1 / 7

Distributed Design Reviews

Distributed Design Reviews. Wassim Jabi, Ph.D. Assistant Professor New Jersey School of Architecture New Jersey Institute of Technology jabi@njit.edu. Acknowledgments. NJIT: Mike Kehoe, NJSOA Vic Passaro, Media Services Michael Smart, NJSOA (Student Presenter)

yukio
Download Presentation

Distributed Design Reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Distributed Design Reviews Wassim Jabi, Ph.D. Assistant Professor New Jersey School of Architecture New Jersey Institute of Technology jabi@njit.edu

  2. Acknowledgments • NJIT: • Mike Kehoe, NJSOA • Vic Passaro, Media Services • Michael Smart, NJSOA (Student Presenter) • Pennsylvania State University: • Gavin Burris (aka 86) • Dr. Loukas Kalisperis • Prof. George Otto

  3. Background and Motivation • Design reviews are one of the most important forms of pedagogical communication between design instructors and students (Cuff, 1993). • Talking and Drawing are the two most fundamental components of a language of design (Schön, 1983) • Justification for the design studio teaching strategy often relies on the aggregate studio culture created by successive shared and overlapping design conversations. • Studio faculty occasionally travel, or support practices in two cities, taking them out of town on a weekly basis. Distributed design reviews would be a great boon. • The ability to use the Internet to involve remote expertise at a minimum cost would significantly expand the pool of candidate reviewers.

  4. SmartBoard + Access Grid Node Access Grid Node: Video / Audio X,Y Pen/Eraser/Mouse Mouse Up/Down Double-click Video Signal

  5. Top Ten Problems (Tested using low bandwidth) • Shadows. Need rear-projection screens. • Netmeeting/Messenger is platform-specific. (Webex.com is promising, but not free). • Audio Feedback Problems. Echo Cancellation / audio testing ahead of time. • Voice-Over-IP Latency/Lag. Faster network. • Security (Firewall) prevented collaboration. Needed to establish a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN) • Local jurors almost never went up to the board to sketch. Used laser pointer which remote juror could not see. Need multi-user wireless cursor/annotation control device. • Body language/gestures not transmitted. Video/Avatar/Telepresence. • Bandwidth limitations (animations/video). See #4. • Lack of familiarity. Introduce technology ahead of time. • Glare (Hotspot) from projector. See #1..

  6. Top Ten Successes • Effective Discussion/Reviews • Technology Disappeared • Intuitive Interface • Student stands next to artifact • Student interacts directly with artifact • Voice and graphics synchronized • Non-destructive sketching a boon • Students did not need to prepare more for a distributed review • SmartBoard worked for both co-located and distributed reviews • Set up is portable/moveable • Cost-effective, saves air travel costs. • Time zone difference was advantageous

  7. The Ten Commandments • Start Early / Plan Ahead • Test. Test. Test. • Know Thy Neighbor • Use Back-Channel Diplomacy • Adjust Expectations • Keep it Cozy • Know Thy Software • Encourage Symmetry • Use Big Pipes • Have a Plan B … and C (aka Graceful Degradation)

More Related