Inquiry to Computation and Design

1. 2D to 3D Translation Experiment

2. 1 _ Method of Experiment
[Step 01]
Introduce subject to sample test.

3. 1 _ Method of Experiment
[Step 02]
Explain answer sheet and time recording.
Every 15, 30, 45, 60 seconds.

4. 1 _ Method of Experiment
[Step 03]
Begin testing with single cubes as answers.
Testing varies in number of faces filled.

5. 1 _ Method of Experiment
[Step 04]
Begin testing with double cubes as answers.
Testing varies in number of faces filled.

6. 1 _ Method of Experiment
[Step 05]
How did you arrive at your answer?
What was your process?

7. 2 _The Subjects
Group 1: Designers
Experience in 3D modeling, 2D projection and the movement between the them.
Subjects include: Architects, Set Designers, SMArchS Computation Students
Group 2: Non-Designers
No formal experience in 3D modeling, 2D projection and the movement between the them.
Subjects include: Concierge, Mathematics Undergraduate, Musician, etc.

8. 3 _ Experiment Objectives
1. Testing and analysing cognitive abilities to translate 2D projection to 3D object.
(using Mental Rotation / Paper Folding, Shepard and Metzler, 1971).
1. Determining the amount of visual information needed to translate, relative to time of exposure.
2. Comparing Designers to Non-Designers in their spatial understanding.

9. 4 _ Results and Interpretation
Increased difficulty results in lower accuracy and increased time
(more difficult > less difficult):
2 views of cube > 1 view of cube (more information becomes
detrimental)
6 symbols > 4 symbols (most defining feature)
Cognitive methods for analysis:
Folding - ensured better results
Grouping - also valid and more popular
No conclusive evidence for designers or non-designers to perform
better than the other.
Individuals with better spatial understanding innately, whether or not
they have been trained, might performas well as someone who
has been trained.
grouping folding

10. Did the test proceed as you planned without any
accident?
We expected there to be a larger difference between designers and non-designers.
We also thought people would have greater difficulty with more information.
The added symbols did create greater difficulty, but the added faces less so.
The proportion of speed and accuracy was consistent between Test 2 and 4 and Test 1 and 3.

11. Improvements and follow-up
Improving the method of recording each subject’s mental process by using additional
tools such as drawing.
Add markers to show orientation of symbols.
Test with different options of projections.
Explore ways that varying degrees of rotation or mirroring can affect each subject’s
time to answer each test

12. Testing Deck