Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 20 – uploaded by Daniel Innes

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 5.13. An adaptation of Donald Schén’s The Reflective Practitioner in the context of VR design. or members of the public, which is tested in the second experiment.

Figure 5 13. An adaptation of Donald Schén’s The Reflective Practitioner in the context of VR design. or members of the public, which is tested in the second experiment.

Related Figures (42)

Fig. 4.1. Some of the C# code used to implement the custom application.
Fig. 4.1. Some of the C# code used to implement the custom application.
Fig. 5.1. Screenshots of initial development process of the VR application.
Fig. 5.1. Screenshots of initial development process of the VR application.
Fig.5.2. A participant selects their choice of tool from a menu in front of them
Fig.5.2. A participant selects their choice of tool from a menu in front of them
Fig. 5.3. Screenshots of VR-modelled concepts created at the preliminary stage.
Fig. 5.3. Screenshots of VR-modelled concepts created at the preliminary stage.
Fig. 5.4. ‘Communitition’ set-up diagram. The evaluation phase consisted of each participant viewing the other
Fig. 5.4. ‘Communitition’ set-up diagram. The evaluation phase consisted of each participant viewing the other
Fig. 5.5. Screenshots of resulting models from the first experiment, comparing immersive and non-immersive modelling modes.
Fig. 5.5. Screenshots of resulting models from the first experiment, comparing immersive and non-immersive modelling modes.
Fig. 5.7. Design 2 peer-ratings in four categories
Fig. 5.7. Design 2 peer-ratings in four categories
Fig. 5.10. Total volume sum (cubed root) of designed geometry between each group.
Fig. 5.10. Total volume sum (cubed root) of designed geometry between each group.
Fig. 5.11. Design 1 peer-ratings of each participant in four categories habitually view their work from above, for a better overview, and have returned to the work.
Fig. 5.11. Design 1 peer-ratings of each participant in four categories habitually view their work from above, for a better overview, and have returned to the work.
Fig. 5.12. Design 1 action count of each participant in four categories
Fig. 5.12. Design 1 action count of each participant in four categories
methods of spatial ideation with greater ambiguity (fig 5.14). narrowness of their desired representational focus (abstraction) and
methods of spatial ideation with greater ambiguity (fig 5.14). narrowness of their desired representational focus (abstraction) and
Fig.6.1. Screenshot of the menu of available tools in the developed stage, as seen through the VR headset. Snaps, visibility, shading, haptic feedback, and swipe to extend lase1
Fig.6.1. Screenshot of the menu of available tools in the developed stage, as seen through the VR headset. Snaps, visibility, shading, haptic feedback, and swipe to extend lase1
Fig.6.2. Screenshots of testing at the developed stage, showing the voxel tool, dimensioning, and shading settings.
Fig.6.2. Screenshots of testing at the developed stage, showing the voxel tool, dimensioning, and shading settings.
Fig.6.3. Screenshots from the second experiment’s Karori model and the public-generated interventions.
Fig.6.3. Screenshots from the second experiment’s Karori model and the public-generated interventions.
tool, ‘Add’, was used significantly more than other tools, suggesting
tool, ‘Add’, was used significantly more than other tools, suggesting
Related topics:
Computer ScienceHuman Computer InteractionArchitectureEmbodied CognitionDigital designDigital and Interaction DesignThe Bartlett School of ArchitectureVictoria University of Wellington
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved