Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games

Living Edition
| Editors: Newton Lee

Technologies for the Design Review Process

  • Rojin Vishkaie
  • Richard Levy
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_203-1



Design review is an overachieving work of the urban planning process. Pattern of user interaction is largely dictated by the urban planning technology rather than diversity and creativity of the users. Traditionally, urban planning technologies include substantial use of paper-based plans, maps, and text documents. Currently, urban planners rely on digital technologies, which lack mobility.


Design review work is conducted by a diverse group of agents who belong to different socio-economic-political institutions, where each agent is a contributing entrepreneur in the ecology of the urban planning enterprise (Forester 1989). There is now a wide array of immobilized, single-user digital media that could support information and 3D visualization needs of the design review process (Bellotti and Bly 1996). However, mobility is fundamental for visual perception (Gibson 1986). Specifically, the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bellotti, V., Bly, S.: Walking Away from the Desktop Computer: Distributed Collaboration and Mobility in a Product Design Team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 1996, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  2. Brail, R.K., Klosterman, R.E. (eds.): Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models, and Visualization Tools. ESRI Press, Redlands (2001)Google Scholar
  3. Esri.: CityEngine. www.esri.com/software/cityengine (2017). Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  4. Fernquist, J.E.: A Collaborative Planning Support System for a Multi-Touch Tabletop – The Effect of Number of Touch Inputs on Collaboration and Output Quality. University of British Colombia, Vancouver (2010)Google Scholar
  5. Forester, J.: Critical Theory and Public Life. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  6. Forester, J.: Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press, Los Angeles (1989)Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, J.J.: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  8. Jie, J., Jun, C., Ronghua, Y., Lilin, X.: A CSCW system for building reviewing by integrating GIS with OA. Geo-spatial Inf Sci. 3, 45–49 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kock, N.: Process Improvement and Organizational Learning: The Role of Collaboration Technologies. Idea Group Publishing, London (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Laurini, R.: Information Systems for Urban Planning – A Hypermedia Cooperative Approach. Taylor & Francis, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  11. Luff, P., Heath, C.: Mobility in Collaboration. CSCW 98, Seattle (1998)Google Scholar
  12. Murray, J.H.: Inventing the Medium: Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  13. Norman, D.A.: Things that Make Us Smart. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1993)Google Scholar
  14. Norman, D.A.: Living with Complexity. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  15. O’Doherty, K., Einsiedel, E.: Public Engagement and Emerging Technologies. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver (2012)Google Scholar
  16. Placeways.: communityviz. http://placeways.com/communityviz/ (2017). Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  17. Rogers, Y., Lindley, S.: Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best? Interact. Comput. 16, 1133–1152 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sareika, M., Schmalstieg, D.: Urban sketcher: mixed reality on site for urban planning and architecture. 6th International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Nara (2007)Google Scholar
  19. Sareika, M., Schmalstieg, D.: Bimanual handheld mixed reality interfaces for urban planning. AVI '10 Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, Rome (2010)Google Scholar
  20. Scott, S.D., Grant, K.D., Mandryk, R.L.: System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display. ECSCW'03 Proceedings of the eighth conference on European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Norwell (2003)Google Scholar
  21. Su, T.: A Multi-Display Collaborative Urban Planning System with a Federated Architecture. University of British Colombia, Vancouver (2011)Google Scholar
  22. Suchman, L.A.: Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  23. Tufte, T., Mefalopulos, P.: Participatory Communication: A Practical Guide. World Bank Publications, Herndon (2009)Google Scholar
  24. Underkoffler, J., Ishii, H.: Urp: a luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. Published in the Proceedings of CHI ‘99 (1998)Google Scholar
  25. Välkkynen, P., Siltanen, S., Väätänen, A., Oksman, V., Honkamaa, P., Ylikauppila, M.: Developing mixed reality tools to support citizen participation in urban planning. 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Munich (2013)Google Scholar
  26. Vandoren, P., Cardinaels, M., Haesen, M., Raymaekers, C., Coninx, K.: Evaluating Two Egocentric Selection Techniques in a Tabletop Virtual Environment for Urban Planning. HCI (2005)Google Scholar
  27. Vishkaie, R.S.: SketchBoard: Conceptualizing Interactive Communication Media for the Design Review Process. University of Calgary, Calgary (2014)Google Scholar
  28. Walker, D., Daniels, T.: The Planners Guide to CommunityViz, The Essential Tool for a New Generation of Planning. Planners Press: American Planning Association, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Communication, Information, and MediaBall State UniversityMuncieUSA
  2. 2.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada