Content uploaded by Oğuz Orkun Doma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Oğuz Orkun Doma on Jun 26, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
MARCH 2023
DREAMSCAPE: USE OF VIRTUAL REALITY IN
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & EDUCATION
Ph.D. THESIS
Oğuz Orkun DOMA
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL
Department of Informatics
Architectural Design Computing Program
MARCH 2023
DREAMSCAPE: USE OF VIRTUAL REALITY IN
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & EDUCATION
Ph.D. THESIS
Oğuz Orkun DOMA
(523142004)
Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. Sinan Mert ŞENER
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL
Department of Informatics
Architectural Design Computing Program
MART 2023
DREAMSCAPE: MİMARİ TASARIM VE EĞİTİMİNDE
SANAL GERÇEKLİK KULLANIMI
DOKTORA TEZİ
Oğuz Orkun DOMA
(523142004)
Tez Danışmanı: Prof. Dr. Sinan Mert ŞENER
ISTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM ENSTİTÜSÜ
Bilişim Anabilim Dalı
Mimari Tasarımda Bilişim Programı
v
Thesis Advisor : Prof. Dr. Sinan Mert ŞENER ..............................
İstanbul Technical University
Jury Members : Prof. Dr. Birgül ÇOLAKOĞLU .............................
Istanbul Technical University
Prof. Dr. Salih OFLUOĞLU ..............................
Antalya Bilim University
Prof. Dr. Leman Figen GÜL ..............................
Istanbul Technical University
Assist. Prof. Dr. Güven ÇATAK ..............................
Bahçeşehir University
Oğuz Orkun DOMA, a Ph.D. student of ITU Graduate School student ID 523142004,
successfully defended the thesis/dissertation entitled “DREAMSCAPE: USE OF
VIRTUAL REALITY IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & EDUCATION”, which he
prepared after fulfilling the requirements specified in the associated legislations,
before the jury whose signatures are below.
Date of Submission : 12 January 2023
Date of Defense : 24 March 2023
vi
vii
To dreams that inspire us to build realities,
and to my family,
viii
ix
FOREWORD
Completing my PhD marks a significant milestone in my academic life. I am proud to
share this thesis as an account of the knowledge and insights I have gained. I sincerely
appreciate everyone who has supported and encouraged me during this journey.
I am deeply grateful to my advisor, Prof. Dr. Sinan Mert ŞENER, who not only guided
me throughout my PhD but also served as an inspiring role model and father figure. I
extend my appreciation to the members of my thesis committee, Prof. Dr. Salih
OFLUOĞLU, who was also my BIM professor during my undergraduate studies, and
Prof. Dr. Birgül ÇOLAKOĞLU. Their invaluable expertise and guidance have been
instrumental in shaping this work. I am also grateful to my thesis defense jury
members, Assist. Prof. Dr. Güven ÇATAK, an architect in game studies and the video
game industry, who inspired me to pursue a career in video game design and
development, and Prof. Dr. Leman Figen GÜL, for their expert advice, valuable
feedback, and constructive criticism, which greatly improved the quality of this work.
I thank the faculty and staff at the ITU Faculty of Architecture, where I worked as a
research assistant for seven years of my PhD studies. Particularly Begüm
HAMZAOĞLU and Süheyla Müge HALICI, my classmates and colleagues, and Instr.
Dr. Çiğdem EREN, with whom I had the pleasure of teaching first-year students. I am
grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sema ALAÇAM, my inspiring professor and roommate in
223, the White Room, for her always positive and optimistic attitude, and her unending
energy. I also acknowledge Assoc. Prof. Çetin TÜKER for his valuable insights in
design cognition. Special thanks go to my undergraduate and master's degree
professors from BAU, Prof. Dr. Ahmet EYÜCE, whose memory will always be
cherished, and Prof. Dr. Özen EYÜCE for being inspiring role models and motivating
me to pursue an academic career. I am indebted to Assist. Prof. Dr. Belinda TORUS,
who introduced me to my advisor Prof. Şener and offered consistent guidance and
support throughout my PhD studies.
My colleagues at Crytek Istanbul, where I worked as a VR consultant and level
designer on an R&D project conducted in collaboration with İTÜNOVA TTO,
especially Abdurrahman KURT, Ozan ÖZKAN, Utku BAYAT, Haşim AKKAYA,
and co-founders Avni YERLI and Faruk YERLI, deserve special mention for their
contributions to my experience in the video game industry and VR development. At
Crytek, I had the opportunity to work with their skilled team, gaining hands-on
experience with state-of-the-art VR technology and employing the latest industry
practices in VR. I am also grateful to my colleagues from Akstek, where we created
Black Diamond VR. And to my colleagues and managers from Neo Auvra, particularly
Tarcan KİPER. I also thank Behiç Can Aldemir, who has been a dear friend since our
freshmen year at BAU, was also a fellow PhD classmate at ITU, and is a LEGO
enthusiast, whose friendship and contribution to this thesis have been invaluable.
I am eternally grateful to my family—my mother Nuran DOMA, father Murat Aydın
DOMA, and brother Umur Aykut DOMA—for their unconditional love,
encouragement, and support throughout my academic journey. I must also honor the
memory of my late grandparents, Mine Hatun KALAFAT and Hilmi KALAFAT,
x
whose unfailing support and encouragement were a constant source of motivation for
me. I regret not spending more time with them, often using my PhD studies and work
as excuses. Had they been here to witness it, my completion of this PhD degree would
fill them with pride. A special heartfelt thank you must be given to my beloved Gökçe
YALÇINKAYA, who has shown incredible understanding and patience, supporting
me throughout the writing of this thesis and for her significant contributions to the
DREAMSCAPE research project.
I am grateful to all the participants who generously dedicated their time and shared
their experiences in the user studies and DREAMSCAPE workshop, making this
research possible. I also thank Epic Games for providing Unreal Engine and its
comprehensive documentation for free, and the Epic Developer Community for their
support. The development of Dreamscape Bricks VR was made possible by harnessing
the power of Unreal Engine 4 and the valuable resources provided by this community.
My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Zeynep DÖRTBUDAK for her assistance with
statistical analyses and her help in proofreading the draft manuscripts, as well as Buket
SERT for her careful proofreading of the thesis. Lastly, I would like to extend my
gratitude to everyone who has directly or indirectly contributed to the successful
completion of this PhD thesis, including those whose names I may have inadvertently
omitted. I deeply appreciate and value the support and contributions that made this
journey not only possible but also immensely rewarding.
As a child, I loved playing with LEGO bricks, spending countless hours designing and
building creations. The limited number of bricks required me to document my designs
before disassembling them for new ones. I first tried photographing them, but in the
late 90s, this was slow and costly. Instead, I opted to draw them from top and side
views on graph paper, serendipitously rediscovering the principles of orthographic
drawing. Today, having developed a VR app offering limitless LEGO bricks and
digital documentation, I feel a childhood dream fulfilled. The excitement of an infinite
supply of bricks and digitally capturing creations is extraordinary, as if I have
completed a project that began over two decades ago.
As Shakespeare so eloquently penned in The Tempest, “We are such stuff as dreams
are made on;” Within our dreams, we conjure alternate realities that feel as real as the
world around us. Consider, for instance, the process of designing a concert hall. In our
waking hours, it demands considerable time and effort. However, in our dreams, we
can merely envision a concert hall beyond a door, step through, and find ourselves in
a space unconsciously designed in seconds, convincingly realistic and detailed. In
dreams, our minds suspend disbelief, allowing authentic experiences in imagined
spaces. This captivating idea of designing while immersed within spaces we create,
much like we do in our dreams, serves as the foundation for this thesis, as we develop
immersive and intuitive virtual design environments. Through the DREAMSCAPE
framework and Dreamscape Bricks VR, we aim to harness virtual reality's potential as
a transformative design tool. With this research, I hope to not only expand our
understanding of VR’s capabilities but also inspire architects and designers to embrace
this powerful medium in their creative endeavors.
March 2023
Oğuz Orkun DOMA
(Architect)
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD ............................................................................................................. ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... xi
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xv
SYMBOLS .............................................................................................................. xvii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xxi
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ xxv
ÖZET ...................................................................................................................... xxix
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Objective and Scope ........................................................................................... 3
1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Structure of Thesis ........................................................................................... 11
2. VIRTUAL REALITY AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ........................... 13
2.1 A Taxonomy of Computer-Generated Realities: VR, AR, MR, and XR ......... 15
2.2 A Brief History of Virtual Reality .................................................................... 19
2.3 Virtual Reality Applications in Architecture ................................................... 23
2.3.1 VR in architectural visualization ............................................................... 24
2.3.2 VR as an architectural design tool ............................................................ 25
2.3.3 VR in architectural education and training ............................................... 27
2.4 Chapter Conclusion .......................................................................................... 29
3. THE LEGO BRICKS: ANALOGUE COMPONENTS FOR PHYSICAL
AND DIGITAL .................................................................................................... 31
3.1 An Introduction to the LEGO Building System ............................................... 32
3.1.1 A brief history of LEGO and education .................................................... 33
3.1.2 LEGO bricks in architecture and design education .................................. 34
3.1.3 LEGO bricks in digital world and CAD ................................................... 35
3.2 Terminology and Elements of LEGO Bricks ................................................... 37
3.2.1 Types of LEGO pieces .............................................................................. 37
3.2.2 Dimensions of LEGO bricks ..................................................................... 38
3.2.3 Elements of a LEGO brick and connection rules ...................................... 40
3.2.4 Building techniques ................................................................................... 41
3.2.4.1 Interlocking principle ......................................................................... 41
3.2.4.2 Studs not on top (SNOT) building ..................................................... 42
3.2.4.3 Offsetting with jumper plates ............................................................. 43
3.2.5 Human scale in LEGO creations ............................................................... 44
3.3 A Preliminary Workshop to Develop the Experimental Tool .......................... 45
3.3.1 Methodology of the preliminary workshop .............................................. 46
3.3.2 Details of the workshop ............................................................................ 47
3.3.3 Results of the workshop ............................................................................ 50
3.3.4 Discussion of the workshop ...................................................................... 52
4. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF DREAMSCAPE BRICKS VR............ 55
xii
4.1 Background and Related Work ........................................................................ 55
4.2 Design Objectives ............................................................................................. 58
4.2.1 Embodiment / Experience / Manipulation taxonomy ............................... 59
4.3 Features and Implementation ........................................................................... 61
4.3.1 Controllers, motion tracking, and object interactions ............................... 62
4.3.2 Locomotion in VR ..................................................................................... 69
4.3.3 Polarity-based LEGO brick interactions ................................................... 71
4.3.4 Temporal rewind ....................................................................................... 73
4.3.5 Changing the user’s scale .......................................................................... 74
4.3.5.1 Life-size bricks (1:1 scale) ................................................................. 74
4.3.5.2 Precision building scale (1:10 scale) .................................................. 74
4.3.5.3 Figure-sized user (1:42.5 Scale) ......................................................... 76
4.3.6 Save and load system ................................................................................ 76
4.3.7 Tutorial ...................................................................................................... 76
4.3.8 Audio ......................................................................................................... 77
4.3.9 Haptic feedback ......................................................................................... 77
4.3.10 Additional features .................................................................................. 78
4.4 User Experience Evaluation and Test Cases .................................................... 78
4.4.1 Test participants ........................................................................................ 79
4.4.2 Testing apparatus....................................................................................... 80
4.4.3 Testing procedure and questionnaires ....................................................... 80
4.4.3.1 Usability testing .................................................................................. 81
4.4.3.2 Presence testing .................................................................................. 82
4.4.3.3 Comfort assessment ............................................................................ 83
4.4.4 Questionnaire results and findings ............................................................ 83
4.5 Design and Development Conclusions ............................................................. 89
5. DESIGN EXPERIMENT METHODOLOGY .................................................. 91
5.1 Protocol Analysis.............................................................................................. 92
5.1.1 FBS framework ......................................................................................... 93
5.1.1.1 Coding with FBS ontology ................................................................. 94
5.1.1.2 Problem-solution index ...................................................................... 98
5.1.2 Linkography ............................................................................................ 100
5.1.2.1 Links and patterns ............................................................................ 101
5.1.2.2 Interpreting linkographs ................................................................... 102
5.1.2.3 Linkographic entropy ....................................................................... 103
5.1.3 EEM taxonomy ....................................................................................... 106
5.2 Study Design .................................................................................................. 110
5.2.1 Participants .............................................................................................. 112
5.2.2 Apparatus ................................................................................................ 114
5.2.3 Experimental setup .................................................................................. 115
5.3 Design Tasks .................................................................................................. 116
5.3.1 Design Task 1: Shelter ............................................................................ 116
5.3.2 Design Task 2: Pavilion .......................................................................... 116
5.3.3 Selection of LEGO parts for the design sessions .................................... 119
5.4 Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................... 119
5.4.1 Recording design sessions ....................................................................... 120
5.4.2 Documenting models .............................................................................. 122
5.4.3 Retrospective think-aloud protocols........................................................ 122
5.4.4 Participant survey .................................................................................... 124
5.5 Methodology Chapter Overview .................................................................... 125
xiii
6. DESIGN EXPERIMENT RESULTS ............................................................... 127
6.1 Analysis of the Quantitative Data .................................................................. 128
6.1.1 Build statistics ......................................................................................... 129
6.1.1.1 Design duration ................................................................................ 129
6.1.1.2 Total bricks used .............................................................................. 130
6.1.1.3 Build speed ....................................................................................... 130
6.1.1.4 Build bulkiness ................................................................................. 130
6.1.1.5 Bricks variety ................................................................................... 130
6.1.2 FBS design issues and design processes ................................................. 131
6.1.3 Linkography ............................................................................................ 136
6.1.4 EEM analysis of design actions and durations ........................................ 138
6.1.5 Post-experiment questionnaire ................................................................ 141
6.1.6 User feedback questionnaire ................................................................... 142
6.2 Analysis of the Qualitative Data .................................................................... 142
6.2.1 Verbal comments of participants ............................................................ 142
6.2.2 The researchers’ overview ...................................................................... 146
6.3 Experimental Design Validation .................................................................... 147
6.3.1 Gender of participants ............................................................................. 147
6.3.2 Age and professional experience of the participants .............................. 147
6.3.3 LEGO design experience ........................................................................ 148
6.3.4 Video game playing frequency ............................................................... 148
6.3.5 Previous VR experience of participants .................................................. 148
6.3.6 Selection of design tasks ......................................................................... 148
6.3.7 Interaction of physical and virtual sessions ............................................ 149
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................................... 151
7.1 Discussion of the Results ............................................................................... 151
7.1.1 Intuitive design tools in VR .................................................................... 152
7.1.2 Impact of multi-scalar design exploration in VR .................................... 152
7.1.3 Cognitive processes and design actions in VR ....................................... 153
7.1.4 Longer design durations in VR ............................................................... 154
7.1.5 Effect of spatial perception in VR ........................................................... 155
7.2 Research Implications and Contributions to the Field ................................... 158
7.3 The DREAMSCAPE Framework: Key Implications ..................................... 160
7.4 Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research .................................. 163
7.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 165
7.6 Notices and Disclaimers ................................................................................. 166
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 169
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 185
CURRICULUM VITAE ........................................................................................ 239
xiv
xv
ABBREVIATIONS
2D : Two-dimensional
3D : Three-dimensional
AIA : American Institute of Architects
AR : Augmented reality
CAAD : Computer-aided architectural design
CAD : Computer-aided design
CAVE : Cave Automatic Virtual Environment
CGI : Computer-generated imagery
CPU : Central processing unit
DoF : Degrees of freedom
EEM : Embodiment-Experience-Manipulation
FBS : Function-Behavior-Structure
FOV : Field of view
FPS : Frames per second
GPU : Graphics processing unit
HMD : Head mounted display
IVE : Immersive virtual environment
IVR : Immersive virtual reality
LDU : LDraw unit
LED : Light-emitting diode
MR : Mixed reality
PC : Personal computer
Phys. : Physical
SD : Standard deviation
Stats : Statistics
UI : User interface
VR : Virtual reality
XR : Extended reality
xvi
xvii
SYMBOLS
H : Entropy
Hf : Forelink entropy
Hb : Backlink entropy
Hh : Horizonlink entropy
pu : Prime unit (1.6 mm)
λ : LEGO unit, the width of a 1 x 1 brick or plate
σ : Standard deviation
xviii
xix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1 : The modified grounded theory approach used in this thesis. .................. 11
Table 3.1 : Component-Based Living Units workshop schedule. ............................. 48
Table 3.2 : Post-workshop evaluation survey results. ............................................... 51
Table 4.1 : Feature comparison of Dreamscape Bricks VR and other
commercially available VR design tools. ................................................ 57
Table 4.2 : Reviewing the interaction fidelity of input devices available for object
interactions. ............................................................................................. 64
Table 4.3: Object interactions in Dreamscape Bricks VR: interactions,
instructions, inputs, and feedback. .......................................................... 68
Table 4.4: Connection polarity matrix of LEGO elements in Dreamscape Bricks
VR. .......................................................................................................... 72
Table 4.5: Demographics and characteristics of the test users. ................................. 79
Table 4.6: Results of Nielsen’s usability heuristics survey for Dreamscape Bricks
VR. .......................................................................................................... 84
Table 4.7: Results of Sutcliffe and Gault’s VR-specific usability heuristics survey
for Dreamscape Bricks VR. .................................................................... 85
Table 4.8 : Results of the Subjective Presence in Virtual Environments Scale
(SPES) for Dreamscape Bricks VR. ........................................................ 87
Table 4.9 : Results of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire for Dreamscape
Bricks VR. ............................................................................................... 88
Table 5.1 : FBS design issues explained with comment examples. .......................... 95
Table 5.2 : FBS design processes explained. ............................................................ 95
Table 5.3 : Linkographic entropy analysis of a pilot study. .................................... 106
Table 5.4 : Design activities defined in the EEM taxonomy. ................................. 107
Table 5.5 : Comparison of EEM design action occurrence percentages from a
pilot study. ............................................................................................. 108
Table 5.6 : Comparison of EEM design action durations from a pilot study. ......... 109
Table 5.7 : Anonymized list of design experiment participants. ............................. 113
Table 6.1 : Build statistics comparison of design sessions and Wilcoxon
rank-sum test results. ............................................................................. 129
Table 6.2 : FBS design issue distribution comparison of design protocols and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results. ............................................................ 131
Table 6.3 : FBS design process distribution comparison of design protocols and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results. ............................................................ 133
Table 6.4 : P-S indices comparison of design protocols and Wilcoxon rank-sum
test results. ............................................................................................. 133
Table 6.5 : Linkographic entropy comparison of design protocols and Wilcoxon
rank-sum test results. ............................................................................. 137
Table 6.6 : EEM design actions comparison of design sessions and Wilcoxon
rank-sum test results. ............................................................................. 139
xx
Table 6.7 : EEM design action duration comparison of design sessions and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results. ............................................................ 140
Table 6.8 : Post-experiment questionnaire results. .................................................. 141
Table 6.9 : Participants’ evaluation of the user experience in the Dreamscape
Bricks VR application. .......................................................................... 142
Table 6.10 : Thematic analysis of participants’ feedback on using Dreamscape
Bricks VR and LEGO bricks in design. .............................................. 143
Table 6.11: Build statistics and linkographic entropy comparison of shelter and
pavilion design tasks and Wilcoxon rank-sum test results. ................ 149
Table A.1 : Design tasks and session order for each participant. ............................ 196
Table B.1 : Linkographic entropy comparison of individual design protocols. ...... 197
Table B.2 : Build statistics comparison of individual design protocols. ................. 197
Table B.3 : EEM action percentages comparison of individual design protocols. . 198
Table B.4 : EEM action durations comparison of individual design protocols. ..... 199
Table C.1 : Comments provided by Lily in protocols and the participant survey. . 201
Table C.2 : Comments provided by Dione in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 202
Table C.3 : Comments provided by Maxine in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 203
Table C.4 : Comments provided by Brian in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 204
Table C.5 : Comments provided by Irene in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 205
Table C.6 : Comments provided by Esther in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 206
Table C.7 : Comments provided by Eddie in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 207
Table C.8 : Comments provided by Tony in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 208
Table C.9 : Comments provided by Amy in protocols and the participant
survey. .................................................................................................. 209
Table C.10 : Comments provided by Dory in protocols and the participant
survey. ................................................................................................ 210
Table C.11 : Comments provided by Morrigan in protocols and the participant
survey. ................................................................................................ 211
Table C.12 : Comments provided by James in protocols and the participant
survey. ................................................................................................ 212
Table C.13 : Comments provided by Azure in protocols and the participant
survey. ................................................................................................ 213
Table C.14 : Comments provided by Victor in protocols and the participant
survey. ................................................................................................ 214
xxi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1 : Flowchart of the study methodology adopted in this thesis. ................... 7
Figure 1.2 : Flowchart of the classical hypothetico-deductive model. ....................... 8
Figure 1.3 : Flowchart of the grounded theory method by Corbin & Strauss............. 8
Figure 2.1 : Approximate number of VR headset users on the Steam platform. ...... 23
Figure 2.2 : Analysis of “Architectural Design” and “Virtual Reality” works
listed in Scopus between 1995 and 2020. ............................................. 26
Figure 2.3 : Prevalence of the focus topics of the reviewed CumInCAD articles,
reproduced after Milanovic et al. (2017). ............................................. 27
Figure 3.1 : LEGO pieces classified by type. ........................................................... 38
Figure 3.2 : Nominal dimensions of standard LEGO pieces. ................................... 39
Figure 3.3 : Elements of a LEGO piece illustrated. .................................................. 40
Figure 3.4 : Interlocked joints with LEGO pieces. ................................................... 42
Figure 3.5 : Studs not on top (SNOT) building. ....................................................... 43
Figure 3.6 : Offsetting with a jumper plate. .............................................................. 43
Figure 3.7 : A LEGO Minifigure and a human figure compared in size and
scaled to each other. .............................................................................. 44
Figure 3.8 : A LEGO Minifigure scaled at 42.5:1 and two human figures
compared. .............................................................................................. 45
Figure 3.9 : Component-Based Living Units workshop poster. ............................... 47
Figure 3.10 : The final assignment handout from the workshop. ............................. 49
Figure 3.11 : A sample student work from the workshop. ........................................ 50
Figure 4.1 : The threefold design activity flow proposed in the DREAMSCAPE
framework. ............................................................................................ 59
Figure 4.2 : Overview of the system architecture and design features of
Dreamscape Bricks VR. ........................................................................ 62
Figure 4.3 : Oculus Touch controller input mapping and primary fingers for
object interactions in Dreamscape Bricks VR. ..................................... 67
Figure 4.4 : Object interaction in Dreamscape Bricks VR: applying force to
connect and separate LEGO bricks. ...................................................... 69
Figure 4.5 : Connection sockets setup for a 2x2 brick in the Socket Manager of
Unreal Engine 4. ................................................................................... 72
Figure 4.6 : The physical VR experience area and Dreamscape Bricks VR’s
design space are compared at different scales. ..................................... 75
Figure 4.7 : A screenshot of Dreamscape Bricks VR from a user test session. ........ 78
Figure 4.8 : Logo and logotype design for the Dreamscape Bricks VR application. 86
Figure 5.1 : FBS ontology explained, reproduced after Kan and Gero (2017). ........ 94
Figure 5.2: Dynamic percentage of FBS issues in a pilot protocol........................... 97
Figure 5.3: Dynamic number of FBS processes in a pilot protocol. ......................... 97
Figure 5.4 : A sample temporal analysis comparing P-S issue indices in physical
and virtual design sessions of a pilot study by quintiles. ...................... 99
Figure 5.5 : Steps of drawing a linkograph with five design moves. ...................... 101
Figure 5.6 : Illustration of linkography concepts and terminology on a sample
linkograph devised from a pilot study. ............................................... 102
Figure 5.7 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs comparing the protocols of
physical (top) and virtual (bottom) sessions of a pilot study. ............. 106
Figure 5.8 : Scale durations during the virtual session in a pilot study. ................. 109
xxii
Figure 5.9 : Within-subjects case-crossover design diagram of the study. ............. 111
Figure 5.10 : The overview of the physical setup. .................................................. 117
Figure 5.11 : The overview of the virtual setup. ..................................................... 117
Figure 5.12 : The handout provided to participants for Design Task 1: Shelter. .... 118
Figure 5.13 : The handout provided to participants for Design Task 2: Pavilion. .. 118
Figure 5.14 : BORIS interface during the coding process of a design session
using the EEM taxonomy. ................................................................ 121
Figure 5.15 : Customized keyboard for video coding. ............................................ 121
Figure 6.1 : FBS design issue distribution comparison of design protocols. .......... 131
Figure 6.2 : FBS design process distribution comparison of design protocols. ...... 132
Figure 6.3 : Problem-Solution indices comparison of design protocols. ................ 133
Figure 6.4 : The temporal analysis comparing mean P-S issue indices in
physical and virtual design sessions by deciles. ................................. 135
Figure 6.5 : The temporal analysis comparing mean P-S process indices in
physical and virtual design sessions by deciles. ................................. 135
Figure 6.6 : Overlay of all linkographs from the study, with virtual sessions
at the bottom and physical sessions at the top, highlighting
recurring patterns and structural similarities across participants in
darker shades. ...................................................................................... 138
Figure 6.7 : EEM design actions comparison of design sessions. .......................... 139
Figure 6.8 : EEM design action duration comparison of design sessions. .............. 140
Figure 6.9 : Mean scale durations in the virtual design sessions. ........................... 140
Figure 6.10 : Word cloud visualization of the 150 most frequently repeated
words in the participants’ comments. .............................................. 145
Figure 6.11 : Word cloud visualization of the 20 most frequently repeated
phrases in the participants’ comments. ............................................ 145
Figure 7.1 : Illustration of the dorsal and ventral streams in the human brain. ...... 156
Figure A.1: Inventory of parts used in the design experiments. ............................. 187
Figure A.2 : Call for participants poster. ................................................................. 188
Figure A.3 : Age distribution of the participants (M:25.57, SD: 4.62). .................. 189
Figure A.4 : Professions and educational status of the participants. ....................... 189
Figure A.5 : Video game playing frequency chart of the participants. ................... 189
Figure A.6 : Warm-up exercise 1: Lever House, instructions and model
reproduced after Alphin’s book: “The LEGO Architect” (2015). ...... 190
Figure A.7 : Warm-up exercise 2: The Cube Building (original work). ................. 190
Figure A.8 : The participant survey form of the study, containing the
demographic questionnaire, the post-experiment questionnaire,
and the user feedback questions, page 1/4. ......................................... 191
Figure A.9 : The participant survey form of the study, containing the
demographic questionnaire, the post-experiment questionnaire,
and the user feedback questions, page 2/4. ......................................... 192
Figure A.10 : The participant survey form of the study, containing the
demographic questionnaire, the post-experiment questionnaire,
and the user feedback questions, page 3/4. ....................................... 193
Figure A.11 : The participant survey form of the study, containing the
demographic questionnaire, the post-experiment questionnaire,
and the user feedback questions, page 4/4. ....................................... 194
Figure A.12 : Thumbnails from a sample physical session recording. ................... 195
Figure A.13 : Thumbnails from a sample virtual session capture. .......................... 195
xxiii
Figure A.14 : Thumbnails from a sample retrospective think-aloud session
capture. ............................................................................................. 195
Figure B.1 : A sample transcript from Brian's design protocols showing
utterances and the corresponding FBS coding. ................................... 199
Figure D.1 : Lily’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right. ........ 215
Figure D.2 : Dione’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right. ..... 215
Figure D.3 : Maxine’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right. ... 215
Figure D.4 : Brian’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right. ...... 216
Figure D.5 : Irene’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right. ....... 216
Figure D.6 : Esther’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right. ..... 216
Figure D.7 : Eddie’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right. ...... 216
Figure D.8 : Tony’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right........ 217
Figure D.9 : Amy’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right. ....... 217
Figure D.10 : Dory’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right. ..... 217
Figure D.11 : Morrigan’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo)
on right.............................................................................................. 217
Figure D.12 : James’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right. ... 218
Figure D.13 : Azure’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right. ... 218
Figure D.14 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right. ... 218
Figure D.15 : Tony’s shelter (in situ): Isometric view. ........................................... 219
Figure D.16 : Tony’s pavilion (in virtuo): Isometric view. .................................... 219
Figure D.17 : Tony’s shelter (in situ): Side views. ................................................. 220
Figure D.18 : Tony’s shelter (in situ): Plan view. ................................................... 220
Figure D.19 : Tony’s pavilion (in virtuo): Side views. ........................................... 221
Figure D.20 : Tony’s pavilion (in virtuo): Plan view. ............................................ 221
Figure D.7 : Comparison of design issue distribution in Tony’s design protocols. 222
Figure D.8 : Dynamic design issues in Tony’s physical session. ........................... 222
Figure D.23 : Dynamic design issues in Tony’s virtual session. ............................ 222
Figure D.10 : Comparison of design process distribution in Tony’s design
protocols. .......................................................................................... 223
Figure D.11 : Dynamic design processes in Tony’s physical session. ................... 223
Figure D.26 : Dynamic design processes in Tony’s virtual session. ...................... 223
Figure D.27 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs (in virtuo on the left, in situ
on the right) of Tony’s design sessions. ........................................... 224
Figure D.28 : Azure’s shelter (in situ): Isometric view. ......................................... 225
Figure D.29 : Azure’s pavilion (in virtuo): Isometric view. ................................... 225
Figure D.30 : Azure’s shelter (in situ): Side views. ................................................ 226
Figure D.31 : Azure’s shelter (in situ): Plan view. ................................................. 226
Figure D.32 : Azure’s pavilion (in virtuo): Side views........................................... 227
Figure D.33 : Azure’s pavilion (in virtuo): Top view. ............................................ 227
Figure D.20 : Comparison of design issue distribution in Azure’s design
protocols. .......................................................................................... 228
Figure D.21 : Dynamic design issues in Azure’s physical session. ........................ 228
Figure D.36 : Dynamic design issues in Azure’s virtual session. ........................... 228
Figure D.23 : Comparison of design process distribution in Azure’s design
protocols. .......................................................................................... 229
Figure D.24 : Dynamic design processes in Azure’s physical session. .................. 229
Figure D.39 : Dynamic design processes in Azure’s virtual session. ..................... 229
Figure D.40 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs (in virtuo on the left, in situ
on the right) of Azure’s design sessions. .......................................... 230
xxiv
Figure D.41 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ): Isometric view........................................ 231
Figure D.42 : Victor’s shelter (in virtuo): Isometric view. ..................................... 231
Figure D.43 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ): Side views. ............................................. 232
Figure D.44 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ): Plan view. ............................................... 232
Figure D.45 : Victor’s shelter (in virtuo): Side views. ............................................ 233
Figure D.46 : Victor’s shelter (in virtuo): Plan view. ............................................. 233
Figure D.33 : Comparison of design issue distribution in Victor’s design
protocols. .......................................................................................... 234
Figure D.34 : Dynamic design issues in Victor’s physical session. ........................ 234
Figure D.49 : Dynamic design issues in Victor’s virtual session. .......................... 234
Figure D.36 : Comparison of design process distribution in Victor’s design
protocols. .......................................................................................... 235
Figure D.37 : Dynamic design processes in Victor’s physical session. .................. 235
Figure D.52 : Dynamic design processes in Victor’s virtual session. ..................... 235
Figure D.53 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs (in virtuo on the left, in situ
on the right) of Victor’s design sessions. ......................................... 236
Figure D.54 : Tailpiece: A visual representation of the transition from a 1:1 scale
traditional LEGO construction (top) to an immersive 1:42.5 scale
virtual environment within the Dreamscape Bricks VR application
(bottom), showcasing the transformative power of the ability to
change scale in VR. .......................................................................... 237
xxv
DREAMSCAPE: USE OF VIRTUAL REALITY IN
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN & EDUCATION
SUMMARY
Virtual reality (VR) technology enables users to engage with digital environments that
simulate reality in real time, creating a sense of immersion. The architecture industry
has embraced VR, as it offers architects a powerful platform for visualizing and
presenting projects effectively. Moreover, VR enhances the architectural design
process by providing designers with a wide range of creative possibilities and the
ability to iteratively test ideas in real time. Furthermore, VR can be utilized in
architectural education to offer students an immersive, interactive learning experience
and facilitate collaboration and communication among architects, clients, and
stakeholders. These factors suggest that VR has the potential to transform architectural
design and education processes, as well as open up new opportunities for architects.
This thesis investigates the impact of the medium (physical vs. immersive VR) on the
design process in architecture. This research focuses on how designers experience the
design process in an immersive VR environment compared to a physical environment.
An innovative VR design framework is proposed in this thesis, named
DREAMSCAPE, which stands for Digital Reality Environment as A Medium for
Studio Collaboration in Architectural Production and Education. The framework
emphasizes the use of direct manipulation and includes three main activities:
Embodiment, Experience, and Manipulation. The DREAMSCAPE framework enables
designers to represent and engage with their ideas, preview and evaluate their design
concepts, and iterate on and refine their designs to develop new ideas. In this respect,
the DREAMSCAPE framework seeks to provide a more hands-on, intuitive approach
to designing in a VR environment that transcends the limitations of traditional
computer-aided design (CAD) systems.
To demonstrate and test the proposed DREAMSCAPE framework, Dreamscape
Bricks VR was developed, which is a VR design application powered by Unreal
Engine 4. The application uses LEGO® bricks as the building blocks for creating
designs in a virtual design environment for several reasons. First, the intrinsic
modularity and adaptability of LEGO pieces foster design creativity and allow for
experimentation. Second, the close similarity in appearance, behavior, and
functionality between physical LEGO bricks and their digital versions allows for a
direct manipulation interface in LEGO-based CAD. This enables users to build and
modify their designs intuitively, just as they would with physical LEGO bricks. Third,
users' past experiences with LEGO pieces make it easier to transfer their knowledge
and skills from the physical medium to the virtual environment, facilitating the
transition to design in VR. Overall, LEGO bricks provide an effective and versatile
component system for investigating architectural design and education in virtual
reality.
xxvi
A workshop was conducted with students to gather feedback on using a LEGO bricks-
based CAD application to design living units. The participants discussed both positive
and negative aspects of using LEGO bricks in the design process in the post-workshop
survey. Feedback was used to create a prototype of the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application that incorporates several features and user experience elements from the
DREAMSCAPE framework. These features include a VR locomotion and user
controller interface, object interactions and basic operations (such as the polarity-based
connection system that simulates the connection rules of physical LEGO bricks), a
temporal rewind system to undo mistakes, user scaling modes, a save and load system,
a tutorial, audio and haptic feedback, a photo mode, and a design statistics and events
logger.
Before finalizing development, the usability, presence, and comfort of Dreamscape
Bricks VR were evaluated through user testing and questionnaires with 12 participants,
including architects, interior architects, and urban designers. In the four questionnaires
conducted, the majority of users were able to use the core features intuitively and
reported positive experiences, with the application being in compliance with usability
principles and providing a strong sense of presence and comfort. Feedback from
participants was used to improve and optimize the application further for a more
natural design process.
After developing and validating the Dreamscape Bricks VR tool for comparing
participants' design behavior both in situ (using physical LEGO bricks) and in virtuo
(using Dreamscape Bricks VR), design sessions were conducted with 14 participants
to evaluate the impact of VR on the architectural design process. Participants were
tasked with designing a shelter and a pavilion, one in situ and the other in virtuo. This
research’s methodology employed a qualitative approach that integrates grounded
theory with modifications to account for the subjective nature of the data collected in
design experiments. Protocol analysis, a qualitative method that focuses on designers'
cognitive processes, was used to analyze the design processes in situ and in virtuo.
Protocol data was gathered through video recordings, retrospective think-aloud
reports, and a post-experiment survey to assess participants' experiences and
perceptions of the physical and virtual design processes.
The data was analyzed using an iterative process as suggested by the constant
comparison method of grounded theory. This approach allowed for a focused
examination of particular aspects of the design process and enabled the identification
of patterns and trends. The Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) framework and
linkographic entropy analysis were used to analyze the participants' cognitive design
process. After analyzing the FBS results, Embodiment-Experience-Manipulation
(EEM) taxonomy was developed to conduct a deeper analysis of the design activities
observed in the session recordings that could not be reflected in the retrospective self-
reports. The EEM taxonomy allowed for the identification of design actions that might
have been overlooked by more universal analysis methods, such as the FBS
framework.
The comparative analysis results of the design experiments in situ and in virtuo
revealed that cognitive design processes were similarly rich in both environments.
However, the percentages of embodying and experiencing activities were notably
higher in VR. This difference was attributed to Dreamscape Bricks VR's ability to
allow users to change their scale in the virtual environment, which offers unique
opportunities for the design process that are not possible in the physical medium. The
ability to easily switch between scales in VR allows designers to experience their
xxvii
designs from different angles and scales, resulting in a more spatial and comprehensive
understanding and efficient manipulation of design. It also enhances the sense of
presence in the VR environment, making the design experience more immersive and
engaging.
The differences between the design process in physical and virtual environments can
be explained by the two-streams hypothesis that suggests that the spatial and objective
perceptions of the human brain are processed through separate neural pathways. The
dorsal pathway processes spatial perception, navigation, and visual-motor information,
while the ventral pathway is responsible for recognizing object attributes like size,
shape, color, and texture. In architectural design, both object recognition and spatial
perception are crucial. Therefore, designing spaces without spatial experience can limit
the design process and impede the creation of a holistic design experience.
Architects primarily use object identification when designing spaces with physical
representations, but these spaces are intended to be experienced through spatial
perception and navigation once built. Designing with object-scaled physical
representations alone, without experiencing the space spatially, is like a deaf composer
writing music without being able to hear it, relying only on the note representations to
imagine the finished product. Using immersive virtual reality can enhance the design
process by allowing architects to experience their designs from different scales and
perspectives, leading to a more accurate representation of the space and its context.
VR enables architects to utilize spatial perception in their designs, creating a more
holistic design experience.
Another key concern of the DREAMSCAPE framework is to enable collaboration in
the metaverse, allowing designers to work together in real time in a shared virtual
space. Although multi-user design experiments were out of the scope of this work, the
framework is expected to facilitate collaboration in the future by allowing users to
design and converse in real time, regardless of their geographic location. The
DREAMSCAPE framework can also be applied to the development of VR design tools
with more complex modular components. The Dreamscape Bricks VR application uses
LEGO bricks as the base component. However, the framework can be used to create
other VR design applications like basic building elements, furniture, and parametric
objects. The framework's contributions could be significant in the development of
next-generation CAD and BIM with more intuitive, embodied, and responsive design
processes in the virtual environment. The results of the DREAMSCAPE project are
expected to contribute to the expansion of the knowledge base for the development of
novel VR applications for architecture.
In conclusion, this study has investigated the impact of VR technology on the
architectural design process, with a focus on the potential benefits of the
DREAMSCAPE framework for improving design VR tools. The results of this study’s
design protocols and user study suggest that VR technology can drastically transform
the way architecture is designed, built, and experienced by architects and students
alike. As metaverse environments and VR headsets become increasingly popular,
professionals are likely to start incorporating VR more and more into their design
processes. Just as flight simulators are widely employed in aviation, VR could
potentially become a highly valuable instrument in architectural education. This study
suggests that VR can allow designers to explore their designs in a new way, opening
creative opportunities and potentially improving the design process.
xxviii
xxix
DREAMSCAPE: MİMARİ TASARIM VE EĞİTİMİNDE
SANAL GERÇEKLİK KULLANIMI
ÖZET
Sanal gerçeklik (virtual reality ya da kısaca VR) teknolojisi, bilgisayımla yaratılan
dijital dünya benzetimlerinin bu ortamların gerçek zamanlı olarak içindeymiş gibi
gerçeklik hissi yaratılacak şekilde deneyimlenmesini mümkün kılan bir teknolojidir.
Mimarların tasarladıkları projeleri görselleştirip kullanıcılara deneyimletebileceği için
güçlü bir platform sağlaması sayesinde, mimarlık endüstrisinde de VR yaygın bir
şekilde kullanılmaktadır. Buna ek olarak sanal gerçeklik teknolojisinin imkânlarından
yararlanmak, tasarımcılara daha geniş bir yelpazede yaratıcı olanaklar sunup,
fikirlerini gerçek zamanlı ve yinelemeli olarak test etmelerini sağlayarak mimari
tasarım sürecine katkıda bulunabilir. Örneğin; mimarlar tasarımlarını geliştirirken
farklı seçenekleri hızlı ve etkin bir şekilde deneyerek ve inceleyerek bir sanal gerçeklik
ortamında test edebilirler. Mimarlık eğitiminde de öğrencilere tasarımlarını mekânsal
olarak deneyimleyerek, ilk elden kavrayışlarını geliştirebilecekleri içindeleyici
(immersive) ve etkileşimli bir öğrenme deneyimi sağlamak amacıyla VR kullanılabilir.
Ayrıca VR; mimarlar, müşteriler ve paydaşlar arasında işbirliğini ve iletişimi
kolaylaştırarak birlikte daha verimli ve etkin bir şekilde çalışmalarını sağlayabilir. Bu
faktörler, sanal gerçekliğin mimari tasarım ve eğitim süreçlerini dönüştürme ve
mimarlar için yeni fırsatlar açma potansiyeline sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.
Bu tezde, tasarım çalışmalarında kullanılan ortamların (fiziksel ortam ve içindeleyici
VR ortamı) mimari tasarım süreci üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır. Özellikle de
tasarımcıların tasarım sürecini, fiziksel bir ortama kıyasla içindeleyici VR ortamında
nasıl deneyimledikleri sorusuna odaklanılmıştır. Bu soruya yanıt olarak,
DREAMSCAPE adlı (açılımı Digital Reality Environment as A Medium for Studio
Collaboration in Architectural Production and Education olup, Türkçeye
DÜŞMEKÂN: Dijital Üretim Şartlarında Mimari Eğitim ve Kolaboratif Araştırma
Noktası olarak çevrilebilir) yenilikçi bir VR tasarım çerçevesi önerilmiştir. Önerilen
çerçeve, doğrudan manipülasyon kullanımına vurgu yapmakta ve üç ana aktivite
tanımlamaktadır: Somutlaştırma, Deneyim ve Manipülasyon. DREAMSCAPE
çerçevesi, tasarımcıların fikirlerinin temsillerini oluşturarak bunlarla etkileşim
kurmalarına, kavramsal tasarımlarını ön izleyerek değerlendirmelerine ve yeni fikirler
geliştirmek için tasarımlarına geri dönüşler yaparak iyileştirmelerine olanak
tanımaktadır. Bu yönüyle DREAMSCAPE çerçevesi, VR ile geleneksel bilgisayar
destekli tasarım (CAD) sistemlerinin sınırlamalarını aşan bir tasarım ortamı sunmak
için daha uygulamalı ve sezgisel (intuitive; sezgi yoluyla keşfedilerek kolayca
öğrenilen) bir yaklaşım sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır.
Önerilen çerçeveyi örneklendirmek ve etkinliğini test etmek üzere, “Dreamscape
Bricks VR” adlı VR tasarım uygulaması tasarlanmış ve Unreal Engine 4 oyun motoru
kullanılarak geliştirilmiştir. Bu araç, sanal bir tasarım ortamında tasarımlar yaratmak
üzere temel yapı taşları olarak LEGO® parçalarını kullanmaktadır. LEGO sistemi,
xxx
çeşitli şekil ve boyutlarda ve birbirine takılabilen çok sayıda modüler yapı bloku
sayesinde çok çeşitli ve sağlam yapılar oluşturulmasına olanak tanıyan, bilindik bir
modüler yapı bloku oyuncak sistemidir. Bu çalışmada geliştirilen VR tasarım aracında
LEGO parçalarının seçilmesinin üç temel nedeni vardır. İlk olarak, LEGO parçalarının
içkin modüler yapısı ve uyumluluğu, tasarımsal yaratıcılığı teşvik etmekte ve farklı
seçenekleri tecrübe etmeye izin vermektedir. İkincisi, fiziksel LEGO parçaları ve
dijital uyarlamaları arasındaki görüntüsel, davranışsal ve işlevsel açıdan yakın
benzerlik, LEGO tabanlı CAD uygulamalarında doğrudan manipülasyon arayüzlerinin
kullanımına olanak vermektedir. Bu, kullanıcıların tıpkı fiziksel LEGO parçalarında
olduğu gibi tasarımlarını doğal ve sezgisel olarak biçimlendirmesine ve geliştirmesine
olanak tanımaktadır. Üçüncüsü, kullanıcıların LEGO parçalarıyla olan geçmiş
deneyimleri, bu bilgi ve becerilerini fiziksel ortamdan sanal ortama aktarmalarını
kolaylaştırarak VR ortamında tasarıma geçişlerini kolaylaştırmaktadır. Sonuç olarak,
LEGO parçaları, sanal gerçeklikte mimari tasarım ve eğitimi araştırmak için etkin ve
çok yönlü bir bileşen sistemi sağlamaktadır.
Dreamscape Bricks VR aracının geliştirme sürecine ışık tutmak üzere, katılımcıların
yaşam birimleri tasarlamak için LEGO parçaları tabanlı bir CAD uygulaması
kullanarak geri bildirimlerini paylaştığı bir ön öğrenci çalıştayı düzenlenmiştir. Atölye
sonrası ankette, tasarım sürecinde LEGO yapım parçaları kullanmanın olumlu ve
olumsuz yönlerinin yorumlanması istenmiştir. Toplanan geri bildirimler daha sonra,
DREAMSCAPE çerçevesinin çeşitli kriterlerini ve kullanıcı deneyimi ögelerini içeren
Dreamscape Bricks VR uygulamasının bir prototipini oluşturmak için kullanılmıştır.
Bu özellikler arasında bir VR hareket ve kullanıcı kumanda arabirimi, nesne
etkileşimleri ve temel operasyonlar (fiziksel LEGO parçalarının birleşme kurallarını
taklit eden çift kutupluluk tabanlı birleşme sistemi gibi), hataları geri almak için bir
zamanı geri sarma sistemi, kullanıcı ölçekleme kipleri, kaydetme ve yükleme sistemi,
öğretici modül, sesli ve haptik geri bildirim, fotoğraf modu ve tasarım istatistikleri ile
olay günlüğü yer almaktadır.
Geliştirme süreci tamamlanmadan önce, Dreamscape Bricks VR'ın kullanılabilirliğini,
bulunma (presence) hissini ve rahatlığını test etmek için kullanıcı testleri ve anketler
uygulanmıştır. Mimarlar, iç mimarlar ve bir şehir tasarımcısından oluşan 12
katılımcıdan, kendilerine verilen talimatlarla Dreamscape Bricks VR'ı kullanarak
verilen tasarımı inşa etmeleri istenmiştir. Ardından, araçla ilgili deneyimlerini
değerlendirmek için dört anket yapılmıştır. Değerlendirme sonuçları, kullanıcıların
çoğunluğunun Dreamscape Bricks VR'ın temel özelliklerini sezgisel olarak
kullanabildiğini göstermektedir. Katılımcılar, uygulamanın genel olarak
kullanılabilirlik ilkelerine uygun olduğunu ve güçlü bir bulunma hissi ve rahatlık
seviyesi sağladığını bildirmiştir. Kullanıcıların çoğu, olumlu ve heyecan verici bir
deneyim yaşadıklarını belirtmiştir. Katılımcıların geri bildirimlerine dayanarak,
tasarım sürecini daha içgüdüsel ve doğal hâle getirmek için tasarım aracı geliştirilmiş
ve optimize edilmiştir.
Katılımcıların tasarım davranışlarının in situ (fiziksel LEGO parçaları kullanarak) ve
in virtuo (Dreamscape Bricks VR kullanılan) ortamlarda karşılaştırılmasını sağlayacak
VR tasarım aracı geliştirilip doğrulandıktan sonra, sanal gerçekliğin mimari tasarım
süreci üzerindeki etkilerini değerlendirmek üzere 14 katılımcıyla bir dizi tasarım
deneyi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılara, biri in situ, diğeri in virtuo olarak inşa
edilecek bir barınak ve pavyon tasarlama görevi verilmiştir. Araştırma metodolojisi
olarak, tasarım deneylerinde toplanan verilerin öznel doğasını hesaba katmak üzere,
temellendirilmiş kuramı (grounded theory) modifikasyonlarla bütünleştiren nitel bir
xxxi
yaklaşım kullanılmıştır. Tasarım süreçlerini in situ ve in virtuo analiz etmek için,
tasarımcıların bilişsel süreçlerine odaklanan nitel bir yöntem olan protokol analizi
kullanılmıştır. Protokol verilerini toplamak için video kayıtları ve retrospektif sesli
düşünme bildirimlerinin yanı sıra katılımcıların fiziksel ve sanal ortamdaki tasarım
süreçlerine ilişkin deneyimlerini ve algılarını değerlendirmek için bir deney sonrası
anketi uygulanmıştır.
Verilerin analizi için, temellendirilmiş kuramın sürekli karşılaştırma tekniğine uygun
yinelemeli bir süreç kullanılmıştır. Böylece tasarım sürecinin belirli niteliklerine
odaklanarak ve verilerdeki örüntü ve eğilimleri belirlenmesi sağlanmıştır.
Katılımcıların bilişsel tasarım sürecini analiz etmek için Fonksiyon-Davranış-Strüktür
(Function-Behavior-Structure, FBS) çerçevesi ve linkografik entropi analizi
kullanılmıştır. FBS sonuçları analiz edildikten sonra, oturum kayıtlarında gözlemlenen
ve retrospektif kişisel bildirimlere yansıtılamayan tasarım etkinliklerinin daha derin
bir analizini yapmak için Somutlaştırma, Deneyim ve Manipülasyon (Embodiment-
Experience-Manipulation, kısaca EEM) taksonomisi geliştirilmiş ve kullanılmıştır.
EEM taksonomisi, FBS çerçevesi gibi daha evrensel analiz yöntemleriyle gözden
kaçabilecek tasarım eylemlerinin de tanımlanmasını sağlamıştır.
In situ ve in virtuo tasarım deneylerinin karşılaştırmalı analiz sonuçları, bilişsel tasarım
süreçlerinin her iki ortamda da benzer şekilde zengin olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.
Bununla birlikte, somutlaştırma ve deneyimleme etkinliklerinin yüzdeleri, VR'da
belirgin şekilde daha yüksektir. Bu fark, Dreamscape Bricks VR'ın kullanıcıların sanal
ortamda ölçeklerini değiştirmelerine izin verme becerisine atfedilmiştir. In situ ve in
virtuo tasarım arasındaki en önemli farklardan biri, sanal gerçeklikte kullanıcının
ölçeğini değiştirebilme imkânı olarak göze çarpmaktadır. Bu imkân, tasarım süreci için
fiziksel ortamda mümkün olmayan özgün fırsatlar sunmuştur. VR’da ölçekler arasında
kolayca geçiş yapma imkânı, tasarımların farklı açılardan ve farklı ölçeklerde
deneyimlemelerine olanak tanıyarak, tasarımın daha mekânsal ve kapsamlı bir şekilde
anlaşılmasını ve daha etkin manipüle edilebilmesini sağlamıştır. Ayrıca, VR
ortamındaki bulunma hissini güçlendirerek tasarım deneyimini daha içindeleyici ve
etkileşimli hâle getirmiştir.
Fiziksel ve sanal ortamlarda tasarım süreçleri arasındaki bu farklılıklar, insan beyninin
mekânsal ve nesnesel algıları ayrı sinir yolakları aracılığıyla işlediğini öne süren iki
akım hipotezi ile belli bir ölçüde açıklanabilir. Bu hipoteze göre, dorsal yolak ve
ventral yolak, insan beyninde nesnelerin ve mekânların algılanması için birlikte çalışır.
Dorsal yolak, uzamsal algıdan, yön bulmadan ve görsel-motor bilgilerin işlenmesinden
sorumludur. Görme ve diğer duyularımızdan gelen bilgileri kullanarak çevremizin
zihinsel bir haritasını çıkarmamızı ve nesnelerin bize göre konumlarını belirlememizi
sağlar. Ventral yolak ise esasen nesnelerin algılanması ve boyutunun, şeklinin,
renginin ve dokusu gibi niteliklerinin tanınmasından sorumludur. Mimari tasarım
sürecinde mekân tasarımında hem nesne tanıma hem de mekânsal algı çok önemlidir.
Bu nedenle, bir mekânı mekânsal olarak deneyimlemeden tasarlamak, tasarım sürecini
sınırlayabilir ve daha bütüncül bir tasarım deneyimi yaratılmasını engelleyebilir.
Mimarlar, bir mekân tasarlarken ölçekli fiziksel temsilleri kullandıklarında,
tasarımlarını öncelikle nesne tanımlama yoluyla algılar ve manipüle ederler. Ancak bir
mekân inşa edildiğinde, özellikle mekânsal algı ve navigasyon yoluyla
deneyimlenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu nedenle, dorsal yolak ile mekânsal olarak
deneyimlemeden ölçekli temsiller aracılığıyla bir mekân tasarlamak, sağır bir
bestecinin şarkıyı duymadan bestelemesine benzetilebilir. Bu besteci notaları kâğıda
yazmaktadır; ne var ki müziği bestelenirken duyma yeteneğinden yoksundur. Bunun
xxxii
yerine besteci, bitmiş parçanın kulağa nasıl geleceğini hayal etmek için yalnızca nota
temsillerine güvenmelidir. Benzer şekilde, fiziksel ortamda, ölçekli çizimler veya
maketler gibi mekân temsilleri aracılığıyla tasarım yapan mimarlar, bunları nesne
tanımlama yoluyla (ventral yolak aracılığıyla) algılarlar ve tasavvurlarında
oluşturdukları mekânsal görselleştirmelere güvenirler. Bununla birlikte, bu
görselleştirmeler, mekânı uzamsal algı ve gezinme yoluyla (dorsal yolak aracılığıyla)
gerçekten deneyimlemek kadar içindeleyici ve etkileşimli değildir. Bu nedenle,
mimarlar daha bütüncül bir tasarım deneyimi yaratmak üzere içindeleyici sanal
gerçeklikten yararlanabilir. Bu benzetim ortamı, tasarımlar somutlaştırılırken ve
manipüle edilirken mekânın farklı ölçekler ve perspektiflerden deneyimlenmesini
sağlayarak tasarım sürecini zenginleştirebilir. Mimarlar, tasarım yaparken VR
sayesinde mekânsal algılarını da kullanarak, mekânın ve bağlamın daha doğru bir
şekilde temsil edilmesini sağlayabilirler. Dolayısıyla VR'ın tasarım sürecindeki
etkilerinin en kritik yönlerinden biri, içindeleyici sanal ortamın, mimarların
tasarımlarında mekânsal algı vizyonunu kullanmalarına olanak sağlamasıdır.
DREAMSCAPE çerçevesinin bir diğer önemli kaygısı, tasarımcıların paylaşılan bir
sanal alanda gerçek zamanlı olarak birlikte çalışmasına izin vererek, metaverse'te (üst-
evren) işbirliğini mümkün kılmaktır. İşbirlikçi tasarım deneyleri, bu çalışmanın
kapsamı dışında tutulmuştur. Fakat önerilen çerçevenin, kullanıcıların coğrafi
konumlarından bağımsız ve gerçek zamanlı iletişim kurup tasarım yapmasını
sağlayarak, mimari tasarımda işbirliğini kolaylaştırması beklenmektedir.
DREAMSCAPE çerçevesi, işbirliğini kolaylaştırmanın yanı sıra, daha karmaşık
modüler bileşenlerle VR tasarım araçlarının geliştirilmesinde de uygulanabilir.
Dreamscape Bricks VR uygulaması, temel bileşen olarak LEGO parçalarını kullanır;
ancak DREAMSCAPE çerçevesi, temel yapı elemanlarını, mobilyaları ve parametrik
nesneleri içeren yeni VR tasarım uygulamalarını oluşturmak için kullanılabilir.
Çerçevenin sanal ortamda daha sezgisel, somutlaştırılmış ve tepkileşimli (responsive)
tasarım süreçleri ile yeni nesil CAD ve BIM uygulamalarının geliştirilmesine katkı
sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir. DREAMSCAPE projesinin sonuçları, mimari için
yeni VR uygulamalarının geliştirilmesine yönelik bilgi tabanının genişlemesine
katkıda bulunmayı beklemektedir.
Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma VR tasarım araçlarını geliştirmede DREAMSCAPE
çerçevesinin potansiyel faydalarına odaklanırken, VR teknolojisinin mimari tasarım
süreci üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmıştır. Tasarım protokollerinin ve kullanıcı
araştırmasının sonuçları, VR teknolojisinin mimarinin hem mimarlar hem de
öğrenciler tarafından tasarlanma, inşa edilme ve deneyimlenme şeklini büyük ölçüde
değiştirebileceğini göstermektedir. Metaverse ortamları ve VR gözlüklerinin giderek
daha popüler hâle gelmesiyle, profesyonellerin sanal gerçekliği tasarım süreçlerine
daha fazla dahil etmeye başlaması muhtemeldir. Uçuş simülatörlerinin havacılıktaki
rolü gibi, VR da mimarlık eğitiminde oldukça değerli bir araç hâline gelme
potansiyeline sahiptir. Bu çalışma, sanal gerçekliğin tasarımcıların tasarımlarını yeni
bir şekilde keşfetmelerine, yaratıcı fırsatlar yaratmalarına ve tasarım sürecini
potansiyel olarak iyileştirmelerine olanak tanıyabileceğini öne sürmektedir.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Dreamscape: A midground between imagination and perception. Is it possible to
create a haven where humans are bodily present in their ideas as they conceive them?
Can virtual reality, the frontier of the digital and physical realms, provide a medium
where people can immerse themselves in their conceptions? This study proposed the
DREAMSCAPE framework for immersive virtual design environments and developed
Dreamscape Bricks VR as the initial application to explore the potential of virtual
reality for design activities and find out the answers.
Virtual reality (VR) is a technology that allows users to experience computer-
simulated digital environments simultaneously and interactively in a way that creates
a sense of convincing realism. Compared to other digitally simulated realities, the
defining aspect of virtual reality is its ability to immerse users in the virtual
environment and enable them to perceive the digital realm by creating a sense of
presence in cyberspace. In augmented reality (AR), the physical world is enhanced
with computer-simulated digital objects and perceptual information. In this sense,
augmented reality is reminiscent of a hallucination, in which the constructed reality is
superimposed on actual reality. Virtual reality, on the other hand, is akin to a dream in
which the dreamer is fully immersed in the constructed reality.
Introduced as a concept in the early 20th century and studied since the 1960s, VR is
hardly a new development. Nevertheless, VR has once again become a popular subject
– not only as a research topic behind the walls of academic institutions but also as an
accessible everyday technology. This increased popularity is due to the latest high-end
graphics provided by photorealistic CGI technologies, the enhanced processing speed
of computers, improved pixel density and refresh rate of mobile displays, advanced
tracking systems, and the financial affordability of such consumer hardware.
Today, the use of VR as a visualization solution that allows users to experience their
designs before construction, is rapidly expanding across various industries. As a result,
employing virtual reality not only as a representation medium to visualize finished
products but also as a tool in the design process to create and develop new ideas has
2
emerged as an intriguing, sought-after, and timely research topic in architecture and
design.
Designing is an activity that involves transforming ideas into tangible forms through
sketching and modeling processes. The design process transforms these
representations of the world around us into concrete expressions of our imaginations.
In other words, designing is the act of imagining something that does not yet exist and
making it a reality through form-giving processes.
The physical environment has always been an integral part of the architectural design
process because it allows designers to experience their designs in situ and understand
how people will interact with them in the real world. However, designing solely in the
physical environment comes with several challenges, such as the difficulty of making
changes to early-stage designs, communicating complex spatial relationships, or
understanding how daylight will affect a space over time. These challenges can be
addressed by incorporating digital tools into the design process; however, existing 2D
and 3D CAD tools do not provide designers with a full understanding of their designs
because they are abstractions of reality that cannot be experienced physically.
To return to the dream analogy again: Dreams might be the most immersive alternative
reality humans can create, which exists entirely in our minds while being
simultaneously realistic enough to mostly deceive human perceptual systems as being
real. The dreamers are both the creator and inhabitants of their dreams who
simultaneously create the environment inside which they are present. Similarly, virtual
reality stimulates our perceptual system with computer-generated graphics to create an
invaluable medium in which users can consciously exist in an environment where they
simultaneously create, interact, and share with other users. The immersive and
interactive nature of VR makes it an ideal medium for architectural design. However,
designing in VR remains a challenge because most existing CAD tools were not
developed for virtual reality and did not take advantage of the unique characteristics
of this medium. As a result, designers often need to adapt their working methods or
develop new workflows to effectively use VR tools in design tasks. To promote the
wider adoption of VR technology in architectural practice and education, it is
necessary to develop software tools designed specifically for VR and that maximize
the potential of this medium's unique properties.
3
Virtual reality can be used to make dreamscapes a reality. The ambition of this thesis
is to contribute to the creation of the ultimate DREAMSCAPEs in which designers
experience the spatiality of their architectural designs as they conceive and intuitively
build them.
1.1 Objective and Scope
This thesis investigates the unique aspects and novel opportunities of virtual reality as
a medium for architectural design and education, with an emphasis on understanding
and comparing the experience of the design process in physical and VR environments.
Therefore, the aim of this research is to answer the following research question: How
is the process of architectural design experienced by designers in the physical
environment compared to VR?
Every new tool or medium brings with it new opportunities and limitations, a new
vocabulary, a new way of thinking, and new formations. As explained above, virtual
reality is a powerful medium that can create a shortcut between an architect's spatial
ideas and the initial conceptual representations they use in developing those ideas. In
conventional architectural design, early design representations such as physical
models, drawings, and CAD models are non-spatial constructs, i.e., objects rather than
spaces. However, in VR, the designer has the freedom to experience the early design
representation as an immersive space. The immersive virtual reality environment
allows the architect to explore possibilities and experiment with spatial configurations
naturally and intuitively.
The use of VR in architectural design and education is a relatively new area of research
that has remained in its early stages for two decades but has started to receive
increasing attention from architects and researchers in recent years with the growing
interest and investment in the rapid development of consumer-grade VR technologies
and wearable devices. Early studies of VR in architecture date back to the 1990s, using
both immersive and non-immersive VR simulations (Achten & Turksma, 1999;
Alvarado & Maver, 1999; Campbell & Wells, 1994; Donath & Regenbrecht, 1999).
However, the use of VR in architecture was limited to a few design studios and
research laboratories due to the high cost, complexity, and high computational power
required to run realistic, immersive virtual environment simulations. In recent years,
with the development of high-performance graphics processing units (GPUs) and the
4
introduction of low-cost VR systems such as Oculus Rift and HTC Vive in 2016, there
has been a surge of interest from both researchers and practitioners regarding their use
in architecture (Milovanovic et al., 2017; Ummihusna & Zairul, 2022). A number of
studies have investigated various aspects of VR in architecture, particularly its
potential as a tool for architectural visualization and representation (Banfi et al., 2019;
Patel et al., 2002; Portman et al., 2015), its effects on spatial cognition (Pour Rahimian
et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2020), and its collaborative potentials in design (Dorta et al.,
2016; Frost & Warren, 2000; Gül et al., 2017).
There is also a body of work that has started to explore the use of VR in architectural
design education (Fonseca et al., 2021; Milovanovic et al., 2017; Özgen et al., 2021).
Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic and comparative studies investigating design
behaviors, user experiences, and design processes in physical and virtual architectural
design environments using design tools that support users’ natural and embodied
interactions through direct manipulation. Most research in this area uses conventional
CAD-inspired VR tools that require non-natural user interactions with menus, buttons,
point-and-click interfaces, or object manipulation commands. Inheriting this legacy of
CAD interactions, which were developed primarily for 2D displays and keyboard and
mouse input, such VR design tools unnecessarily restrict designers’ interactions with
their design work. Moreover, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there is no study
that proposes a comprehensive framework for the development of VR architectural
design tools. This lack of understanding hampers the exploration and use of virtual
reality as a new medium for architectural design and education. In order to address this
gap in the literature, this thesis presents a systematic and comparative study of user
experience and design behavior in physical and virtual media, investigating the impact
of VR on architectural design and the limitations of VR design tools.
The scope of this thesis focuses on investigating immersive VR environments as a
design medium and exploring their potential for architectural education. The main
objectives are to develop an experimental immersive VR design tool based on intuitive
and analog interactions with direct manipulation, to conduct user studies that include
comparisons between physical and virtual media, to understand how designers think
differently about space in physical and virtual environments, and to propose guidelines
for developing effective VR architectural design tools.
5
The contribution of this work is twofold. First, the DREAMSCAPE framework was
established for developing effective architectural design tools in VR, which is based
on immersive and intuitive interactions, and demonstrated the feasibility of the
proposed framework through the design and development of a VR design tool called
Dreamscape Bricks VR in Unreal Engine 4. Second, design experiments were
conducted with 14 subjects comparing design processes in physical and virtual reality.
They were asked to design a shelter and a pavilion using physical LEGO bricks (in
situ) and virtual Dreamscape Bricks VR (in virtuo). The goal was to understand the
possibilities of using VR as an architectural design medium from the users' perspective
by analyzing their cognitive design processes, embodied interactions, experiences, and
manipulations.
The possibilities of a VR architectural design tool should not be constrained by
existing computational design tools and their methods. It is essential to understand the
fundamental differences between the legacy CAD methods and the potentials and
limitations of VR. Therefore, a VR design tool framework must be proposed to
evaluate the aspects of using virtual reality in architectural design. This framework
must be stripped of the existing vocabulary and grammar of conventional CAD tools
to isolate the experience from the preconceptions of "3D modeling". This study
introduces a design tool framework called DREAMSCAPE (a backronym
1
for Digital
Reality Environment as A Medium for Studio Collaboration in Architectural
Production & Education). DREAMSCAPE is envisioned as a platform for architects
to simultaneously design, collaborate and represent their architectural designs, works,
or sketches in a VR environment.
An experimental design tool called Dreamscape Bricks VR was developed as a part of
this study to introduce and demonstrate the DREAMSCAPE framework. Dreamscape
Bricks VR allows users to design and modify architectural models in immersive virtual
reality using LEGO bricks as base components.
Furthermore, several design sessions are conducted and analyzed to understand how
user creativity is affected by the virtual reality environment. In these design sessions,
participants are asked to design small-scaled human habitations with basic functions
1
A backronym is an acronym that is created retrospectively to fit an existing word or phrase by
matching the letters of it with the initial letters of a series of explanatory and suitable words or
phrases. Backronyms are usually created to make an existing name or phrase sound more appropriate
or memorable for a certain purpose.
6
using physical LEGO bricks in the physical environment and virtual bricks in
Dreamscape Bricks VR to investigate the influences of the physical and virtual
environments on their design process and outcomes.
Finally, these design experiments' qualitative and quantitative results are discussed and
synthesized into a set of design guidelines for the DREAMSCAPE framework. These
guidelines are intended to serve as a reference for VR designers to develop applications
and tools for architectural design and provide insights for educators on how to facilitate
VR design tools in architectural design courses.
The DREAMSCAPE framework is expected to enable multiple industry actors to
participate in an interdisciplinary design process in an immersive virtual environment.
Through the educational use of the framework, the architectural design studio may be
able to provide distance education by bringing instructors and designers together in the
virtual realm beyond the confines of physical space. The VR design tools developed
with this framework are expected to provide environments that offer new opportunities
and ways of thinking about the architectural design and education process by
leveraging the unique digital capabilities of the virtual realm.
1.2 Methodology
This research is based on a four-phased methodology, as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Phase 1, research design, involves formulating the design questions, proposing the
DREAMSCAPE framework, and developing the Dreamscape Bricks VR application
to establish the framework and demonstrate its feasibility. An initial student workshop
was conducted in parallel, exploring the use of LEGO bricks as base components for
preliminary architectural design. The findings from this workshop informed the
development process of Dreamscape Bricks VR. Subsequently, user testing and
questionnaires were conducted to evaluate the usability, performance, and comfort
aspects of the experimental design tool Dreamscape Bricks VR. Feedback from these
user tests was used to improve the tool's design and user experience. In Phase 2, data
collection, a series of design experiments with 14 participants were conducted to
compare design processes and outcomes between physical and VR environments.
Phase 3, data analysis, involved the analysis of data collected during the design
sessions, including the design interactions, video recordings, retrospective think-aloud
verbalizations, and questionnaire surveys. Finally, in Phase 4, theoretical
7
development, the collected data were compiled and coded for a comprehensive analysis
and reflection on the comparative design experiment results. Each phase is described
in detail in the following chapters of the thesis, along with the associated methods used
in this research.
Figure 1.1 : Flowchart of the study methodology adopted in this thesis.
As the data collected in this study is highly subjective, a qualitative research
methodology was adopted, incorporating grounded theory with quantitative
8
modifications in data collection and analysis as the core approach. The subjective data
in this study are the participants' design behaviors and comments, which may be
manifested differently by different designers. In addition, the researcher's own
comments and observations also play a role in the process of interpretation and
analysis. Therefore, using the grounded theory approach positively affects the quality
of the data and the findings of this research.
The grounded theory approach is fundamentally different from the traditional
hypothetico-deductive model of scientific inquiry. As shown in Figure 1.2, traditional
experimental research begins with the formulation of hypotheses and conducts
experiments to test the theory with the collected data.
Figure 1.2 : Flowchart of the classical hypothetico-deductive model.
In contrast, grounded theory methodology begins with empirical observations or case
studies. It analyzes the data to formulate a well-grounded theory from the collected
data, as shown in Figure 1.3. The grounded theory approach assumes that the
researcher has an open mind and is willing to follow the data where it leads them. This
requires the researcher not to have any preconceived notions about the research
question that could lead to bias during data collection and analysis. The researcher
must be willing to adjust their direction according to the data and should not hesitate
to iterate as needed.
Figure 1.3 : Flowchart of the grounded theory method by Corbin & Strauss.
The Grounded Theory Method (GTM) allows theory to emerge from structured data
(Corbin & Strauss, 2014), as opposed to the hypothetico-deductive model, where
hypotheses are developed prior to contact with the research field.
9
Grounded theory was introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 and has evolved over
the past five decades. The key to the GTM is constant comparison: constant coding,
categorizing, and comparing collected data with existing data and vice versa. Constant
comparison helps researchers identify emerging themes and patterns that are then used
to develop a theory. The original grounded theory approach by Glaser and Strauss was
revised by Strauss and Corbin in the early 1990s. Their updated approach is often
referred to as Straussian Grounded Theory. The Straussian Grounded Theory approach
is more structured than the original Glaser and Strauss approach. Glaser's GTM
approach is less formalized and offers the option to choose from 18 defined encoding
families (Glaser, 1978). In contrast, the Straussian approach follows a systematic
process for gathering and analyzing data. It allows researchers to distill the data to
facilitate the emergence of a theory and incorporates open coding, axial coding, and
selective coding. However, Glaser, one of the creators of the original grounded theory
method, is highly critical of the Straussian approach. Glaser (1992) argues that the
Straussian approach to data labeling and grouping takes an unnecessarily long time,
whereas the classic grounded theory approach to theory development via the constant
comparison method is faster, easier, and more enjoyable.
In 2006, Charmaz introduced a contemporary approach, the constructivist grounded
theory. The constructivist grounded theory allows for the co-construction of data by
the researcher and study participants and leaves some latitude for the researcher's
interactions and comments during data collection (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019; Charmaz,
2014; Mills et al., 2006). This approach is well-suited to qualitative studies in design
and education, where researcher and participant interactions are essential.
This thesis aims to compare the architectural design process in VR versus the physical
environment to better understand the impact of using virtual reality in the design
process. The research and design experiments conducted are exploratory rather than
explanatory, and this study focuses more on gaining insight than generating a theory.
Therefore, the constructivist grounded theory approach was used to observe design
behavior unbiasedly and without explicit expectations.
By using constructivist GTM, the researcher can capture some of the underlying
mental processes that may not be verbalized in the design process. The researcher also
becomes more sensitive to cues (verbal and nonverbal) that may be overlooked by the
designer. The constructivist grounded theory approach allows for a better
10
understanding of the designers' design intentions because they are not directly
observable but are inferred by the researcher based on the design artifacts produced
and the verbal descriptions of the designers themselves. It also allows the researcher
to capture and document the designer's mental processes, which the Straussian
grounded theory approach cannot capture. Designers do not always express all of their
design intentions during the think-aloud, while the researcher's trained eye can capture
the underlying thought process that goes beyond the designer's verbalized actions. The
constructivist approach of grounded theory was chosen because it allows researchers
to explore the design process and design intentions using various data sources,
including linkographic analyses of processes, observations, survey responses, and
time-budget comparisons.
To enhance the efficiency and comprehensiveness of the analysis process, data was
coded and analyzed to identify relationships among the collected data. After the initial
coding process, a cross-case analysis is conducted to compare the data between
participants. This ensures that the relationships found between the data are not due to
idiosyncratic experiences or individual differences. Finally, an integrative analysis is
conducted to develop a theory from the data across the study. After a careful analysis
of the saturated data, the theory is constructed to explain the effects of using VR in
architectural design. The results and findings of the study will be used to develop the
DREAMSCAPE framework further. Based on the framework, the study results can
serve as a foundation for developing VR design tools for future architectural design
and education.
To conduct the design experiments, the Dreamscape Bricks VR design tool was
developed as the first iteration of the framework. Participants were asked to conduct
architectural design sessions with similar design requirements in situ (in the physical
environment) and in virtuo (in the virtual environment of Dreamscape Bricks VR).
Research findings and implications were drawn from the analyses of design protocols,
design sessions, and the range of participants' experiences.
The verbal responses included an exploration using a phenomenological approach.
Phenomenology is based on the humanistic and philosophical idea that humans are
conscious beings who experience the world through an individual's perceived reality.
Therefore, the human experience can be understood by investigating one's thoughts,
experiences, and perceptions of the world. In the context of design research, a
11
phenomenological investigation may be used to understand the design experience.
This study seeks to comprehend the participants' firsthand design experience in virtual
reality. A phenomenological approach is taken for the verbal survey questions and the
analysis of the think-aloud protocols, as the focus is on understanding the design
process and participants' experiences and interactions as they manifest in various real-
world settings.
Table 1.1 shows how the modified grounded theory approach described above is
structured in this study.
Table 1.1 : The modified grounded theory approach used in this thesis.
Goal
To propose a framework for a VR design tool and evaluate the
aspects of the use of virtual reality in architectural design
Research Question
How is the process of architectural design experienced by designers
in situ vs. in virtuo?
Sampling
Architects and designers who design for similar design problems,
using the same modular blocks with the same rules, in VR versus in
a physical environment
Target Audience
Students of architecture, interior architecture, urban planning, and
industrial design with a common Foundation Studio education
background; professional architects
Data Collection
Design sessions, video recordings, design metrics, survey data
Data Analysis
Qualitative
Quantitative
• Retrospective think-aloud
protocol analysis
• Survey responses
(open-ended questions)
• Emerging themes and
labels
• Researchers’ observations
and memo
• Build statistics of artifacts
• FBS-coded design issues
and processes
• Linkography
• EEM design actions and
durations
• Survey responses
(demographic data and
Likert scale questions)
• Descriptive statistics
• Inferential statistics
The methodology of conducting the design experiments, the protocol analyses, and
interpretations of the qualitative and quantitative data collected in the design sessions
is explained in more detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6.
1.3 Structure of Thesis
This thesis is composed of seven main parts:
12
Chapter 1 introduces the thesis's motivation, objective and scope, methodology, and
structure.
Chapter 2, Virtual Reality and Architectural Design, briefly introduces virtual reality
and its applications in architecture. It also presents the challenges and opportunities of
using VR for architectural design and education.
Chapter 3, Analog Components for Physical and Digital, summarizes why LEGO
pieces were chosen as the basic components for the design experiments. It also presents
the initial student workshop using LEGO-based CAD. The insights and participant
feedback gained in this educational case study were used to inform the development
of the experimental design tool for VR.
Chapter 4, Design and Development of Dreamscape Bricks VR, reviews the concept
of Dreamscape Bricks VR and explains the design and development process. It also
presents the experiences, the tool's evaluation testing results, and lessons learned from
user testing.
Chapter 5, Design Experiment Methodology, explains how the design experiments are
conducted with participants to compare the design process in the physical environment
with that in virtual reality.
Chapter 6, Design Experiment Results, discusses the results of the study mentioned
above in which several design sessions were conducted.
Chapter 7, Discussion and Conclusion, summarizes the findings and presents
conclusions, the outcomes of the study, and future work.
13
2. VIRTUAL REALITY AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-generated environment that can be explored and
interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person. As an increasingly
popular technology, VR is widely used in many fields. Architecture is no exception,
as it can provide an immersive, real-time, and interactive experience of architectural
creations.
Architecture is not only about the creation of space but also about the transformation
of information and perceptions during this creative process. In this context,
architectural design is more than a making process; it is also a thinking process (Cross,
2011). The conception of an architectural product begins with an idea that is enriched
and shaped by physical resources, and requires the processing and transmission of
information through various media until it is ultimately realized as a physically or
virtually constructed opus. Designers generate and communicate their preliminary
design ideas as external representations that support the development of their ideas
(Suwa & Tversky, 1997). These external representations, such as sketches, diagrams,
and models, function as cognitive tools that enable designers to access, organize, and
process complex information and cognitive processes during their design process
(Tversky, 2005). The conversation between the designer and these visual
representations creates a dynamic relationship that informs and inspires design by
allowing the designer to explore possibilities and develop new solutions (Schön &
Wiggins, 1992). Therefore, the characteristics of the design medium that designers use
to capture, recall, and share a link between sensory perceptions and conceptual ideas
profoundly influence the design process. Incorporating VR as an immersive design
medium has the potential to dramatically improve the design process by eliminating
physical restrictions and allowing the exploration of opportunities not available in the
physical environment.
The notion of embodied consciousness argues that human consciousness comprehends
the world through its body and physicality as a sentient and embodied being
(Pallasmaa, 2017). Design processes are deeply rooted in our physical bodies, our
14
interface to experience what we create, through which we interact with materials and
the world around us. To date, digital media tools, such as CAD software, have greatly
expanded our ability to create design representations. However, these technologies
have also led to a disconnect from physical processes by pushing the interaction with
abstracted digital representations over spatial and bodily perception. As a
consequence, it is necessary to re-engage the body in the design process. Virtual reality
happens to be a powerful medium that mediates bodily involvement and experience of
the design environment. The level of immersion and embodied interactions in the
virtual world provide opportunities to experiment with design solutions by re-engaging
the body that has been disconnected so far. Therefore, the VR medium offers new ways
of seeing and directly manipulating the immersive and realistic design environment
for design exploration.
Computer graphics once changed the aesthetics, processes, tools, and ways of thinking
of architecture, enabling us to create and interact with geometries as never before.
Now, VR welcomes us to experience this new realm firsthand in full immersion,
bringing with it new tools, new processes, new aesthetics, and new ways of thinking.
VR has the potential to change the way we design and experience space. Architectural
design, by its very nature, is a highly creative and intuitive process. VR offers the
potential for a new approach in which physical limitations do not constrain the design
process. The designer is able to transcend the traditional physical limitations of scale
and time and be able to experience the design immersively at any stage of
development. Virtual reality is considered the next frontier for architects, with the
industry poised for a VR revolution that may fundamentally transform the way spaces
are conceived and designed.
In this chapter, an introduction to virtual reality and mixed reality in a professional
context is provided, exemplifying the use of VR in architectural visualization, design,
education and training, and fabrication. The literature on VR use in design is reviewed,
highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of VR. Finally, insights for the
proposed DREAMSCAPE framework are presented.
15
2.1 A Taxonomy of Computer-Generated Realities: VR, AR, MR, and XR
Before proceeding further, a brief introduction to the terminology used in this thesis is
necessary, as VR-related concepts tend to advance, expand, and change day by day. In
particular, the definitions and distinctions between virtual reality (VR), augmented
reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) will be examined. Additionally, the newly
emerged concept known as extended reality (XR) will be introduced, as it serves as an
umbrella term that encompasses the three aforementioned types of mediated realities.
Virtual reality (VR) refers to a computer-simulated environment that can simulate
physical presence in computer-generated environments and is often interactive in real
time. It incorporates mainly auditory and visual feedback and allows other types of
sensory feedback like haptic.
The term “virtual reality” was popularized in 1987 by Jaron Lanier (Fuchs & Guitton,
2011) to refer to immersive multisensory-experience computer technology that creates
a realistic alternate reality experience. Inspired by Sutherland's mention of "virtual
worlds," as the art theorist Susanne Langer defined it, that is seen through a head-
mounted display, Lanier introduced the term "virtual reality" (Lanier, 2017), which
has been widely adopted by media and industry since then.
The concept of “virtual” gained popularity at the end of the nineteenth century with
Henri Bergson's notions of perception and memory (Friedberg, 2006). Bergson makes
a distinction between the matter and esprit, which are bound up with actual and virtual,
respectively (Ansell-Pearson, 2002). Deleuze elaborates on Bergson's conception and
explains that possible and real are opposed concepts, which resembles the opposition
between virtual and actual (Deleuze, 1988). He borrows Marcel Proust’s poetic
definition of evoking memories from his novel À la recherche du temps perdu: "real
without being actual, ideal without being abstract" (Deleuze, 1988). Susanne Langer
is also inspired by the "virtual" in Bergson's theory of matter and memory, and she
discussed the virtual space from the perspective of the theory of art and aesthetics.
Langer defined "virtual space" as an entirely self-contained and independent total
system: limited by a frame or other means of boundary, has no continuity with the
actual space we live in, implicitly continuous in all its possible dimensions, and
endlessly plastic (Langer, 1953). It is also worth noting that Langer sees architecture
as a plastic art beyond "spatial creation", and argues that the first achievement of
16
architecture is always an imaginary and conceptual virtual space, that is then translated
into visual impressions (Langer, 1953). When Sutherland and Lanier used the concept
of "virtual worlds" and "virtual reality", they were inspired by the philosophical
heritage of Bergson, Deleuze, and Langer who offered an explanation that virtuality is
a spatial concept.
Since the early 1990s, the literature on virtual reality has often distinguished between
non-immersive VR and immersive VR, or IVR (G. G. Robertson et al., 1993; Tuker &
Tong, 2021). Non-immersive VR typically refers to computer simulations where the
user is not fully immersed in the environment, providing the user with a more limited
experience. Non-immersive VR systems may use 2D displays with 3D graphics to
represent the content and do not usually require special equipment such as head-
mounted displays or motion-tracking devices. Derived from the verb “immerse,”
meaning “to plunge or dip in liquid,” immersive VR lets users dive into a virtual
environment, experiencing a simulated sense of presence through computer-generated
sensory input such as sight, sound, and touch. In contrast to non-immersive VR, IVR
typically requires specialized hardware, such as a headset or gloves fitted with sensors,
to create a convincing level of immersion. There are also hybrid possibilities between
immersive and non-immersive VR, such as the use of stereoscopic 3D video on 2D
displays, haptic control devices, or other immersive peripherals with non-immersive
VR (G. G. Robertson et al., 1993). This allows the immersion level of the users to be
increased or decreased depending on their needs. The rapid advances in technology in
recent years have made it possible to create increasingly realistic and immersive VR
experiences, and the industry started to use the term VR exclusively to refer to
immersive VR. Therefore, in this thesis, the term VR will be used to refer to immersive
VR only.
Augmented reality (AR) is a live direct or indirect view of a physical, real-world
environment whose elements are augmented (or enriched) with digital information
processed as computer-generated sensory input with the user's environment in real
time (Carmigniani & Furht, 2011). The sensory input encompasses not only video and
graphics, but also sound and potentially haptic feedback. By providing an immersive
experience in a fully simulated virtual world, VR contrasts with AR, in which
simulated virtual elements are overlayed onto the real world.
17
The difference between virtual reality and other simulation-based realities is that users
perceive and experience the fully simulated virtual environment by being completely
included in it. In this respect, VR can be compared to a dream in which the dreamer is
immersed in the fictional reality, and AR can be compared to a hallucination in which
fictional elements are superimposed on physical reality.
Augmented virtuality is the level of reality where visual and auditory data recorded
from the real world or provided in a real-time stream can be enriched with simulated
elements as in augmented reality and experienced with a complete immersion as in
virtual reality (Milgram & Kishino, 1994). In this sense, the placement of real-life
objects or agents in a virtual environment can be classified within the scope of
augmented virtuality.
The virtuality continuum, as defined by Milgram and Kishino, describes the continuity
of augmented reality, augmented virtuality, and virtual reality altogether as mixed
reality (MR) (Jerald, 2015; Milgram & Kishino, 1994). However, in recent years, the
term "extended reality" (XR) has been introduced as an all-encompassing term that
encompasses all forms of immersive real-time technologies, including virtual reality,
augmented reality, and mixed reality (Andrews et al., 2019). According to this new
convention, MR is a subset of XR. MR is used when the real world is augmented with
simulated reality elements, but virtual and physical worlds are in interaction with each
other. For instance, incorporating AR into an actual sports game would involve
overlaying computer-generated elements like game scores and player statistics onto
the live video feed of the game, creating a static user interface (UI). On the other hand,
if the score and player statistics dynamically update based on the gameplay and the UI
follows the players as they move, getting occluded when they are obscured by other
objects in the environment, then it would be an example of MR. Nevertheless, the
terms MR and AR are used interchangeably in the current literature, given that the
increasing interactivity between physical and digital elements in various applications
has made most AR applications also MR applications.
It is also worth mentioning that 360° videos, also known as 360° VR in the industry,
are different from virtual reality, as they lack interactive virtual environments. A 360°
video, or immersive video, can be a live-action capture or a computer-generated
environment that is stitched together from multiple cameras to form a spherical video
that can be viewed on a VR headset as if the viewer is inside the scene. Unlike virtual
18
reality, which requires active user input to navigate within the environment and
interact with objects in it, 360° videos are passive experiences where the user can look
around, thanks to the 3-DoF (degrees of freedom) head tracking in current VR
headsets, but cannot move within the environment or actively influence what they see
(Kittel et al., 2020). 360° VR also lacks the 3D depth perception that is characteristic
of virtual reality (Huang et al., 2017). Therefore, 360° VR can be classified more
accurately as an immersive video experience rather than a virtual reality experience.
In order to experience the computer-generated VR environments, the user needs a set
of special VR hardware that delivers the simulated sensory outputs to the user and the
user's inputs to the computer. The VR hardware can consist of devices that are attached
to the user's body parts, or it can be a room-scale platform, such as CAVE. The
computer that simulates the computer-generated reality in real time can be tethered to
VR hardware or integrated.
Among the current immersive VR systems, the most popular ones are VR headsets. A
VR headset, also known as a head-mounted display (HMD), is a device that covers the
eyes and ears to provide an immersive experience that simulates a user's physical
presence in a virtual or imaginary environment. It is and is a combination of display
devices, sensors, and software. The user can also interact with the virtual world using
various types of controllers that can be worn on the hand, arms, and legs.
The most recent generation of VR headsets blocks the user's view of the real world
and replaces it with a virtual world that is displayed through a screen. These headsets
often include cameras or stereo cameras that can create a 3D view of the environment,
to provide MR experiences. The real-time view of real-world surroundings also helps
to safely navigate the users in their physical environment when they are blindfolded
by the headset.
Although the significant advancements of the past decade have gained considerable
attention to it, virtual reality is not a completely novel technology. VR has been used
primarily in computer gaming and video-based entertainment since the 1980s. Today,
all XR technologies are widely used in various industrial areas such as entertainment,
film and television, architecture, automotive, real estate, aviation, healthcare, and the
military.
19
2.2 A Brief History of Virtual Reality
Despite the first commercial VR system being created in the 1980s, the artificial reality
is one of the most notable fields in computer graphics, and it has a long history. In fact,
computer graphics and AR/VR technologies were born in the same decade, the 1960s.
The concepts and technologies which enabled the development of VR are even older.
Panoramic paintings of the 19th century filling the whole field of view, aiming to make
the viewer feel as if they are in some historical events or scenes, can be considered the
first attempt towards virtual reality because of their efforts to create an alternative
reality that completely surrounds the audience.
Stereoscopic image, the backbone of 3D cinema and VR technologies today, is also a
19th-century technology. The idea of photographing a scene from viewing angles of
both eyes to view them later with a spectacle-like device called a stereoscope to
perceive them in 3D also coincides with the 1800s. After the discovery of the first
color photographic film in 1935, View-Master stereoscopes providing a three-
dimensional (3D) image with a disc of color films emerged and have survived until
today.
The concept of virtual reality can be traced back to its origins in written literature as
early as the 4th century, specifically in Plato's Theory of Forms and the Allegory of the
Cave, where the idea of an essential reality exists outside of a perceived world
comprised of sensory manifestations and the reflections of that essential reality (Gulley
& Bloom, 1970). The first instance that is similar to a VR experience as we understand
it today is in a book written in the 1930s. Science fiction writer Stanley G. Weinbaum's
short story Pygmalion's Spectacles, dated 1935, is about a reality in which people
wearing special glasses invented by an elven professor can perceive a fictional world
through holograms, can smell, taste, touch, and communicate with the characters in
this fictional world (Weinbaum, 1935). In this respect, Pygmalion's Spectacles is
considered the first work that conceptually focuses on virtual reality (Jerald, 2015),
although its technological background with elven professors and fantastic elements
does not quite fit.
The idea of creating an artificial world was first explored in the 1960s. In 1957,
cinematographer Morton Heilig developed a device similar to arcade game cabinets
where the content recorded from real environments could be experienced by visuals
20
and audio and by multiple senses. This device was patented under the name
Sensorama. The device could make the audience feel as if they are in the recorded
environment with its stereo speakers, stereoscopic 3D wide-angle view, fans that
mimic the wind, scent generators, and vibrating seats (Heilig, 1962). While Sensorama
did not create a purely virtual and fictional reality, it aimed to provide an immersive
cinematographic experience that the audience would feel fully immersed in.
The first head-mounted displays (HMD) were developed in the 1960s. Morton Heilig,
the inventor of Sensorama, produced the first HMD called the Telesphere Mask. Like
Sensorama, this device was also used to experience 3D stereoscopic images and stereo
sounds pre-recorded on video (Heilig, 1960). The HMD, which provides non-
interactive content, did not have any motion-tracking feature. Before long, in 1961,
Philco firm engineers Charles Comeau and James Bryan came up with a solution. The
device they developed under the name of Headsight had a video screen connected to
an outdoor security camera and a magnetic motion tracking system. When the user
rotated their head, the security camera would rotate in tandem, creating a natural
experience of looking around (Comeau & Bryan, 1961). Headsight, which allows a
certain level of telepresence, was not a virtual reality experience either.
The first attempts to create an artificial world were made in 1962 by Ivan Sutherland
et al. at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ivan Sutherland is a pioneer of
human-computer interaction and object-oriented programming who also introduced
Sketchpad in 1963 and is considered a prominent figure in computer graphics, CAD,
and graphical user interfaces. In 1965, Sutherland laid the foundations for today's AR
and VR technologies by defining the concept of The Ultimate Display. In this concept,
a digital world viewed through a screen would be realistically perceived by users
(Sutherland, 1965). This virtual world would be created by computers and maintained
in real time, in which users were able to interact with its virtual objects realistically. In
1968, Sutherland, a professor at the University of Utah at the time, and his student Bob
Sproull created the world's first AR glasses: The Sword of Damocles. Unlike HMDs
before, this innovative device was not connected to any cameras. It was rendering the
3D image entirely with computer graphics, similar to what is defined in The Ultimate
Display. It was a large, heavy device taking up a whole room, with an HMD hanging
from the ceiling on a platform for the users to climb and stand on. The HMD reflected
wireframe graphics of simple computer-generated geometric objects on see-through
21
goggles, creating the world's first augmented reality experience. It was named after its
HMD that suspends like the sword of Damocles above the wearer (Sutherland, 1968).
In this respect, although Sword of Damocles is essentially an AR headset, it is
considered the first VR headset. Ivan Sutherland modestly explains this in 2015: "My
little contribution to virtual reality was to realize that we didn't need a camera. We
could substitute a computer. However, in those days, no computer was powerful
enough to do the job, so we had to build special equipment" (A. Robertson, 2015).
In the 1980s, there was still no terminological consensus about these mediated
environment simulations in the field. Jaron Lanier, who had left the video game
software and hardware company Atari to found VPL Research, introduced the name
“virtual reality” in 1987 (Lanier, 2017). It was not until the 1990s that the technology
advanced enough to be presented to the public as a consumer product.
Now called "virtual reality," this technology continued to attract the attention of
science fiction writers, comic book and manga artists, the cinema industry, and
technology companies from 1990 to the 2000s. While some end-user VR headsets
were developed in the video game industry, such as Virtuality, Sega VR (unreleased),
and Nintendo Virtual Boy, they were discontinued as they were not commercially
successful. As an IVE experience alternative to wearing headsets, physical solutions
such as CAVE (Cave Automatic Virtual Environment) were preferred. VR headsets
continued to be developed in areas with high R&D budgets, such as military, medicine,
and space research. For this reason, the period between 2000 and 2010 is referred to
as the "VR winter" in the industry (Jerald, 2015).
After the decade-long VR winter, the sprouts that harbinger the arrival of VR spring
started to appear in the early 2010s. Affordable and consumer-grade gaming computer
hardware had advanced to the point of producing near-photorealistic computer
graphics. The CPU and GPU power of computers increased while processors shrank
in size. Thanks to smartphones and accelerometers that descended from rockets