No description available.

For centuries, architectural drawing has been considered one of the most effective representational tools, representing buildings and communicating architectural designs between architects and non-architects. It conveys information by using a set of graphic codes, which then becomes a message that allows architectural drawing not only to be read at a basic level, but also to be decoded. However, the codes have over time become internalised and play out as a private language that excludes non-architects. The use of particular codes within an architectural drawing leads to difficulties in reading and understanding by anyone outside the profession; this becomes a problematic issue in communication between architects and nonarchitects. Therefore, the main aim of this research is to examine whether conventional drawings, in particular plan drawings, are still considered an effective tool for communicating with nonarchitects. The dilemma of how best to communicate between architects and non-architects is explored through three related approaches. First, tracing the history of previous periods makes it possible to perceive and to understand the direction of the potential communication breakdown in the role of today's architectural drawings. Secondly, the process of using drawings as a means of communication is examined through a basic communication process. Finally, a study of research in environmental psychology focuses on the way in which architects and non-architects perceive and interpret such drawings. This consequently acknowledges the limits of architectural drawings found in the role of teaching, learning, and drawing, which are very much established in the structure of architectural education. The communicative potential of conventional drawings is then investigated through a series of empirical tests, with the aim of developing a new set of communicative drawings. This hopefully will mean that non-architects in the future will be better informed in the process of designing buildings. The tests indicate that lay people read architectural drawings differently from architects. They also show ways in which the communicative potential of architectural drawing may be improved. In conclusion, the research suggests a possibility in bridging the communication gap between architectural context and the public realm. It provides implications and recommendations for improving the communicative potential of architectural drawings.

This research is concerned with conceptual sketches, visual perception and verbal description. Firstly, it focuses on the role of sketching in conceptual design and begins to question why conceptual sketches are considered a good medium for reflective conversation with one's own ideas and imagery. Secondly, it focuses exclusively on the mental process involved in the analysis and verbal description of conceptual sketches. The empirical study examines how novice and expert designers might perceive different things from the same conceptual sketch and thus use different verbal descriptions, and what this might reveal about their different approaches to design. For this reason some experiments on visual perception, conceptual sketches and verbal description were conducted with expert and novice architecture students. The main objective is to verify to what extent the use of formal references such as line, square or circle and symbolic references such as describing a circle as a sun or a long oval as a sausage, help to understand how designers might think with sketches, while searching for a specific design solution. It also investigates which of the two types of images (non-architectural and architectural sketches) present greater potential for allowing the use of formal and symbolic verbal references, and why. The results show that, on average, the expert group used more formal and symbolic verbal references per minute than novices while describing the same images. The results also show that the non-architectural sketch was judged as easier to describe than the architectural one and gave rise to the use of more symbolic references. This can be seen to confirm earlier work suggesting that we fmd symbolic descriptions easier and more powerful than formal ones. The results also suggest that the expert students were more able to employ symbolic references to architectural concepts than novice students. However, in many other respects there were few differences between the groups. This may in part be due to the limitations of the empirical methodology employed.

No description available.

Le dessin industriel est lié aux contrariétés artistiques et techniques, craintes des dessinateurs, lieux d’enseignement. Dynamique sociale, œuvres caritatives des Écoles alsaciennes et lorraines chevauchent données historiques, industrielles et artistiques. Les Arts and Crafts opposant vernaculaire et académisme en 1861, les architectures scolaires s’ouvraient à l’utilitaire du dessin, sociologie technique, monde, l’histoire de l’art à la spiritualité et l’anthropologie. Médiocrité et perfection reliant dessin et enseignement en 1970. Avec l’académisme et la fusion des arts du Moyen Âge, les industriels de 1919 portent les mutations culturelles, sociales, politiques et économiques. En Alsace, les Kœchlin, Dollfus, de Dietrich forment les dessinateurs. Perfection, simplicité, humanité industrielle, difformités du dessin, fusion art-vie font jaillir l’humanité du design en 1960-1970, commençant par la transformation des écoles en 1960. En 1975, arts plastiques au lieu du dessin, professeurs, administrations disent les difficultés en France. De 1861 à 1975 les établissements s’écartent des environnements et de l’individualité. En France les concours d’Écoles d’ingénieurs montrent l’explosion de la formation commune. L’intérêt pour l’aspect utilitaire du dessin (technique) ne s’efface pas ; environnements, simplicité du dessin de bricoleur transforment l’attention au dessin noyé en 1969 dans l’industrial design. Mal-fait dissipant peine, travail et risque. / Industrial design is connected to artistic and technical conflicts, designers’ fears, educational facilities. Social dynamic, offers, charities of Alsace and Lorraine Schools overlap historical, industrial and artistic data. Arts and Crafts confronting vernacular and academicism in 1861, school buildings opened to utilitarian design, technical sociology,world, history of art, spirituality and anthropology. Mediocrity and perfection joining drawing and teaching in 1970. With the academicism and the merger of arts of the Middle Ages, the1919’s manufacturers carried the cultural, social, political and economic transformations, like the Kœchlin, the Dollfus or the de Dietrich who trained designers in Alsace. Perfection, simplicity, industrial humanity, design de formities, fusion of art and life produce the humanity of design in the 1960’s and 1970’s, beginning with the transformation of schools in the1960’s. In 1975, arts plastiques instead of drawing, professors and administrations reveal the difficulties in France. From 1861 to 1975 institutions deviate from environment and individuality. In France, Engineering Schools’ competitive exam shows the explosion of general education. The interest in the utilitarian aspect of the (technical) design does not disappear; environment, simplicity of bricoleur’s drawing transformed the attention to drawing encased in the industrial design in 1969. Poorly done, dispelling effort, work and risk.