The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits
Perception, attention, retention, comprehension and deduction are critical parameters in probing the adequacy of computer visualizations as means of communicating urban design proposals. This study investigates these parameters in the context of the remodelling of a large urban square in Vienna, Aus...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Landscape and urban planning 2009-07, Vol.91 (4), p.171-182 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 182 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 171 |
container_title | Landscape and urban planning |
container_volume | 91 |
creator | Wergles, Nathalie Muhar, Andreas |
description | Perception, attention, retention, comprehension and deduction are critical parameters in probing the adequacy of computer visualizations as means of communicating urban design proposals. This study investigates these parameters in the context of the remodelling of a large urban square in Vienna, Austria. Half of a total of 76 participants experienced the site after remodelling; the other half experienced a series of visualizations of the project proposal. Their responses were gathered by means of a qualitative questionnaire and content analyzed for similarities and differences in their cognitive, affective and evaluative aspects. Significant differences in responses were related to the limitations of the visualization medium in communicating aspects such as texture, movement, interaction and specific sensory qualities related to the design. On the other hand, visualizations were superior in communicating some aspects of the design in virtue of their ability to direct attention to centred or foreground pictorial elements. Visualizations can be successfully employed in design communication, yet more emphasis has to be placed on matching visualizations with the communication needs of the targeted viewers. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.010 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903649298</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0169204608002429</els_id><sourcerecordid>34471277</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-240800c80719c218d03f9f70238a5be95451aff06a725e21321fb58efc8c2b653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU2O1DAQhSMEEs0wdzALYJVQdhwnWY5a_EkjsRnWltspD26l7eBKGjErzoA4ISfBTUaI2TCsSvL76j2rXlE841Bx4OrVvhpNGJa0m_KsBEBXcVEBhwfFhnetKBUo8bDYZLYvBUj1uHhCtAcA3ii-Kb5ffUKW4ogsOmbjYVpmTOzoaTGjvzGzj4H5wOZMZfWwBG_Xx4znVBPYgOSvw89vPy5-75vkaZWPHr9kr4Q0xUBIbI53jYkdMdFCLIaS_Iwn1c_0tHjkzEh4fjvPio9vXl9t35WXH96-315cllbKZi6FhA7AdtDy3greDVC73rUg6s40O-wb2XDjHCjTigYFrwV3u6ZDZzsrdqqpz4qXq--U4ucFadYHTxbHfEiMC-keaiV70XeZfPFPspay5aJt7wUFKOCylxnsV9CmSJTQ6Sn5g0lfNQd9Klbv9V_F6lOxmgudi827z29DDFkzumSC9fTHQORia6FOn9muHOYj5jKSJusxWBx8QjvrIfr_SPsFQzjDMQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20601494</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Wergles, Nathalie ; Muhar, Andreas</creator><creatorcontrib>Wergles, Nathalie ; Muhar, Andreas</creatorcontrib><description>Perception, attention, retention, comprehension and deduction are critical parameters in probing the adequacy of computer visualizations as means of communicating urban design proposals. This study investigates these parameters in the context of the remodelling of a large urban square in Vienna, Austria. Half of a total of 76 participants experienced the site after remodelling; the other half experienced a series of visualizations of the project proposal. Their responses were gathered by means of a qualitative questionnaire and content analyzed for similarities and differences in their cognitive, affective and evaluative aspects. Significant differences in responses were related to the limitations of the visualization medium in communicating aspects such as texture, movement, interaction and specific sensory qualities related to the design. On the other hand, visualizations were superior in communicating some aspects of the design in virtue of their ability to direct attention to centred or foreground pictorial elements. Visualizations can be successfully employed in design communication, yet more emphasis has to be placed on matching visualizations with the communication needs of the targeted viewers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0169-2046</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6062</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.010</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LUPLEZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Computer visualization ; Content analysis ; Design communication ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Spatial perception ; Urban planning ; Visual simulation</subject><ispartof>Landscape and urban planning, 2009-07, Vol.91 (4), p.171-182</ispartof><rights>2008 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-240800c80719c218d03f9f70238a5be95451aff06a725e21321fb58efc8c2b653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-240800c80719c218d03f9f70238a5be95451aff06a725e21321fb58efc8c2b653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=21563267$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wergles, Nathalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhar, Andreas</creatorcontrib><title>The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits</title><title>Landscape and urban planning</title><description>Perception, attention, retention, comprehension and deduction are critical parameters in probing the adequacy of computer visualizations as means of communicating urban design proposals. This study investigates these parameters in the context of the remodelling of a large urban square in Vienna, Austria. Half of a total of 76 participants experienced the site after remodelling; the other half experienced a series of visualizations of the project proposal. Their responses were gathered by means of a qualitative questionnaire and content analyzed for similarities and differences in their cognitive, affective and evaluative aspects. Significant differences in responses were related to the limitations of the visualization medium in communicating aspects such as texture, movement, interaction and specific sensory qualities related to the design. On the other hand, visualizations were superior in communicating some aspects of the design in virtue of their ability to direct attention to centred or foreground pictorial elements. Visualizations can be successfully employed in design communication, yet more emphasis has to be placed on matching visualizations with the communication needs of the targeted viewers.</description><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Computer visualization</subject><subject>Content analysis</subject><subject>Design communication</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Spatial perception</subject><subject>Urban planning</subject><subject>Visual simulation</subject><issn>0169-2046</issn><issn>1872-6062</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkU2O1DAQhSMEEs0wdzALYJVQdhwnWY5a_EkjsRnWltspD26l7eBKGjErzoA4ISfBTUaI2TCsSvL76j2rXlE841Bx4OrVvhpNGJa0m_KsBEBXcVEBhwfFhnetKBUo8bDYZLYvBUj1uHhCtAcA3ii-Kb5ffUKW4ogsOmbjYVpmTOzoaTGjvzGzj4H5wOZMZfWwBG_Xx4znVBPYgOSvw89vPy5-75vkaZWPHr9kr4Q0xUBIbI53jYkdMdFCLIaS_Iwn1c_0tHjkzEh4fjvPio9vXl9t35WXH96-315cllbKZi6FhA7AdtDy3greDVC73rUg6s40O-wb2XDjHCjTigYFrwV3u6ZDZzsrdqqpz4qXq--U4ucFadYHTxbHfEiMC-keaiV70XeZfPFPspay5aJt7wUFKOCylxnsV9CmSJTQ6Sn5g0lfNQd9Klbv9V_F6lOxmgudi827z29DDFkzumSC9fTHQORia6FOn9muHOYj5jKSJusxWBx8QjvrIfr_SPsFQzjDMQ</recordid><startdate>20090730</startdate><enddate>20090730</enddate><creator>Wergles, Nathalie</creator><creator>Muhar, Andreas</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090730</creationdate><title>The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits</title><author>Wergles, Nathalie ; Muhar, Andreas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-240800c80719c218d03f9f70238a5be95451aff06a725e21321fb58efc8c2b653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Computer visualization</topic><topic>Content analysis</topic><topic>Design communication</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Spatial perception</topic><topic>Urban planning</topic><topic>Visual simulation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wergles, Nathalie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhar, Andreas</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Landscape and urban planning</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wergles, Nathalie</au><au>Muhar, Andreas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits</atitle><jtitle>Landscape and urban planning</jtitle><date>2009-07-30</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>171</spage><epage>182</epage><pages>171-182</pages><issn>0169-2046</issn><eissn>1872-6062</eissn><coden>LUPLEZ</coden><abstract>Perception, attention, retention, comprehension and deduction are critical parameters in probing the adequacy of computer visualizations as means of communicating urban design proposals. This study investigates these parameters in the context of the remodelling of a large urban square in Vienna, Austria. Half of a total of 76 participants experienced the site after remodelling; the other half experienced a series of visualizations of the project proposal. Their responses were gathered by means of a qualitative questionnaire and content analyzed for similarities and differences in their cognitive, affective and evaluative aspects. Significant differences in responses were related to the limitations of the visualization medium in communicating aspects such as texture, movement, interaction and specific sensory qualities related to the design. On the other hand, visualizations were superior in communicating some aspects of the design in virtue of their ability to direct attention to centred or foreground pictorial elements. Visualizations can be successfully employed in design communication, yet more emphasis has to be placed on matching visualizations with the communication needs of the targeted viewers.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.010</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0169-2046 |
ispartof | Landscape and urban planning, 2009-07, Vol.91 (4), p.171-182 |
issn | 0169-2046 1872-6062 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903649298 |
source | Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Animal, plant and microbial ecology Applied ecology Biological and medical sciences Computer visualization Content analysis Design communication Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology General aspects Spatial perception Urban planning Visual simulation |
title | The role of computer visualization in the communication of urban design—A comparison of viewer responses to visualizations versus on-site visits |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T18%3A27%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20role%20of%20computer%20visualization%20in%20the%20communication%20of%20urban%20design%E2%80%94A%20comparison%20of%20viewer%20responses%20to%20visualizations%20versus%20on-site%20visits&rft.jtitle=Landscape%20and%20urban%20planning&rft.au=Wergles,%20Nathalie&rft.date=2009-07-30&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=171&rft.epage=182&rft.pages=171-182&rft.issn=0169-2046&rft.eissn=1872-6062&rft.coden=LUPLEZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E34471277%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=20601494&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0169204608002429&rfr_iscdi=true |