An Analysis of Design Communication with and Without Computer Mediation

Abstract

.1 IntroductionWith recent developments in CAD and communication technologies, the way we visualise and communicate design representations is changing. A matter of great interest to architects, practitioners and researchers alike, is how computer technology might affect the way they think and work. The concern is not about the notion of 'support' alone, but about ensuring that computers do not disrupt the design process and collaborative activity already going on (Bannon and Schmidt, 1991). Designing new collaborative tools will then have to be guided by a better understanding of how collaborative work is accomplished and by understanding what resources the collaborators use and what hindrances they encounter in their work (Finholt et al., 1990).Designing, as a more abstract notion, is different than having a business meeting using video conferencing. In design it is more important to 'see' what is being discussed rather than 'watch' the other person(s) involved in the discussion. In other words the data being conveyed might be of more importance than the method with which it is communicated (See Kvan, 1994). Similarly, we believe that by using text instead of audio as a medium for verbal communication, verbal representations can then be recorded alongside graphical representations for later retrieval and use. In this paper we present the results of a study on collaborative design in three different environments: face-to-face (FTF), computer-mediated using video conferencing (CMCD-a), and computer-mediated using "talk by typing" (CMCD-b). The underlying aim is to establish a clearer notion of the collaborative needs of architects using computer-mediation. In turn this has the potential in assisting developers when designing new collaborative tools and in assisting designers when selecting an environment for a collaborative session. .2 Computer Mediated Collaborative DesignIn order to compare CMCD and FTF collaborative sessions between architects, we first need to look at how architects collaborate in FTF environments, the media they employ and the communication channels they utilize in order to convey design representations to their partner(s). When working FTF, architects have been observed to hold certain preferences for the way they set their design and creative environments and what 'traditional' tools they choose to use whether designing alone or collaborating with colleagues (Carter, 1993). Some architects might prefer to work with thick pencils scribbling 2D sketches on butter paper (Gross, 1994, Kvan, 1994. Others might sketch as well as start working with 3D volumetry. Sometimes they hastily proceed to build 3D massing models, made of polystyrene or cardboard (Visser, 1993). This enables them to acquire an enriched 'experience' of the space they are working with and makes it easier to communicate their 'idea' to other parties involved in the design.However the continuous development of computer and telecommunication technologies, has seen architects increasingly using these mediums for communication as ...

Design processes in collective innovation communities: a study of communication

“…This may not be surprising considering the site is a type of social network and the company's tagline emphasises the social nature of product design; however, with social communication forming 29% of total communication, the level was significantly higher than levels in a study on computermediated collaborative design at 7-8%, and face-to-face design at 5% (Gabriel and Maher 2000). This finding suggests that social commentary plays a large role in collective design discourse, framing design commentary in a social context.…”

Computer support for participatory designing

“…The course consisted of weekly lectures, face-to-face design sessions during the lectures, and individual/team designing in the FLE2 -environment between the lectures. The present study followed a method of a design-studio teaching consisting of the following structure: a setting, a design problem and defining design context in the form of a brief, the exploration of the brief and users' needs, presentation of the design ideas verbally or graphically and reviews of proposals (Gabriel & Maher, 2000;Kvan, 2001). In addition, three tutors helped students become accustomed to using the FLE2 -environment, and the teacher actively participated in the students' design process.…”

“…A few studies, however, have specifically analyzed design processes with respect to collaboration or teamwork (Hennessy & Murphy, 1999;Perry & Sanderson, 1998;Valkenburg & Dorst, 1998). An analysis of collaboration in networked virtual design studios (Gabriel & Maher, 2000) has appeared only recently.…”

Non-Verbal Communication in Collaborative Architectural Design

“…This question is gaining in relevancy, especially in collaborative design research which could take use of constant improvements in computer and communication technology. The starting points of our study can be found in the results of the inquiry into verbal communication in collaborative design, focused on communication control, communication technology, social communication level and design communication (Gabriel and Maher, 2000). Our question related to the study, presented in the paper, is: how to develop a model of visual communication in relation to the already developed model of verbal communication with and without computer mediation?…”