Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visual Behaviour During Perception of Architectural Drawings: Differences Between Architects and Non-architects

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design Computing and Cognition '18 (DCC 2018)

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Architectural design is not just a technical process based on problem-solving and representation, but also a social process distributed between architect and non-architect stakeholders. In this study, visual behaviour differences between architects and non-architects during perception, interpretation and evaluation of architectural drawings are analysed. An eye tracking experiment was conducted on two groups of participants: 19 graduate-level students of the Department of Architecture and 19 students from other faculties. Eye tracking data were analysed according to three categories: means of gaze duration, gaze count and gaze plot patterns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dorst K (2011) The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des Stud 32(6):521–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cross N (2011) Design thinking: understanding how designers think and work. Berg Publishers, Oxford, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Feast L, Melles G (2010) Epistemological positions in design research: a brief review of the literature. In: 2nd international conference on design education, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cross N (1972) Design participation: proceedings of the design research society’s conference. Academy Editions, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eastman C (2001) New directions in design cognition: studies of representation and recall. In: Eastman C, Mccracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, pp 147–198

    Google Scholar 

  6. Viana DL, Morais F, Vaz JV (2018) Formal methods in architecture and urbanism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne

    Google Scholar 

  7. RIBA The Fees Bureau (2017) RIBA business benchmarking 2017 https://www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/core-cpd/additional-documents/ribabenchmarking2017executivesummarypdf.pdf

  8. Grossmann T (2017) The eyes as windows into other minds: an integrative perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci 12(1):107–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  10. Alexander C, Silverstein M, Ishikawa S (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cross N (1999) Natural intelligence in design. Des Stud 20(1):25–39

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Cross N (2001) Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In: Eastman C, Mccracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, 79–103

    Google Scholar 

  15. Akin O (2001) Variants in design cognition. In: Eastman C, Mccracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, pp 105–124

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldschmidt G (1991) The dialects of sketching. Creativity Res J 4(2):123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18(4):385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich P, Hoffman R (2006) The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 101(2):343–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chase WG, Simon H (1973) Perception in chess. Cogn Psychol 4:55–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bilalić M et al (2010) Mechanisms and neural basis of object and pattern recognition: a study with chess experts. J Exp Psychol Gen 139(4):728–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Li R, Pelz J, Shi P (2012) Learning image-derived eye movement patterns to characterize perceptual expertise. Eye Tracking Res Appl Symp Proc 393–396

    Google Scholar 

  23. Anderson B, Shyu CR (2011) Studying visual behaviors from multiple eye tracking features across levels of information representation. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 72–79

    Google Scholar 

  24. Akin O (1980) Models of architectural knowledge. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cross N (2004) Expertise in design: an overview. Des Stud 25(5):427–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lawson B (2005) How designers think, 4th edn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Altinişik M, Derinboğaz A (2012) Rauf Denktas Anit Mezari ve Muzesi Uluslararasi Proje Yarismasi. http://www.arkitera.com/proje/1502/esdeger-mansiyon-rauf-raif-denktas-anit-mezari-ve-muzesi-uluslararasi-proje-yarismasi

  28. Hançerli M, Olguner O (2012) Rauf Denktas Anit Mezari ve Muzesi Uluslararasi Mimari Proje Yarismasi http://www.kolokyum.com/yazi/81965__rauf_raif_denktas_anit_mezari_ve_muzesi_uluslararasi_mimari_proje_yarismasi

  29. Bar M, Neta M (2007) Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation. Neuropsychologia 2191–2220

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Dr. Zeynep Mennan for her guidance and feedback; to the three DCC reviewers for their valuable comments and discussions; and to the anonymous group of students who participated in the eye tracking experiments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Architecture Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Canan Albayrak Colaço

  2. Middle East Technical University, Informatics Institute, Ankara, Turkey

    Cengiz Acartürk

Authors
  1. Canan Albayrak Colaço
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cengiz Acartürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and School of Architecture, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    John S. Gero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Colaço, C.A., Acartürk, C. (2019). Visual Behaviour During Perception of Architectural Drawings: Differences Between Architects and Non-architects. In: Gero, J. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '18. DCC 2018. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05363-5_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05363-5_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05362-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05363-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation