De waarde van het gebruik van de entheskoop in relatie tot andere presentatie-technieken voor de gebouwde omgeving
The aim of this investigation is to establish the value of the use of the enthescope. As very little is known about the value of the use of other presentationtechnics for the built environment, as technical drawings, perspective drawings and models, I have decided to include these also in the investigation. This way the practical importance of the investigation is increased.The research design is similar to the general plan for the investigation of representation-technics, as pointed out by K. Craik (1968, 1976). Craik mentions five important factors: 'Judgements depend on what (kind of) spaces are being judged, who is doing the judging, what kinds of judgements are being asked of the judges, how the different building spaces (stimuli) are represented (simulated), and under what conditions judges view the representations.' This investigation includes two designs, a new building project and a renewal project. Both designs have a main destination for housing. These designs are judged by four groups of subjects: architects, administrators, dwellers and dwelling ecologists. Judgements are based on 110 semantic differential criteria and 85 statements. The designs are presented with technical drawings, perspective drawings, models, relatoscope slides and enthescope images. When the designs are realised, they are also judged in vivo. I have used the presentation-technics apart from each other as well as in combination. Finally I have used the presentation-technics, except for the drawings, in several alternative ways. All together the designs are presented in 13 different manners.After studying several comparable investigations, five hypotheses are formulated in relation to the expected differences between the judgements of the subjects who judge in vivo and those subjects whose judgements are based on a presentation-technique. These hypotheses confirm the factors mentioned by K. Craik. Data of this investigation are subject to correlation calculations (Pearson), T- tests, factor analysis and analysis of variance.I can conclude, that the judging, of the designs depends upon its deviation from normal accepted patterns, in such a way that if the deviation is stronger, the judging is less correct. Next differences are shown between the judgements of the subjectgroups. These differences can be rather extreme. At the same time the within group agreement was rather high. In this regard it is notable that the judgements of the dwellers are not as different from the architects and administrators judgements as is expected. Especially the judgements of the dwellingecologists are different from the other subjectgroups. This is found in the factorstructure as well as in the mean scores. The 195 criteria that have been used for the judging of the designs can be devided, according to the correlation calculations, into 31 main groups of criteria with a clear common meaning. These groups are very similar to those found by Küller (1972), Hershberger (1972, 1974) and Permartz (1972). Factor analysis for 40 main criteria give rather similar results for both designs. With regard to the conditions under which the subjects have seen the presentations, four factors have been formulated after studying the results of other investigators, who seem to be of importance for a correct information transfer. These factors deal with the possibility of simulating movement, the necessity of using colours, the grade of details and finally the format that will be used for presentation. Although a positive effect of movement is not confirmed in this investigation, the positive effects of using colour, of using a high grade of detail and the use of a large format for presentation is found.With regard to the basic question for this investigation, i.e. establishing the value of the use of the enthescope in relation to other technics for the presentation of the built environment, the conclusion is that this value is rather poor in this investigation. It is notable that very correct results are obtained by using drawings and models. Although the results of all technics are very good, also the relatoscope slides and enthescope images, the very best results are obtained in using drawings and models in combination with relatoscope slides and enthescope images for presentation. This complete presentation gives in this investigation correct results for all subject groups for both designs.
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Doctoral thesis biblioteca |
| Language: | Dutch |
| Published: |
Veenman
|
| Subjects: | architecture, methodology, microscopes, models, physical planning, planning, professionalism, research, rural settlement, techniques, theory, towns, urban planning, villages, architectuur, dorpen, methodologie, microscopen, modellen, onderzoek, plattelandskern, professionaliteit, ruimtelijke ordening, stedelijke planning, steden, technieken, theorie, |
| Online Access: | https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/de-waarde-van-het-gebruik-van-de-entheskoop-in-relatie-tot-andere |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The aim of this investigation is to establish the value of the use of the enthescope. As very little is known about the value of the use of other presentationtechnics for the built environment, as technical drawings, perspective drawings and models, I have decided to include these also in the investigation. This way the practical importance of the investigation is increased.The research design is similar to the general plan for the investigation of representation-technics, as pointed out by K. Craik (1968, 1976). Craik mentions five important factors: 'Judgements depend on what (kind of) spaces are being judged, who is doing the judging, what kinds of judgements are being asked of the judges, how the different building spaces (stimuli) are represented (simulated), and under what conditions judges view the representations.' This investigation includes two designs, a new building project and a renewal project. Both designs have a main destination for housing. These designs are judged by four groups of subjects: architects, administrators, dwellers and dwelling ecologists. Judgements are based on 110 semantic differential criteria and 85 statements. The designs are presented with technical drawings, perspective drawings, models, relatoscope slides and enthescope images. When the designs are realised, they are also judged in vivo. I have used the presentation-technics apart from each other as well as in combination. Finally I have used the presentation-technics, except for the drawings, in several alternative ways. All together the designs are presented in 13 different manners.After studying several comparable investigations, five hypotheses are formulated in relation to the expected differences between the judgements of the subjects who judge in vivo and those subjects whose judgements are based on a presentation-technique. These hypotheses confirm the factors mentioned by K. Craik. Data of this investigation are subject to correlation calculations (Pearson), T- tests, factor analysis and analysis of variance.I can conclude, that the judging, of the designs depends upon its deviation from normal accepted patterns, in such a way that if the deviation is stronger, the judging is less correct. Next differences are shown between the judgements of the subjectgroups. These differences can be rather extreme. At the same time the within group agreement was rather high. In this regard it is notable that the judgements of the dwellers are not as different from the architects and administrators judgements as is expected. Especially the judgements of the dwellingecologists are different from the other subjectgroups. This is found in the factorstructure as well as in the mean scores. The 195 criteria that have been used for the judging of the designs can be devided, according to the correlation calculations, into 31 main groups of criteria with a clear common meaning. These groups are very similar to those found by Küller (1972), Hershberger (1972, 1974) and Permartz (1972). Factor analysis for 40 main criteria give rather similar results for both designs. With regard to the conditions under which the subjects have seen the presentations, four factors have been formulated after studying the results of other investigators, who seem to be of importance for a correct information transfer. These factors deal with the possibility of simulating movement, the necessity of using colours, the grade of details and finally the format that will be used for presentation. Although a positive effect of movement is not confirmed in this investigation, the positive effects of using colour, of using a high grade of detail and the use of a large format for presentation is found.With regard to the basic question for this investigation, i.e. establishing the value of the use of the enthescope in relation to other technics for the presentation of the built environment, the conclusion is that this value is rather poor in this investigation. It is notable that very correct results are obtained by using drawings and models. Although the results of all technics are very good, also the relatoscope slides and enthescope images, the very best results are obtained in using drawings and models in combination with relatoscope slides and enthescope images for presentation. This complete presentation gives in this investigation correct results for all subject groups for both designs. |
|---|