Impact of Architectural Representation On Users' Feelings From 2D Plans To

Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.
IMPACT OF ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION ON USERS' FEELINGS: FROM 2D PLANS TO

VIRTUAL MODELS AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPES
Author(s): Florence Bazzaro, Marjorie Charrier, Sébastien Chevriau, Thierry Rouxel and
Jean-Claude Sagot
Source: Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Autumn, 2018), pp.
244-257
Published by: Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45215844
Accessed: 13-03-2024 19:09 +00:00
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
This content downloaded from 125.166.108.109 on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 19:09:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 244
IMPACT OF ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION ON

USERS' FEELINGS: FROM 2D PLANS TO VIRTUAL
MODELS AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPES
Florence Bazzaro
Marjorie Charrier
Sébastien Chevriau
Thierry Ronxel
Jean-Claude Sagot
User integration in the architectural design process raises the issue of tools for communicating
between architectural-design experts and human-factor experts or users. Architectural repre-
sentations , such as two-dimensional (2D) plans , cardboard models , and three-dimensional (3D)
renderings , should be used to support the active participation of users. However, previous stud-
ies have highlighted the limitations of the most conventionally used architectural representa-
tions, and the feelings induced by the environment are difficult to anticipate during the architec-
tural design process. This study focused on the impact of six architectural representations - 2D
plans, cardboard models, 3D renderings, CAD models, full-scale virtual models, and full-scale
physical prototypes - on users ' feelings in the context of office design. The study found that,
while users ' feelings with regard to use, aesthetics, and emotion in relation to office design were
similar for the full-scale virtual model and full-scale physical prototype, they were different for
the other representation types. Therefore, these representation types should only be used with
experts such as architects. To support the active participation of users, full-scale virtual models
and full-scale physical prototypes should be proposed. Indeed, these representation types can
aid in the study of the feelings an environment induces in users.
Copyright © 2018, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

Chicago, IL, USA All Rights Reserved
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 245
INTRODUCTION
Some authors have questioned user integration and its consequences and constraints in the
architectural design process (Bullinger, et al. , 2010; Jensen, 2006; Oijevaar, et al., 2009; Van der
Voordt and Van Wegen, 2005), especially for users with disabilities (Goldsmith, 1 997). In order to
integrate users' needs from the first phases of the architectural design process, certain methods
and tools should be used to support the participation of human-factor experts. Indeed, user inte-
gration in the architectural design process raises the issue of the communication tools used by
architectural-design and human-factor experts (Emmitt and Gorse, 2003) and users (Jensen, 2006).
One major communication tool in the design process is based on the use of intermediary product
representation (Boujut and Blanco, 2003). Vinck, et al. (1 996:299) defined intermediary objects (IOs)
as "objects that can be communicated and exchanged between design partners. Their goal is to
improve exchanges, [enabling] viewpoints from various trades to be expressed and compromises
to be achieved." IOs include all physical (e.g., models, drawings) or virtual (e.g., computer-aided
design [CAD] models, virtual prototypes) artifacts generated by participants in the product design
process and represent either all or part of the product being designed. In architecture, IOs (namely
architectural representations) can be seen as a means of anticipation, communication, description,
control, and validation during the development of architectural projects (Léglise, 2000). Thus,
architectural representations assess architectural assumptions, aid project-status communication
among participants, and assist in decision making. Shen, et al. (20 1 3 : 1 1 3) identified five common
types of representation in architectural design:
(1) "Arbitrary codes: highly abstract means of communication, the most common form used
by professionals being scale drawings;
(2) Graphics: sketches, renderings, perspective drawings, and photographs;
(3) Scale models: which provide information concerning the volumetric properties of the
buildings;
(4) Mock-ups: namely full-scale models, which allow the observer to understand how the
realised design will function and appear spatially; and
(5) Prototypes: which are mock-ups made from the actual materials to be used."
These representations can be analyzed with regard to modes of communication, levels of ambigu-
ity, transformational ability, levels of detail, and levels of commitment (Self, et al., 2009). Although
the different representation types and their properties are clearly defined, few studies have fo-
cused on identifying the most appropriate representation for communicating with users (Bates-
Brkljac, 2007) or engineering experts (Bates-Brkljac, 20 1 3) during the design process. Nevertheless,
user participation throughout the architectural design process necessitates an understanding of
these representations (Sheppard, 2005). Some authors (Bates-Brkljac, 2007, 2013; Conniff, et al.,
2010) have highlighted the limits of the most conventionally used architectural representations.
For instance, two-dimensional (2D) architectural plans do not allow future users of a building to
properly evaluate the future space (Conniff, et al. , 20 1 0). Moreover, Duke, et al. (2003) showed that
user appraisal can depend on the type of rendering used, especially when it is not photorealistic.
For example, abstract representations, such as drawings, do not allow users to assess the aesthetic
qualities of a landscape (Daniel and Meitner, 200 1 ). Pietsch (2000) asserted that three-dimensional
(3D) representation is the best format for nonexpert users, and it has proven useful for studying
buildings, vegetation (Paar, 2006), and landscapes (Wergles and Muhar, 2009) and in planning new
designs (Stokols, 1 993). Similarly, Franz, et al. (2005) claimed that virtual reality is a good medium for
studying architectural qualities, as users react as if they are in a real environment when using it.
However, these conclusions are not unanimously agreed upon. Indeed, Daniel and Meitner (200 1 )
showed that, although 3D digital visualizations can be accurate, they can lead to perceptions and
interpretations that are not consistent with those produced in a real environment. For example,
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 246
Slangen-de Kort, et al. (2001) found that people were less accurate at estimating heights when
exploring a virtual environment compared with a real environment, and when asked to draw a map
of the environment, the maps of those who interacted with the virtual environment were less
complete and correct. Furthermore, people tend to use more positive adjectives when assessing
real environments than virtual ones {ibid.). It is therefore relevant to study which architectural
representations allow users to make decisions, as well as the methods used to evaluate and
measure their subjective feelings.
Affective appraisal can be defined as judgments on the capacity of objects, such as buildings, to
alter moods; these are expressed using terms such as "pleasant," "repulsive," and "attractive"
(Russell and Snodgrass, 1987). Affective appraisals are focused on feelings and do not take into
account the aesthetic component of the product (Macdonald, 1998), though some authors have
proposed evaluating product desirability (Barnum and Palmer, 2010; Williams, et al ., 2004). This
approach, in particular, is used in human-computer interaction projects, which aim to evaluate the
visual attractiveness of a product, its aesthetic and hedonic qualities, and its use. Indeed, affective
appraisal and desirability can be used to study the impact of architectural representations on users'
feelings. It is possible to measure the qualities and affective appraisal attributed to a concept
(Alcantara, et al., 2005; Franz, et al., 2005; Russell and Snodgrass, 1987). Some authors have used
a semantic scale to perform affective appraisals and describe perceived environments (Akalin, et
al. , 2009; Slangen-de Kort, et al , 200 1 ; Yildirim, et al. , 2007).
In order to identify which type of representation is most suitable for user communication, it is
important to determine which representation produces user emotions equivalent to the ones pro-
duced by the real environment. An assessment by architects and human-factor experts is not
sufficient to make conclusions about future users' feelings (Bates-Brkljac, 2007; Bishop and Rohr-
mann, 2003); users must actively participate in the design process. Consequently, in accordance
with previous studies (Bates-Brkljac, 2007; Bishop and Rohrmann, 2003; Conniff, et al, 2010;
Wergles and Muhar, 2009), there is a need to study the desirability and affective appraisal of
buildings for future users in the context of each of the different representation types that are
conventionally used in architecture: arbitrary codes, graphics, scale models, mock-ups, and proto-
types (Shen, et al. , 20 1 3 ).
The research hypothesis for this study was that representations used by experts, such as draw-
ings, renderings, cardboard models, and CAD models, do not provide comparable subjective
impressions for users in terms of use, aesthetics, and emotions to those induced by full-scale
virtual models and full-scale physical prototypes. To explore this hypothesis, the authors imple-
mented the protocol discussed in the next section.
METHOD
This experiment was undertaken within the framework of an action-research project and conducted
as an ergonomie and creative study for the organization and decoration of a business center or,
more precisely, its offices. The center's business model is the rental of professional offices for short
(a few hours) or long (a few months) periods. Consequently, the attractiveness, accessibility, and
usability of the offices are major issues with respect to the efficiency of the business center. Each
office has a door, a window, some furniture (a desk, a chair, and storage), and a floor area of 77.5 ft.2
(7.2 m2). One focus of this project was the desirability assessment of potential users regarding
office dimensions and total size. The NFX35-102 norm recommends an office area of 107.6 ft.2
(10 m2) to ensure user comfort (Association Française de Normalisation, 1998). This study was
conducted in partnership with an architecture firm, and the project itself was owned by an econ-
omist and a product designer. All of the representation types used in the experiment were based on
this industrial project and were therefore created by human-factor experts (ergonomists and prod-
uct designers) and an architect. These representations were used for decision-making purposes
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 247
during the project. In keeping with the representation types identified by Shen, et al. (2013), the
authors studied six office representations based on those used during the project (Table 1).
For each representation, the authors proposed a communication medium like the one used during
project meetings. Depending on the representation type being tested, participants were asked to
observe the representation (2D plan, cardboard model, and 3D rendering), manipulate it with a
mouse (CAD model), or move within it (full-scale virtual model and full-scale physical prototype).
The authors also fixed an observation time for each representation (Table 1). A maximum of 100
seconds was allowed for the 2D plan, cardboard model, and 3D rendering, and 300 seconds were
given for the CAD model, full-scale virtual model, and full-scale physical prototype. These times
were determined by a series of pretests, during which the authors observed and interviewed the
subjects regarding their weariness and concentration on the tasks. The observation time could be
reduced at the participant's request.
To assess emotions induced by the offices and their desirability to future users, the authors
defined a semantic space based on those created by other authors (Akalin, et al., 2009; Houtkamp,
2004; Russell and Snodgrass, 1987; Slangen-de Kort, et ai, 2001 ; Yildirim, et al., 2007) and key-
words extracted from the mood board, sketchbook, ideation book, and syntheses documents
created by experts during the analysis and exploration phases of the project. The objective of this
approach was to establish a semantic scale that would evaluate product desirability (Barnum and
Palmer, 20 1 0; Williams, et al. , 2004), thereby taking into account both the emotions induced by the
offices for future users and users' feelings in terms of aesthetics and use factors, as these are major
factors in the success of this industrial project.
Thanks to this dual approach, the authors established a list of 50 descriptors. The list was reduced
by first eliminating antonyms and synonyms. Only positive descriptors were kept in order to
ensure scale homogeneity. Then, 56 professional office users, ranging in age from 25 to 60, identi-
fied which descriptors best described an office for them. As a result of this pre-study, a short list of
18 descriptors was established. The list of descriptors was classified by two human-factor experts
into three categories - use, aesthetics, and emotions - each containing six descriptors (Table 2).
This list was presented, in alphabetical order, to each participant in the form of a seven-point scale
(Artacho- Ramirez, et al. , 2008) ranging from one (complete agreement) to seven (complete dis-
agreement). The authors created a composite score based on the score total for each descriptor:
SUse, SAesthetic, and SEmotion. Thus, the authors obtained three composite scores ranging
from six to 42. The lower the score, the more positively the space was perceived; the higher the
score, the more negatively it was perceived. For example, if the SUse score was eight, participants'
feelings with regard to the usability of the space were very positive; thus, the authors would
conclude that the design of the office was suitable for meeting users' needs. A score of 24 was
considered neutral.
Sixty participants (10 participants per representation; 30 men and 30 women total) with an average
age of 24. 1 3 years (SD = 6.44) participated in the different experiment sessions, distributed across
the six representation types. Each participant was subjected to only one representation type.
Participants (executives, engineers, and future engineers [mechanical or computer science]) were
recruited as potential users of a business center or professional office. They knew how to read 2D
plans and use CAD tools but had no knowledge of architectural design. With regard to virtual
reality, participants could not be experts in virtual reality or suffer from simulator sickness.
RESULTS
The authors conducted a one-way analysis of variance for independent groups. The S Use,
S Aesthetic, and S Emotion scores were studied in relation to representation type. The descrip-
tive statistics are provided in Table 3 and Figure 1 .
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 248
TABLE 1 . Synthesis of studied representations, communication mediums, and presentation times.
Description Image
Studied representation
Arbitrary code (2D plan [scale: 1/2,000])
Communication medium
A4 paper placed on a table
Presentation time
100 seconds
Scale model (Cardboard model [scale: 1/48])
Cardboard model placed on a table
Presentation time
100 seconds
Graphic (3D rendering with different points
of view)
Three 3D renderings projected onto a
screen measuring 1 1 .8 x 8.9 ft.
(3.6 X 2.7 m)
Presentation time
100 seconds for each rendering
There was a statistically significant difference in the use (F[54, 5] = 8.0 1 ,/? < .0 1 ) and emotion scores
(F[54, 5] = 3.96,/? < .05) based on representation type. No statistically significant differences were
observed in the aesthetics variable (F[54, 5] = 1.63,/? > .05). Indeed, the users' assessments of the
aesthetic qualities of the office were similar, regardless of which representation was used. The au-
thors used the Tukey post-hoc test to study the use and emotion results for each representation type.
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 249
TABLE 1 continued. Synthesis of studied representations, communication mediums, and presentation times.
Description Image
Scale model (CAD model)
15-inch laptop screen
Presentation time
300 seconds
Mock-up (Full-scale virtual model)
Projected onto CAVE-type platform (two
walls [9.2 X 6.9 ft. /2.8 x 2.1 m]; one floor
[9.2 x 9.2 ft. /2.8 x 2.8 m]) with active
stereoscopic system and tracking system
Presentation time
300 seconds
Prototype (Full-scale physical prototype)
Built in a warehouse and made from
materials selected for the project
Presentation time
300 seconds
For the use scores, the results revealed significant differences in use-based feelings between the
two representation groups: (1) the 2D plan, cardboard model, 3D rendering, and CAD model
representations and (2) the full-scale virtual model and full-scale physical prototype representa-
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 250
TABLE 2. Descriptor lists for use, aesthetics, and emotions categories. (The experiment was conducted in French;
Use Aesthetics Emotions

the French words are presented in parentheses.)
Accessible (Accessible) Balanced (Equilibré) Friendly (Convivial)

Collaborative (Collaboratif) Sleek (Epuré) Dynamic (Dynamique)
Comfortable (Confortable) Modern (Moderne) Luminous (Lumineux)
Functional (Fonctionnel) Open (Ouvert) Pleasant (Plaisant)
Customizable (Personnalisable) Serious (Sérieux) Secure (Sécurisant)
Usable (Utilisable) Airy (Spacieux) Stimulating (Stimulant)
TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics based on representation type and scores for use, aesthetics, and emotions.
Representation type Score categories

SUse SAesthetic SEmotion
Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.
2D plan 23T8Õ 5725 23770 Ā79 2ĀĪ0 Ť45
Cardboard model 21.50 3.28 23.80 3.22 28.40 6.11
3D
CADrendering 23.404.22
model 24.40 5.5624.40
21.00 5.58
4.59 27.90
24.80 5.95
3.72
Full-scale virtual model 15.70 4.27 19.60 4.62 21.10 6.57
Full-scale physical prototype 15.70 4.06 21.10 5.74 19.50 7.09
FIGURE 1. Mean scores for use, aesthetics, and emotions by representation type (* p < .01, ** p < .05).
tions. Use-related user assessments regarding the full-scale physical prototype made from materi-
als selected for the project were similar to users' assessments of the full-scale virtual model but
differed significantly from those of the 2D plan, 3D rendering, and CAD model (Table 4). An
examination of the descriptive statistics (Table 3) showed that the use scores were lower for the
full-scale physical prototype (M = 1 5.70, SD = 4.06) and full-scale virtual model (M = 1 5.70, SD =
4.27) than for the other representation types (whose mean scores ranged from 21 .50 for the card-
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 251
TABLE 4. Differences (post-hoc tests) among the use scores of different representation types.
Representation type Representation type

2D plan Cardboard model 3D rendering CAD model
Full-scale virtual model p<. 01* p = . 06 /?<.01* /?<.01*
Full-scale physical prototype /?<.01* p = .06 /?<.01* /?<01*
Note. * Significant at p < .01 .
FIGURE 2. Mean scores for each use descriptor depending on representation type (lower scores indicate
a more positive view of the descriptor by users).
board model to 24.40 for the CAD model). Therefore, user appraisal of use was more positive with
the full-scale physical prototype and full-scale virtual model, while the other representation types
received more negative ratings. The mean score for the 2D plan, cardboard model, 3D rendering,
and CAD model representation types was 23.28, which may be interpreted as a neutral score; thus,
these representation types did not seem to allow users to evaluate the adequacy of the office to
meet their needs in terms of use. To better understand these differences, the authors proposed an
analysis of each use-related descriptor (Figure 2). The distribution among the different representa-
tion types was similar for each descriptor. Participants generally perceived the office as usable,
functional, and accessible, especially when presented with a full-scale physical prototype or full-
scale virtual model representation. In contrast, with the 3D rendering, the users perceived the office
as uncomfortable and not customizable. Similarly, with the CAD model, the users perceived the
office as not collaborative.
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 252
TABLE 5. Differences (post-hoc tests) among the emotion scores of different representation types.
Representation type Representation type

Cardboard model CAD model
Full-scale virtual model p = .06 p = .09

Full-scale physical prototype p < .05* p < .05*
Note. * Significant at p< .05.
Regarding the emotion scores, there were significant differences or tendencies between two
groups of variables: (1) the full-scale physical prototype and full-scale virtual model and (2) the
cardboard model and CAD model (Table 5). Analysis of the descriptive results (Table 3) revealed
more positive feelings when viewing a full-scale physical prototype or full-scale virtual model
compared with a cardboard model or CAD model. Thus, the cardboard model and CAD model
seemed to induce an overestimation of negative emotions about the office. The mean scores for the
3D rendering and 2D plan representations were perceived as neutral.
A detailed analysis of each emotion-related descriptor showed that the distribution for each repre-
sentation was relatively similar, except for the luminous descriptor, which had a different results
profile. Its mean score of 5.3 for the cardboard representation was higher than its mean score for the
other representation types, which varied between 2 and 3.4.
DISCUSSION
In order to integrate users' needs and desired characteristics and ensure the acceptability and
usability of buildings, the active participation of users is an important part of the architectural
design process; this finding is supported by the literature (Bullinger, et al. , 2010; Jensen, 2006;
Oijevaar, et al , 2009; Van der Voordt and Van Wegen, 2005). This is because users and profession-
als do not assess buildings and spaces the same way. Montañana, et al (2013), for example,
showed differences between architects' and non-architects' building assessments with regard to
innovation and well-being. But in order to make user participation effective, one must consider
how the information is presented to users. As Bates-Brkljac (20 1 3) found, architects and engineers
do not see representations in the same way, and their views are linked to their professional priori-
ties. Therefore, the participation of only the architect in the design process does not guarantee that
buildings will meet their users' needs. To support user participation, IOs such as architectural
representations, including 2D plans, graphic representations, cardboard models, and full-scale
models and prototypes, should be used (Shen, et al. , 2013).
However, a major limitation of this approach is users' limited understanding of architectural

representations, especially in relation to decision making (Bates-Brkljac, 2007, 20 1 3; Conniff, et al. ,
2010). Indeed, nonexperts lack the architectural knowledge needed to understand many of these
representations. Many authors have proposed using computer-generated environments or virtual
models to facilitate communication between users and architects (Franz, et al ., 2005; Paar, 2006;
Pietsch, 2000; Wergles and Muhar, 2009), and these mediums can provide a more realistic
representation of the environment (Houtkamp, 2004; Slangen-de Kort, et al, 2001). Moreover,
virtual representation is easier to understand for nonexperts (Burkhardt, 2003; Chitescu, et al,
2003). However, virtual technology requires a greater cognitive load to understand and use
(Slangen-de Kort, et al, 2001). Consequently, these authors suggest that physical prototypes
should be used to conclude the architectural design process.
This study focused only on the assessment of induced emotions and the desirability of the
environment, which, in this case, was a professional office in a business center. The attractiveness,
accessibility, and usability of these offices are important to the success of the business center.
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 253
Affective appraisal and desirability are qualitative and subjective; therefore, without user involve-
ment, they can be very difficult to anticipate during the architectural design process. In this study,
users' appraisals of office usability were similar when they viewed a full-scale virtual model and a
full-scale physical prototype but differed for other representation types. The findings were similar
with regard to the emotions induced by the office; users' appraisals were similar for the full-scale
virtual model and full-scale physical prototype, whereas differences were present when these
representations were compared with the cardboard model and CAD model. Building users should
be involved in the architectural design process because they can make decisions regarding the
usability of the space and comment on the emotions it induces, but only when provided with a full-
scale virtual model or full-scale physical prototype. The use of 2D plans, cardboard models,
3D renderings, or CAD models does not seem to induce the same feelings from users as a physical
prototype or virtual model. Therefore, 2D plans, cardboard models, 3D renderings, and CAD mod-
els should only be used by experts such as architects (Bates-Brkljac, 2007; Conniff, et a/., 2010).
Judgments about architectural propositions are based on perceptions of elements such as shape,
space, volume, and light and shadow (Arnheim, 1 983), but end users are not able to perceive these
elements with certain types of representations. Furthermore, the results of this study showed that
users appraised the usability and emotions induced by the office more positively when they were
presented with a full-scale virtual model or full-scale physical prototype compared with other
representation types. Slangen-de Kort, et al (2001) showed similar results between virtual and real
environments, with the real environment systematically inducing a more positive assessment than
the virtual environment. These physical and virtual representations seem to enable end users to
access the vision of the architect in terms of shapes, volumes, and shadow and light, allowing them
to project themselves into the environment. Moreover, these representation types are more easily
understood, so their acceptability is improved. Consequently, judgments made by end users are
also improved.
Though the difference was not significant in the study results, the full-scale physical prototype
seemed to induce a more positive assessment than the other representation types. However, this
was not the case for users' aesthetic assessments of the office. Indeed, no differences were
observed among the various representation types for aesthetics. This can be explained by the fact
that the office used in this study had a very poor aesthetic. The office was a small rectangle with a
dark floor, a dark window, and four white walls. Consequently, its potential for assessment was
limited. Nevertheless, the results of this study highlight the similarity between virtual and physical
full-scale models and their differences with other representation types, depending on the type of
assessment (use, emotions, or aesthetics).
It is therefore necessary to exercise caution when interpreting users' emotionally based decisions
in relation to the type of representation used. Based on the results of this study, users tend to have
more negative feelings when presented with a 2D plan, CAD model, 3D rendering, or cardboard
model. Indeed, a solution may be rejected by users when presented as a cardboard model, for
example, whereas the same solution may be accepted when presented as a full-scale virtual model
or full-scale physical prototype. These results seem to confirm that some representation types,
such as 2D plans, 3D renderings, and cardboard models, are not sufficient to support decision
making by users, whereas full-scale virtual models can be, especially with regard to usability and
induced emotions. Nevertheless, the results of this study are decidedly mixed. This research was
based on representation types used during an action-research project. The studied office was a
small, simple, and relatively poor environment. During the study, the decoration of the office was
not finalized. The study was conducted during the first stage of design, and the impact of the
office's size (77.5 ft.2 /7.2 m2) on users' feelings is unclear. A complex environment, such as a
building or landscape, could produce other results.
This study concluded that users' assessments of a virtual office were similar to their assessments
of a real office. This indicates it would be unnecessary to create physical prototypes in future
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 254
studies. One limitation of this study was the virtual-reality equipment used, which was a cave
automatic virtual environment (CAVE) system (www.visbox.com/products/cave). Mullins (2006)
highlighted differences in the perception of shapes and depth between a CAVE system (Cruz-
Neira, et al. , 1 993) and a semi-cylindrical screen. Similarly, Bowman, et al (2002) revealed perfor-
mance differences between a CAVE system and a head-mounted display in terms of perception and
spatial orientation. Consequently, the results of this study cannot be generalized with regard to
other virtual-reality equipment, since the authors only used a CAVE system. Additional research
should be undertaken to study assessments of induced emotions and desirability of offices using
other equipment, such as a head-mounted display.
To conclude, user participation is an important element in the building or product design process,
but IOs (the representations used by designers, architects, and human-factor experts) are not
always understood by end users. One representation type used to communicate with end users is
the fiill-scale physical prototype. These prototypes are often created in the last step of the archi-
tectural design process, so end users are often only integrated in the process during the last stages
(for the final evaluation), when all of the design choices are being made. The results of this study
show that virtual reality can be an effective solution for exploring end users' appraisals of an
environment's usability and the emotions it induces, and it can be used to facilitate the integration
of users' assessments in the early stages of the design process (Bennes, et al , 2013). The results
of this study are particularly significant for the subjective evaluation of an environment's usability.
These findings can be applied to the study of users' assessments in association with environmen-
tal accessibility and the effectiveness of virtual reality compared with other representation types.
REFERENCES
Akalin A, Yildirim K, Wilson C, Kilicoglu O (2009) Architecture and engineering students' evalua-
tions of house façades: Preference, complexity and impressiveness. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology 29( 1 ): 1 24- 1 32.
Alcántara E, Artacho MA, Gonzalez JC, García AC (2005) Application of product semantics to
footwear design: Part I - identification of footwear semantic space applying differ-
ential semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35(8):7 13-725.
ArnheimR (1983) Buildings as precepts. VIA 6:12-19.
Artacho-Ramirez MA, Diego-Mas JA, Alcaide-Marzal J (2008) Influence of the mode of graphical
representation on the perception of product aesthetic and emotional features: An
exploratory study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38(11-12):
942-952.
Association Française de Normalisation ( 1 998) NFX35-102 : Conception ergonomique des espac-

es de travail en bureaux (French). Paris: Association Française de Normalisation.
Barnum C, Palmer L (2010) More than a feeling: Understanding the desirability factor in user
experience. Paper presented at the 28th International Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI 2010). Atlanta, GA(10-15 April).
Bates-Brkljac N (2007) Investigating perceptual responses and shared understanding of architec-

tural design ideas when communicated through different forms of visual representa-
tions. Paper presented at the 1 1th International Conference on Information Visualiza-
tion (IV '07). Zurich, Switzerland (4-6 July).
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 255
Bates-Brkljac N (20 1 3) Differences and similarities in perceptions of architectural representations:

Expert and non-expert observers. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
30(2):9 1-1 07.
Bennes L, Bazzaro F, Sagot JC (20 1 3) Systematic development of virtual reality convergence sup-
port tools dedicated to concurrent product design. Paper presented at ASME 2013:
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Infor-
mation in Engineering Conference. Portland, OR (4-7 August).
Bishop I, Rohrmann B (2003) Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A compar-
ison. Landscape and Urban Planning 65(4):26 1 -277.
Boujut J, Blanco E (2003) Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering

design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12(2):205-219.
Bowman D, Datey A, Ryu Y, Farooq U, Vasnaik O (2002) Empirical comparison of human behaviour
and performance with different display devices for virtual environments. Paper pre-
sented at the Fluman Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Baltimore,
MD (30 September-4 October).
Bullinger H J, Bauer W, Wenzel G, Blach R (20 1 0) Towards user centred design (UCD) in architecture
based on immersive virtual environments. Computers in Industry 61(4):372-379.
Burkhardt J (2003) Some relationships between virtual reality and ergonomics. Le Travail Humain
66(1):65-91.
Chitescu C, Galland S, Gomes S, Sagot JC (2003) Virtual reality within a human-centered design
methodology. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Virtual Real-
ity. Laval, France (13-18 May).
Conniff A, Craig TP, Laing R, Galán-Díaz C (20 1 0) A comparison of active navigation and passive
observation of desktop models of future built environments. Design Studies 3 1(5):
419-438.
Cruz-Neira C, Sandin DJ, DeFanti TA (1 993) Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: The
design and implementation of the CAVE. In MC Whitton (Ed.), Proceedings ofSIG-
GRAPH '93: 20th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive tech-
niques. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1 35-142.
Daniel T, Meitner M (2001) Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of

graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology 2 1 (1 ):6 1 -72.
Duke D, Barnard P, Halper N, Melin M (2003) Rendering and affect. Computers Graphics Forum
22(3):359-368.
Emmitt S, Gorse C (2003) Construction communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Franz G, von der Heyde M, Bülthoff H (2005) An empirical approach to the experience of architec-
tural space in virtual reality - exploring relations between features and affective
appraisals of rectangular indoor spaces. Automation in Construction 1 4(2): 1 65- 1 72.
Goldsmith S (1997) Designing for the disabled - the new paradigm. Oxford, UK: Architectural
Press.
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 256
Houtkamp J (2004) Affective appraisal as a requirement for 3D models: A systematic approach.

Paper presented at the Conference on Dutch Directions in HCl. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands (10 June).
Jensen P (2006) Continuous briefing and user participation in building projects. Paper presented at
the joint CIB, Tensinet, and IASS International Conference on Adaptability in De-
sign and Construction. Eindhoven, the Netherlands (3-5 July).
Léglise M (2000) Conception assistée: Modélisation et interprétation. In G De Paoli and T Tidafi

(Eds.), Modélisation architecturale et outils informatiques , entre cultures de la
représentation et du savoir-faire (Les cahiers scientifiques 95) (French). Montreal:
Association Canadienne-Française Pour l'Avancement des Sciences, pp. 51-66.
Macdonald A (1998) Developing a qualitative sense. In N Stanton (Ed.), Human factors in consum-
er products. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 1 75- 1 9 1 .
Montafíana A, Llinares C, Navarro E (2013) Architects and non-architects: Differences in percep-

tion of property design. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 28(2):
273-291.
Mullins M (2006) Interpretation of simulations in interactive VR environments: Depth perception

in CAVE and Panorama. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 23(4):
328-340.
Oijevaar K, Jovanovic M, Den Otter A (2009) User involvement in the design process of multifunc-
tional buildings. In H Wamelink, M Prins, and R Geraerdts (Eds.), CR09 proceedings :
Changing roles - new roles and new challenges. Delft, the Netherlands: TU Delft,
pp. 485-495.
Paar P (2006) Landscape visualizations: Applications and requirements of 3D visualization soft-

ware for environmental planning. Computers , Environment and Urban Systems 30
(6):8 15-839.
Pietsch S (2000) Computer visualisation in the design control of urban environments: A literature
review. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 27(4):52 1 -
536.
Russell J, Snodgrass J ( 1 987) Emotion and the environment. In D Stokols and I Altman (Eds.), Hand-
book of environmental psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 245-28 1 .
Self J, Dalke H, Evans M (2009) Industrial design tools and design practice: An approach for under-
standing relationships between design tools and practice. Paper presented at IASDR
2009: Design / Rigor & Relevance. Seoul, South Korea ( 1 8-22 October).
Shen W, Zhang X, Shen GQ, Fernando T (2013) The user pre-occupancy evaluation method in
designer-client communication in early design stage: A case study. Automation in
Construction 32(July): 112-1 24.
Sheppard S (2005) Validity, reliability and ethics in visualisation. In E Lange and I Bishop (Eds.),
Visualisation in landscape and environmental planning - technology and appli-
cations. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 79-97.
Slangen-de Kort YAW, Ijsselsteijn WA, Kooijman J, Schuurmans Y (200 1 ) Virtual environments as
research tools for environmental psychology: A study of the comparability of real
35:3 (Autumn, 2018) 257
and virtual environments. Paper presented at the 4th Annual International Work-
shop on Presence. Philadelphia, PA (2 1-23 May).
Stokols D (1993) Strategies of environmental simulation: Theoretical, methodological, and policy

issues. In RW Marans and D Stokols (Eds.), Environmental simulation: Research
and policy issues . New York: Plenum Press, pp. 3-21.
Van der Voordt TJM, Van Wegen HBR (2005) Architecture in use: An introduction to the program-
ming, design and evaluation of buildings. Oxon, UK: Architectural Press.
Vinck D, Jeantet A, Laureillard P (1996) Objects and other intermediaries in the sociotechnical
process of product design: An explanatory approach. In J Perrin and D Vinck (Eds.),
The role of design in the shaping of technology. Brussels: European Commission's
Directorate-General for Science, pp. 297-320.
Wergles N, Muhar A (2009) The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design:
A comparison of viewer responses to visualisations versus on-site visits. Landscape
and Urban Planning 9 1 (4): 1 7 1 - 1 82.
Williams D, Kelly G, Anderson L (2004) MSN9: New user-centered desirability methods produce
compelling visual design. Paper presented at the 2004 Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI 2004). Vienna, Austria (24-29 April).
Yildirim K, Akalin-Baskaya A, Celebi M (2007) The effects of window proximity, partition height,
and gender on perceptions of open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy 27(2): 154- 165.
Additional information may be obtained by writing directly to Dr. Bazzaro at ELLIADD Laboratory,
Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard
(UTBM), 90010 Belfort, France; email: florence.bazzaro@utbm.fr.
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Florence Bazzaro (PhD) is an assistant professor in the ELLIADD Laboratory (EA4661) at Université de
Bourgogne Franche-Comté, UTBM. She teaches in the Department of Ergonomics, Design, and Mechanical
Engineering. Her research activities cover user-centered design methods and tools with the aim of better account-
ing for the human factors in product design.
Marjorie Charrier (PhD) is an assistant professor in the ELLIADD Laboratory (EA4661) at Université de
Bourgogne Franche-Comté, UTBM. She teaches industrial design in the Department of Ergonomics, Design, and
Mechanical Engineering. Her research activities cover methods and tools, especially user-centered design tools,
with the aim of better accounting for the human factors in product design.
Sébastien Chevriau is a research engineer in the ELLIADD Laboratory (EA4661) at Université de Bourgogne
Franche-Comté, UTBM. He specializes in the development of virtual -reality applications and works with research-
ers to better understand how virtual reality can help with taking human factors into account in product design.
Thierry Rouxel is an assistant professor in the ELLIADD Laboratory (EA4661) at Université de Bourgogne
Franche-Comté, UTBM. He teaches in the Department of Ergonomics, Design, and Mechanical Engineering. His
research activities deal with integrating style into product design and perceived quality in product design. His work
is based on functional and style mock-ups during innovative industrial projects.
Jean-Claude Sagot is a professor and head of the Ergonomics and System Design (ERCOS) research team in the
ELLIADD Laboratory (EA4661) at Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, UTBM. He teaches in the Depart-
ment of Ergonomics, Design, and Mechanical Engineering. His research focuses on physical ergonomics, which
are concerned with the anatomical, anthropometric, physiological, and biomechanical characteristics of users in
relation to physical activity and product design.
Manuscript revisions completed 28 May 2019.

Impact of Architectural Representation On Users' Feelings From 2D Plans To

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Architectural Representation On Users' Feelings From 2D Plans To

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

IMPACT OF ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION ON USERS' FEELINGS: FROM 2D PLANS TO

IMPACT OF ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATION ON

Copyright © 2018, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

TABLE 1 . Synthesis of studied representations, communication mediums, and presentation times.

Use Aesthetics Emotions

Accessible (Accessible) Balanced (Equilibré) Friendly (Convivial)

Representation type Score categories

Representation type Representation type

Representation type Representation type

Full-scale virtual model p = .06 p = .09

However, a major limitation of this approach is users' limited understanding of architectural

ArnheimR (1983) Buildings as precepts. VIA 6:12-19.

Association Française de Normalisation ( 1 998) NFX35-102 : Conception ergonomique des espac-

Bates-Brkljac N (2007) Investigating perceptual responses and shared understanding of architec-

Bates-Brkljac N (20 1 3) Differences and similarities in perceptions of architectural representations:

Boujut J, Blanco E (2003) Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering

Daniel T, Meitner M (2001) Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of

Emmitt S, Gorse C (2003) Construction communication. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Houtkamp J (2004) Affective appraisal as a requirement for 3D models: A systematic approach.

Léglise M (2000) Conception assistée: Modélisation et interprétation. In G De Paoli and T Tidafi

Montafíana A, Llinares C, Navarro E (2013) Architects and non-architects: Differences in percep-

Mullins M (2006) Interpretation of simulations in interactive VR environments: Depth perception

Paar P (2006) Landscape visualizations: Applications and requirements of 3D visualization soft-

Stokols D (1993) Strategies of environmental simulation: Theoretical, methodological, and policy

Manuscript revisions completed 28 May 2019.

You might also like