Att beskriva en byggnad som tidlös är bland det finaste en kan säga. Några av världens mest uppskattade byggnader har beskriv- its som just det, tidlösa. Hur kommer det sig att en av den finaste komplimangen och erkännandet en byggnad kan få, egentligen är intetsägande?Tiden går ständigt och det finns ingenting någon kan göra för att ändra det. Människor, djur och även byggnader utvecklas och åldras. I denna uppsats ska jag undersöka hur det kommer sig att arkitekter tenderar att undvika att tiden påverkar arkitektur, både i hur den skapas och i hur den representeras. / One of the greatest compliments a building can receive, is to be described as timeless. Some of the most appreciated buildings in the world has been described just as that, timeless or eternal. How is that, that one of the best compliments and acknowledgementsa building can receive, dosen’t really say anything about the build- ing?Time goes by and there is nothing anyone can do about it. People, animals and even building get old. In this essay, I will ex- amine why architects tends to avoid that time gets to architecture, both by how it is created and in the architectural representations.

Virtual production technology has recently emerged as a transformative tool in the film industry. The technology offers filmmakers new ways to work characterized by collaborative creativity across the boundaries of their roles. This bachelor thesis examines the possibilities and challenges for media producers with the implementation of Virtual Production. It primarily focuses on the producers closest to the technology and their view on the subject.  This group is particularly relevant as they work directly with the technology. As a result, both their workflow and position relative to other roles may shift. The study maps out the opportunities and challenges associated with the technology, as well as qualitatively analyzes the potential consequences.    Data is collected through qualitative interviews with relevant stakeholders in the field. They are allowed to speak relatively freely about their thoughts on the subject and draw conclusions based on their expertise. Topics such as technical challenges, group dynamics, and future perspectives are highlighted in the interviews. The results of the interviews show enthusiasm towards further implementation of the technology, although some challenges undoubtedly arise. However, most argue that the flexibility of the new technology outweighs its shortcomings. Many point out that the future of the technology is uncertain due to the possibility of new software emerging to replace the old and potentially changing the workflow once again. Regarding workflows, there is unanimous agreement that some of the post-production work is shifted to an earlier stage of pre-production. This enables a shift of responsibilities for the Virtual Production-department and the VFX-department to a position where they plan the project at an increasingly early stage than before. New roles are created within the film team, thus creating new communication chains between roles that did not exist before. These new communication chains also come with their own set of advantages and challenges. However, the results indicate that the technology is viewed as an asset. It demonstrates that the industry is ready to embrace the technology despite the challenges it brings.

Today’s assembly operations represent about 15-70% of all manufacturing time and about 40% of all manufacturing costs, and manual assembly processes are still a significant portion of today’s assembly operations. Furthermore, today’s manufacturing environment requires a well-trained and flexible workforce that can easily adapt to changing products and processes. Unfortunately, manufacturing training is often performed using the master-apprentice model in the assembly line resulting in unsafe and expensive training conditions as this model is a slow and expensive process. Previous research has considered the use of virtual environments (VEs) for training purposes in different fields such as aviation, driving, construction, medicine, and manufacturing among many others. However, to this date, no assembly studies have been successful in providing a positive transfer of knowledge between virtual environments and real environments. On the other hand, several eye-tracking studies in radiology, air-traffic control, driving, and reading show that participants with higher levels of experience have different eye-scan patterns than participants with lower levels of experience. However, it is unknown how visual scans are affected by practice. Furthermore, several empirical visuomotor studies of task-oriented processes in real environments show that observers fixated their eyes on the areas that are crucial to the required task. However, we do not know the necessary visual elements to observe when performing and when learning how to perform an assembly task, nor the effects of following visual instructions and having visual distractors during this process. Finally, we have yet to establish what observation differences may exist between real and virtual environments with regards to these unknowns. This work presents the results of an assembly task which required participants to follow visual instructions and to select assembly objects among similar distractors. This assembly task was performed for ten cycles in real and virtual environments, and we used an eye-tracking device to register participants’ visual scans. We successfully identified the areas that are needed to observe for an assembly task in both environments and the effect of visual instructions and distractors in a visual scan. We found statistically significant differences for visual scans by assembly cycle and environment, with a p-value of <0.05. We also identified a connection between learning curves and participant eye scan, showing a significant decrease in the incidence of eye tracking metrics (visit count, visit duration, fixation count and fixation duration) between the first and the tenth cycles (ΔΜ), particularly for visual distractors ranging from 37.36% to 48.77%, and for visual instructions ranging from 35.17% to 54.82%. We found that participants’ observations became more efficient with practice, not only in terms of identifying distractors and following visual instructions but also in terms of developing an ability to observe key visual elements. For the RE we found a positive Pearson correlation between the proportion of fixation duration and assembly cycle for the key visual areas with p-values<0.002 and a negative Pearson correlation between the proportion of fixation duration for the non-key visual areas with p-values<0.046. Similar results were obtained for the VE.