Changes in Design Vocabulary and Language
Expression
(1,3) Université de Montréal, School of
Architecture, GRCAO (CAD Research Group),
(2)
ivanka.iordanova@UMontreal.ca , Lorna.Heaton@UMontreal.ca , Manon.Guite@umontreal.ca
- Abstract
- 1. Background
- 2. Methodology
- 3. Experiments
- 4. Data analysis
- 5. Some results
- 6. Potential for future development
- 7. Acknowledgments
- References
This paper addresses communication during the design process and the mutations it may undergo depending on the medium of design. Three experimental observations were held with students in the context of architectural digital design studios. Each of them was performed when the students were working on a design problem, in groups of two or three, with different design mediums: cardboard mock-up or modeling software with one or two mice used for interaction with the computer. The methodology used for analysing the recorded video and graphical data is based on previous research work in the domains of collaborative communication as well as in the domain of design. It combines purely qualitative interpretation with graphical linkographic analysis. A software prototype was developed in order to allow for an interactive category assignment, exploration and interaction. Gesture, verbal language and design space are studied in order to determine their dependence on the medium and the eventual impact this might have either on the design process or on the object being designed.
Keywords. Design communication;
architecture; education; computer-aided architectural design; gesture.
The
expansion of Internet communications in recent years has considerably changed
the manner of interpersonal communication. This is especially true for the age
group of the present students in architecture, who are part of the
“generation-Y”, also called the “millennium generation”. We can see that by
communicating “through the computer” distant worlds can become “closer”, but
what about the person next to us? How does computer technology influence the
direct communication that students have around a design object in the
architectural studio? And even more, does the nature of the design space
(material or digital) influence the language of communication and the
vocabulary of design.
The
exploratory study outlined here, asks several questions, mainly around the
types of communication during the design process (gesture, body movements,
verbal and graphical). One interest was to see which types of expression (and
in what situation) stimulate design ideas. And even more, are there design
ideas that are not pursued, not because
of their value, but because they are poorly communicated. Another question of
interest was the role of the computer and in communication during the design
process. Could we look at it a continuation of the design space, as a tool or
as another ‘person’ in the team. The issue of the language expression (in terms
of technical software specific ‘dialect’ when working on a computer) was put
forward as well, with the hypothesis that its presence might limit the design
activities.
This study combines three domains:
architectural design, communication and education. The difficulties in the
introduction of the computer as a design medium during the creative phases of
the design elaboration, have provoked much research work on this problem. Some recent studies are oriented at
exploring the changes of communication techniques in different collaborative contexts:
face-to-face, computer-mediated using video conferencing, and computer mediated
using ‘talk by typing’ (Gabriel and Maher, 2000). In the present research, we have
as an objective to keep the students physically face-to-face, but to give them
different mediums for the design they are asked to do.
In the domain
of design, many research centers perform experiences looking for a better
understanding of design and architectural design processes (Schön 1985, Tang
and Gero, 2001). Most of them are oriented towards design content and design
‘moves’, not considering in depth the communication. Even more, a great
majority, of these experiments are held with traditional methods of designing
(Goldschmidt, 1996). Our specific attention is communication when designing
side-by-side on a computer.
The context of a students design studio is often used for research observations (Goldschmidt and Tatsa, 2005, Kvan and Gao, 2005). No evidence of study of communication in a digital design studio has been reported at our knowledge.
Given the
small number of cases involved and the nature of the questions we are
interested in exploring, a qualitative approach appeared most suitable for this
pilot study. Our challenge was to put verbal communication, nonverbal or
gestual communication and graphic communication side by side in order to bring
all to bear in understanding what is going on in during the design process.
Fig. 1. Dimensions of the analysis (adapted
from Titscher et al 2000)
All
design sessions were recorded on video. For those which involved the computer,
screen capture software was used to capture the graphic information. The verbal
expression and physical actions made by design team members during the session
were then transcribed in two columns. This initial transcription was purely
descriptive, with no interpretation involved.
Coding scheme
A coding scheme was developed for both these
types of communication. It is based on Bakhtin’s notion of utterance (Bakhtin,
We considered a number of different coding schemes presented in the fields of computer-supported cooperative work and design communication. The coding for the verbal content closely resembles that presented by Gabriel et Maher (2000). It includes four major classifications, with project-related communication further subdivided. These are:
1)
conversation about the project – concept ideas, function, form. This category
is derived from both the data and from literature which distinguishes between
design ideas, design scope and design task.
2)
conversation about how to translate ideas into something concrete. This
corresponds to the design task, particularly how to represent the design
3) conversation about the technology used : a data derived structure. We used
this data-derived category to indicate when participants talked about or had
questions about strictly technical matters, such as various software functions.
4) social communication : this category is both theoretically and data-derived. It looks at social talk, such as making jokes, or comments that have nothing to do with the task at hand
.
We did not
retain a category for ‘communication control’. Although this question has been
widely discussed in literature on computer-supported communication, issues such
as interruptions, overlaps and hand-overs seem less pertinent since our teams were colocated, i.e. sitting beside
each other.
Our classification of nonverbal and gestural communication was inspired by Roberts’ (1996) taxonomy of embodied actions in cooperative work. The work of Gaver (1992) on affordances offered by media spaces as opposed to those offered by physical space was also influential. Finally, we also drew on Tang’s (1989) work on the role of enactment (animating the behaviour of an object, pretending to be the user of a building, etc.) in design. Our gestural coding scheme has five categories. Within most categories, there is a further distinction between physical space and virtual space, that of the computer screen. It is as follows :
Pointing at
something: in physical space: in virtual space
Pretending
to be another body: illustrating the movement of a object (physical or
virtual); illustrating the appearance of an object
Using/moving
an object: in physical space (mouse, pencil, notebook, etc.); in virtual space
(cursor, selection, viewpoint, etc.)
Looking
(gaze): the colleague in physical space; an object or person in physical space;
an object in virtual space
Moving
In terms of
graphical communication, we inserted screen shots illustrating significant
changes on screen in a third column of our grid. Once the video recordings have
been visionned, these thumbnail screen shots give a quick and easy reference to
graphical information, without having to play the movies again. It creates a
visual sequence with the ‘key-frames’ of the recordings.
In a fourth
column, based on some previous work (Iordanova and De Paoli, 2005), we
described the actions creating the design object: on the screen, when the
design was done on the computer, and the manipulations on the cardboard
mock-up, when the design was realised with traditional tools. The description
is quite detailed in order to allow a good understanding of both the process
and its objectives. This is a first step away from description and towards
analysis, though, it provides a strict minimum of explications. The data was
then segmented in order to be put in parallel with the other types of
activities.
The resulting
table allows us to see at a glance what was happening, in which modality and in
temporal sequence. Color coding facilitates this overview.
Fig. 2. A screenshot of a part of the data table. In the columns: time, verbatim, gestural communication, screenshots of screen or camera, description of the graphical actions
Linkographic interpretation
The design
process is not a linear one, however. In order to make the transition to
linkography and to examine the chaining of ideas throughout the process, we
needed to ‘flatten’ our three categories – verbal, gestual and graphic – but
without losing the detail we had worked to generate. A sequence of ‘design
moves’ (as described by Goldschmidt (1996)) were identified on this basis. In order
to introduce subjectivity to this otherwise extremely interpretative data
manipulation, the items identified as ‘design moves’ were crosschecked by
several members of the research team. The same technique was applied when
assigning the links between the items, as well as their category.
As the interests of this study combine different domains of knowledge and include multimodal activities which must be considered in their simultaneous interaction, we were looking for a way to be able to combine and analyse the data in a qualitative way. This lead to the idea of a software tool that would help the researcher to explore the interaction between the different kinds of communication recorded. We developed a software prototype for interactive assigning, exploring and interrelating categories from the different domains. It provides three types of indicators: colour (levels of gray in this article), shape of entry and pattern of the linkograph.
Coding categories
As we have already mentioned, different
types of categories had to be taken into consideration, coded and analyzed in
their interaction. A
major coding scheme describes the communication mode. In order to indicate the
way in which a ‘design move’ was made or communicated, we assigned a
‘communication type’ category to each item. We generated a separate symbol for
each of the possible permutations and combinations of our categories :
verbal, graphic, gestual, verbal and graphic, verbal and gestual, gestual and
graphic, verbal, gestual and graphic.
Another
category shows the ‘actor’, the author of each item. In the collaborative
design situation we recorded, it was interesting to investigate the interaction
between the participants: do they work in parallel (each one on a different
part of the object of design), or do they act sequentially (one after the other
on the same thing), or do they work together (on the same thing), and finally
does one act more in support of the other one.
The interest
in the mutations endured by the verbal expression when working with a
‘non-direct’ medium (like the computer), lead us to design a coding scheme to
indicate the type of language: ‘of common use’ and ‘technical’ (in terms of a
‘dialect’ using software-induced computer terminology).
The study of
design process itself is not a direct objective of this study, but we created a
coding scheme specifying the ‘design content’ of each item. This was done in
order to see eventual communication changes depending on the design
content.
A final coding
scheme was inspired by the question on the design space (real and virtual) and
its ‘prolongation’ into the computer virtual space. Among different potential
indicators of this phenomenon, the first one that we have implemented, concerns
the gestural activity of the students during design. Gestures like ‘showing’
(on the screen or on the mock-up model), or ‘imitating’ (pretending to be
another body) were expected to provide some insight on this question.
Interesting separately, these coding categories are much more informative when put together, and in the timeline of the design process.
Three experimental observations were held with students from architectural digital design studios (in third and fourth year of education in architecture). Each of them was performed when the students were working on a design problem, in groups of two or three. The sessions (around one hour each) were recorded on a video camera. The recording device did not seem to bother or to influence the behaviour of the students. Ideas, intentions and comments were ‘externalised’ by the participants in a most natural way, by the dialogue between them. In terms of data quality, this is the least biasing method, compared to the other types of protocols used when studying the design process (concurrent and retrospective protocols).
Three different design environments were used for each experiment. The first design task had to be realized with a cardboard mock-up, so the students were discussing their project around a ‘material’ design object. The second one was performed on a computer, using a 3D modelling software. The third recording was done while the students were working in a 3D modelling environment proposing a large variety of parametric design, together with visual and conventional programming possibilities. In the last two experiments the screen sessions were also recorded. Even though the recordings are rich of data on the process of design and design education, these aspects are not the main object of this paper.
The students’ task was limited to conceptual phase of architectural object. The project had to satisfy some conceptual and functional requirements such as ‘exposition hall’, ‘summer theatre’, etc. The software used for the computer work was Cinema 4D, a 3D modelling program that was taught to the students in the same studio, during the same university term.
Nine teams of
two or three students were recorded, three of them when working on a paper
mock-up, and the others – on a computer. The observations took place during
three different recording sessions. The three teams working with the same
medium and at the same time, were placed in a large common space, so that they
could even interact between the teams (although this was not frequent), and at
the same time, the conversation could be relatively well distinguished.
We noted that a period of discussion at the beginning was common to all design sessions, whatever the medium. Its length differed considerably, but some very interesting conceptual discussions were held during this stage. As this period of the design process did not involve the medium, we decided not to use it for the detailed analysis discussed in this paper.
The
recordings as well as the graphical material (either computer graphics, or cardboard
mockups) from the experiments were firstly reviewed. Several discussions
of the research team
gave interesting
insights
on the studied issues, and created the background for a further more detailed
analysis. Discussions were all the richer and varied (communication and
architecture) backgrounds of various team members. Given the length of the
recordings and the large number of categories of interest, for the purposes of
this paper, short segments of each design session were selected for detailed
coding. One criterion of selection was the good quality of the data, as well
as
its richness (in terms of variety of categories met).
Another criterion was put forward by the cyclic evolution of the design idea: When designers look at their own previous depictions, they don't necessarily interpret the depictions in the same way, but sometimes tend to associate them with a new concept, function or meaning. Goldschmidt (1996) called this phenomenon "seeing-as" activity, and Goel (1995) called it "lateral transformation". This kind of unexpected discovery is usually discussed in the bibliography when recording design activity by sketching. If we could call this phenomenon ‘medium-provoked’ design idea, we could find similar events when working on a paper-mock-up or on a digital model in a computer software. This provided us with a second criterion for the selection of the segments to me analyzed in detail for this study.
Looking at the video recordings of the pre-selected teams, we identified several moments of emergence of a (small) design idea, provoked by the medium. In one case, it is the accidental repositioning of a part of the mock-up model, that received special attention and became a structural element of the mock-up; and in the other, it is the ‘seeing of’ an arbitrary modifying operation in the modeling software, that was reconsidered as a space-generation method.
Several variations of coding were tried in order to look for interesting interactions and link between the different communication modes on one hand, and the design process, on the other. Generally, as shown in the Figure 3 below, we can compare: (a) between two different modality design sessions, coded according to the same categories; or (b) between multiple codings of the same design session.
Fig. 3. (a) different design sessions, same coding (author and communication type); (b) same design session, multiple coding of a segment of a digital design session: b-1 actor and verbal communication type;b-2 type of language and gesture (show or imitate); b-3 contents and type of language.
The first impression was the great variety of kinds of communication used during the design session. But we could identify that this phenomenon is cyclic and is not present when the actual design forming is made, independently from the medium. This is especially true for the student manipulating the computer, and who rarely uses gesture.
The linkograph of the selected segments show a relatively important design idea as a bigger triangle, and its emergence is at the upper end of the form (indicated with an arrow on Fig.3). Linking the ‘communication type’ category coding to the linkographic pattern, (and having in mind the ‘development’ phase of the project), we could remark that ideas frequently emerged from an action (on the object), the verbal end verbal-gestual emergence being common for the conceptual phase. This can be seen on the example a-1 and a-2 where the origin of the big triangular pattern is color-coded as a graphical action in both segments coded (digital and mock-up design).
In respect to the ‘actors’, we remarked that a parallel exploration was taking place when working on the mock-up (each participant working on her own object), while when designing on the computer, a type of sequential alternation of roles was installed (when working with two mice), and a type of ‘instructions-realization’ relationship was established between the students (when working with one mouse).
As far as the
attitude to the computer is concerned, we observed a continuous passing from
the real space (but imagined and imitated) to the computer virtual space. This
leads to the conclusion that the virtual space is a prolongation of the real
world, but of the one imagined and imitated as well (Fig.3, b-2). More
exploration in this respect could reveal some differences between a ‘virtual’
computer space on one hand, and ‘technical space’ on the other. Sometimes,
reactions like talking to the computer, asking questions, considering its
overcharge (overheat), etc. make think that it is considered as a member of the
team. It is not always very cooperative, though.
When exploring
the gestures of ‘showing’ and ‘imitating’, we found out similar behaviour with
both mediums. Imitating seems to be less present in the development stage when
working on a real mock-up. This might be the result of the physical presence of
the object that can be used for showing (modifications, movement of people,
etc.). Some differences are noticed in body movements, due to the 2-dimensional
projection of the model on the screen when working on computer. Further study
of this aspect of gestural communication could bring details to this
phenomenon.
Looking at the language expression, we could state a considerable amount of ‘technical language’ (linked to the tool, the medium) in both cases. The technical ‘dialect’ was of constant use, given the fact that the specific vocabulary was familiar to the two participants and was not causing any misunderstandings. The comparison with the coding of the ‘design content’ categories showed that except for the technical (tool-specific) content, ‘technical language’ was used for the ‘formal’ content, and was much less present when the design content was ‘functional’ or ‘structural’. The development of the design idea presented at the linkograph, however, was done only in ‘common language’ (fig.3, b-3). The verbal communication of the student manipulating the computer was frequently non-finished, and the language – considerably influenced by the software terminology. In the segment explored in detail, only one design move (of 40) was characterized as ‘technical language’ that was accompanied by gesture (dashed arrow on Fig.3, b-2).
A general statement is that the ‘moves’ executed at the computer are greater in number, than the ones in paper mockup. This means that the computer medium is less direct and demands more sub-actions to reach a goal. This could be studied in a later development of the present research work.
6. Potential for future development
There is no doubt that the computer is not only a tool. It is difficult, however, to distinguish where and when the tool finishes and begins the medium. In our opinion, the joint study of verbal, gestural and graphic communication between the actors of a design team allow for a better comprehension of tools and mediums, as well as of the design process dynamics. The present results are a small portion of the universe that could be explored with the methodology presented. Apart from the amelioration of the linkographic software prototype, and from enlarging the studied sample, we have planned studies on several other research questions, like ‘What types of mediation are generated by the various mediums?’, ‘Which factors could make more dynamic the interactions between actors and the design object?’, ‘How the type of gesture is influenced by the medium and is there any impact from this modification on the design process’. Conclusions from these studies could be useful for designing mediums that facilitate the communication, and in this way, ameliorate the design process and architectural design education.
Bell
Chair in Interdisciplinary Research on Emerging Technologies, for the Research
grant for the project: “Traces, perspectives et
process: A video analysis of practice”, project leader
Gabriel, G. and Maher, M. L.: 2000, Analysis of design communication
with and without computer mediation, Collaborative
Design: Proceedings of Codesigning 2000, Scrivener, S. A. R., Ball, L. J. and Woodcock, A. (eds), Springer,
London, pp. 329-337.
Gaver, W. : 1992, The Affordances of Media Spaces for Collaboration, in Proceedings of CSCW'92, New York, ACM
Press, pp. 7-24
Goldschmidt, G.: 1996, The Designer as a Team of One, in, Cross, N., Christiaans, H. and
Dorst, K. (Eds), Analysing Design
Activity John Wiley & Sons, pp. 65-91.
Goldschmidt, G. and Tatsa, D.: 2005, How Good are Good Ideas?, Design studies, 26, 593-611.
Iordanova, I. and
Paoli, G. D.: 2005, Hypotheses Verification on the Role of the Medium, 23th Conference eCAADe,
Kvan, T. and Gao, S.: 2005, Examining Learning in Multiple Settings,
Maanen,
J. V. and S. R. Barley: 1985, Cultural Organization: Fragments of a Theory in P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R.
Louis, C. C. Lundberg and J. Martin.(Eds.) Organizational Culture. Sage,
Robertson, T.: 1997 Cooperative Work and Lived Cognition: A taxonomy of
Embodied Actions, in Hughes, J. et al. (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, Kluwer, Amsterdam, pp. 205-220.
Schön, D.: 1985, The Design
Studio, RIBA.
Tang, H.-H. and Gero, J.: 2001, Cognition-based CAAD, CAADFutures
Tang, J.C.:1989, Listing, Drawing and Gesturing in Design: A study of
the Use of Shared Workspaces by Design Teams. Xerox PARC Technical Report, SSL-89-3,
Titscher, S., Meyter,
M, Wodak, R. and Vetter, E. : 2000, Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis: In Search of Meaning, Sage,