Real World / Virtual Presentations: Comparing Different Web-based 4D Presentation Techniques of the Built Environment

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Real World / Virtual Presentations: Comparing Different Web-based 4D Presentation Techniques of the Built Environment"

Toby Robinson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Real World / Virtual Presentations: Comparing Different Web-based 4D Presentation Techniques of the Built Environment Joseph BLALOCK 1 Introduction The World Wide Web has had a great effect on the display and retrieval of information since its inception in the 1960 s, and earlier, and especially with its wide spread use in early 1990 s ( The Web, while mostly two dimensional (2D) in nature, has the ability to present three dimensional (3D) and four dimensional (4D) data and images. Examples of the fourth dimension include time-based media such as movies, animations and interactive worlds. Computer modeling and animation lets the user experience an un-built environment prior to its actualization. One can see in 3D and 4D how a place will feel without having to construct it. Examples of 3D use include Repton s pioneering work utilizing perspectives to represent landscapes to clients (Repton, 1803), and Photomontage, model making and model scopes to represent and communicate a space. Utilizing model scopes a user is becoming more interactive by moving thru the model at human scale and is allowed to explore at will (Appleyard, 1977). What about works that have been built? How could one experience a real place without being there? This paper will compare and contrast different methods of experiencing a built place through a web-based environment. The examples shown in the paper and the survey conducted involve the University of Virginia Lawn, located in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. This is a portion of the work that is being conducted by the American Grand Tour Project (Fig. 1, The American Grand Tour is endeavouring to allow visitors to virtual visit real built works of importance. This space is of importance for several reasons. Firstly, it is one of the first examples of campus landscapes in the United States. Secondly, it has a good relationship to its original environment. Thirdly, Thomas Jefferson, fifth president of the United States, Architect, and Founder of the University of Virginia, designed it. Lastly, it is a well-known landscape, at least peripherally from history classes.

2 J. Blalock Fig.1: www.americangrandtour.org 2 Presentation Formats & Methods 2.

2 2 J. Blalock Fig.1: 2 Presentation Formats & Methods 2.1 Presentation Formats Used The presentation of the University of Virginia Lawn was completed with a series of different media types. Media was selected that was easy to create or produce and also easy to navigate and experience. It was a conscious decision to limit the examples shown to items that could be produced with average hardware, software and greyware (brain power). The experience of the visitor was also considered. The media choices were limited and not exhaustive or exhausting, able to be easily navigatable. The presentation formats chosen were: A series of still photographs throughout the site were used An Apple QuickTime VR (QTVR) panorama QuickTime movies showing video clips from various portions of the Lawn Animations were created/modified of the University of Virginia Lawn and related buildings using Form Z and greatbuildings.com models. Virtual Reality Mark-up Language (VRML) files were created directly out of this Form Z model. 2.2 Presentation Formats Not Used It was determined during development, (and after its creation), that the Shockwave file provided no extra benefit over the VRML model and player. It was also determined to limit animations to low-resolution, and trees to lollypops to minimize download times.

Comparing Different Web-based 4D Presentation Techniques of the Built Environment 3 2.3 Rationale Behind Format Design Universally acceptable and free products for visiting the site were utilized.

3 Comparing Different Web-based 4D Presentation Techniques of the Built Environment Rationale Behind Format Design Universally acceptable and free products for visiting the site were utilized. Therefore VRML and QuickTime were used because players and browser plug-ins are free, easy to install and work on most operating systems. Since 1994, VRML has proved to be an open standard that could be easily viewed and disseminated across the internet (Hartman & Wernicke, 1996). The ability to navigate space at your own pace can accelerate cognitive understanding as one does not have to interpret a static 2D image into 3D (Peri, 2000). The limitations of VRML and Animations as presented were done for file size and download considerations. Nothhelfer (Nothhelfer, 2002) warned that synthetic, created, landscapes gravitate toward one of two areas: They are created for immersive environments such as game engines and thus require low polygon counts (less detail) or are more realistic and require special hardware and software such as flight simulators and CAVE environments. VR environments that are not necessarily immersive has advantages in that it is easier to use, does not need special equipment to run it and by being more common is easier to develop (Dorta & Lalande, 1998). 2.3 Interface For this experiment and the purpose of this paper, the survey was entirely viewed and scored digitally on the web page (Fig 2). Questions that pertained to the method demonstrated were associated on the same page. The interface design was limited in order to not detract from the content (grey background, radio buttons). The sequence was presented from simplest and most static to more interactive. Fig. 2: Sample survey page

4 4 J. Blalock 2.3 Survey The survey asked the following questions: Still Photos (page 2) QTVR panorama (page 3) (Fig. 2) Videos (page 4) Animations (page 5) VRML (page 6) Overall (page 8) What was your prior knowledge, if any, of the existing site portrayed in this survey? (1 = none to 5 = very familiar) Which method did you prefer to learn about an existing site? Why? Which method, if any, did you have difficulty with? How? Are you a student or professional in an environmental design field (Landscape Architect, Architect, Planner, etc.)? Yes / No Rate your ability with computers necessary to browse the Internet. (1= no computer knowledge to 5 = very comfortable browsing the Internet) What was your connection speed? Modem, Cable, T1 Male / Female Age

5 Comparing Different Web-based 4D Presentation Techniques of the Built Environment 5 3 Preliminary Results The survey work is ongoing. Results to date suggest that user preferences are split between QTVR and Video clips to learn about real built places. The best preferred method contains both QTVR as well as video. Some users saw an advantage to the VRML interface. It allowed them to navigate at their own pace and explore. The main difficulties with the VRML world were that it required an extra plug-in that some were not able to install and it was viewed as cumbersome for those who were not familiar with it. While research suggests that interactivity is recognized as preferred by users (Van Maren & Verbee, 2000), users suggested that the trade off between interactivity and realism was not advantageous. 4 Conclusions & Outlook According to the sample to date, end users prefer photo realistic representations to experience a built work. While 3d models, animations and VRML worlds are useful tools for un-built works, photo realistic images provided a consistent and comfortable look and feel. The models provided too little detail, and the simplification of the site (done mostly for download times) was distracting. Suggested future research areas could include the design of environments that do not require plug-ins or utilize universal plug-ins. Many users refused to download the players necessary or had conflicts with plug-in (QuickTime vs. Windows Media Player). Perhaps Shockwave or Flash environments, while originally discounted for the amount of effort needed to produce, can become universal containers for information. A comparison of different file size/ polygon counts for animations and VRML and their comparison with video and QTVR. What level of download discomfort will a user endure to view a higher resolution model? Will it compete with a video clip or QuickTime panorama? Ervin (2001) suggested that omission of details makes sterile landscapes. He asked two appropriate questions: How much reality is needed and how much abstraction is allowed? Media and data rich sites vs. 3D environments: A data rich site might have drawings, Photos, QTVR s, Video clips, etc. embedded in a page or as links off of the page. A data rich 3d environment may rely on a common interface such as QTVR or VRML and have hotspots and links associated with the image. One example is the Clara browser by spatial knowledge which allows the user to bring in 2D web pages into a 3D world using VRML (Fig. 3). There you can see, explore, organize and open information spatially ( One could also navigate thru a space using VRML or QTVR, come upon a link that could tell you more about a piece of what you see thru text, an enlarged detail view, a virtual ruler to measure details and objects in the VRML environment, links to a manufacturer, a video clip, etc. or come across a virtual tour guide or avatar that could access a database for answers to your questions (Snyder & Paley, 2001).

6 J. Blalock Fig. 3: Clara browser by Spatial Knowledge 5 References Appleyard, D. (1977): Understanding professional media: Issues, Theory and a Research agenda.

6 6 J. Blalock Fig. 3: Clara browser by Spatial Knowledge 5 References Appleyard, D. (1977): Understanding professional media: Issues, Theory and a Research agenda. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, Reprint No. 150 from Human Behaviour and Environment 2, Dorta, T. & Lalande, P. (1998). The Impact of Virtual Reality on the Design Process. ACADIA 1998: Digital Design Studios: Do Computers Make a Difference? Ervin, S. (2001): Digital Landscape and Modeling and Visualization: A Research Agenda Special Issue, Our Visual Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, Hartman, J., & Wernecke, J. (1996): The VRML 2.0 Handbook: Building Moving Worlds on the Web. Addison-Wesley, New York. Nothhelfer, U. (2002): Landscape Architecture in the Reality-Virtuality. Trends in GIS and Virtualization in Environmental Planning and Design: Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, 2002, Peri, C. (2000): Exercising Collaborative Design in a Virtual Environment. ACADIA 2000: Eternity, Infinity and Virtuality in Architecture, Repton, H. (1803): Observations on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening: Including Some Remarks on Grecian and Gothic Architecture. Taylor, London; Phaidon, Oxford, 1980 (facs.). Snyder, A. B. & Paley, S. M. (2001): Experiencing an Ancient Assyrian Palace: Methods for a Reconstruction. Reinventing the Discourse: How Digital Tools Help Bridge and Transform Research, Education and Practice in Architecture, Van Maren, G., & Verbree, E. (2000): Karma-vl: 4D GIS and virtual reality for urban planning. GIM International, June 2000:

Navigation Styles in QuickTime VR Scenes

Navigation Styles in QuickTime VR Scenes Christoph Bartneck Department of Industrial Design Eindhoven University of Technology Den Dolech 2, 5600MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands christoph@bartneck.de Abstract.