it is the framework of general knowledge about emerging design tools and strategies that students are encouraged to engage and understand.
At this juncture, we will introduce our first (1st) digital design language/terminology framework. During the development of the course pedagogy, and in an effort to communicate about our comparative study of the myriad of SW’s with students and between the authors, the following five (5) major areas of 2D/3D modeling SW’s have emerged as an aid to digital design communication:
DIGITAL DESIGN TOOL TYPOLOGIES No. Typology *2D / 3D Software Applications
1 Free-Form Rhino, Form-Z, AutoCAD, etc.
2 Conceptual Design Architectural Studio (2D), Alias Sketchbook (2D) SketchUp, etc. 3 3D Object Oriented ArchiCAD, Revit, MicroStation, Architectural Desktop, etc
4 CADCAM ProE, SolidWorks, Inventor, Catia, Unigraphics, etc. (see Note 4)
5 Presentation/Simulation 3D Studio Max / Viz, Maya, SoftImage, etc.
*Notes:
1) The authors acknowledge loop holes here in; as an example, we put 3D Studio Viz under “Presentation” – as it is a SW which is specialized for architecture with 3D objects, yet it is generally a presentation tool, not a design+build tool.
2) Rhino is listed under “Free-Form,” yet it could be listed under CADCAM as well. We have placed it in the Free-Form category
in this initial proposal due to its ease of use and intuitive nature for free-form modeling.
3) Generally, we have not included 2D graphic SW’s for clarity (i.e. Adobe PhotoShop, Illustrator, etc).
4) Additional physical CADCAM model design tools (i.e. 3Dprinters. Laser cutters, etc.) are not included, even though our research is very much aware of this important phenomena, we will address this in more detail in forthcoming publications.
Table 1
Digital Design Tool Typologies
We have been compelled to literally list commercially available SW in the aforementioned “Typology” categories. This has been done in an effort to offer clear communication, beyond esoteric jargon and, as a means of arriving at useful “applied research” which, hopefully, can be used as a bridge to studio
pedagogy, as well as firm studios/design team processes. We do NOT wish to promote anyone software, in fact, it is our intent to welcome all major quality SW’s to the DRIL lab and our research and pedagogy; we feel with this inclusive attitude that our teaching and research is enriched and contributes to our progress of grappling with the complex arena of ‘digital design’.
In addition to the above primary SW, the students were encouraged to use ancillary SW’s as well to include text, graphic, imaging, database, and presentation SW’s like MS Word-Excel-Access, Adobe PhotoShop-Illustrator; MS PowerPoint; and web content software like Macromedia Dreamweaver, Macromedia Flash; and digital storytelling software like Adobe Premiere. We consider our emerging digital pedagogy in a chaotic state and we are sure we will have much to learn from the teaching and research over the next several years as we continue to tweak our pedagogy and research efforts. Regarding the Digital Design tool “Typologies” listed above in Table 1, these are not necessarily new terms, and some are used loosely within the discipline to discuss software. Our effort here is NOT be “original.” Rather, it is our intent to build off of current in-formal terms and offer a foundational language/terminology formal framework from which we can all build and dynamically mutate our discussion. We know this framework is incomplete, and awkward in areas, however we hope our
conversation will contribute to furtherance of a formal language in the Digital Design within the academic and practice arenas.
In our preliminary studies, we have chosen to divide the initial (not the “entire”) design process into three important stages. We qualify the use of the limiting framing word of “initial” here verses “entire design process” as this discussion is well beyond the limited scope of this paper. Hopefully, it is sufficient to say regarding Information Technology, as early as 1987 Pollalis and Banos of the Harvard Graduate School of Design, argued that “design” is everything, to include the construction phase (and we would now argue the life of the building as well). Hence this subject is well beyond the scope of this paper, but none the less, very important to our overall arching research framework here in the DRIL. Hence, we will leave the topic of “entire” design for another day and another paper and return to our focus on the digital design in the initial design phases of the design process.
At this juncture, we will introduce our second (2nd) digital design language/terminology framework. The following three (3) major areas of the initial design phases have emerged as an aid to digital design communication:
We have chosen to utilize the following terminology phrases to describe the stages of the student’s “conceptual” design:
Phase 1: Conceptual Design Phase 2: Design Development Phase 3: Design Representation
Phase - Conceptual Design: At a gross level a designer's time can be spent either on postulating solutions, called structure, or in reasoning about the function and behavior of possible or postulated designs (Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002). The Conceptual Designstage is the phase in which a designer uses sketches and diagrams to postulate solutions to the design problem.
This stage leads to the development of basic functions and the aesthetics of the design. As the conceptual design phase progresses, designs start taking on the form and shape that the architect envisions in his/her mind. As the design evolves, there is an increased use of diagrams. Architectural diagrams represent not only physical elements, but also forces and flows (e.g., forces of sun and wind and flows of people and materials). Thus arrows, lines, and other symbolic representations of forces and flows appear in architectural diagrams conveying spatial characteristics such as magnitude and direction. In the early phases of designing, architects draw diagrams and sketches to develop, explore, and communicate ideas and solutions (Do and Gross, 2001).
The Conceptual Design,(the alternative idea design stage) is the most difficult, yet critical phase of building ideation, and as most agree, this is the phase of the design process most difficult to integrate the computer (i.e. digital design tools). Most architects still use traditional media and, more often than not, the computer finds least usage in this stage. Studies done at the Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Australia tell us why designers find it difficult to use the computer at this stage; essentially these findings indicate the Human-Computer-Interface (HCI) has not been conducive to the normal hand-eye-brain cognitive patterns developed over thousands of years of human development. Typically, the designer has enhanced this innate skill to think-draw-think with years of intense studio pedagogy, that is, the hand-eye-brain interface and tactile dexterity necessary for natural human cognition (i.e. comfortable intuitive data exchange for the designer). The researchers, Gero, Maher and Reffat, are quoted as follows:
Figure 3: Typical plot of distribution of time spent on function and behavior (light), as against structure (dark), for an experienced designer (Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002).
The speed of shifts [of focus] is much faster than what was expected. In terms of using a CAAD system, the time the expert took to shift his focus was of the order of that for a user to pull down a menu, select the function, and input parameters. [This is] why designers during conceptual designing still prefer using pen and paper even when expensive, powerful, and cutting-edge CAAD systems are available for their use. It is simply because sketching skills using pen and paper allow them come up to the speed of thought, follow their ideas, and be creative. The speed here is not relevant to computational power nowadays because even the latest CAAD system cannot efficiently support this design phase. The interaction between designers and machines is not sufficiently intuitive and simple enough to follow the train of thought so that the use of a CAAD system does not match the development speed of thought and idea
(Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002).
In their paper, Do and Gross mention Bryan Lawson who interviewed ten famous designers to study their design approaches and concluded that the act of drawing plays an important role in their early design stages; the designers “find it hard to think without a pencil in their hand” (Lawson, 1994).
We agree with the above conclusions. However, we now believe the computer and digital representation technology maybe nearing a mature level where one can use digital media to “think while designing.” Hence, as part of our research, in the Conceptual Design stage we asked our graduate students to “think” using the computer. Using input systems such as a stylus-tablet or tablet PC’s, the students were
encouraged to “sketch” their ideas into the computer and then work their early designs from these primal sketches. In the formal language of the digital design process we propose to call this stage the LOW VISUALIZATION STAGE (LOW VIZ).
At this juncture, we will introduce our third (3rd) digital design language/terminology framework. Three (3) major areas of visualization have emerged as an aid to digital design communication, 1) Low, 2) Mid and 3) High Viz (visualization). The following is a brief overview of these three visualization typologies:
DIGITAL DESIGN VISUALIZATION TYPOLOGIES No. Typology Digital Input / Output
1 Low Fluidic free-hand diagrams, digital massing models, CADCAM
physical MASS models, and multiple alternative macro design options. Low output resolution “phong” rendered images, simple massing models showing “artifact to site” relationships.
2 Mid Selection of one or two Low Viz options, more detail
development using similar digital design tools for input & output.
FORM models (i.e. distinguishes shape, structure, and order). Sun studies and higher resolution rendering engines. Quasi-photo realistic images and CADCAM physical models
3 High Presentation of the final selected design option, detail
development using high-end presentation digital design tools for output.
Table 2
Digital Design Visualization Typologies
What is Low Visualization (Low Viz)?
We define “Low Viz” as the stage in the digital design process where an architect uses the computer to create conceptual sketches; to diagram their ideas; and/or to draw symbolic representations and relations with major hierarchical spatial relationships and the site. The fluidity of the input systems allow the designers to document ideas as they occur to them and shift their focus in the short design spans that they afford for themselves. Most importantly, this is where the humanistic intuitive input of the designer is captured and reevaluated to the designer themselves in the iterative feedback loop between brain-hand-eye interaction and coordination of cognitive feedback from the visual information generated by the designer.
Applications like Architectural Studio, Alias Sketch, even Adobe PhotoShop enables one to do on the computer what we could earlier only do on paper. Stylus driven input systems like WACOM tablets and more recently, Tablet PCs allow us to “draw” and “diagram” directly onto the computer. However, the purpose of this paper is not to explain these applications or the complex human cognitive input systems, but rather, to simply say we now feel these recently emerged digital design tools are a viable tool for the conceptual design phase.
Our research shows that Low Viz outputs are usually in the form of basic sketches, diagrams, crude illustrations, perspectives or explorations in form, material, lighting, style, color, etc. Conceptual Design representation can be in two (2) primary forms, that is 1) Visual and 2) Physical Representations.
Figure 5: Example of stylus driven sketch design based on existing site plan overlay (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2003)
Figure 6: Example of stylus driven relationship diagram showing axes and visual planes (Student Work – Guochang Wang, 2003)
Figure 7: Example of stylus driven diagram to examine the effect of forces on the design (Student Work - Guochang Wang, 2003)
Figure 8: Example of a rough perspective view using stylus driven Low Viz techniques (Student Work - Guochang Wang, 2003)
Figure 9: Example of a basic sketch design in Adobe Photoshop (Student Work – Jessica Jeffrey, 2004)
Figure 10: Example of the same design sketch with additional material “thinking” (Student Work – Jessica Jeffrey, 2004)
Figure 11: Various phases of design showing how the design developed through multiple iterations (Student Work – Jessica Jeffrey, 2004)
Figure 12: Daylight analysis with the help of AutoDesk Revit (Student Work – Jessica Jeffrey, 2003)
There may also be quasi-3d representations, multi angle explorations of massing and elements.
Figure 13: Example of massing study for context using actual site photographs in the software (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2003)
Figure 14: Example of general 3d massing studies evolution within the same software (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2003)
Some of the advantages of Low Viz are as follows:
1. The designer, instead of wasting time changing pens, needed only click to change the pen, color or thickness.
2. These systems recognize pressure points (i.e. tactility - the pressure that we apply to the stylus will directly translate to the thickness, strength or brightness of the input). This is very significant in the evolution of the HCI for designers.
3. These applications allow the easy layering of paper over the diagram to develop quasi-3d or perspective artifacts. Designers can have multiple layers of diagrams and sketches that translate into basic 3 dimensional shapes quickly and effortlessly using the software. They also use it to try multiple design options. This overcomes one of the major design constraints of earlier HCI issues (i.e. the slow ‘input’ of the mouse-keyboard interface).
4. The file transfer capabilities allow designers to bring in site photographs and use the stylus input to overlay and sketch their ideas (i.e. dynamic multi-media input).
5. Once the basic sketch is finalized, instead of scanning the sketches from a pad or redrafting the sketches onto the new software; the designer can use the file transfer capability to export the artifact to software where he/she can begin the next process of the design cycle (i.e. dynamic multi-media output).
Phase 2: Design Development
This is the second stage in the design process; once the early stage is complete, the designer progresses to a stage where he/she starts detailing the sketches. This stage involves the development of diagrammatic representations and spatial relationships. In this stage the designer starts to formalize the different elements of the “design whole”. Although a step further, the design process is not yet complete. At this
point the designer makes use of evaluations to judge the use of elements and goes back and forth with various elements, trying to juxtapose each into the “design whole”.
There are many software tools available to the architects for use in this stage. However, architects
increasingly face the problem of “information overload” as they try to explore complex design spaces for innovative solutions. Although generative design tools relieve some of the burden of designing, they can make the problem of information overload worse as designers attempt to understand the significance of the design produced (Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002). Even though digital media is used at this stage, the designer seldom uses it “to design.” Rather digital media is often used “to record” or “to present.” The computer and digital media are used quite extensively in this stage usually to communicate information to clients, co-workers and/or to initiate construction or production documents.
However, Gero, Maher and Reffat claim that the power of the digital medium is it’s ability to simulate physical architecture or develop a functional virtual place, helping the designer to visualize, understand and present architectural designs (Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002).
We wish to add that this visual understanding and simulation of the physical space should not be the end of the design process. Instead the designer may use the digital medium to simulate the physical space; and thus, understand the failings of the space; return back to and change the design based on this
understanding. This is where digital media starts working in congruence with the designers instincts – as an extension of his/her mind.
In the formal language of the digital design process we propose to call this phenomenon the MIDDLE VISUALIZATION STAGE (MID VIZ).
What is Middle Visualization (Mid Viz)?
The “Mid Viz” stage of digital design is where the architect or the designer uses the computer to develop his/her design. The architect uses digital media to analyze and evaluate his/her design, going back and forth between the design and the visualization, to improve or change the design. Mid Viz, like Low Viz can be used to “think while designing.” Constant revision of the design can be accomplished from the
discoveries the architect makes by “visualizing” the physical space through the virtual eyes of the computer. [During the process of design] the architect invented design issues or requirements not just by the use of explicit knowledge, but also by constructing justifications or reasons for them on the fly during the process. The construction of those justifications or reasons was dynamic in the sense that the architect did so through unexpected discoveries of unintended visuo-spatial features of the developing solution-space, i.e. design sketches..…The emergence of a conceptual idea enabled the architect to see his own sketches from a new point of view, and thus encouraged the generation of a new perception (Gero, Maher and Reffat, 2002).
Hence, Mid Viz outputs can be diagrammatic development of the earlier selected Conceptual “Low Viz” design option(s) enabling the architect to go back and improve on his/her design.
Design Development representation can be, as is true of Low and High Viz, in two (2) primary forms; that is 1) Visual and 2) Physical Representations.
1. Visual Representation is defined as follows:
Quasi-realistic imagery: The use of computers to generate images of the design showing materials, lighting, relation to other objects etc. There are many different kinds of quasi-realistic imagery. Quasi-realistic imagery can be used for internal presentations, informal client meetings, studies of material, form, lighting etc.
Examples are as follows:
Figure 15: Note-Source: Design and Graphics by others (Media = Art design marker + water color): Image taken from the book: Architectural Delineation by Ivo Drpic.
Student used for skill building exercise and comparative media study – see below.
Figure 16: Example of stylus driven digital sketch using Alias-Sketchbook SW – See above for original and comparative study
Note-Source: Design by others:
From the book - Architectural Delineation by Ivo Drpic.
Student used for skill building exercise and comparative media study – see below.
Figure 17: Example of stylus driven digital sketch using Alias-Sketchbook SW (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2003)
Form – Z Digital Output
Form – Z Digital Output
3D – Printer ABS Plastic Physical Output
Figure 18: Example of Mid-Viz digital visual output vs. fabricated physical output (CADCAM Model) (Student Work –Rob Mahurin, 2003)
Figure 19: Example of diagrammatic representation – plan studies (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2004)
Figure 20: Example of diagrammatic representation – section studies (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2004)
Thus, not only does Mid Viz allow the architect to perceive the design from multiple points of view, but also allows him/her to go back to earlier Conceptual Design options, if it is felt necessary, to generate new perceptions from the amalgamation of earlier design concepts. This process keeps repeating until the architect(s) and project stakeholders (i.e. owner, etc) are comfortable with moving forward with the design.
Mid Viz outputs can be repetitive iterations of visual models during which the architect or the designer comes up with improvements to the design. Thus, as Pongratz and Perbellini describe, … the design process would lead to an exciting dance back and forth between the modeling geometry in the computer and its transformation into a real product. (Pongratz and Perbellini, 2000).
Figure 21: Example of Mid-Viz (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2004)
Figure 22: Example of Mid-Viz (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2004)
Figure 23: Example of Mid-Viz (Student Work – Guochong Wang, 2004)
Klinger mentions that through digital visualization software, it is often possible to develop architecture entirely on the basis of its “surfaceness” (Klinger, 2001). To prevent this, it is important that the architect also tries to simulate or analyze the performance of the space while designing. The use of performance analysis software like Energy10 or lighting solutions like Radiosity can simulate the energy consumption or lighting in the virtual spaces that the architect creates. From the data collected through these
performance studies, the architect should be able to improve upon the design. Most designers today use such performance or simulation software after the design has been finalized. What’s the use of simulating the performance of a completed design? This would only provide the designer with data about energy usage or day lighting of this space once completed. Instead if the designer uses performance software
during design, he/she can go back in and make the necessary changes to make it work better. The ability to simulate, and display dynamically, environmental external wind flow around the building, sunlight penetration into the interior spaces, natural and artificial luminance, air flow, etc. – is leading to highly innovative, high comfort, low energy solutions (Petric and Maver, 2001).
Phase 3: Design Presentation
Once major design decisions have been finalized, often the design needs to be formally presented. There are many levels of presentation; each offers varying degrees of presentation quality. For example, a drawing presented by a design studio to the project leader may not be of the same quality as the drawings presented to a client. However, whatever the level of presentation, computers often find maximum use in the presentation phase.
Most large architectural firms today have Visualization Studios whose purpose is to “visualize” the design completed by the Design Studios. A common misconception among architects is the qualification of “images” as “spaces.” Most software used in this phase are dictated or developed by other “visualization” industries like industrial design, game design, movie special effects, etc. This legacy leads to what we call “dishonesty in design visualization.” Game design or movie special effects industries only develop what is required for the visual shot. However, while game designers create an “image” of a space; architects design the “space” itself. The “visualization” industries are driven by technology; the need to maximize their use of processing capabilities and time. It is important for architects using digital media to be honest
about their visualization, to develop entire spaces, not images because incomplete digital designs can lead to incomplete architectural solutions, simulations and/or performance analyses. After all, the virtual space we develop on the computer is a representation of the physical space we are planning to construct. Why then should virtual space be half complete? Further discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper.
In the formal language of the digital design process we now define digital design presentation as the
HIGH VISUALIZATION STAGE (HIGH VIZ).
What is High Visualization (High Viz)?
“High Viz" can be defined as the process of using the computer to generate design presentations upon the finalization of the design. This is the stage following Mid Viz, after most of the final ‘major’ decisions have been made on the design. Most architects have been using the computer and digital media for High Viz output and for presentation, however, many confuse High Viz to be only high quality rendered images or animations. We would like to qualify High Viz as the process that allows the architect to take his/her designs from design development to design presentation through multiple media solutions.
Design Presentations, can as well be in two (2) primary forms, that is 1) Visual and 2) Physical Representations.
Visual Presentation is defined as follows:
a) Photo-realistic imagery: The use of computers to generate images of the design that look real using techniques like photo-montage, advanced illumination techniques, etc. The images show the relation of the space with respect to other objects in the environment as well as represent accurate day lighting, interior lighting and materials. High Viz output – photo-realistic imagery are often used for formal presentations, promotions and publicity.
Figure 24: Example of photo-realistic imagery (Student Work – Mythili Bagavandas, 2003) Design Source: Architect - Ta Do Ando
Figure 25: Example of photo-realistic imagery (Student Work – Mythili Bagavandas, 2003) Design: By student
b) Animated Walkthroughs: The use of computers to generate animations enabling the viewer to judge how he/she would feel walking through the physical space. There are different qualities of
walkthroughs from desktop-based animations to Virtual Reality models that allow the user to interact with the space.
c) Simulated Spaces: The difference between animations and simulations is that in animations, you “tell” the computer what will happen; while in simulations you model the space and assign forces like gravity, wind etc. and allow the computer to “simulate” what will happen. Simulations are more accurate representations of a space.
d) Physical Presentation:
1. Construction Documents: We would like to classify all physical output done using the computer (construction documents, production schedules, Bill of Quantity) as physical presentation. Thus High Viz is not just the representation of the design through high quality output images or animations but also working drawings that present the design to builders, contractors, etc.
2. Print Presentation: The use of computers to generate physical print outputs of design concepts, High Viz imagery etc.
3. Fabrication (CAD/CAM): The computer is finding an increasing use in the fabrication of design. Architects use digital media to output physical models through the use of CAD/CAM equipment like laser cutters, 3d printers, CNC routers, etc. The industrial design profession already uses CAD/CAM for rapid prototyping and testing. However, the scale of architectural projects prevents architects from doing the same. Thus, although we classify “fabrication” for High Viz; decreasing costs in CAD/CAM production are now allowing the use of virtual data to produce physical models at the Mid and Low Viz phases as well. We foresee the increasing use of CADCAM physical output models at the Conceptual Design phase.
High Viz output – fabricated physical output are used for evaluation of structure and form as well as formal presentations, promotions and publicity.
We feel High Viz is not just the presentation of high quality images or animations but any thorough presentation of the completed design. The choice of the media depends on the scenario of use and the audience. Thus, even construction drawings are a form of High Viz; they present the completed design to engineers or contractors. Similarly, digital models like CAM fabrications are also digital presentations of the completed drawing. True, the above examples may not hold the glamour of photo-realistic renderings, but we feel the detailed level of information represented qualifies them as High Viz.
CONCLUSION
The architecture of cyberspace will succeed where modern architecture failed. Utopian architectural imagination is no longer limited by physical reality. Its only limitation is the speed of rendering engines. The dream of transforming people through the experience of space can finally become a reality
(Manovic, 1995).
In this research paper, we tried to understand why digital media finds selected use in the profession of architecture. We identified ten (10) contributing factors and problems; one of which has been the focus of this paper, the lack of a common vocabulary and a formal language for emerging ‘digital design’ methods and techniques. We then studied the design process and examined the intervention of digital media within this process and, using the results of these studies, evolved a formal language for ‘digital design’. The
vocabulary of this language grows from the digital process itself; thus allowing for associative
comprehension and expression. Hence we believe that such a language, while embryonic and incomplete at this time, will find increasing use andrefinement in the profession. Some final salient points of the research are as follows:
1. Common Vocabulary: The Low Viz - Mid Viz - High Viz classification gives to architectural practice and education a common vocabulary and a formal language with which to communicate regarding emerging digital design and digital media representation. .
2. Defining the process of design using digital media: Through the use of images and solutions, the research tries to define how the process of design can use digital tools to develop design ideas and concepts, instead of digital tools driving the design process.
3. Separating software from the process: We claim that the best way to classify software is as Low Viz – Mid Viz – High Viz software. The specific software is now separated from the process, which means an architect should no longer just claim that he/she knows 3ds MAX but that he/she uses 3ds MAX for Mid Viz and High Viz.
4. Software in series or software in parallel: An ideal solution is a mix of software (?? 5 architectural, parametric, free form, and simulation) instead of “one” software to do it all. Architects now have two choices: use different software for each of the stages or use software in parallel, depending on the comfort level afforded to the user with the software per stage. This enables the architect to look beyond the software’s capability, thus empowering him/her to create better designs. <bad!!!!>
5. Switching software: Cheng quotes Bialstok: Learning one language provides the skills for mastering a second. (Bialstok, 1994). Once particular software has been used for a particular stage, it’s easy to switch to another. True, it may take time; but it won’t be difficult.
6. Honesty in visualization: Formalization of the digital design process will encourage honesty in visualization.
With increasing numbers of new architects using digital tools in their design process, the architecture of cyberspace will continue to grow and develop; enriching this language and improving the vocabulary through time. Not only will this development lead to more integrated design approaches, thus enabling the architect to communicate and develop his/her designs with other members of the community or
collaborative group, but this evolution may also encourage the development of software and solutions better suited for each of the different stages of design.
We are certain this digital design language and terminology framework is incomplete and will change with time. We hope you find benefit in our struggles and efforts, our hope is to formalize mutual understanding and communication derived from our teaching, research and practice of architecture.
REFERENCES:
Alexander, Christopher, Notes On The Synthesis Of Form. Doctorate Dissertation. Harvard Design School, 1964.
Barrow, Larry R. 2002. Elitism, IT and the Modern Architect – Opportunity or Dilemma. ACADIA (Association for Computer-Aided-Design in Architecture) 2002 annual conference at California Polytechnic Institute - Pamona , CA.
Barrow, Larry R., Cybernetic Architecture – Process and Form – The Impact of Information Technology. Doctorate Dissertation. Harvard Design School, 2000.
Berk, Michael 1993. A Laptop in Every Backpack. ACADIA (Association for Computer-Aided-Design in Architecture) 2002 annual conference proceedings.
Bialstok, E. 1994. Towards an explanation of second language acquisition in G. Brown et al. (ed.),
Language and Understanding. London: Oxford University Press.
Cheng, N. Multiple Media in Design Education in B. Colajanni and G. Pellitteri, eds. 1995. Multimedia and Architectural Disciplines, Proceedings of the 13th ECAADE, University of Palermo, Italy.
Do, Ellen Yi-Luen and Gross, Mark D. 1999. Integrating Digital Media in Design Studio: Six Paradigms. ACSA, Presented at ACSA National Conference 1999, Minneapolis, MN, USA. pg 144-148.
Do, Ellen Yi-Luen, and Gross, Mark D. 2001. Thinking with Diagrams in Architectural Design. Artificial Intelligence Review, Volume 15, Issue 1/2 March 2001 Kluwer, pp 135-149.
Eastman, C. 1999. Keynote address and paper: Representation of Design Processes. Conference on Design Thinking, MIT April 23-25.
Gero, J., Maher, M., and Reffat, R. 2002. Educational and research directions in design computing and virtual architecture. First International Symposium on Computer & Information Technology Applications in Architectural Education & Practice, Irbid, Jordan.
Klinger, Kevin. 2001. Making Digital Architecture: Historical, Formal, and Structural Implications of Computer Controlled Fabrication and Expressive Form. eCAADe 2001 Conference Proceeding, Helsinki. Lawson, B. 1994. Design in Mind. Oxford: Butterworth. pg. 141
Manovic, L. 1995. Avent-Garde, Cyberspace and Architecture of the Future: A manifesto [online]. Telepolis, Luxemburg Available from World Wide Web:
(http://jupiter.ucsd.edu/~manovitch/text/Cyberspace.html), 1995.
Mark, Earl, Martens, Bob, and Oxman, Rivka. 2001.The Ideal Computer Curriculum. eCAADe 2001 Conference Proceeding, Helsinki.
Petric, Jelena, and Maver, Tom. 2001. Education for the Virtual Age. eCAADe 2001 Conference Proceeding, Helsinki.
Pollalis, Spiro N. and Banos, J. Yannis – A Framework For The Design Process,” Number LCT – 87-2 Laboratory for Construction. Graduate School of Design, November, 1987.
Pongratz, C., and Perbellini, M. R. 2000. Natural Born CAADDesigners: Young American Architects.
Birkhauser, Basel, 2000.
Vasquez de Velasco, Guillermo, Davidson, Richard, and Angulo, Antonieta. 2001. Design Visualization in the Teaching of Cognitive Visualization Skills: The Third Eye Method. eCAADe 2001 Conference Proceeding, Helsinki.
STUDENT WORK: Guochang Wang; Jessica Jeffrey; Mythili Bagavandas; Rob Mahurin of Mississippi State University – College of Architecture – Graduate Program (Design & Technology Emphasis Area) / Digital Research & Imaging Lab (DRIL).