Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • br Conceptual system design This section lays out

    2018-10-22


    Conceptual system design This section lays out the conceptual system design decisions for the presented cloud-based VR approach. Section 3.1 contains general design decisions; Section 3.2 illustrates usability requirements in cloud VR systems, and Sections 3.3 and 3.4 discuss the two central functional elements, the annotation and discussion functions, respectively.
    Validation In order to validate the concept presented in Section 3, we implemented a prototype system based on the specifications described in the previous section. The first paragraphs of this section describe the general functionality and design of the application, while the annotation function (Section 4.1) and the discussion function (Section 4.2) are described in separate sub-sections. The application is designed be used in design work, e.g. a user can sketch simple models or text in a point or an area. For testing purposes, the content of the cloud-VR system was shown on a Windows laptop PC and Android OS tablet in a synchronous distributed design meeting. During this meeting, design work was being performed, along with the use of a video conferencing system, such as Skype (Klock and Gomes Rde, 2008) or Google Hangout (Xu et al., 2010), for oral communication amongst the participants of the meeting. Combined results from the examination led to the following conclusions.
    Discussion and future work Section 4 described the annotation and discussion functionalities, and illustrated how they selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors can be used in a virtual design meeting. Even though the annotation function worked well in the fictitious use case, there are still some open issues that need to be addressed in future work: For the discussion function, the following challenges remain to be solved:
    Conclusion For our concept, we extracted a number of essential requirements for using a VDS system, which are (1) no need to use high-performance PCs, (2) several users can share a viewpoint from a 3D virtual space, (3) annotation and discussion functions are integrated. The contribution of this research is as follows:
    Acknowledgements A portion of this research was done with the assistance of funded research by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry via FORUM8 Co., Ltd. The authors would like to thank Mr. Keisuke Mori of atelier DoN who contributed the experiment as a master architect.
    Introduction
    Finding a suitable system concept
    Developing control strategies for the Design Jigsaw
    Design experiment
    Conclusion
    Background
    System boundaries, input, output and re-entry Computer-aided architectural designing is an endeavour in which the boundaries of systems are crossed. “System” is understood here as whatever set of elements an observer considers to act together, following a common goal. An observer may choose to regard the components that make up a computer as a system. Similarly, an observer may choose to regard the organs making up the organism of a designer as a system, or consider the designer and the computer together as a system. With these different ways of looking (Weinberg, 2001), the imaginary boundary that circumscribes what is regarded as a system changes, and what is considered as a system lies in the eyes of the observer. Sometimes there are physical boundaries containing what is regarded as a system, such as the skin of a designer and the case of a computer but this is coincidental. Designer and computer together may be regarded as one system contained by an imaginary, but without a physical boundary. Patterns in the widest sense crossing the imaginary boundaries of systems are, depending on perceived direction, called inputs and outputs. A common example of systems whose boundaries are crossed by incoming inputs and by outgoing outputs is the behaviourist-type stimulus-response structure of the kind shown on the left-hand sides of Figures 1 and 2. This structure offers convenience in modelling various systemic relationships not only by way of abstraction and of being broadly applicable. It is also conveniently compatible with common basic tools of rational modern thought such as linear logic and syllogistic reasoning. Humans are frequently described as systems which, prompted by input, produce output. And, typically, so are computers. Alternatively, although this happens less frequently, an observer may also choose to view multiple systems (inter)acting together as one system which responds to input by producing output. Human–computer interaction in CAAD may be viewed in this way, along the lines of the following statement by Bateson (1972, p. 317): “The computer is only an arc of a larger circuit which always includes a man and an environment from which information is received and upon which efferent messages from the computer have effect.” Other examples in the design context include the interactions between members of a design team, and the interaction between a designer and his or her sketching (Fischer, 2010, p. 612).