Advertisement

Visual Behaviour During Perception of Architectural Drawings: Differences Between Architects and Non-architects

  • Canan Albayrak Colaço
  • Cengiz Acartürk
Conference paper

Abstract

Architectural design is not just a technical process based on problem-solving and representation, but also a social process distributed between architect and non-architect stakeholders. In this study, visual behaviour differences between architects and non-architects during perception, interpretation and evaluation of architectural drawings are analysed. An eye tracking experiment was conducted on two groups of participants: 19 graduate-level students of the Department of Architecture and 19 students from other faculties. Eye tracking data were analysed according to three categories: means of gaze duration, gaze count and gaze plot patterns.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Dr. Zeynep Mennan for her guidance and feedback; to the three DCC reviewers for their valuable comments and discussions; and to the anonymous group of students who participated in the eye tracking experiments.

References

  1. 1.
    Dorst K (2011) The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des Stud 32(6):521–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cross N (2011) Design thinking: understanding how designers think and work. Berg Publishers, Oxford, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feast L, Melles G (2010) Epistemological positions in design research: a brief review of the literature. In: 2nd international conference on design education, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cross N (1972) Design participation: proceedings of the design research society’s conference. Academy Editions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eastman C (2001) New directions in design cognition: studies of representation and recall. In: Eastman C, Mccracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, pp 147–198Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viana DL, Morais F, Vaz JV (2018) Formal methods in architecture and urbanism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Grossmann T (2017) The eyes as windows into other minds: an integrative perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci 12(1):107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexander C, Silverstein M, Ishikawa S (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cross N (1999) Natural intelligence in design. Des Stud 20(1):25–39MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cross N (2001) Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In: Eastman C, Mccracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, 79–103Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akin O (2001) Variants in design cognition. In: Eastman C, Mccracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, pp 105–124Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldschmidt G (1991) The dialects of sketching. Creativity Res J 4(2):123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18(4):385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich P, Hoffman R (2006) The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 101(2):343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chase WG, Simon H (1973) Perception in chess. Cogn Psychol 4:55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bilalić M et al (2010) Mechanisms and neural basis of object and pattern recognition: a study with chess experts. J Exp Psychol Gen 139(4):728–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li R, Pelz J, Shi P (2012) Learning image-derived eye movement patterns to characterize perceptual expertise. Eye Tracking Res Appl Symp Proc 393–396Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson B, Shyu CR (2011) Studying visual behaviors from multiple eye tracking features across levels of information representation. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 72–79Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Akin O (1980) Models of architectural knowledge. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cross N (2004) Expertise in design: an overview. Des Stud 25(5):427–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lawson B (2005) How designers think, 4th edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Altinişik M, Derinboğaz A (2012) Rauf Denktas Anit Mezari ve Muzesi Uluslararasi Proje Yarismasi. http://www.arkitera.com/proje/1502/esdeger-mansiyon-rauf-raif-denktas-anit-mezari-ve-muzesi-uluslararasi-proje-yarismasi
  28. 28.
    Hançerli M, Olguner O (2012) Rauf Denktas Anit Mezari ve Muzesi Uluslararasi Mimari Proje Yarismasi http://www.kolokyum.com/yazi/81965__rauf_raif_denktas_anit_mezari_ve_muzesi_uluslararasi_mimari_proje_yarismasi
  29. 29.
    Bar M, Neta M (2007) Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia 2191–2220CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Canan Albayrak Colaço
    • 1
  • Cengiz Acartürk
    • 2
  1. 1.Architecture DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Middle East Technical University, Informatics InstituteAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations