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 to
mobile phones, smaller and high-resolution LCD screens became available at a lower
cost. All of these advancements combined made it possible to create low-cost, high-
performance VR headsets.
The entry of Facebook and HTC into the VR market brought great interest to the
market and made it grow rapidly. In 2014, Meta (then known as Facebook) acquired
Oculus for $2 billion (Meta, 2014), which was a project looking for start-up funding
22
on the Kickstarter crowdfunding platform only two years ago, endorsed by the pioneer
of 3D computer graphics and video game development, John Carmack. Valve, the
company behind popular video games such as Half-Life and co-founder of Steam, one
of the most successful digital video game distribution platforms, also began its virtual
reality research project in 2012. In 2015, Taiwanese tech company HTC announced a
partnership with Valve to release the HTC Vive virtual reality system (HTC, 2015).
Oculus Rift was released in March 2016, followed by HTC Vive in April 2016.
Subsequently, other industry leaders like Sony, Google, Samsung, and Microsoft also
entered the VR market.
In the 2020s, stand-alone VR headsets that don't require to be tethered to a high-end
PC to run also have better graphics and controls than the first generations. Some
headsets could work both stand-alone and tethered to PCs if users wanted to harness
more CPU and GPU power. In the new generation headsets, screen resolution is
increased, the number of cables is reduced, and motion tracking sensors are included
in the body of the headset. There are also VR headsets that provide AR/MR support
with stereoscopic cameras on their surface. The development of new hardware and
applications continues to grow rapidly. Today, there is a larger number of commercial
VR headsets in the market, game studio partnerships are increasing, and users are
widely adopting VR technology in both the business and consumer worlds.
An indicator of VR headset adoption rates can be seen in the Steam Hardware &
Software Survey results between January 2016 and July 2022. Steam is a platform
widely used by PC gamers. The popularity of Steam makes its hardware survey results
a good indicator of VR headset adoption rates. Every month, Steam asks to collect
hardware and software information (such as the OS version, system RAM, graphics
card model, VR headsets, etc.) from its online users and offers the percentage of users
with a specific piece of hardware or software as an update to its community (Valve
Corporation, 2022). By analyzing that percentage data with other official Steam data,
such as the average number of concurrent Steam users online per week, and the total
number of monthly active Steam users, the number of VR headset users has been
estimated from January 2016 to July 2022. Figure 2.1 shows that more than 3 million
Steam users had a VR headset, according to the analyzed data.
23
Figure 2.1 : Approximate number of VR headset users on the Steam platform.
The commercial release of the first generation of virtual reality systems in 2016
catalyzed new interest in the application of virtual reality in architecture. Since then,
there has been a growing interest in VR applications in architecture in visualization,
design, education, and training.
2.3 Virtual Reality Applications in Architecture
The field of architecture is one of the most innovative and creative industries in the
world. It is constantly adapting, and the digital revolution is no exception. For the last
five decades, the architecture industry has been an early adopter of new technologies,
such as computers, computer graphics, computer-aided design (CAD), the Internet,
photogrammetry methods such as LIDAR, and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)
tools such as 3D printing. The industry continues to innovate and embrace new
technologies to remain relevant and stay at the forefront of design and construction
practices. Now, the defining aspect of spatiality in immersive virtual environments
makes VR a major field of interest in the discipline of architecture.
Immersion and interactivity are considered the two key concepts of virtual reality.
Immersion is strongly linked with the degree to which users perceive the simulated
environment as real and in which they are currently present. Interactivity is related to
the participation level of the user in the digital environment. The level of immersion
and interactivity are inextricably linked, which serves to create an experience that
encourages the user to keep engaged with the environment. The use of virtual reality
systems to replace or facilitate real-life activities has the potential to remove some of
the limitations associated with the physical world. Other possibilities of how virtual
reality can be used include training, entertainment, and design. Virtual reality is most
24
effective when it is used to experience what is not available in the physical world or is
difficult to acquire, even if it exists in reality. The VR representation of the ordinary is
not interesting because the actual manifestation of the ordinary is easily accessible.
With this principle in mind, mixed reality technologies are used as a tool and medium
that transforms the user from being a mere spectator into an interactive and immersive
subject within the virtual environment enabling novel experiences.
Designers in the field of architecture require 3D representations of their designs to
communicate their ideas clearly, not only with clients and other stakeholders in the
design process but also by themselves, to explore their ideas spatially. Due to its ability
to create an immersive experience, VR is an ideal tool for architects to use to achieve
this goal. Even with the advancements in CAD and 3D modeling, the ability to
experience the spatiality of a design is still limited. The use of VR in architecture can
provide a sense of immersion that cannot be achieved through any other medium. The
user can be transported into the design and experience it firsthand, which can help to
inform the design process with new creative potentials that would not be possible from
looking at 2D drawings or even 3D models.
Virtual reality is a technology that has the potential to completely transform the way
we design, build and experience architecture. The use of VR in architecture is still in
its initial stages; however, the technology has already been used in a wide range of
projects and in a number of different ways in architecture and design. Research and
industrial applications to improve communication, collaboration, and design are being
carried out in parallel with its early use. In the next decade, the integration of VR into
the architectural design process and the adoption of the technology by more firms are
expected. It is only a matter of time before VR becomes a standard part of architectural
education curricula.
This section introduces the use of VR in architectural visualization, fabrication, as an
architectural design tool, and in architectural design and education. Following that, the
section discusses the insights for VR in architectural design and education.
2.3.1 VR in architectural visualization
Architectural visualization, also referred to as “arch viz” or “ArchViz” in the industry,
is a process of creating an image, a navigable visual, or a three-dimensional model of
a building or structure. Today, architectural visualization is mostly created with CAD
25
software as a 3D model. Currently, most architectural visualization is created using
CAD software to generate a 3D model, which is then further enriched in a render
engine software to add realistic lighting, shadows, textures, and details to the
representation of the building or structure.
Architectural visualization is useful for three main purposes: designers externalizing
the conceptual creations to achieve a higher comprehension of their spatial creation, a
project team communicating with each other or creative partners to develop their
design, and authors presenting the design to contractors and clients before its
construction.
Virtual reality-based visualization has been used successfully in many different
industries, from entertainment to engineering, healthcare, and the military. VR is also
used for architectural visualization because of its ability to create a realistic
representation of designs within virtual environments, even allowing the users to feel
the atmosphere, which was relatively lacking in other visualization media. Several
studies have examined the potential for the use of virtual reality in architectural
visualization (Banfi et al., 2019; Portman et al., 2015; Trujillo et al., 2017). These
studies provided evidence that virtual reality is a great tool for architectural
visualization. There are also many commercial architectural visualization applications
for VR, such as Twinmotion, BIMx, and Enscape. The developments and spread of
virtual reality technologies in architectural visualization tools are considered a game-
changer in the industry (ConstructConnect, 2019). According to a 2019 survey of
19,000 American Institute of Architects (AIA) member-owned architecture firms in
the USA, 19% of small firms (under 10 employees), 47% of medium-sized firms (10
to 49 employees), and 85% of large firms (50 employees or above) reported that they
use VR technology to some degree in their projects (AIA, 2020). Therefore, VR has
the potential to have a wider impact on architects, engineers, and clients.
2.3.2 VR as an architectural design tool
According to the American Institute of Architects (AIA) survey report, of the 9,120
AIA member firms that utilize VR (48% of all survey participants of various team
sizes), 7% use VR only for marketing purposes, whereas 24% use it for design/project
purposes, and 68% for both marketing and design/project purposes (AIA, 2020, p.
101).
26
The review of academic literature also shows that virtual reality has started to become
a prominent topic in recent years. A literature search was conducted in Scopus to
support this conclusion. Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) come
forward for literature research and evaluation. Google Scholar surpasses the latter two
options in terms of coverage (Martín-Martín et al., 2018); however, it lacks the detailed
analysis tools that Scopus and Web of Science offer (Falagas et al., 2008). Google
Scholar allows for searches of the full text of scholarly publications, as opposed to
searches that are limited to abstracts and keywords. A comparison of Scopus versus
Web of Science shows that Scopus has greater coverage than WoS (Martín-Martín et
al., 2018). As this thesis examines various academic search engines, Scopus was
chosen due to its expansive database (including IEEE, IJAC, Elsevier, Springer, ACM,
Taylor & Francis, Sage, and several other databases), advanced search filtering
options, and result analysis capabilities; these features made Scopus the ideal choice
for analyzing the prevalence of "virtual reality" in the "architectural design" field.
Figure 2.2 shows the number of Scopus-listed documents (including journal articles,
conference proceedings, books, and book sections) published in English between 1995
and 2020 and containing “virtual reality” and “architectural design” in their titles,
abstracts, or keywords.
Figure 2.2 : Analysis of “Architectural Design” and “Virtual Reality” works listed in
Scopus between 1995 and 2020.
Milanovic et al. conducted a systematic review in the CumInCAD (Cumulative Index
of Computer-Aided Architectural Design) database for the subject of AR and VR in
architecture (Milovanovic et al., 2017). Figure 2.3 shows the distribution of the focus
topics in the 122 articles they have selected.
27
Figure 2.3 : Prevalence of the focus topics of the reviewed CumInCAD articles,
reproduced after Milanovic et al. (2017).
This review of the studies on virtual reality in architectural design has revealed that
the main concepts that stand out include system, design, sense/cognition,
representation, education, and communication/collaboration. Considering the scope of
this thesis – the use of VR in architectural design and education – the focus is kept on
the role of virtual environments in architectural education.
2.3.3 VR in architectural education and training
The first VR studies in architectural design and education started appearing in the early
1990s (Achten & Turksma, 1999; Alvarado & Maver, 1999; Campbell & Wells, 1994;
Donath & Regenbrecht, 1999). Some of the studies in the initial years of this field
focused on desktop-based VR systems or non-immersive systems, where a user is not
fully immersed but can interact with six degrees of freedom using some type of input
device to control their movement within a virtual environment. Other studies utilized
immersive VR technologies (e.g., CAVE and HMD systems). Donath and
Regenbrecht examined the use of VR systems in architectural design in a 1999 study
by developing three VR applications for architectural design and analyzing the uses of
this software by architecture students on given tasks with Virtual Research VR4 HMDs
(Donath & Regenbrecht, 1999). In the 2000s, studies were conducted to examine
collaborative architectural design applications in the CAVE environment (Frost &
Warren, 2002), where the processes of collaborative design with pen and paper by
architectural designers are compared to collaborative design in a virtual environment.
In 2016, low-cost VR consumer headsets such as Oculus Rift and HTC Vive were
launched. This drastically improved the adoption of VR technology to a higher level
which also enabled an increase in VR applications in architecture.
20.00%
27.30%
5.50%
14.50%
56.40%
89.10%
25.60%
15.40%
34.60%
16.70%
42.30%
62.80%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Representation
Communication / Collaboration
Sense / Cognition
Education
Design
System (hardware /software)
Percentage of Prevalance
VR
AR
28
Following the increasing popularity of VR in architecture in recent years, a number of
studies have explored the use of immersive virtual environments in architectural
design and education. The systematic review by Milovanovic et al. reveals that while
there are many studies involving design students, the focus is largely on design-related
outcomes, with fewer papers addressing pedagogical and educational implications,
which they identify as 16.7% of VR studies in their dataset (Milovanovic et al., 2017).
Their study also indicates that there is a lack of research on the use of VR in
architectural design or education that specifically proposes a framework for its
deployment, which is an indication that this field of study could benefit from more
dedicated attention in the future (Milovanovic et al., 2017).
Another systematic literature review of immersive learning technologies in
architectural education by Ummihusna and Zairul found that out of 19 studies
reviewed, only five focused on immersive virtual reality in their design and methods
(Ummihusna & Zairul, 2022).
The use of VR in architecture-related disciplines is also emerging but only partially
established, similarly. Wang et al.'s review of the use of VR in construction
engineering education and training shows that 6% of the papers in their dataset used
immersive VR technology in their study (Wang et al., 2018).
In summary, this literature review has shown that recent advances in virtual reality
technology have enabled its use for various purposes, such as architectural design and
education. Virtual reality technology has been used to improve architectural
visualization quality by the creation of interactive virtual prototypes, create virtual
sketches and models to make changes during the design stage, facilitate collaborative
working processes between architects on a given task, and help student architects
develop their conceptual designing abilities by providing an immersive learning
experience apart from theoretical knowledge gained using traditional methods. While
there are several studies on the use of VR in architectural practice, there is room for
further exploration, particularly with regard to the educational applications of this
technology.
29
2.4 Chapter Conclusion
This chapter introduced the main concepts of virtual reality, its current uses in the
architecture industry and education, and its prominence in the current academic
literature. VR is a computer-generated environment that can be explored and interacted
with in a seemingly real or physical manner by a person. It can provide an immersive,
real-time, and interactive experience of architectural designs, and it has the potential
to enhance the design process by eliminating physical boundaries and allowing for the
exploration of new possibilities. Additionally, VR allows for the re-engagement of the
body in the design process and offers new ways of seeing and manipulating the design
environment for exploration.
In Section 2.1, the VR-related concepts of augmented reality (AR), mixed reality
(MR), and extended reality (XR) were introduced. AR is defined as a technology that
superimposes computer-generated images or information onto the real world, allowing
users to see and interact with both virtual and real elements simultaneously. MR is
defined as a technology that merges the real and virtual worlds in a way that allows
them to coexist and interact with each other, creating a hybrid reality. XR is an
umbrella term that encompasses VR, AR, and MR, and it refers to any technology that
creates or enhances a real or virtual experience by extending the boundaries of the
physical world. The section also discusses how these mediated realities differ in terms
of the level of immersion and interaction with the real world.
Section 2.2 provides a brief history of VR and its precursor technologies, tracing the
first written reference to the concept of a virtual reality back to Plato's Allegory of the
Cave. It also examines the significance of panoramic paintings, stereoscopic images,
and early devices such as Sensorama and head-mounted displays in the development
of VR technologies. Key figures in the history of VR, including Morton Heilig, Ivan
Sutherland, and Jaron Lanier, are introduced along with their contributions to the
development of VR, recognizing the introduction of the concept of The Ultimate
Display by Sutherland in 1962 as the first formulation of the concepts of VR and AR.
After highlighting some important milestones in the development of VR as a
technology that has evolved over time, the current state of VR as a commercial
technology is discussed along with its potential for future development in various
fields, including architecture.
30
In Section 2.3, the various applications of VR in architecture were discussed, including
its use in architectural visualization, fabrication, design, and education. In architectural
visualization, VR is used to create immersive and interactive representations of
architectural designs that can be viewed and explored by clients and other
stakeholders. VR can also be utilized in the fabrication process to create virtual
mockups of designs that can be tested and refined before construction, as well as to
create virtual construction sites that allow for remote collaboration and visualization
of the construction process. In architectural design, VR serves as a tool for exploration
and experimentation, enabling designers to experience and manipulate their designs in
a virtual environment. VR can also be used in architectural education to provide an
immersive learning experience, enabling students to explore and interact with virtual
environments, thus increasing their understanding of design concepts and principles in
a practical and engaging way.
In conclusion, this chapter has highlighted the potential of virtual reality to transform
the field of architecture. The effective use of VR enables the creation of highly
immersive, interactive representations of architectural designs, eliminating physical
limitations and bridging the gap between the physical process and abstracted digital
representations. Furthermore, VR can facilitate the design process by allowing users
to experience their design from both a creator's and inhabitant's perspective by
engaging their body in a physical way. In this light, the impact of VR on the
architectural design process will be investigated in this study.
The next chapter, Chapter 3, introduces the rationale behind the selection of LEGO
bricks as an analogue basic component of design for physical and virtual
environments.
31
3. THE LEGO BRICKS: ANALOGUE COMPONENTS FOR PHYSICAL
AND DIGITAL
The LEGO building system is a universally recognized construction toy that has been
popular among various age groups for over 70 years. It is composed of various types
of versatile plastic bricks, allowing users to build a wide range of structures and objects
using their creativity and imagination. The versatility and modularity of LEGO bricks
make them a popular choice for design activities in various contexts, including
architectural design and education.
The LEGO bricks have become increasingly popular in years as a design media due to
their playful nature and tactile interface. They are affordable and easy to acquire, as
well as simple and practical to work with. They also have great design potential due to
their inherent variability and modularity. These factors make building and designing
with LEGO bricks highly engaging for people. Furthermore, virtual LEGO bricks in
VR and AR applications can mimic the behavior of real-world bricks by adhering to
the same connection rules as the LEGO system’s component features. This high level
of similarity between digital and physical media enables a faithful simulation and
interpretation between the two. The high analogy between physical and digital LEGO
pieces allows a direct manipulation interface in LEGO-based CAD software, providing
an intuitive design experience. Since this thesis aims to examine the use of VR in
architectural design, LEGO bricks were chosen as the base design component in this
study’s design experiments. The analogue behavior of physical and digital LEGO
bricks between in situ and in virtuo can help to isolate the effects of the design medium.
This, in turn, provides valuable insight into the unique characteristics of VR and how
it affects the design process and the resulting designs. These features of LEGO bricks
suggest that utilizing LEGO brick-based CAD could be a valuable approach in
architecture and design education.
This chapter will explore the use of LEGO system in architectural design, from their
potential as a design tool to the development of an experimental tool for this study.
Section 3.1 will provide a brief history of the LEGO building system and an overview
32
of its use in architecture, design, and education. Some existing LEGO brick-based
computer applications and CAD tools will also be introduced. Section 3.2 will discuss
the terminology and elements of LEGO bricks, including the different types of LEGO
pieces, the standard dimensions and structural elements of a LEGO brick, the
connection rules, and building techniques. In addition, the concept of human scale in
LEGO creations will be addressed, providing an example of how to use Minifigures
as a reference point. Finally, Section 3.3 will describe the preliminary workshop that
was conducted to develop the experimental tool, in which participants were asked to
design living units using LEGO bricks as modular components in a brick-based non-
immersive CAD software. By the end of this chapter, readers will have acquired a
thorough understanding of the potential and applications of LEGO bricks in
architectural design, as well as the rationale behind the selection of LEGO bricks as
the base design component for the experimental VR tool employed in this study.
3.1 An Introduction to the LEGO Building System
The LEGO building system has significant potential for use in architecture and design
education. LEGO bricks are durable and highly modular modeling materials that can
be used to build, design, and test ideas in the design process with tangible results. This
is a simple and effective medium for students to explore and experiment with ideas
and designs as opposed to working with intangible representations. LEGO bricks are
also inherently modular, allowing students to build from basic units and compose them
into larger units such as buildings. This versatility makes the LEGO building system a
useful tool for working at various scales and levels of complexity, from the micro-
scale of individual building components to the large-scale design of city layouts.
This section will provide an introduction to the LEGO building system, including its
history, use in design and education, and potential in digital environments such as
CAD software. The evolution of LEGO bricks will be traced from a small Danish
carpentry workshop to a globally recognized toy, education, and design platform.
Next, the utilization of LEGO bricks in design education, from professional
architectural practice to hands-on learning in the classroom, will be examined. The
potential of LEGO bricks as a design tool in various contexts and scales will be
highlighted, emphasizing their versatility and modularity as key advantages. Finally,
the use of LEGO bricks in digital environments will be explored, including their
33
potential as a design tool in CAD and VR applications. The similarities between
physical and digital LEGO bricks and how they can be used to facilitate the transition
to design in digital media will be discussed.
3.1.1 A brief history of LEGO and education
The LEGO brick was invented in the late 1940s by Danish carpenter and toymaker Ole
Kirk Christiansen in Billund, Denmark (LEGO Group, 2010). LEGO bricks consist of
modular rectangular blocks, with circular plugs called “studs” on the side facing up
that fit inside the bottom slot or tube of another brick, allowing the bricks to interlock
in a variety of different combinations. These features make LEGO blocks highly
configurable, making them highly suitable as interchangeable building elements. First
patented in 1958 (Christiansen, 1961), the base design of the LEGO brick has gone
through several evolutions since its inception, yet all the bricks produced after 1958
are compatible with the current LEGO brick design (LEGO Group, 2010).
The LEGO system has gained worldwide popularity and commercial success since its
creation. Today, there are numerous variations of LEGO sets available, including a
wide range of elements and colors. Although initially intended as a toy for children,
the bricks have attracted the attention of many different people and have been used in
many different ways, including education. For example, LEGO sets based on themes
such as LEGO DUPLO, LEGO Classic, LEGO City, or licensed themes such as Star
Wars, Marvel, or Harry Potter, are primarily designed as toys targetting different age
groups and interests. LEGO Technic sets enable the construction of intricate and
mechanized machines, while LEGO MINDSTORMS sets offer the building blocks
and software necessary for programming robots. The LEGO Architecture line mostly
features replicas of iconic structures. Moreover, in 1981, the LEGO Group developed
products for schools (LEGO Group, 2018a). LEGO Education solutions include
commercial products and teaching philosophy guidelines intended for formal
education from kindergarten to high school (Gauntlett, 2014). Overall, all of these
product lines facilitate learning experiences through play to varying degrees.
Since the 1980s, many studies have been done on the use of the LEGO system in
education. LEGO bricks have a history of being utilized in education and have been
extensively examined and researched across various fields, such as programming and
science. This is ample evidence that LEGO bricks can be a valuable tool in fostering
34
creativity and experimentation in design (Doma & Şener, 2021; Motschnig et al., 2017;
Ranscombe et al., 2020; Siouli et al., 2019; Tseng & Resnick, 2012).
3.1.2 LEGO bricks in architecture and design education
The use of building sets and construction toys such as Froebel blocks has been shown
to promote the development of spatial and cognitive skills (Rubin, 1989). Many
famous modernist architects of the 20th century, such as Wright, Le Corbusier,
Gropius, Aalto, and Fuller, likely had kindergarten education where they were
introduced to Froebel blocks. Frank Lloyd Wright himself acknowledged the influence
of Froebel blocks on his work, stating in his memories: “The maple wood blocks are
all in my fingers to this day. I soon became susceptible to constructive pattern evolving
in everything I saw. I learned to see this way” (Rubin, 1989). Although the LEGO
system is different from Froebel blocks, they both provide physical experiences with
tangible elements that can spark the imagination and creativity of the user.
The LEGO system, in particular, has many beneficial characteristics that make it an
excellent tool for stimulating creative and innovative thinking. It is a simple and
remarkably consistent system, with rules that are easy to understand and follow. The
modular nature of the LEGO system, with its various sizes and shapes of bricks that
can be connected to one another, enables the construction of complex structures.
Therefore, the use of LEGO bricks for design creativity has been a focus of research
in several studies (Gauntlett, 2014). Furthermore, LEGO bricks provide a wide range
of functions and aesthetic expressions. These features of the LEGO system provide
design students with a great opportunity to design and simulate their ideas for real-
world problems.
The use of LEGO bricks in a variety of contexts and scales for creative thinking,
education, engineering, and design has a long and well-documented history (Liang et
al., 2021; Ranscombe et al., 2020). The use of LEGO bricks in design has also been
documented in professional architectural practice and education, demonstrating the
effectiveness of using LEGO bricks in design activities (Barris, 1972; MVRDV, 2012;
Turner, 2014). The MIT Media Lab, for example, has extensively used LEGO bricks
for robotics and education research (Resnick & Robinson, 2017; Tseng & Resnick,
2012). The use of bricks has also been featured in The Why Factory research institute,
run by MVRDV and TU Delft School of Architecture (Turner, 2014). This
35
demonstrates the value of using LEGO bricks in design contexts on both a research
and professional level.
3.1.3 LEGO bricks in digital world and CAD
The LEGO building system is highly versatile, enabling seamless integration between
physical and digital media. This versatility, along with the system’s connection rules,
makes LEGO bricks an ideal choice for both physical and virtual design activities in a
variety of contexts. In the digital world, the system’s rules and elements can be
simulated to behave similarly to their real-world counterparts. The high fidelity of
digital LEGO pieces, coupled with their exchangeability and compatibility, makes
them a powerful tool for the creation of digital models and simulations in CAD and
other digital design applications.
Therefore, it is not surprising to discover that LEGO bricks have served as an
inspiration and metaphor for the design of computer-aided architectural design
(CAAD) systems. In the late 1970s, Aish proposed a computerized building block
system that designers could use to build a model of their design, much as when
working with LEGO bricks (Aish, 1979). This approach, which involves manipulating
CAD models in a manner similar to working with physical objects rather than through
abstract geometric transformations, had a significant influence on the design decisions
of the DREAMSCAPE framework. Some later studies have suggested that
incorporating standard components and connection methods similar to those used in
the LEGO system can increase the versatility of CAD tools, making them more closely
resemble the experience of building in the real world (Gross, 1996). Therefore, the
potential uses of LEGO bricks in the development of CAAD systems further highlight
its potential as a leading design medium.
The LDraw system is an unofficial collection of standards, tools, and file formats for
creating digital 3D models of LEGO bricks and creations. Released by James Jessiman
in 1996 as an open-source project, it has been continually maintained and expanded
by a community of LEGO enthusiasts (Courtney et al., 2003) ever since. The core of
the system is a set of standards that define how the different parts of a LEGO model
should be represented in a digital file. The system also includes a large library of digital
LEGO parts that detailed and accurate representations of their real-world counterparts.
The library and the open standards of LDraw are utilized by a variety of software,
36
including Blender (through third-party addons), LeoCAD, and BrickLink Studio.
Alternatively, LEGO Digital Designer (LDD) was another free but proprietary CAD
software developed by the LEGO Group for creating virtual LEGO models. LDD was
released in 2004 and retired in 2019 in favor of BrickLink Studio (The LEGO Group,
2021), likely as a result of the LEGO Group’s acquisition of BrickLink.
The use of digital LEGO bricks is not limited to CAD. Another popular application of
LEGO bricks in the digital realm is through video games. Since 1995 numerous video
games have been released, including the latest titles such as LEGOBuilder’s Journey
(2021), LEGO Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga (2022), and LEGO Bricktales (2022).
LEGO video games, which often feature virtual LEGO bricks and characters, have
been popular among players of all ages. However, while the use of LEGO bricks in
video games is certainly an interesting and entertaining topic, it is beyond the scope of
this work.
One of the goals of the DREAMSCAPE framework is to reduce the extraneous
cognitive load experienced when working with different design environments and
tools in order to better compare and evaluate the effects of the changing environment.
The use of LEGO bricks can also be beneficial in terms of instructional design and
cognitive load. According to Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), the amount of processing
needed to complete a task can be broken down into three categories: (1) intrinsic
cognitive load, (2) extraneous cognitive load, and (3) germane cognitive load (Sweller
et al., 2019). Intrinsic cognitive load refers to the amount of information processing
required by the task itself, which is determined by the inherent complexity of the task
(Sweller et al., 1998, 2019). Extraneous cognitive load refers to the amount of
processing required by the instructional design of the task (Sweller et al., 1998, 2019).
Germane cognitive load refers to the amount of processing needed for learning or
gaining new skills related to the task (Sweller et al., 1998, 2019). The direct
manipulation interface of Dreamscape Bricks VR leverages users’ existing knowledge
of working with LEGO pieces and allows designers to manipulate digital LEGO bricks
in a similar way to physical LEGO bricks, resulting in a reduced extraneous cognitive
load. This approach aims to achieve a more direct comparison of design performance
across in situ and in virtuo.
Overall, the LEGO system is a versatile, widely recognized, and well-studied modular
design component that has proven to be useful in a variety of contexts. Its similarity
37
between physical and digital LEGO bricks allows for unique and valuable research
opportunities, making them a compelling choice as base design elements in this study.
Moreover, the familiarity of participants with LEGO bricks could provide several
advantages for this study. Many people are exposed to LEGO bricks from a young age,
likely before they can even draw with a pencil. Therefore, participants in this study are
likely to have existing knowledge and schema of building with bricks. This could allow
for an increased germane cognitive load, as participants would be able to utilize their
existing knowledge and past experience. Furthermore, LEGO bricks are large and easy
to handle, requiring less precise motor skills than drawing or building models. This
could make them well-suited for use in VR, where motor skills may be more
challenging to control.
3.2 Terminology and Elements of LEGO Bricks
The LEGO system is primarily composed of LEGO bricks, which are designed to be
compatible with each other in size. By connecting these bricks, one can create a variety
of structures and shapes.
This section will provide a detailed introduction to the different types of LEGO bricks
and the basics of LEGO building, with the goal of establishing a foundational
understanding of the LEGO system and its terminology, which will be used throughout
the rest of this thesis.
3.2.1 Types of LEGO pieces
There are numerous types of LEGO pieces, but for the purpose of this thesis, the focus
will be on five main categories: bricks, plates, slopes, tiles (or flats), and panels (see
Figure 3.1). These pieces will be used in the design experiments and will be the focus
of the discussion in this section.
Bricks can be considered the most fundamental element of the LEGO system.
Although the term brick is commonly used to refer to LEGO pieces, it actually
describes a type of piece that has a height of three plates. The bricks are typically
rectangular in shape, with studs on the top and bottom surfaces that allow them to be
connected to other bricks.
38
Figure 3.1 : LEGO pieces classified by type.
Plates are similar to bricks, but their height is only one-third that of bricks when
measured from the bottom of the pieces to the bottom of the piece to the bottom of its
studs. They can be stacked on top of each other to create, support, and detail multi-
level structures.
Slopes are LEGO pieces that are sloped at an angle and are used to create angled
surfaces such as roofs.
Tiles (or flats) are flat pieces without studs that are used to cover the top of LEGO
models and are similar in size to plates. They are often used to add detail and
decoration to LEGO models.
Panels usually have a tile as their base, with outer walls on one or more sides. They
are typically used as building elements to create the sides of LEGO structures.
Transparent panels are often used as windows and glazing elements as a lighter-
looking alternative to transparent bricks. Some panels are designed to have top faces
and studs to be connected to other pieces, while others are freestanding elements.
All these piece types can be used in combination to create a wide range of structures
and designs.
3.2.2 Dimensions of LEGO bricks
There is no official consensus on the terminology of LEGO parts or dimensions. In
order to avoid confusion and make the measurements more consistent, this study
defines 1.6 millimeters as the prime unit (pu), which is also the wall thickness of a
standard brick. The pu was chosen as the base unit of measurement since most
dimensions of standard LEGO elements can be expressed as a multiple of it. The width
of standard brick or plate is 5 pu (8 mm), which will be called a LEGO unit (λ) since
it is convenient for measuring the width and length of LEGO structures. The height of
a standard plate (excluding the 1 pu high stud part) is measured as 2 pu (3.2 mm) and
39
is called plate height as a unit of measuring brick heights. The standard dimensions of
a LEGO brick and plate can be seen in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 : Nominal dimensions of standard LEGO pieces.
As an unofficial standard, the LDraw system uses an LDraw Unit (LDU) as a unit of
measurement for creating virtual LEGO models. One pu in this study’s notation equals
4 LDU, and one λ equals 20 LDU. The proposed pu and λ system is directly related to
the LDraw system, allowing for easy conversion between the two systems.
While some sources and unofficial guides measure a stud element’s height to be 1.7
mm or 1.8 mm (Bartneck, 2019), this study measures it to be 1 pu (1.6 mm). The 0.1
mm discrepancy may have been caused by measuring the protruded LEGO logo on the
top of the studs. It is also important that this study’s pu system and the LDU system
ignore tolerances, the size variations that allow pieces to fit together, for practical
reasons.
The production process of the LEGO pieces has been well documented in several
reports from the LEGO Group, which state that the parts are produced with a high
degree of accuracy (LEGO Group, 2018b). The LEGO bricks are produced from ABS
plastic granules with an automated injection molding process, with an accuracy
tolerance of 4 microns (0.004 mm) (LEGO Group, 2018b). This has improved since
the company’s 2010 report that stated the precision to be 10 microns (LEGO Group,
2010). Additionally, have recently begun working on a prototype produced from
40
recycled PET plastic from discarded bottles (LEGO Group, 2021b), with the goal of
using sustainable plastics for all LEGO bricks by 2030 (LEGO Group, 2021a).
3.2.3 Elements of a LEGO brick and connection rules
The LEGO brick patent file only identifies two components of a brick: the studs and
the tubes. For the purpose of this study, the other components of the LEGO brick were
defined in Figure 3.3, which illustrates the various elements that make up various types
of LEGO pieces.
Figure 3.3 : Elements of a LEGO piece illustrated.
A stud is a small cylinder-shaped protrusion on the top of a LEGO brick. The studs
allow LEGO bricks to be stacked on top of each other, forming the basis of the LEGO
construction system. It has a diameter of 3 pu.
A tube is a hollow cylinder that is located on the bottom of a LEGO brick. It has an
outer diameter of approximately 4 pu and an inside diameter of 3 pu. The studs fit
perfectly into the tubes, allowing the LEGO bricks to be connected to each other. This
interlocked connection creates sturdy structures. The LEGO Group calls the friction
that keeps the blocks interlocked “clutch power” (LEGO Group, 2013).
A bar is a cylindrical rod that is located on the bottom of 1 λ wide bricks. Bars have a
diameter of 2 pu, which fits perfectly between two adjacent studs, creating the clutch
power that keeps the bricks connected.
A knob is a stud with a hollow center that has an outer diameter of 3 pu, and an inside
diameter of 2 pu. Knobs act like a stud against bottom slots and allow bars to be
inserted into them.
Face gaps are the spaces between four adjacent studs. The diagonal distance between
studs at opposite corners is approximately 4 pu, which allows tubes to fit in.
Bottom slots are the between tubes (or bars in single λ wide bricks) and the side walls
of a brick, which has a width of 3 pu, allowing studs to fit snugly.
41
The bricks are usually rectangular or cylindrical, and they are typically designed to be
rotated in increments of 90 degrees, although there are quite a few exceptions to this
rule.
These simple elements can be combined in many different ways. The original US
patent of LEGO brick illustrates a 2 x 4 brick (Christiansen, 1961). In 1974,
mathematicians calculated that by using six 2 x 4 bricks, as shown in the patent file,
102,921,500 different combinations were possible (Durhuus & Eilers, 2014), and the
LEGO Company officially adopted this result. Being intrigued by this mathematical
problem after a visit to LEGOLAND in Denmark, mathematics professor Eilers wrote
a computer program to solve the problem. He corrected the results as 915,103,765
possible combinations (Durhuus & Eilers, 2014). This number clearly shows that a
significant number of different designs can be created even with a limited number of
LEGO bricks.
3.2.4 Building techniques
LEGO building is not limited to simply stacking bricks on top of each other. There are
various advanced techniques that can be utilized to enhance the sturdiness, durability,
and aesthetic appeal of LEGO structures. These techniques allow for the creation of
complex and impressive architectural designs using LEGO bricks. The following
section will explore three essential advanced techniques in detail: the interlocking
principle, Studs Not On Top (SNOT) building, and offsetting with jumper plates.
3.2.4.1 Interlocking principle
The interlocking principle is an essential concept for architects to consider when
constructing masonry walls with bricks, as well as when building with LEGO bricks.
In staggered interlocking, bricks are placed in such a way that the vertical joints
between them are not aligned in a single straight line. The result is a pattern in which
the vertical joints between the bricks form a zigzag or stair-step pattern. This pattern
not only adds visual appeal to the wall but also makes the structure sturdier and more
resistant to lateral forces compared to a wall made with bricks stacked on top of each
other in stand-alone columns. In LEGO building, this can be achieved by using bricks
of different lengths or by using bricks with different side offsets or orientations. By
42
incorporating the staggered interlocking principle into their designs, LEGO builders
can create more sturdy and attractive structures.
In Figure 3.4, the brick tower in (1) is built by interlocking transparent 2 x 2 corner
bricks and white 2 x 2 bricks. This structure is resistant to lateral forces due to the
staggered interlocking of the bricks. In contrast, the transparent and white pieces in (2)
are stacked on top of the same type of bricks, making them vulnerable to lateral forces
that can easily separate them. In (3), a staggered brick wall is shown, demonstrating
the aesthetic appeal and stability of the staggered interlocking principle.
Figure 3.4 : Interlocked joints with LEGO pieces.
However, in some cases, we may not want to stagger the bricks, as in (4), in order to
maintain the vertical continuity of the white and transparent blocks. In this case, we
can still interlock the components of the structure by connecting a plate on the top and
bottom. Interlocking the vertical blocks between plates ensures the stability of the
structure against lateral forces while maintaining the vertical alignment of the bricks.
3.2.4.2 Studs not on top (SNOT) building
The Studs Not On Top (SNOT) building technique allows bricks to be connected to
each other in ways other than the standard method of connecting bricks on top of other
bricks. In traditional LEGO building, the studs on the tops of bricks are plugged into
the bottom slots of other bricks, creating a structure in which the studs are mostly on
the top. However, some special bricks that have studs or knobs on their sides allow
other bricks to be placed laterally. The SNOT technique allows for a greater range of
motion and design possibilities, resulting in more dynamic and interesting structures.
This would also drastically increase the number of combinations that Eiler calculated
for upright configurations only.
1.
2.
3.
4.
43
As illustrated in Figure 3.5, two 4 x 4 plates are vertically connected using the 1 x 4
bricks with four knobs on their sides, allowing for SNOT connections.
Figure 3.5 : Studs not on top (SNOT) building.
3.2.4.3 Offsetting with jumper plates
The classical LEGO bricks are typically stacked on top of each other in increments of
1 λ. However, jumper plates can be used to create a half-λ offset by shifting the parts
that are connected on top of them. The most common jumper plates are 1 x 2 or 2 x 2
tiles that have a single knob on top, aligned to the plate’s center. Other variants also
exist, such as the 1 x 3 jumper plate with two knobs, with a 1 λ span, centered on the
plate’s top.
Figure 3.6 : Offsetting with a jumper plate.
Figure 3.6 shows a 1 x 4 plate that cannot be connected centered on top of a stack of
two 2 x 4 plates. By replacing the top plate with a corresponding number of jumper
44
plates, it is possible to plate the 1 x 4 centered, creating a nice offset of half a brick
width on both sides.
3.2.5 Human scale in LEGO creations
When designing architectural models using LEGO bricks, it is crucial to consider
human scale. For instance, a few bricks stacked on top of each other could represent a
pole or a skyscraper, depending on the scale of the model being constructed.
One way to ensure that a LEGO model is accurately scaled to human size is to use the
dimensions of Minifigures as a reference point. By assuming that a 4 cm tall
Minifigure is a scale model of a human with a standard height of 170 cm, the scale of
the LEGO structure can be calculated as 1:42.5. This implies that if the model was to
be scaled up with a factor of 42.5, it would be the right size for a person. The 1:42.5
scale also scales the studless height of a LEGO plate (2 pu) to 13.6 cm. Therefore,
connecting two 1 x 1 plates under the feet of a Minifigure with this scale will give it a
height of approximately 183 cm, which is considered the average height of a human
male.
However, it is worth noting that this scale is not perfect. The shoulder width of a human
is approximately 40 cm, whereas a 16 mm wide Minifigure would scale up to 68 cm
using this method. Despite this limitation, using the standing, reaching, and sitting
heights of a Minifigure can still allow designers to create models with accurate human
proportions.
Figure 3.7 shows a 42.5 times enlarged LEGO Minifigure (170 cm in height) compared
with a female figure (170 cm) and a male figure (183 cm).
Figure 3.7 : A LEGO Minifigure and a human figure compared
in size and scaled to each other.
45
Figure 3.8 illustrates a scaled-up LEGO Minifigure standing on a 3 λ by 4 λ base plate
that has been enlarged by a factor of 42.5, resulting in a height of 170 cm. Beside it,
two human mannequins are depicted, with the female figure standing at 170 cm and
the male figure at 183 cm.
Figure 3.8 : A LEGO Minifigure scaled at 42.5:1 and two human figures compared.
3.3 A Preliminary Workshop to Develop the Experimental Tool
The preliminary student workshop titled “Component-Based Living Unit” was a
crucial part of the development of the Dreamscape Bricks VR tool. In this workshop,
participants provided feedback on using a LEGO bricks-based CAD application to
design living units, which was then used to inform the development of the tool.
The online workshop was structured as a part of the first-year Foundation Studio
courses at Istanbul Technical University (ITU) School of Architecture, with four
overarching objectives: (1) to devise a strategy for a distance learning exercise for first-
year design students without the limitations of physical environment or supplies, (2)
to present an alternative collaborative design tool suitable for universities and practice,
(3) to familiarize beginners with the CAD software through a toy they are already
familiar with, and (4) to advance the development of the modular building block-based
VR design application Dreamscape Bricks VR based on responses from the workshop.
Thirteen first-year students studying architecture, interior design, and industrial design
participated in a three-day workshop. As part of the workshop, participants were asked
46
to create a character profile and then design a living pod that met the requirements of
that persona’s needs and motivations. The designs were evaluated and critiqued online
through the sharing of CAD files and video conference presentations. The final works
were presented as architectural boards, along with LEGO building instructions,
presented at the end of the workshop.
3.3.1 Methodology of the preliminary workshop
The Component-Based Living Units workshop was organized online when the courses
were delivered online as distance education due to the COVID-19 pandemic during
the 2020-2021 Spring semester, as part of the Foundation Studio online workshops.
The Foundation Studio has been an important part of the curricula for all five
departments at ITU School of Architecture since 2015, consisting of the design courses
of the first three semesters of Architecture, Interior Architecture, Landscape
Architecture, Urban Planning, and Industrial Design programs. These courses are
taught by a team of faculty members from all departments and aim to provide students
with a strong interdisciplinary foundation in architectural practice, design principles,
and techniques, covering various topics, including design thinking, visualization, and
representation.
The quota for participants was set at thirteen, and the workshop was open to second-
semester Foundation Studio students. The call for participants was made through
ITU’s learning management website, with a poster (Figure 3.9), brief description,
requirements, and instructor bio, as well as an Eventbrite event link for registration.
The primary requirement for participation was enthusiasm for architectural design and
playing with LEGO bricks. The participants were also expected to have completed the
given reading list of three resources before the workshop and to have either a notebook
or desktop computer with LeoCAD, Adobe Photoshop, and Adobe InDesign installed.
Participation was determined on a first-come, first-served basis.
A total of thirteen first-year students attended the workshop. The participants were
aged 18 to 30, with a mean age of 20 (SD: 3.16). A majority of 8 participants (61.5%)
were 19 years old. The distribution of genders was 6 females (46.2%) and 7 males
(53.8%). The workshop included participants from three departments: 7 from
Architecture (53.8%), 3 from Interior Architecture (23.1%), and 3 from Industrial
47
Design (23.1%). 8 participants (61.5%) had prior experience using CAD tools, while
the remaining 5 (38.5%) had no such experience.
Throughout the workshop, participants were encouraged to share their thoughts and
feedback on using a LEGO brick-based CAD application for design. This feedback
was collected through surveys, interviews, and observations, which were considered
in the development of Dreamscape Bricks VR.
Figure 3.9 : Component-Based Living Units workshop poster.
3.3.2 Details of the workshop
The “Component-Based Living Unit” workshop was held over the course of three
days, with sessions lasting approximately four hours each day and one day off between
the second and third days. The first two days of the workshop were dedicated to
designing activities and exercises, while the third day was reserved for final
presentations and evaluations. The workshop was led by the author, who was a faculty
member at the ITU School of Architecture.
Prior to the workshop, participants were assigned three preparatory readings to help
them understand the concepts and techniques that would be covered during the
workshop. These readings included The LEGO Architect (Alphin, 2015) and The
LEGO Architecture Idea Book (Finch, 2018), which provided references for exploring
details, surface qualities, architectural tectonics, and structural forms using LEGO
bricks. The third reading, Building Blocks of Thought (Shores, 2017), discussed the
48
theoretical connection between construction toys and architectural design and
thinking. Table 3.1 shows the schedule of the three-day workshop.
Table 3.1 : Component-Based Living Units workshop schedule.
Day
Time
Action
Outcome
Day 1
60’
Introductions and meeting
Students meet and share their aspirations
10’
BREAK
15’
Discussion of the reading material
How construction toys relate to
architectural design and thinking is
discussed
15’
Revisiting LEGO bricks
Basics and terminology of LEGO pieces,
elements, and building rules as design
elements are introduced
10’
Reviewing the books
- The LEGO Architecture Idea Book
- The LEGO Architect
Examples and inspirations, such as
details, surface qualities, and
architectural tectonics, are discussed
5’
Human scale vs. Minifigure scale
The use of human scale in LEGO builds
is explained
5’
BREAK
40’
LeoCAD tutorial
Students learn the basics of the LeoCAD
software
5’
BREAK
40’
Warm-up exercise with LeoCAD
Students experience hands-on building
with given instructions
10’
Assignment announced
Design requirements of the final
assignment are made clear
Day 2
100’
Design review
Students receive feedback on their
current design proposals in LeoCAD
30’
BREAK
25’
Digital media and visualization
Fundamentals of digital media are
introduced
15’
InDesign crash course
Introduction to InDesign for architectural
representation
10’
BREAK
5’
InDesign session: Starting together
Students experience hands-on with a
poster template, using current design
proposals
Day 3
8’
Introduction
Workshop goals and procedures are
explained to other students and
instructors
20’
Student presentations
Students present their work on
presentation boards
7’
General discussion
Thoughts and feedback about the process
are shared
49
On the first day of the workshop, students introduced themselves and were able to
share their motivations and aspirations. Then the readings and other inspirational
materials were discussed alongside the introduction of the LEGO brick elements, types
of LEGO pieces, and building methods with the purpose of establishing a specific
terminology (as discussed in Section 3.2).
The workshop also introduced human scale in LEGO builds, using a 4 cm tall LEGO
Minifigure as a scale model of a standard human with a height of 170 cm (1:42.5 scale
as discussed earlier, see Figure 3.7). This allowed participants to design their
architectural designs for the Minifigure and then scale them up to human size.
Participants were asked to construct their designs using LeoCAD, a LEGO CAD
program that enables users to construct with LEGO bricks, save their models, view
them in 3D, and create building instructions. Participants were given a tutorial on the
LeoCAD software to learn the basics of the user interface. The workshop concluded
with a warm-up exercise where students were able to experience hands-on building
with given instructions, and the final assignment was announced.
The final assignment was to create a persona description and a custom Minifigure
representation for that persona using customizable head, body, arms, and legs parts
available in the LDraw library. They were also asked to choose a motivational activity
for this persona, i.e., a hobby. Finally, they were tasked with designing a single-person
living unit with a covered area for weather protection, accommodating sitting,
sleeping, and the chosen hobby activity. The designs had to be created within a 12 λ x
12 λ x 12 λ volume, equivalent to approximately 4 m x 4 m x 4 m (Figure 3.10).
Figure 3.10 : The final assignment handout from the workshop.
50
On the second day of the workshop, students received feedback on their current design
proposals in LeoCAD and were introduced to digital media and visualization, as well
as a crash course in InDesign for architectural representation. Students were able to
use their current design proposals to create a poster using InDesign and then presented
their work on presentation boards to the rest of the workshop participants and
instructors. The workshop concluded with a general discussion where students were
able to share their thoughts and feedback about the process.
On the third and final day of the workshop, the goals and procedures of the workshop
were explained to the other Foundation Studio students and instructors who took part
in other workshops. Students then presented their work to the rest of the workshop
participants and instructors and received feedback on their designs.
3.3.3 Results of the workshop
At the end of the workshop, the students presented their final works in the form of
posters, which featured step-by-step building instructions akin to the ones found in the
box of a standard LEGO set (Figure 3.11). These final projects were also displayed
online (Doma, 2021).
Figure 3.11 : A sample student work from the workshop.
After the workshop, participants were asked to fill out a survey to evaluate their
experiences and reflections. The survey results showed that the participants generally
had a satisfactory experience with the workshop, which can be seen in Table 3.2.
51
Table 3.2 : Post-workshop evaluation survey results.
Mean Response Value (SD)
Response Variables
Design ideation potential with physical
LEGO bricks*
4.23 (0.83)
1: Very poor
2: Poor
3: Acceptable
4: Good
5: Very Good
Design iteration potential with physical
LEGO bricks†
4.46 (0.78)
Design ideation potential with LEGO bricks
in CAD*
4.38 (0.65)
Design iteration potential with LEGO bricks
in CAD†
4.38 (0.77)
Advantage of physical LEGO bricks over
CAD bricks
3.77 (0.93)
1: Much worse
2: Somewhat worse
3: Stayed the same
4: Somewhat better
5: Much better
Do you prefer LEGO-based CAD as a
design tool?
0.77 (0.44)
No: 0, Yes: 1
* p>0.05, † p>0.05
The survey results, which included both categorical and open-ended questions,
indicate that the participants had a high level of satisfaction, and they view LEGO
bricks as a dependable, versatile building material with great potential for design
ideation and iteration. Of the thirteen participants, ten (76.9%) declared that they
would consider incorporating LEGO CAD tools into their future projects.
The open-ended survey questions revealed that the participants found the design
process to be more enjoyable than other course assignments. They appreciated the
familiarity and comprehensibility of LEGO bricks, which allowed them to generate
ideas and make iterations quickly. One participant noted, “For the first time, I didn’t
feel stuck at some point while designing.” The availability of all LEGO brick types
and the ease of changing colors and making changes to earlier steps were also cited as
advantages.
The survey responses also highlighted some challenges and limitations with using
LEGO bricks as a design tool. Participants noted that LEGO builds do not accurately
represent architectural products in terms of detail, but they can be useful for conceptual
sketches. The monolithic, indivisible, and orthogonal nature of LEGO pieces was also
cited as a limitation. Additionally, participants mentioned that using LEGO CAD tools
lacks tactile feeling and instant feedback compared to working with physical bricks.
52
Some participants also found it difficult to navigate the wide variety of LEGO brick
types, and they reported encountering bugs and missing features in LeoCAD.
The survey responses also highlighted the need for some essential features and
improvements in the then-current version of LeoCAD (v21.03). Participants
mentioned that the software does not have realistic connections that prevent physically
impossible collisions, and it does not support sharing and collaborating with other
designers. Additionally, participants noted that the parts library is not well organized
for searching and accessing frequently used parts, and the software does not have a
structural stability check or realistic rendering in the viewport.
Overall, these challenges, limitations, and missing features were identified as areas for
improvement in the use of LEGO bricks-based CAD as a design tool.
3.3.4 Discussion of the workshop
In this workshop, the potential of using LEGO bricks as a tool for teaching component-
based design thinking and building with modular components was explored. The aim
was to facilitate the transfer of their existing knowledge and skills to the use of pre-
engineered building elements in the architectural design process by leveraging the
familiarity of the students with this toy.
The feedback from the students also revealed that the workshop was a fun and
engaging learning experience for the students, who were able to express their creative
thinking using LEGO bricks. The students also learned to create product posters and
architectural boards in InDesign using the LEGO CAD outputs, which provided
graphically correct and detailed representations of blueprints. This approach enabled
them to focus on the layout design and presentation rather than on the technical
accuracy of their drawings. As a result, the students were able to produce high-quality
presentations that showcased and demonstrated their creative ideas at a certain level
of sophistication.
The results suggest that this approach can be effective in engaging students in a
distance learning exercise and providing them with a fun and intuitive way to learn
about CAD software and modular design. It is also worth noting that no statistically
significant difference was found in the students’ assessment of physical bricks versus
CAD bricks (p>0.05). Therefore, to make more generalizable conclusions, specialized
studies with a larger sample of participants are needed. This is an area for further
53
research that could provide valuable insights into the potential of LEGO CAD tools in
architectural education and design practice.
Overall, this workshop provided valuable insights into the development of the
Dreamscape Bricks VR tool and how it can be used in educational settings to enhance
the learning experience of architecture, interior design, and industrial design students.
54
55
4. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF DREAMSCAPE BRICKS VR
Dreamscape Bricks VR is a virtual design application that enables users to create,
modify and interact with architectural designs using virtual LEGO® bricks as the
building blocks in an immersive virtual environment. This tool, which was developed
using Unreal Engine 4, a free-to-use game engine that supports VR, is intended to aid
this study in gaining a better understanding of the design and user experience in the
virtual world.
This chapter introduces the development of the Dreamscape Bricks VR application,
the first experimental design tool of the DREAMSCAPE framework proposed in this
thesis. The chapter aims to present the design and development challenges faced
during the creation of Dreamscape Bricks VR and the lessons learned during the
process. The tool facilitates the study of opportunities and challenges of designing
immersive virtual environments for architectural design and education through the
design experiments presented in Chapters 5 and 6. The findings from the design and
development of Dreamscape Bricks VR can also assist other researchers and industry
practitioners in understanding the challenges of developing immersive virtual
environments for design education, offering them insights that will contribute to their
tool development process.
The development process is presented in four parts. The first part provides background
and related works, as well as existing commercial tools, and the need for developing
the new experimental tool is explained. The second part presents the tool’s objectives
and main design decisions. The third part describes the implementation of the tool’s
features. The fourth and final part outlines the user evaluation methodology and
presents the results of user testing.
4.1 Background and Related Work
In the discipline of architecture, model-making is an essential stage of the design
process as it helps to bring the design into a tangible form. Since the advent of
computer-aided design tools and 3D modeling software, designers have had the
56
convenience of bypassing the construction of physical models and skipping directly to
creating a virtual model digitally. Recently, VR technology has been suggested to
advance the process and allow designers to create virtual models directly in a virtual
environment from the start. However, existing CAD tools are tailored to the
capabilities and limitations of traditional technologies, which are not optimal for
immersive VR. Therefore, human-computer interaction during digital design activities
needs to be rethought to adapt to the novel prospects offered by VR so that the
architectural design process can fully benefit from the novel opportunities offered by
VR.
Various immersive design tools are available that utilize VR technology, each with its
own specialized set of features and capabilities. Some of these tools primarily focus
on visualization and are used to create immersive, navigable simulations of designs
created in other 3D digital content creation (DCC) software. Several VR tools are 3D
design and modeling platforms that allow users to create and modify designs directly
in VR. These tools offer a number of benefits, such as the ability to make real-time
changes and see the results immediately, better visualize and understand the space
users are creating by walking through it as if they were actually in the space created,
share the same virtual space and collaborate with others, and export models to other
software or formats. Some tools offer a range of features that cover both design and
visualization. These immersive design tools are not limited to use in the field of
architecture and are also used for training, education, and entertainment purposes by
many other disciplines. Table 4.1 compares the features of selected VR design tools
that are commercially available for end-users in the field as of 2020.
In light of the research requirements, none of the existing tools reviewed were found
suitable. Therefore, the decision was made to design and develop a new VR design
tool called Dreamscape Bricks VR, which aimed to demonstrate the proposed
DREAMSCAPE framework. The object interaction methods in the reviewed VR
design tools are based on legacy CAD approaches that are not directly comparable to
physical objects. This research includes design experiments that compare design
activities in physical and immersive virtual environments (see Chapter 5), where the
changing medium (physical vs. virtual) is the independent variable. Having different
object interactions and behaviors in the virtual environment compared to real life can
57
Table 4.1 : Feature comparison of Dreamscape Bricks VR and other commercially available VR design tools.
Dreamscape
Bricks VR
Oculus
Medium
Oculus Quill
Google
Blocks
Google Tilt
Brush
Microsoft
Maquette
Masterpiece
VR
Gravity
Sketch VR
Unbound
Model Creation
Prefabs
3D Mesh,
Prefabs
Particles,
Prefabs
3D Mesh,
Prefabs
Particles,
Prefabs
3D Mesh,
Particles,
Prefabs
3D Mesh,
Particles,
Prefabs
3D Mesh,
Particles,
Prefabs
3D Mesh,
Particles
Object
Transformation
Brick building
Sculpting,
Grid/angle
snapping
Brush
painting
Sculpting,
Grid/angle
snapping
Brush
painting
Sculpting,
Brush
painting,
Grid/angle
snapping,
Text editor
Sculpting,
Brush
painting,
Grid/angle
snapping
Sculpting
Sculpting
Platforms
Oculus Rift,
HTC Vive
Oculus Rift
Oculus Rift
Oculus Rift,
HTC Vive
Oculus Rift,
HTC Vive
Oculus Rift,
HTC Vive
Oculus Rift,
HTC Vive
Oculus Rift,
HTC Vive
Oculus Rift,
HTC Vive
Import
Proprietary
OBJ, FBX
OBJ
OBJ
OBJ
OBJ, FBX,
GLTF
OBJ, FBX,
GLTF
OBJ
Proprietary
Export
Proprietary
OBJ, FBX
FBX, ABC
OBJ
OBJ
OBJ, FBX,
GLTF
OBJ, FBX,
GLTF, STL
OBJ
OBJ, FBX,
GLTF
Animation
support
Yes
-
Yes
-
-
-
-
-
Yes
Materiality
Colors, Preset
PBR material
palette
Colors,
Textures
Colors
Colors,
Textures
Colors
Colors,
Textures
Colors,
Textures
Colors,
Textures
Colors,
Textures
Multi-user
mode
Yes
-
-
-
-
-
Yes
-
Yes
58
introduce additional variables, making it challenging to compare the two design
processes using only the changing medium as the independent variable. Several tools
developed for research purposes take a similar approach to creating a VR design tool
that uses the same building materials as in the real world, such as CubeVR (Raikwar
et al., 2019). However, these tools often include object interactions and graphical user
interfaces similar to legacy CAD tools. These include features such as snapping objects
with parametric increments, rotational snapping with predefined degrees, two-
dimensional point-and-click menu windows, buttons, and dropdown menus. The
medium changes, and so are the interactions and interfaces.
In addition, some VR design tools use direct manipulation by modifying objects with
hands using VR controllers that allow intuitive and natural interaction with objects.
However, in the real world, it is impossible to touch and drag the face of a prism to
change its size. As a result, these tools also do not accurately simulate the interactions
of physical design processes, potentially introducing additional variables into the
comparison of physical and virtual design processes.
Dreamscape Bricks VR addresses these issues by using modular building components,
i.e., virtual LEGO pieces, and enabling the comparison of design processes in physical
and virtual worlds with a single independent variable.
4.2 Design Objectives
The development of Dreamscape Bricks VR was based on the objectives of the
DREAMSCAPE framework, which aims to create a design environment that is more
intuitive and based on real-world actions and interactions rather than transferring a
design vocabulary shaped by the limitations of legacy CAD technologies, such as
limited user interaction through command-driven menus and point-and-click
interfaces, two-dimensional display representations, and workflows with steep
learning curves. Dreamscape Bricks VR emphasizes direct manipulation and natural
interaction in the virtual environment, offering designers a more immersive and
organic experience, enabling them to explore and develop their design concepts in
ways that transcend such constraints of traditional CAD tools more effectively.
To test the effectiveness of the DREAMSCAPE framework and illustrate its proposed
approach, Dreamscape Bricks VR was developed for this study, which is a VR design
59
application powered by Unreal Engine 4. In order to facilitate the comparison of design
activities in physical and immersive virtual environments, LEGO pieces were chosen
as the building blocks for Dreamscape Bricks VR. LEGO pieces are modular and
versatile, which promotes design creativity and allows for experimentation.
Furthermore, the physical and digital versions of LEGO bricks have a close similarity
in appearance, behavior, and functionality, which allows for a direct manipulation
interface in LEGO-based CAD. This allows users to build and modify their designs
intuitively, just as they would with physical LEGO bricks. Additionally, users’ past
experience with LEGO pieces makes it easy for them to transfer their knowledge and
skills from the physical medium to the virtual environment, facilitating the transition
to VR design and making it easier to learn how to use the VR design tool. The choice
of LEGO system as analogue components between physical and digital media is
further explained in Chapter 3.
4.2.1 Embodiment / Experience / Manipulation taxonomy
The DREAMSCAPE framework emphasizes direct manipulation and considers the
design process as a cyclical interplay of three types of activities: embodiment,
experience, and manipulation (EEM). This threefold activity cycle is repeated
iteratively in spatial and temporal succession, allowing designers to (1) embody and
engage with their conceptual ideas, (2) experience and evaluate their initial design
results, and (3) manipulate these design outputs or use them as a basis to develop new
ideas (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 : The threefold design activity flow proposed in the DREAMSCAPE
framework.
60
Embodiment is an essential part of the design process and allows the designer to ideate
while being fully immersed in the design process. It involves embodying the design
concept and interface with the virtual world through direct manipulation of the design
elements. This enables designers to fully engage with their ideas and understand the
form and function of the design spatially.
Experiencing the design usually overlaps and follows the embodiment stage
simultaneously. As designers interact with the design, they gain first-hand insight into
their ideas by interacting with them within the rules of the simulation. During this
phase, designers can evaluate the design’s usability, performance, and aesthetics.
Manipulation is the stage of the design cycle in which the designer can make changes
and adjustments to the design. This stage includes manipulating the design elements
and parameters to create new forms, functions, or behaviors. These modifications can
then be used to improve the design performance iteratively or to create entirely new
forms.
The EEM taxonomy provides a hands-on, intuitive approach to designing in a VR
environment that transcends the limitations of traditional CAD systems and allows for
the evolution of authentic new approaches and techniques of designing in immersive
virtual reality. Therefore, VR design tools that comply with the DREAMSCAPE
framework may potentially enable people to create and construct virtual forms and
spaces with greater efficiency and precision. This may enhance engagement with the
user’s conceptual ideas and a highly iterative and user-centered design process.
In addition to the EEM activities, another key aspect of the DREAMSCAPE
framework is the use of a direct manipulation approach. Direct manipulation is a
method of interacting with digital objects simulated by computer systems through
intuitive and straightforward visual and physical actions (Coffey et al., 2013;
Shneiderman, 1982). Direct manipulation facilitates a more realistic experience of
manipulating virtual items comparable to manipulating objects in the physical world.
The difference between the direct manipulation and legacy CAD approaches can be
demonstrated through a simple modeling operation, e.g., extending one face of a prism
to make it elongated. In the legacy CAD approach, the steps for elongating a prism
would involve selecting a face, selecting the “extrude” command, pointing to the new
location, and clicking to execute the command. In contrast, the direct manipulation
61
approach for this operation would involve simply touching the surface with the hands
and holding and pulling the surface to make the object bigger.
This example clearly illustrates how the legacy CAD approach forces users to think
explicitly within the possibilities of the available commands and requires a certain
period of training and practice before users can operate fluently. In contrast, the direct
manipulation approach offers relatively intuitive and natural interactions that require
little to no training. Previous studies have also indicated that one of the major
drawbacks of the 3D modeling and digital prototyping tools in comparison to VR
design tools is the lack of intuitive direct manipulation that allows realistic hand
interactions with virtual objects (Gomes de Sá & Zachmann, 1998; Holl et al., 2018).
VR design tools have the potential to offer a more intuitive and realistic design
experience, taking advantage of the unique capabilities of the medium. A great
example of such intuitive design interaction with computers can be seen as early as
Sutherland’s Sketchpad (1964), which allowed users to draw on the screen with the
light pen device, creating a natural interaction similar to drawing on paper. Sadly, this
type of interaction did not become mainstream, and CAD tools relied on keyboard and
mouse commands and rigid interfaces that did not accurately communicate the user’s
intent. This interruption can hinder the design process and limit the potential for
genuinely intuitive and realistic design experiences.
Tools that utilize the direct manipulation approach, as proposed in the DREAMSCAPE
framework, enable designers to engage more fully with their conceptual ideas and
create designs that are more closely aligned with real-world actions and interactions.
This approach to VR design transcends the limitations of traditional CAD
technologies, which often rely on point-and-click interfaces and commands that are
not well-suited to immersive design. While it may be tempting to import familiar
vocabulary and interfaces from legacy tools that were designed for different mediums
and their constraints, it is important to embrace the unique opportunities presented by
the immersive 3D space of VR.
4.3 Features and Implementation
Dreamscape Bricks VR is an experimental virtual design tool that offers a range of
features to assist users in creating and modifying architectural designs using virtual
62
LEGO bricks. 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, spatial
audio and haptic feedback, a photo mode, and a design statistics and events logger.
This section will cover the design and implementation of these elements and how they
contribute to the overall usability of the tool. Figure 4.2 shows the system architecture
and design features of Dreamscape Bricks VR.
Figure 4.2 : Overview of the system architecture and design features of Dreamscape
Bricks VR.
Dreamscape Bricks VR was developed using Unreal Engine 4.23 and is designed to
be used on the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive VR headsets. It can also be used on the
Oculus Quest 2 through Oculus Link, which requires the headset to be tethered to a
VR-ready PC, as the current build of the application does not support stand-alone VR
headsets.
4.3.1 Controllers, motion tracking, and object interactions
Interaction fidelity refers to the level of realism and detail in the interactions between
the user and the virtual environment (Bowman et al., 2012; McMahan et al., 2016). In
immersive VR environments, interaction fidelity is typically achieved through the use
63
of controllers, motion tracking, and object interactions. Higher interaction fidelity, as
high as the hardware allows, helps users quickly adapt to and become familiar with the
immersive virtual world without putting in much effort to learn to use it (Jerald, 2015).
Previous studies have indicated that enhanced user engagement with virtual objects
during manipulation leads to an improved user experience (Rogers et al., 2019). This
is because higher interaction fidelity allows for more intuitive and natural interactions
that lead to a more immersive and realistic experience. Therefore, the level of
interaction fidelity in immersive VR environments can significantly affect the overall
user experience.
The use of direct manipulation in Dreamscape Bricks VR enhances the sense of
immersion and interaction fidelity, enabling users to understand and manipulate the
virtual environment easily. The object interactions in Dreamscape Bricks VR intend
to allow users to fully engage with the virtual design process and manipulate the virtual
bricks as if they were real, physical LEGO bricks. Therefore, the interaction fidelity
of the system was an important consideration in the design of Dreamscape Bricks VR.
Various design strategies were employed to ensure that Dreamscape Bricks VR
provided a high level of interaction fidelity for users. The tool was evaluated using
various methods, such as the updated Framework for Interaction Fidelity Analysis
(FIFA), developed by McMahan et al. (2016). The FIFA framework aims to identify
and analyze the factors that contribute to interaction fidelity in VR applications by
identifying three primary factors that contribute to interaction fidelity: (1)
biomechanical symmetry, (2) input veracity, and (3) control symmetry (McMahan et
al., 2016).
Biomechanical symmetry is the degree of similarity between the user’s physical
movements and actions in the virtual environment and those in the real world (2016).
This measure shows how accurately the virtual world mirrors the user’s real-world
motions, thus affecting their sense of presence and immersion in the virtual
environment.
Input veracity refers to the exactitude degree of the input devices used to interact with
the virtual environment in terms of accuracy, precision, and latency (2016). This factor
is important because it shows how closely the user’s actions in the virtual environment
match their intended actions, which can affect their sense of control and agency.
64
Control symmetry is the accuracy degree of the user’s input in the virtual environment
that depends on transfer function symmetry (2016). The transfer function is a
mathematical function that represents the relationship between the numerical input and
the output produced by the dynamic system (Pollock, 2010). Since real-world
interactions are not calculated by transfer functions, user actions and their physical
reactions are assumed to be modeled with theoretical transfer functions (McMahan et
al., 2016). In the context of VR, the transfer function symmetry refers to the accuracy
of the correspondence between the user’s real-world actions (e.g., grabbing a lever and
pulling it) and the expected real-world outcomes (e.g., the lever turning) versus the
virtual world actions resulting from physical input (e.g., grabbing a controller with
hand tracking) and the expected virtual world results (e.g., the virtual lever turning in
the same manner as a real lever would). In other words, control symmetry refers to
how closely the user’s input actions produce the expected results as a response in the
virtual environment.
The features and performances of available hardware options for object interaction in
VR are compared considering the FIFA framework in Table 4.2. The three hardware
options are a gamepad (Xbox Wireless Controller), VR controllers (Oculus Touch or
HTC Vive controllers), and an optical hand tracker (Leap Motion Controller).
Table 4.2 : Reviewing the interaction fidelity of input devices available for object
interactions.
Input
devices
Hand
tracking
Finger
inputs
Tracking
Accuracy
Object
manipulation
Haptic
feedback
Biomech
symm.
Input
veracity
Control
symm.
Gamepad
None
Index
finger
triggers
n/a
Thumbsticks
(2D-axis)
Yes
Very
Low
High
Medium
VR
controllers
6-DoF
Index
and
middle
finger
triggers
High
Hand
movements
Yes
High
High
High
Optical
hand
tracker
6-DoF
All
fingers
tracked
Medium
Hand
gestures
No
Very
High
Medium
High
The gamepad, i.e., the Xbox Wireless Controller, has very low biomechanical
symmetry as the user’s physical movements and actions in the virtual environment do
not closely match those in the real world. In addition, it does not have any hand-
65
tracking capabilities, and the input is limited to the index finger triggers and
thumbsticks.
The VR controllers, such as the Oculus Touch or HTC Vive controllers, have 6 degrees
of freedom (6-DoF) motion tracking and are able to map the movements of the user’s
index and middle fingers. They have high biomechanical symmetry as the user’s
physical movements and actions in the virtual environment closely match those in the
real world. They also have high input veracity as the input devices are accurate,
precise, and have low latency. They also offer high control symmetry as the user’s
input accurately produces the desired results in the virtual environment, allowing for
more natural and intuitive control of the virtual objects.
The optical hand tracker, i.e., Leap Motion Controller, has 6-DoF motion tracking and
can track the movements of all of the user’s fingers. It has high biomechanical
symmetry as the user’s physical movements and actions in the virtual environment
closely match those in the real world. However, it has medium tracking accuracy and
does not provide haptic feedback, which is essential as it enhances the realism and
immersion of the virtual environment by providing the user with tactile sensations that
correspond to their actions and interactions in the virtual world. It also has medium
control symmetry, as the accuracy of the user’s input in the virtual environment
depends on the hand-tracking hardware, which may not be as reliable as VR
controllers.
In addition, Leap Motion Controller has a limited field of view (FOV) of 140° x 120°
and stops tracking the hands once they are outside the user’s FOV. Therefore, if the
user moves their hands behind their back or out of view of the hand tracking sensors,
the system will lose track of their hands and will not be able to accurately track their
movements or interactions with virtual objects (e.g., being held, being touched, etc.).
This can impact the overall interaction fidelity of the system and limit the range of
actions and interactions the user can perform in the virtual environment. In contrast,
VR controllers have 360 degrees of tracking, allowing users to move their hands freely,
making it easier to interact accurately with virtual objects that are out of view.
In order to provide a high level of interaction fidelity for users, VR controllers were
chosen as input devices in Dreamscape Bricks VR. Overall, the VR controllers offer
the highest level of interaction fidelity as they have high scores in all three FIFA
66
framework measures. They offer optimal biomechanical symmetry, high input
veracity, and optimal control symmetry. A previous study also revealed that the Oculus
Touch controllers had a high degree of accuracy, with a reasonable margin of error,
making them well-suited for tracking movements of the upper limbs in biomechanical
applications (Shum et al., 2019). Therefore, the object interaction scheme adopted in
this study is primarily based on the Oculus Touch controllers, which provide accurate
and reliable tracking with low latency across a wide range of movements, allowing
users to easily and intuitively manipulate objects in the virtual environment. To ensure
compatibility with other OpenVR-supported controllers, such as the HTC Vive
controllers, the OpenVR controller input table was used (Unity, 2019) to map the
inputs accordingly.
Figure 6 illustrates the primary object interactions in Dreamscape Bricks VR, and their
corresponding fingers on a left hand mapped to a left Oculus Touch controller. The
inputs and interactions of the right and left hands are mirrored, so users can easily
understand the intuitive inputs and actions.
To provide a realistic and intuitive virtual LEGO building experience in Dreamscape
Bricks VR, the following six primary interactions with a LEGO brick, or a group of
bricks, that are commonly used in physical LEGO building were identified.
(1) Touching an object – allows users to select or highlight a specific brick with
their hand.
(2) Grabbing and holding an object – using the user’s fingers to grasp a brick to be
moved or manipulated.
(3) Moving or rotating the held object – once a brick is grabbed and held, the user
can move or rotate it to place it in a desired location or orientation.
(4) Dropping an object – releasing a brick from the user’s hand, allowing it to be
placed on a surface.
(5) Connecting bricks – bringing bricks close together and “snapping” them
together by applying force.
(6) Separating connected bricks – applying force to pull connected bricks apart.
These six primary interactions were chosen based on the common actions taken during
physical LEGO building in systematic observations made for this study. The first four
67
interactions are common for object interaction in both the real world and VR, while
the last two are specific to LEGO bricks.
To provide a high level of interaction fidelity and replicate the natural movements and
actions of the human hand with high biomechanical symmetry, it is essential to
consider the biomechanical characteristics and capabilities of the human hand when
interacting with objects and using tools. Napier initially proposed two main grip styles,
the precision grip and the power grip (Napier, 1956), which have been further
elaborated upon with subdivisions in later studies (Jeannerod et al., 1995; Santello et
al., 1998). The precision grip is used for smaller objects and requires the use of the
fingertips and thumb to grasp the object, while the power grip is used for larger objects
and involves the use of the whole hand to grasp and hold the object (Napier, 1956;
Santello et al., 1998).
The input scheme for Dreamscape Bricks VR was designed based on the Oculus Touch
controller, allowing users to perform natural finger movements and grip gestures
similar to those used when building with real-life LEGO bricks. Based on observations
made during the research process, a precision grip involving the fingertips and thumb
is typically used to grab, hold, move, and rotate bricks. At the same time, index fingers
apply force to connect and separate them. With this in mind, the Grip Trigger, located
under the middle finger, is mapped to grab and hold input, while the Index Trigger,
located under the index finger, is mapped to apply force input for connecting and
separating the virtual LEGO bricks. The thumbs can be placed on the top buttons (X/A
and Y/B) and thumbsticks that are used to perform non-realistic actions such as
teleportation locomotion or altering the user’s scale (see Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3 : Oculus Touch controller input mapping and primary fingers for object
interactions in Dreamscape Bricks VR.
68
Table 4.3 provides an overview of the object interactions available in Dreamscape
Bricks VR, including the instructions on performing the interactions, the inputs used
on the Oculus Touch controller, and the feedback provided to the user. These
interactions are designed to replicate the natural movements and actions of the human
hand with high biomechanical symmetry and provide a high level of interaction
fidelity.
Table 4.3: Object interactions in Dreamscape Bricks VR: interactions, instructions,
inputs, and feedback.
Interaction
Instructions
Inputs
Feedback
Touch
Move your hand very close to an object
(movement)
Visual highlight,
haptic
Grab and hold
Touch the object, hold the Grip to
grab, and hold it
Grip Trigger
(middle finger)
Haptic
Move and rotate
Move and rotate your hand while
holding the object
(movement)
-
Drop
Release the Grip
Grip Trigger
(middle finger)
Haptic
Connect bricks
Hold the brick, bring it closer to the
brick you want to connect it with, apply
force (squeeze the Trigger), release the
Grip
Grip Trigger
(middle finger)
Index Trigger
(index finger)
Haptic,
audio (click)
Separate bricks
Apply force (squeeze the Trigger),
hold the Grip, the held brick will
detach, stop applying force (release the
Trigger)
Index Trigger
(index finger)
Grip Trigger
(middle finger)
Haptic, audio
Figure 4.4.a illustrates a group of LEGO pieces being connected to the base structure
of the building. When force is applied (by pressing Index Trigger on the Oculus Touch
controller), a blue ghost version of the pieces held appears where they can be placed
according to the socket polarity rules defined in Section 4.3.3. Figure 4.4.b shows the
separation of the top plate from the rest of the building by applying force.
69
Figure 4.4 : Object interaction in Dreamscape Bricks VR: applying force to connect
and separate LEGO bricks.
In Dreamscape Bricks VR, users have visual and spatial access to all virtual LEGO
pieces through the shelves around the virtual building platform. The pieces are
organized by type and size and are available through an invisible brick dispenser on
the shelves. When a user grabs a piece, a new instance of that piece will spawn after a
short delay, providing users with a seamless and continuous supply of virtual LEGO
pieces.
4.3.2 Locomotion in VR
Locomotion in virtual environments is a crucial aspect of user experience as the sense
of navigation significantly impacts presence and immersion in the virtual world
(Bowman et al., 1998). Over the last few decades, there has been a growing interest in
the study of human locomotion in VR environments (Bowman et al., 1998; Bowman
& Hodges, 1999; Templeman et al., 1999). As VR technology continues to advance,
researchers continue to investigate various methods of locomotion in VR to
accommodate the increased capabilities of newer VR headsets and systems (Boletsis,
2017; Bozgeyikli et al., 2016, 2019; Buttussi & Chittaro, 2021). However, designing
effective and comfortable locomotion techniques for VR remains a challenge, as no
single method is suitable for all types of applications.
A systematic review by Boletsis categorizes these methods into four main categories:
(1) motion-based, (2) room-scale-based, (3) controller-based, and (4) teleportation-
based (Boletsis, 2017). Motion-based techniques rely on the user’s physical
movements in the physical world to allow them to move in the virtual environment,
such as swinging their arms or walking in place to move forward (2017). Room-scale-
based techniques track the user’s physical movement within a designated physical
space and translate it to the virtual environment, allowing the user to move and interact
with the virtual environment (2017). However, the movements are limited to the
available physical tracking space and cannot extend beyond it. Controller-based
techniques allow users to move around in virtual environments using controllers, such
as joysticks, as the primary means of input (2017). Teleportation-based techniques
utilize teleportation interactions that instantly move users to a different location in a
three-dimensional space without them having to move physically. It may be triggered
through a controller input or by an interaction within the virtual environment.
70
Previous studies have indicated that controller-based techniques may be more likely
to lead to motion sickness and nausea compared to other methods (Boletsis, 2017;
Buttussi & Chittaro, 2021). On the other hand, using motion-based navigation may
require more physical exertion (Bozgeyikli et al., 2019; Buttussi & Chittaro, 2021).
Additionally, swinging the arms or marching in place to move forward have less
biomechanical symmetry and may not be the most intuitive or comfortable for users,
particularly when performing tasks requiring precise movements or using both hands,
such as building with bricks. Therefore, in Dreamscape Bricks VR, room-scale-based
real-walking and point-and-teleport have been implemented as the core methods of
locomotion.
The primary mode of locomotion in Dreamscape Bricks VR is room-scale real-
walking, which is physically walking through the real world to navigate the virtual
environment using motion tracking. However, the physical space available in the real
world is limited to an area of 3 meters by 3 meters. When this space is exceeded,
teleportation must be used to move further. To initiate teleportation, the user presses
either one of the thumbsticks and begins casting the teleport marker, pointing it at the
desired location and rotating the marker to face the desired direction. Releasing the
thumbstick teleports the user to the marked location facing the specified rotation.
Teleportation can be an effective mode of navigation in VR, but it is not a natural mode
of navigation and can cause confusion and disorientation if not implemented carefully.
To mitigate this, Dreamscape Bricks VR includes ghost teleport markers at the user’s
last position, allowing them to look back and see where they came from if they become
disoriented. To minimize disorientation and improve the user’s overall experience, a
"blink" feature was implemented in Dreamscape Bricks VR. This feature fades the
user’s view to black when teleportation is initiated and then fades back in after 500
milliseconds at the new location. These implementations help to provide a natural and
intuitive navigation experience.
The designated physical VR experience area boundaries are outlined using the VR
system's built-in boundary setup feature – the Guardian system for Oculus and the
Chaperone system for SteamVR. These safety features make users aware of the
boundaries in VR, which appear as a grid wall when users get too close to the edge of
their physical VR experience area. This virtual boundary helps users maintain a safe
distance from real-world obstacles and avoid accidental collisions. In Dreamscape
71
Bricks VR, room-scale real-walking is implemented utilizing these safety features to
ensure users stay within the designated safe space. The combination of real-walking
and teleportation in Dreamscape Bricks VR allows users to navigate the virtual
environment comfortably and intuitively while maintaining safety.
Furthermore, in Dreamscape Bricks VR, users are able to navigate around the virtual
building platform using real-world walking and perform building actions without
having to teleport. The application’s total operational area, or design space, on the
default precision building scale (1:10) is 6 meters by 6 meters. Therefore, the users are
able to walk across one side of the operational area by walking half of it within the
physical VR experience area of 3 meters by 3 meters, then teleport to face back and
walk the remaining 3 meters. In addition to using the point-and-teleport feature, users
can switch to a larger scale, such as the life-size bricks scale (1:1), to move further
with a single step or have a better overview of the virtual environment.
4.3.3 Polarity-based LEGO brick interactions
A polarity-based brick connection system was implemented in Dreamscape Bricks VR
to mimic the behavior of real-life LEGO bricks, enabling the users to virtually
assemble LEGO pieces based on their real-world connection capabilities.
Initially, a snapping system based on plate height increments (2 pu) and half the brick
width (λ/2 = 2.5 pu) was considered for displacements in the vertical and horizontal
axes, respectively. However, this approach would not work for SNOT (studs-not-on-
top) builds and would require users to manage additional parameters, undermining the
intuitive building experience. Furthermore, user feedback from the previous workshop
conducted with first-year design students, who assessed the use of LEGO-based CAD
for designing living units (see Section 3.3), indicated that users demanded realistic
connections that would not allow physically impossible connections and would also
ensure structural stability. As a result, a decision was made to implement a realistic
physical connection system instead of using dimension-based snapping in a voxel grid.
In the polarity-based connection algorithm used in Dreamscape Bricks VR, three types
of sockets are assigned: stud (+/-), tube (+/-), and bar (+/-). Virtual LEGO pieces can
connect to one another based on the socket polarities of their respective elements,
similar to how magnets attract. When two LEGO pieces with compatible polarities are
brought close together, and force is applied to the held brick, they snap together. For
72
example, studs have a stud+ polarity, and bottom slots have a stud- polarity, allowing
them to connect. Similarly, tubes have a stud- polarity, allowing them to connect to
studs with a stud+ polarity. Tubes also have a tube+ polarity, allowing them to fit into
face gaps with a tube- polarity. Knobs, which are studs with hollow centers, behave
similarly to studs, with an addition of the bar- polarity of their holes. The ends of bars
have a bar+ polarity and fit into the holes of knobs. This system allows for realistic
and intuitive connections between virtual LEGO bricks in Dreamscape Bricks VR.
In order to implement the polarity-based connection system in Dreamscape Bricks VR,
the Blueprint Visual Scripting system in Unreal Engine 4 was used. The plug-and-
socket snapping system was defined in the connection Blueprints for the application.
To set up the attachment points, UE4’s Socket Manager was used to assign and
position connection sockets on each element of each brick type and assigned the
appropriate polarities for each socket.
Figure 4.5 shows a 2x2 brick with sockets set up in Unreal Engine 4’s Socket Manager.
The 2x2 brick features four studs (assigned with stud+ sockets), four bottom slots
(stud- sockets), two tubes (both stud- and tube+ sockets juxtaposed), and one face gap
(a tube- socket).
Table 4.4: Connection polarity matrix of LEGO elements in Dreamscape Bricks VR.
Bottom Slot
Tube
Face Gap
Bar
Stud
stud +
stud -
stud +
stud -
Tube
tube +
tube -
Knob
stud +
stud -
stud +
stud -
bar -
bar+
Figure 4.5 : Connection sockets setup for a 2x2 brick in the Socket Manager of
Unreal Engine 4.
73
These sockets allow the virtual LEGO bricks in Dreamscape Bricks VR to connect to
one another based on their polarities, replicating the behavior of real-life LEGO bricks.
4.3.4 Temporal rewind
Many computer programs, including those based on the legacy CAD approach, feature
an “Undo” function that allows users to correct mistakes (Gao et al., 2016; Heer et al.,
2008). The Undo feature not only helps in correcting mistakes but also keeps a history
log of actions that can aid designers in improving their designs by reverting to an
earlier step and exploring different strategies (Cheng et al., 2016; H. Lee et al., 2010;
Shneiderman, 1996).
In order to find more natural ways of interaction in Dreamscape Bricks VR, a
conscious effort was made to avoid using legacy CAD and human-computer
interaction terminology. However, error recovery posed a challenge at first, as it is not
possible to simply “undo” actions in real life. Therefore, the idea of time travel was
considered as a practical way of undoing mistakes. The concept of rewinding time also
reflects how humans often contemplate their actions and regret not having opted for X
instead of Y after realizing Y was an error or that Z would have been the better choice.
The ability to rewind time is not unfamiliar to the field of human-computer interaction,
as it has been used as a gameplay mechanic and narrative device in several video
games. For example, in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2004), the player can
rewind time to avoid death, correct mistakes, or try alternate strategies. Similarly, in
Braid (2008), the player can manipulate time to solve puzzles and progress through
the game. In Life is Strange (2015), the player can rewind time to alter the course of
events and make different choices that can impact the story’s outcome. These games
demonstrate how the use of temporal rewind can enhance gameplay and allow players
to explore different options and consequences.
The temporal rewind feature allows users to explore different design options and
investigate potential mistakes without starting over. Incorporating a rewind time
feature in a virtual design application can give users increased control over their work
and enable them to explore alternative design paths.
In Dreamscape Bricks VR, a temporal rewind feature that allows users to undo their
actions was implemented. To activate the rewind feature, users must press and hold
the X and A buttons simultaneously to avoid triggering it by accidentally pressing a
74
button. This will rewind time frame by frame, giving users the ethereal experience of
having control over the direction of time. The rewind feature reverses the last actions
in a temporal continuum, in the opposite order they were performed, at the same speed
they were executed, unlike "Undo" functions which instantly remove the last step.
4.3.5 Changing the user’s scale
Dreamscape Bricks VR allows users to change their scale in the virtual world as a key
design feature, providing them with various options for interacting with the LEGO
bricks. Users can build with life-size bricks at their actual size relative to the bricks
(1:1 scale). For building more precisely, they can scale themselves to a smaller size
(1:10), in which the bricks look ten times larger than in real life. Alternatively, users
can also experience the structure they designed at a LEGO Minifigure scale (1:42.5)
to see the entire design from a different perspective. Users can easily switch between
these three predefined scales at any point throughout the design process to explore
their creations from various viewpoints. Figure 4.6 illustrates the boundaries of the 3-
meter by 3-meter physical VR experience area juxtaposed with the design space in
Dreamscape Bricks VR at these three predefined scales.
4.3.5.1 Life-size bricks (1:1 scale)
The life-size bricks scale (1:1) in Dreamscape Bricks VR allows users to see all the
virtual LEGO pieces at their life-size and is helpful for viewing the overall structure
at any stage of the design process. In this scale, the user is also represented at their real
height, and the virtual human figures are 4 cm in height, the same size as a real-life
LEGO Minifigure. Figure 4.6.a compares the boundaries of the physical VR
experience area and Dreamscape VR’s design space at the scale of 1:1.
4.3.5.2 Precision building scale (1:10 scale)
In the precision building scale (1:10), virtual bricks are ten times larger than their real-
life counterparts, making it easier to build with precision. Based on development play
tests and the evaluation of other scale values, 1:10 was chosen as the default scale for
the application. Figure 4.6.b compares the boundaries of the physical VR experience
area and Dreamscape Bricks VR’s design space at the scale of 1:10.
75
Figure 4.6 : The physical VR experience area and Dreamscape Bricks VR’s design
space are compared at different scales.
76
4.3.5.3 Figure-sized user (1:42.5 Scale)
The figure-sized user scale (1:42.5) allows users to experience the virtual environment
at the same scale as a LEGO Minifigure. In this scale, the user is shrunk by 42.5 times,
making them the same size as a 4 cm tall Minifigure. Meanwhile, the virtual LEGO
pieces are enlarged by 42.5 times. This scale enables users to experience their designs
from a Minifigure’s point of view in a hypothetical situation where Minifigures are the
size of people, and LEGO elements are appropriately sized construction materials.
Figure 4.6.c compares the boundaries of the physical VR experience area and
Dreamscape VR’s design space at the scale of 1:42.5.
The user’s ability to scale also affects their experience of locomotion in the virtual
environment. When using the life-size scale, users can easily view and access the entire
design space without the need for teleporting or walking around the virtual building
platform. This scale allows users to work on their designs in a seated position, similar
to working on a desk in real life. They can also move around the virtual construction
platform by walking within the physical VR play space.
4.3.6 Save and load system
With the save and load system, designers can easily save their current design and come
back to it at a later time or even share their designs with other users for teamwork and
the exchange of ideas. The system records the placements, configurations, and
component hierarchy of the bricks on the virtual building platform, making it easy to
restore the same layout between sessions and allowing designers to compare different
iterations of their designs. In addition, designs can be easily loaded and resumed at any
time, making it convenient for designers to pick up where they left off and continue
working on their creations.
4.3.7 Tutorial
Dreamscape Bricks VR offers a built-in tutorial to guide new users in the basics of
navigating and interacting with the virtual environment, as well as using advanced
features. The tutorial consists of seven interactive displays, each instructing a different
feature of the application: (1) teleport, (2) grab, (3) rewind time, (4) connect bricks,
(5) separate bricks, (6) colorize elements, and (7) change user scale. The interactive
displays are placed around the elevated virtual building platform in the middle. The
77
tutorial instructions are easily readable from the building platform. In addition, the
demonstration display units can be reached with a few teleports if the user needs help
with any feature while building.
4.3.8 Audio
The sound design in virtual environments is crucial for creating a realistic VR
experience, as it allows for the spatialization of sound and the creation of a more
immersive audio environment. It is also essential for providing feedback on
interactions within the simulation and the system status.
The sound effects for physical interactions with the bricks were created based on real
LEGO piece sounds to enhance the immersive design experience in Dreamscape
Bricks VR. In contrast, additional sound effects for non-realistic virtual interactions,
such as teleporting or changing scale, were created using synthesized sounds. An array
of real-life LEGO brick foley effects were used to simulate the sounds of virtual LEGO
pieces, taking into account factors such as weight, friction, size of the bricks, as well
as environmental parameters. In addition, the audio cues for physics collisions were
modulated with random variations in volume and pitch to add realism and avoid
robotic sounds and repetition. The resulting immersive soundscape was convincingly
natural and enriched the user experience.
4.3.9 Haptic feedback
Haptics refers to the sense of touch and the ability to physically feel a sensation through
the use of technology. Haptic feedback is a significant part of providing realistic and
immersive VR experiences (Kim et al., 2020; Masurovsky et al., 2020). Previous
research has indicated that the lack of haptic feedback is a major problem in object
manipulation that hinders the experience in VR (Boud et al., 1999). While it is not
currently feasible to provide entirely natural and complex haptic feedback in consumer
VR, it is possible to incorporate haptic effects using VR controllers, as shown in Table
4.2, such as vibrational amplitude patterns.
In Dreamscape Bricks VR, various haptic feedback effects are utilized to simulate a
range of interactions, including touching, grabbing, connecting and separating bricks,
initiating teleportation, casting a teleport marker, and teleporting to a marked point.
These effects are designed to mimic the actual tactile sensations or intensity of each
78
interaction using the Haptic Feedback Effect editor in Unreal Engine 4. This editor
allows the user to adjust the haptic effect’s frequency, amplitude, and duration using a
curve graph.
4.3.10 Additional features
In addition to the major features outlined above, Dreamscape Bricks VR offers a range
of additional features that enhance the user experience. The photo mode (Figure 9.c)
allows users to capture a screenshot image of their current design. The application also
displays and logs design statistics, such as the number of pieces used and the number
currently on the building platform. Additionally, the backend event logging system
records key events, interactions, and system states during design sessions. As part of
the direct manipulation approach, non-diegetic and flat graphical user interfaces are
minimized in favor of spatial UI elements (Figure 4.7), which means that the controls
and operations that would normally be presented as menus are integrated as functional
three-dimensional objects into the virtual environment. This approach enhances the
immersion and intuitive nature of the VR experience.
Figure 4.7 : A screenshot of Dreamscape Bricks VR from a user test session.
4.4 User Experience Evaluation and Test Cases
Once core features and basic functionalities were implemented, user experience
evaluation studies were conducted to assess the usability, presence, and comfort
performance of the Dreamscape Bricks VR application. In this test study, participants
79
were asked to build designs following the given instructions. Four questionnaires were
administered to evaluate the usability, presence, and comfort performances of the
application following the completion of the modeling tasks. In addition to completing
questionnaires, participants were also asked to provide feedback on their experiences
with the tool, including any issues they encountered and their overall comments. Based
on user studies, necessary changes, including minor alterations, enhancements, and
modifications, were applied to Dreamscape Bricks VR. In this section, the results of
the user experience evaluation study will be discussed.
4.4.1 Test participants
The user experience evaluation tests of Dreamscape Bricks VR included a total of 12
participants, who were recruited from various design professions and educational
backgrounds related to architecture. As shown in Table 4.5, the participants included
a mix of genders, with 6 females and 6 males. The age range was from 22 to 37.
Table 4.5: Demographics and characteristics of the test users.
#
Pseudonym
Age
Gender
Profession
Education
Expertise
Level
Dev
Status
IVR
Design
Exp.
1
F1P
22
F
Architecture
Undergraduate
4th year
Proficient
Non-dev
No
2
F2PD
24
F
Interior
Architecture
Professional
Proficient
Developer
Yes
3
M1E
37
M
Architecture
Professional
Expert
Non-dev
No
4
M2ED
30
M
Architecture
PhD Student
Expert
Developer
Yes
5
F3P
24
F
Architecture
Master’s
Student
Proficient
Non-dev
No
6
M3ED
34
M
Architecture
PhD Student
Expert
Developer
Yes
7
M4P
25
M
Interior
Architecture
Undergraduate
4th year
Proficient
Non-dev
Yes
8
M5PD
25
M
Urban
Design
Professional
Proficient
Developer
Yes
9
M6N
24
M
Architecture
Undergraduate
1st year
Initiate
Non-dev
Yes
10
F4N
26
F
Architecture
Undergraduate
1st year
Initiate
Non-dev
No
11
F5ED
31
F
Architecture
PhD Student
Expert
Developer
Yes
12
F6P
24
F
Architecture
Professional
Proficient
Non-dev
No
80
The participants were primarily architects (9 participants), with 2 participants from an
interior architecture background and 1 participant from urban design. Their
educational levels varied, including first-year undergraduates, PhD students, and
professional architects. In terms of expertise level, there were 2 initiates (17%), 6
proficient users (50%), and 4 experts (33%) in their respective design professions.
Some participants had a VR application development background, with 5 being
developers (42%) and 7 being non-developers (58%). Additionally, 7 participants had
previous IVR design experience (58%), while 5 did not (42%).
4.4.2 Testing apparatus
For the user experience evaluation of Dreamscape Bricks VR, an Oculus Rift CV1 VR
headset was utilized, which has a 1080 x 1200 resolution per eye, a weight of 470 g, 6
degrees of freedom (DoF) outside-in motion tracking, a field of view of 87° horizontal
and 88° vertical, and a refresh rate of 90 Hz. In addition, two Oculus Touch controllers
were used for hand tracking and user inputs and three Oculus sensors as motion
trackers to set up a room-scale VR environment of 3 meters by 3 meters. The VR
system was connected to a PC with an Intel Core i7 8700K processor, an NVIDIA
GeForce GTX 1080Ti graphics card, and 16 GB of memory, which was considered a
high-performance gaming and development setup at the time of the evaluation.
Optimizations were made during the development of the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application to ensure that this PC configuration provided smooth performance with
stable framerates of 80-90 FPS.
4.4.3 Testing procedure and questionnaires
The testing procedure for the user experience evaluation of Dreamscape Bricks VR
began with participants completing a tutorial that introduced them to the basics of
navigating and interacting with the virtual environment and helped participants
familiarize themselves with the tool before starting the actual design task.
After completing the tutorial, participants randomly selected one of four LEGO
building instructions of similar complexity (see Figure A.6 and Figure A.7 for two
samples). They were asked to use the Dreamscape Bricks VR application to build
models according to the given instructions. The participants were given ample time to
try out all the features of the tool and were not subjected to any time pressure, allowing
them to explore the tool and get fully comfortable with it.
81
Upon completion of the building task, the user experience of the Dreamscape Bricks
VR application was evaluated using four surveys: Nielsen’s usability heuristics,
Sutcliffe and Gault’s heuristic evaluation for usability testing, the Spatial Presence
Experience Scale (SPES), and the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. These surveys
were administered to measure the usability performance of the tool, as well as the
presence and comfort experienced by the participants while using it.
4.4.3.1 Usability testing
Usability is defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as the
extent to which a product can be used by a specific group of users to accomplish
specific tasks effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily in a particular context
(International Organization for Standardization, 2018). The purpose of usability
testing is to evaluate the usability of a product or service from the perspective of a
sample group of users, assessing how easy and efficient it is for them to use.
In the context of human-computer interactions, usability testing can be used to evaluate
the usability of software applications and other digital products, such as computer
software, mobile applications, and web interfaces. It helps identify any issues or
problems that users may encounter when interacting with the software and can provide
valuable insights for improving the user experience.
Heuristic evaluation is a usability inspection method in which a selected team of
evaluators review a product and identify any usability problems based on a set of
predetermined heuristics and usability principles (Nielsen, 1994b; Nielsen & Molich,
1990). Nielsen and Molich’s heuristics for evaluating the usability of a product provide
a set of guidelines for identifying potential usability problems with a user interface
(Nielsen, 1994b; Nielsen & Molich, 1990) and recommending changes to improve the
user experience for the next iterations of the design (Nielsen, 1994a). Nielsen
developed a set of ten usability heuristics, which are based on their original work with
Molich (Nielsen, 2020, 1994b). These heuristics are widely accepted and commonly
used as a general set of guidelines for evaluating the usability of a variety of user
interfaces.
As the first stage of the usability questionnaire, Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics were
utilized with a five-point Likert scale to evaluate the usability of Dreamscape Bricks
VR. The evaluation allowed for the quantification of the rating of each usability aspect
82
identified by the evaluators, where a rating of 1 represented “Very Poor” and a rating
of 5 represented “Very Good.” The results of this evaluation are presented in Table
4.6.
In addition to Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics, Sutcliffe and Gault’s heuristic
evaluation was also employed as a complementary usability test in the second stage of
the user experience evaluation in Dreamscape Bricks VR. Sutcliffe and Gault’s
heuristic method is specifically designed for evaluating the usability of VR
applications and includes a set of twelve IVE-specific heuristics, such as “realistic
feedback” and “sense of presence” (Sutcliffe & Gault, 2004), which are not addressed
in Nielsen’s heuristics. The same evaluation process was used with a five-point Likert
scale, with the same ratings of 1 for very poor and 5 for very good. The results of this
evaluation are presented in Table 4.7.
Combining these two usability evaluation methods allowed for a thorough assessment
of the usability of Dreamscape Bricks VR and identification of any issues that might
impact the user experience.
4.4.3.2 Presence testing
The third stage of the user experience evaluation was the spatial presence assessment.
Presence is a subjective sensation of being physically present in a mediated
environment, feeling as if the virtual environment was real (Lombard & Ditton, 1997).
A variety of spatial presence tests are being used to measure the aspect of presence in
virtual environments. Hartmann et al.’s Spatial Presence Experience Scale (SPES) was
chosen over other widely used presence tests that were published prior to 2015, such
as the Presence Questionnaire (PQ), since SPES was found to be more reliable in
comparison to evaluating the sense of presence in virtual environments and is better
suited for newer VR technologies (Özkan, 2016). The SPES comprises twenty
questions divided into two subdomains: self-location (SL) and possible actions (PA),
evaluating spatial insideness and performative ableness, respectively. Ten self-
location subdomain statements assess users’ feelings of being physically present in the
virtual environment. Ten statements regarding the possible actions subdomain assess
users’ perceptions of the actions they can take in the virtual environment. By
evaluating both the self-location and possible actions subdomains, the SPES provides
a comprehensive assessment of the sense of presence in a virtual environment.
83
To evaluate the sense of presence in Dreamscape Bricks VR, the SPES was used with
a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The
SPES test results are shown in Table 4.8.
4.4.3.3 Comfort assessment
Simulator sickness is a set of symptoms that include nausea, eyestrain, and
disorientation that can be experienced when using a simulated environment (Kennedy
et al., 1993). Despite being originally published in 1993, the Simulator Sickness
Questionnaire (SSQ) remains one of the most commonly used simulator sickness
assessments (Balk et al., 2013). The questionnaire consists of 16 questions scored on
a four-point scale ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (severe) (Kennedy et al., 1993).
The SSQ was administered to the participants after they completed the assigned tasks
in the virtual environment as the fourth stage of the user experience evaluation. The
questionnaire aims to measure the general comfort level of the users while interacting
with Dreamscape Bricks VR. The results are presented in Table 4.9.
4.4.4 Questionnaire results and findings
The usability test results suggest that the Dreamscape Bricks VR application is
generally perceived as complying well with the usability principles outlined in
Nielsen’s and Sutcliffe and Gault’s heuristics, as assessed by the participants. Most
users were able to use the basic features and controls of the application with ease.
Nielsen’s usability heuristics survey included ten principles that aimed to assess
different aspects of the tool’s usability. The participants were asked to rate how well
the application complied with each principle on a scale from 1 (Very Poor) to 5 (Very
Good). The results of the survey are summarized in Table 4.6.
As shown in the table, the mean response values for the survey principles range from
4.08 to 4.92, with a standard deviation of 0.29 to 0.79. The principles with the highest
mean response values are “Consistency and standards” (4.92) and “Help and
documentation” (4.75), indicating that the participants believed that the tool was
consistent and maintained its user experience decisions throughout and that it provided
adequate help with the tutorial feature. The principles with the lowest mean response
values are “Error prevention” (4.08) and “Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover
from errors” (4.42), which relate to how well the tool handles errors and helps users
84
troubleshoot problems. Although these principles had the lowest mean response
values, they were still evaluated as being above 4 (Good). Results of these items
suggest that there is still room for improvement in the areas of error prevention and
recovery to better adhere to the usability principles, although it is already performing
well in these areas.
Table 4.6: Results of Nielsen’s usability heuristics survey for Dreamscape Bricks
VR.
#
Principles
Mean
Response
Value
Standard
Deviation
Response
Variables
1
Visibility of system status
4.58
0.67
5: Very Good
4: Good
3: Acceptable
2: Poor
1: Very Poor
2
Match between system and the real world
4.58
0.52
3
User control and freedom
4.42
0.67
4
Consistency and standards
4.92
0.29
5
Error prevention
4.08
0.79
6
Recognition rather than recall
4.50
0.52
7
Flexibility and efficiency of use
4.50
0.67
8
Aesthetic and minimalist design
4.75
0.62
9
Help users recognize, diagnose, and
recover from errors
4.42
0.79
10
Help and documentation
4.75
0.45
In addition to evaluating the usability of the Dreamscape Bricks VR tool using
Nielsen’s heuristics, a survey was also conducted to assess the tool’s compliance with
Sutcliffe and Gault’s VR-specific heuristics principles. These principles were
developed explicitly to evaluate the usability of VR applications and consider factors
such as the sense of presence and natural engagement in a virtual environment. The
results are summarized in Table 4.7. As shown in the table, the mean response values
for the principles range from 4.25 to 5.00, with a standard deviation of 0.00 to 0.75.
The principles with the highest mean response values were “Faithful viewpoints”
(5.00) and “Close coordination of action and representation” (4.83), indicating that the
participants felt the tool provided realistic and immersive visuals and that the actions
taken by the users were mirrored very well with unnoticeable delay in the virtual
environment. The standard deviation for “Faithful viewpoints” is 0.00, showing no
variation in the participants’ ratings for this principle. In other words, all twelve
participants rated the application’s visual representation as “Very Good”, and there
85
was no disagreement among the ratings. The principle with the lowest mean response
value is “Clear entry and exit points” (4.25), which relates to the clarity and ease of
use of the means of exiting the VR environment. This finding may be influenced by
the fact that the participants did not need to exit the virtual environment before
completing the task. Therefore, the low score for this principle may not necessarily
reflect a weakness of the “Dreamscape Bricks VR” application but rather the lack of
need for this feature during the VR session. It is worth noting that the “Clear turn-
taking” principle was not assessed, as the VR sessions involved single-person tasks in
the context of this study.
Table 4.7: Results of Sutcliffe and Gault’s VR-specific usability heuristics survey
for Dreamscape Bricks VR.
#
Principles
Mean
Response
Value
Standard
Deviation
Response
Variables
1
Natural engagement
4.50
0.67
5: Very Good
4: Good
3: Acceptable
2: Poor
1: Very Poor
2
Compatibility with the user’s task and
domain
4.58
0.67
3
Natural expression of action
4.67
0.49
4
Close coordination of action and
representation
4.83
0.39
5
Realistic feedback
4.83
0.39
6
Faithful viewpoints
5.00
0.00
7
Navigation and orientation support
4.75
0.45
8
Clear entry and exit points
4.25
0.75
9
Consistent departures
4.83
0.39
10
Support for learning
4.83
0.39
11
Clear turn-taking
n/a
n/a
12
Sense of presence
4.67
0.65
The results of the presence survey using the SPES, which are presented in Table 4.8,
suggest that the participants generally had a strong sense of presence while using the
Dreamscape Bricks VR application. The participants were asked to rate their responses
on a scale from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating stronger agreement with the
statement. The majority of the mean response values were above 4, with a mean
average of 4.65. The SL-10 item, which asks about the participants’ perception of the
spatial relationship between their bodies and the virtual environment around them,
received a mean response value of 5.00 with a standard deviation of 0.00. This result
indicates that all participants strongly agreed that the virtual environment of
86
Dreamscape Bricks VR was convincingly immersive, providing a strong sense of
spatial awareness and presence in the virtual environment. It may also indicate that the
VR system’s motion-tracking capabilities were functioning well, allowing the users to
move and interact with the virtual objects convincingly. One item that received a
relatively low score (3.58) was PA-8, which asks about the user’s perception of
freedom to do whatever they want in the virtual environment. This result was
anticipated, as the interactions of the environment were designed to be focused on
design activities and not distractive for the users as they worked on their designs on
the building platform. On the other hand, the PA-1 item, which asks about the user’s
feeling that they could do things with the objects in the virtual environment, received
a high score (4.92), indicating that the virtual objects, specifically the bricks, provided
realistic and satisfying interactions for the participants. Overall, the results of the
presence survey indicate that the Dreamscape Bricks VR application, logo of which is
shown in Figure 4.8, succeeded in providing participants with a strong sense of
presence, with realistic and satisfying interactions with the virtual objects.
The Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) results show that the participants
generally experienced minimal discomfort while using Dreamscape Bricks VR. The
mean average of 0.28 out of 3 across all sixteen items, five of which received a score
of 0, indicating no discomfort at all. The items “General discomfort” and “Fatigue”
received scores of 0.58, indicating mild discomfort, but this may be expected with any
prolonged use of the Oculus Rift VR headset, which has a weight of approximately
470 grams. The item “Fullness of head”, which measures discomfort due to the filling
of the sinuses, received a score of 0.67. This discomfort is typically seen in physical
simulators that manipulate gravity, but the participants may have reported this
discomfort due to the weight and physical restriction of the VR headset. It is worth
noting that no motion sickness symptoms were reported, which can be attributed to the
tool’s high performance with low latency and high frame rate, as well as the successful
design and implementation of VR locomotion and virtual interactions.
Figure 4.8 : Logo and logotype design for the Dreamscape Bricks VR application.
87
Table 4.8 : Results of the Subjective Presence in Virtual Environments Scale (SPES)
for Dreamscape Bricks VR.
#
Questions
Mean
Response
Value
Standard
Deviation
Response
Variables
SL-1
I felt like I was actually there in the virtual
environment
4.83
0.39
SL-2
It seemed as though I actually took part in the
action
4.83
0.39
SL-3
It was as though my true location had shifted
into the virtual environment
4.33
0.65
SL-4
I felt as though I was physically present in the
virtual environment
4.25
1.06
SL-5
I experienced the virtual environment as though
I had stepped into a different place
4.25
0.87
SL-6
I was convinced that things were actually
happening around me
4.67
0.65
SL-7
I had the feeling that I was in the middle of the
action rather than merely observing
4.83
0.39
SL-8
I felt like the objects in the virtual environment
surrounded me
4.75
0.62
SL-9
I experienced both the confined and open spaces
in the virtual environment as though I was really
there
4.33
0.65
SL-10
I was convinced that the objects in the virtual
environment were located on the various sides
of my body
5.00
0.00
5: Strongly
agree
4: Agree
3: Neutral
2: Disagree
1: Strongly
Disagree
PA-1
The objects in the virtual environment gave me
the feeling that I could do things with them
4.92
0.29
PA-2
I had the impression that I could be active in the
virtual environment
4.67
0.89
PA-3
I had the impression that I could act in the
virtual environment
4.67
0.49
PA-4
I had the impression that I could reach for the
objects in the virtual environment
4.75
0.45
PA-5
I felt like I could move around among the
objects in the virtual environment
4.83
0.39
PA-6
I felt like I could jump into the action
4.58
0.90
PA-7
The objects in the virtual environment gave me
the feeling that I could actually touch them
4.50
0.91
PA-8
It seemed to me that I could do whatever I
wanted in the virtual environment
3.58
1.17
PA-9
It seemed to me that I could have some effect on
things in the virtual environment, as I do in real
life
4.33
0.89
PA-10
I felt that I could move freely in the virtual
environment
4.33
0.65
88
Table 4.9 : Results of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire for Dreamscape Bricks
VR.
#
Item
Mean
Response
Value
Standard
Deviation
Response
Variables
1
General discomfort
0.58
0.52
0: None
1: Slight
2: Moderate
3: Severe
2
Fatigue
0.58
0.67
3
Headache
0.17
0.39
4
Eyestrain
1.08
0.79
5
Difficulty focusing
0.25
0.45
6
Increased salivation
0.00
0.00
7
Sweating
0.42
0.67
8
Nausea
0.00
0.00
9
Difficulty concentrating
0.25
0.62
10
Fullness of head
0.67
0.78
11
Blurred vision
0.25
0.45
12
Dizziness (eyes open)
0.17
0.39
13
Dizziness (eyes closed)
0.17
0.39
14
Vertigo
0.00
0.00
15
Stomach awareness
0.00
0.00
16
Burping
0.00
0.00
In conclusion, the results of the usability, presence, and comfort evaluations indicate
that the Dreamscape Bricks VR application, which is represented by the logo shown
in Figure 4.7, is generally perceived as a reliable and effective tool for conducting
architectural design activities with LEGO bricks in a virtual reality environment. The
participants were able to use its basic features and controls with ease and reported high
levels of presence and satisfaction with the virtual environment and interactions.
The tool received high scores on most principles and items, with only a few areas
identified for improvement. Notably, no motion sickness symptoms were reported,
indicating that the tool’s high performance and successful design and implementation
of VR locomotion and virtual interactions contributed to a comfortable user
experience. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the Dreamscape Bricks
VR application can be used to compare LEGO brick-based architectural design
activities in future studies without reservations about the impact on user experience or
the tool’s proficiency.
89
4.5 Design and Development Conclusions
This chapter offers an in-depth exploration of the DREAMSCAPE framework for
architectural design VR tools that utilizes an intuitive, direct manipulation approach.
The framework focuses on three key design activities: the embodiment of
conceptualized ideas, the experiment with the initial design results spatially at any
stage, and the manipulation of the design output to generate new ideas. The framework
grants designers the ability to translate design concepts into virtually embodied
products without requiring specialized software skills and limitations of conventional
3D design and CAD applications. In addition, the ability to spatially experience and
manipulate the design at any stage is a crucial feature that can facilitate the designer’s
creative process and lead to a more iterative and exploratory workflow.
An experimental VR design tool named Dreamscape Bricks VR was developed to
demonstrate the DREAMSCAPE framework. The application simulates the behavior
of LEGO bricks, accurately reflecting their connection rules, physical properties, and
interactions. It allows users to easily and intuitively build virtual structures using
familiar building techniques, making Dreamscape Bricks VR accessible for architects
and design students of all levels of professional experience, including those with no
previous CAD or VR experience. Developing this application also served as an
opportunity to evaluate and refine the DREAMSCAPE framework in practice and
through user testing.
A user experience evaluation study was conducted to assess the usability, presence,
and comfort performance of Dreamscape Bricks VR. The study included twelve
participants with various levels of professional design and VR expertise. The results
showed that the application was generally perceived as complying well with usability
principles and providing a strong sense of presence and comfort for the participants.
Most users reported a positive and exciting experience. The study also provided
valuable feedback on user experience and identified areas for improvement, which
were taken into consideration in the further development of the application. It is worth
noting that some users reported slight discomfort, which may be due to the weight and
bulkiness of current VR headsets, suggesting that there is potential for ergonomic and
sensory advancements in future XR systems.
90
The DREAMSCAPE framework is intended to provide a platform for collaborative
design in a metaverse, allowing designers to work together in real time on a shared
design within a virtual space, the ultimate dreamscape. While these features were
beyond the scope of this thesis, the framework's potential applications in the future
could enable design collaboration, allowing users to design, converse, and cooperate
within the same virtual design space, regardless of their physical location.
The DREAMSCAPE framework is anticipated to enhance the design process in virtual
reality by making it more intuitive, embodied, and responsive rather than simply
replicating legacy CAD approaches in virtual reality. Future applications of the
framework that utilize more complex modular components, such as basic construction
elements, generic parametric objects, and furniture modules with adjustable
parameters, could further improve the design process by making it more intuitive and
responsive. This approach may also contribute to developing new XR design tools for
future CAD and BIM applications beyond the use of LEGO bricks as the base
component seen in the Dreamscape Bricks VR application.
The following chapter will present the design experiments using the Dreamscape
Bricks VR tool to explore the impact of VR on the architectural design process.
91
5. DESIGN EXPERIMENT METHODOLOGY
The main objective of this research is to understand how the VR medium impacts the
process of architectural design. As explained in Chapter 4, an application called
Dreamscape Bricks VR was developed to enable users to design and modify
architectural models using virtual LEGO bricks. These virtual bricks are created based
on an actual set of LEGO pieces and are simulated to be as realistic and faithful to the
original physical LEGO pieces as realistic as possible. The aim is for users to have the
same feeling of using the physical bricks when designing in VR as they would in the
physical world. The primary difference between experimental conditions is the media
used, enabling a comparison of the design process in VR versus the physical world.
A user study has been designed to evaluate and compare the design process in VR (in
virtuo) with the physical world (in situ). Fourteen participants were selected for the
design experiments. They were asked to design small habitations with similar
requirements, free from any preconceived design plan, using both physical LEGO
pieces and the Dreamscape Bricks VR application. In these architectural design
experiment protocols, design behavior and qualities of physical and virtual
environments are compared.
The design experiment sessions were recorded, design artifacts were documented,
participants’ verbal thoughts during the design process were collected through the
“retrospective think-aloud reporting” technique, and a survey was distributed to gather
comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data pertaining to the design process,
design experience, and design outcomes in situ and in virtuo. A series of analyses were
then conducted on the collected data to better understand the differences and
similarities between the design process in VR and the physical world.
This chapter provides an overview of the methodology used in this design experiment
study. In the following section, the protocol analysis method is introduced along with
the data analysis methods applied in this study, including the FBS framework,
linkography, and the EEM taxonomy. In section 5.2, the procedures, participants,
apparatus, and experimental setup of the study design are explained. Section 5.3
92
introduces the design tasks used in the study. Finally, Section 5.4 explains the data
collection means and data analysis methods.
5.1 Protocol Analysis
Protocol analysis is a qualitative method used to gain insight into the mental processes
of designers during the design process, which has gained popularity in design research
in recent decades (Chai & Xiao, 2012). In this study, protocol analysis was used to
analyze the design behavior of the participants in both virtual and physical design
sessions. A protocol is a record that captures the activities of designers (or “problem-
solvers”) during the design process, which can be documented in the form of sketches,
notes, videos, or audio recordings (Akın, 1986). Protocols provide a comprehensive
look at the design process, including the design choices and actions taken by the
designer. Protocol analysis is an objective method that helps avoid subjective
interpretations of researchers and allows for a systematic analysis of the design
process. Newell pioneered the use of protocol analysis when researching information-
processing mechanisms (Akın, 1986; Newell, 1966). Based on this new technique
proposed by Newell, Eastman conducted the first formal protocol analysis of a design
process (Eastman, 1970; Kan & Gero, 2005). The protocol analysis method focuses on
the cognitive processes of designers and provides insights into their design thinking
based on their own descriptions of their experiences (Gero et al., 2011; Kan & Gero,
2017). Therefore, it is an appropriate and effective method for gaining insight into the
design cognition of study participants and helps to better understand the design
process.
To conduct the protocol analysis in this study, the Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS)
framework was used to assess the cognitive design process of participants, along with
a linkographic entropy analysis. Subsequently, the Embodiment-Experience-
Manipulation (EEM) taxonomy was proposed to analyze the documented design
activities.
In the concurrent think-aloud method for reporting, participants are asked to speak out
loud and describe their thoughts and actions as they are performing a design task,
drawing from their short-time memory (Gero & Tang, 2001). These verbalizations are
typically recorded for later analysis. However, this method has some limitations due
to the act of concurrently speaking. These limitations include the potential for
93
disruption of concentration, slowing down of the thinking process, hindering the
ability to focus on the task at hand, incomplete coverage of the whole thought process,
a difficulty for those who struggle to verbalize their thoughts and reason
simultaneously, and the addition of subjective elements to the reporting (Kan & Gero,
2017). To address these issues, the retrospective think-aloud method was used in this
study.
In the retrospective think-aloud method, the subjects carry out the tasks without
verbalizing their thought process and reflect on what they were thinking in retrospect
once the task is complete (Russo et al., 1989), recalling from their long-term memory
(Gero & Tang, 2001). One potential drawback of the retrospective think-aloud method
is that it relies on self-reported cognition and memory, which may be prone to error
and bias, such as “selective recall,” in which subjects tend to only report relevant
thoughts and processes, ignoring the other thoughts (Suwa & Tversky, 1997). Despite
this limitation, the accuracy of retrospective reporting can be improved by using
memory cues (Gero & Tang, 2001; Suwa & Tversky, 1997). Given the wide
availability of multimedia memory cues today, such as video recordings, PC screen
capturing, and the real-time metric logging feature of the developed VR application,
the retrospective think-aloud method was opted for in this study to offer participants a
more focused design experience.
5.1.1 FBS framework
The Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) ontology is a conceptual model developed by
Gero that aims to understand design artifacts and actions in terms of three ontological
categories: functional (F) aspects of a design, the behavior (B) of the design in certain
contexts, and the structural (S) components of the design and their relationships (Kan
& Gero, 2017). The FBS framework is a model that intends to explain design thinking
based on the FBS design ontology (Kannengiesser & Gero, 2019). FBS coding is
widely used in protocol analysis studies that focus on design cognition
(Ashrafganjouei & Gero, 2021; Bott & Mesmer, 2019; Gero & Milovanovic, 2020;
Kan & Gero, 2018; Shih et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2011). Over the course of multiple
years, FBS-based coding was applied to more than 10,000 hours of design work in the
industry (Bott & Mesmer, 2019; Kannengiesser & Gero, 2019).
94
According to the FBS framework, the design process involves iterative and recursive
relationships of six key design issues: design requirements (R), functional intentions
of designers (F), structure-related components of the design (S), the expected behavior
(Be) and achieved structural behavior (Bs) of the design, and the depictions and
descriptions (D) of the design (Kan & Gero, 2017).
Figure 5.1 : FBS ontology explained, reproduced after Kan and Gero (2017).
As illustrated in Figure 5.1, the FBS framework also defines eight design processes
based on the sequential relations between these design issues: formulation, synthesis,
analysis, evaluation, documentation, reformulation I, reformulation II, and
reformulation III (Kan & Gero, 2017). These design processes represent the cognitive,
semantic, and syntactic transitions that take place as designers move from one design
issue to the next, iteratively refining and revising their design solutions in response to
new information and insights. Table 5.1 provides explanations and examples of the
design issues. Table 5.2 shows the FBS design processes and the design issue
transitions that define them. Figure B.1 in Appendix B shows a sample transcript from
a participant’s in situ and in virtuo session protocols, illustrating the division of
utterances by design moves and their corresponding FBS coding.
5.1.1.1 Coding with FBS ontology
The FBS framework was used for coding the design moves identified in the
retrospective think-aloud protocols and the verbal comments made by participants.
Design moves are defined as small verbalizations explaining steps that reveal new
information, explore an issue, or express a solution during a design process. It is
important to note that the definition of design moves in the FBS framework and
linkography methods is different from Schön’s concept of design moves, which refers
to a decisive act between acts of seeing (Goldschmidt, 2014; Schön & Wiggins, 1992).
95
However, Goldschmidt’s, and Suwa and Tversky’s concept of design moves, which is
adopted in this study, is similar to the idea of moves in a chess game (Goldschmidt,
2014; Suwa & Tversky, 1997).
The design moves are coded and categorized based on the six design issues defined by
the FBS framework. The results of the FBS analysis were then used to compare the
design issues and processes between the physical and virtual design sessions.
Illustrative example utterances are presented in Table 5.1 to give a sense of the types
of comments that would be coded under each design issue.
Table 5.1 : FBS design issues explained with comment examples.
Design issues
Code
Explanation
Example comments
Requirement
R
Requirements of the design
problem
“The design must include a space
for sleeping activity.”
Function
F
Teleology and objectives of
the design
“I extend a wall here to create a
more private small space.”
Behavior
Be
Expected behavior of the
design
“Let’s see how this brick creates a
shade.”
Bs
Behavior as a consequence of
the structure
“The use of trusses allows for a
stronger and more lightweight
design.”
Structure
S
Explaining the structural
components
“I can build a post with these 2x2
bricks like this.”
Description
D
Description of the artifact
“There is a staircase connecting
these two floors.”
Table 5.2 : FBS design processes explained.
Design Process
Number
Links
Formulation
1
Function (F) to Expected Behavior (Be)
Synthesis
2
Expected Behavior (Be) to Structure (S)
Analysis
3
Structure Behavior (Bs) to Structure (S)
Evaluation
4
Between Expected Behavior (Be) and
Structure Behavior (Bs)
Documentation
5
Any to Description (D)
Reformulation, type 1
6
Structure (S) to Structure (S)
Reformulation, type 2
7
Structure (S) to Expected Behavior (Be)
Reformulation, type 3
8
Structure (S) to Function (F)
96
The transformation between two design issues, which define design processes in FBS
ontology, can be based on either syntactic (consecutive in order) or semantic
(semantically linked in the linkography network) relationships of the design issues. In
this work, the design processes were analyzed with the syntactic approach, which
implies that the design issues are cognitively linked to the preceding issue.
Pourmohamadi and Gero proposed that while calculating the overall FBS issues and
processes can provide useful insights into the general properties of design protocols,
this method overlooks the dynamic nature of design in the temporal flow
(Pourmohamadi et al., 2011). To address this limitation, they developed a method for
analyzing design protocols, which involves dividing the FBS dataset of the protocol
into fractions, selecting fixed numbers of moves as calculating windows, and moving
these windows through the protocol move by move (Pourmohamadi et al., 2011;
Pourmohamadi & Gero, 2011). This allows for the analysis of the design protocol in a
dynamic manner by considering how the distribution of FBS issues and processes
changes over time.
They also developed a software tool to carry out FBS analysis calculations, including
this dynamic moving windowing approach (Pourmohamadi & Gero, 2011). However,
this tool is based on a previous edition of the FBS ontology (Gero & Kannengiesser,
2004), which includes the Requirement (R) issue as a part of Function (F). The
requirement (R) issue is added to the framework later because protocols often begin
with requirements rather than function (Kan & Gero, 2017). The results calculated by
the LINKOgrapher tool were not directly applicable to the protocol analysis in this
study, which used the more recent version of the FBS ontology.
As a result, Excel was utilized to carry out FBS analysis calculations in this study
based on the method developed by Pourmohamadi and Gero; window sizes were
defined as one-tenth of the analyzed protocol to allow for a dynamic analysis of the
design protocols, examining the distribution of FBS issues and processes temporally.
The percentages of dynamic FBS issues were visualized and analyzed using 100%
stacked area charts (Figure 5.2), while stacked area charts were used to represent the
number of dynamic FBS processes (Figure 5.3).
97
Figure 5.2: Dynamic percentage of FBS issues in a pilot protocol.
Figure 5.3: Dynamic number of FBS processes in a pilot protocol.
This study uses the FBS framework to code retrospective protocols. However, it is
important to note that the subjective nature of the self-reported protocols may be
influenced by how the participants describe their experiences rather than the actual
design processes that took place. In this study, some of the participants were new to
the VR environment and the Dreamscape Bricks VR application. As a result, they
tended to describe their interactions with the environment and the tool rather than the
design steps in their narratives. This may have been due to their unfamiliarity with the
VR environment and tool and their desire to help the study by explaining their
interactions in detail. Therefore, the EEM taxonomy was proposed (see Section 5.1.3)
as a complementary method to capture the design actions that took place rather than
the subjective descriptions of the participants.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
Percentage of Design Issues
Design Moves
D
S
Bs
Be
F
R
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
Number of Design Processes
Design Moves
Ref-3
Ref-2
Ref-1
Doc.
Eval.
Anlys.
Synth.
Form.
98
5.1.1.2 Problem-solution index
Gero and associates have proposed a problem-solution (P-S) division within the FBS
framework, which can reveal whether the cognitive activity in the design protocols is
primarily problem-oriented or solution-oriented in the FBS coding of design issues and
processes (Jiang et al., 2014). This division is characterized by two indices: the P-S
issue index and the P-S process index.
The P-S issue index categorizes as either problem-oriented or solution-oriented.
Requirement, function, and expected behavior issues are considered part of problem
space, indicating cognitive efforts towards defining the problem (Jiang et al., 2014).
Structure and structure behavior issues are considered part of the solution space,
indicating cognitive efforts toward finding a solution (Jiang et al., 2014). The P-S issue
index is calculated by dividing the sum of the occurrences of problem space issues (R,
F, and Be) by the sum of the occurrences of solution space issues (S and Bs), as seen
in equation 5.1.
P-S issue index = Σ( R + F +Be )
Σ( S + Bs )
(5.1)
Similarly, the P-S process index categorizes transitional processes that emerge
between design issues with the P-S division. The formulation, reformulation II, and
reformulation III processes are classified as problem-related, while the analysis,
evaluation, synthesis, and reformulation I processes are considered solution-oriented
(Jiang et al., 2014). The P-S issue index is calculated by dividing the sum of the
occurrences of problem space processes by the sum of the occurrences of solution
space processes, as seen in equation 5.2.
P-S process index = Σ (Formulation + Reform. II + Reform. III )
Σ( Analysis + Evaluation + Synthesis + Reform. I )
(5.2)
The P-S index reflects the balance of problem-oriented and result-oriented cognitive
effort in the FBS-coded reports. If the index is close to 1, it indicates that the
participants’ attention was equally split between these two types of activities. If the
index is above 1, it means that the participants were primarily focused on defining the
problem and understanding its constraints. On the other hand, if the index is below 1,
99
it means that the participants were primarily focused on developing and evaluating
potential solutions.
In addition to calculating the overall problem-solution (P-S) indexes for a protocol,
some studies have utilized a more fine-grained analysis by dividing the design
protocols into equal time intervals and calculating the number of occurrences of each
design issue or process for each interval (Ashrafganjouei & Gero, 2021). Dividing the
protocols into quintiles or deciles allows researchers to better understand the temporal
flow of the design process and how the relative emphasis on problem-oriented and
result-oriented activities changes over time. This division approach was utilized in this
study by dividing the design protocols into quintiles and deciles to calculate the
Problem-Solution indexes for each interval.
Figure 5.4 illustrates a sample temporal analysis of the P-S issue indices from a pilot
study conducted for this thesis, comparing physical and virtual design sessions by
quintiles.
Figure 5.4 : A sample temporal analysis comparing P-S issue indices in physical and
virtual design sessions of a pilot study by quintiles.
In this example, the physical design session starts off relatively high in quintiles Q1
(0.91) and Q2 (0.89), suggesting that the cognitive activity in these quintiles was
primarily focused on defining the problem and identifying the requirements of the
design task. In Q3, the P-S issue index drops to 0.75, then drops significantly to 0.36
in Q4, indicating a shift in focus towards finding a solution to the design problem and
less emphasis on defining the problem. The increase to 1.25 in Q5 indicates that the
designer once again focused on defining the problem and identifying the requirements
of the design task. The virtual design session started with higher P-S issue indices in
Q1 (1.00) and Q2 (0.68), dropped to 0.41 in Q3, then followed a rising trend in Q4
0.91
0.89
0.75
0.36
1.25
1.00
0.68 0.41
0.61 0.69
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
P-S Issue Index
Quintiles
In Situ
In Virtuo
100
(0.61) and Q5 (0.69). The overall P-S issue indices are 0.80 in situ and 0.66 in virtuo,
indicating that the physical design sessions had a higher emphasis on problem-oriented
activities compared to the virtual design sessions. However, it is noteworthy that both
in-situ and in-virtuo design sessions showed fluctuations in concentration on problem-
oriented and solution-oriented activities throughout the design process.
5.1.2 Linkography
Linkography is a method for analyzing and visualizing the connections or relationships
between different ideas or concepts that are expressed during a protocol analysis
(Hatcher et al., 2018). The linkography method, originally introduced by Goldschmidt
in 1990, involves coding and visualizing the links between the “design moves” that are
made during a design process (Goldschmidt, 2014), as explained in Section 5.1.1.1.
Linkographs create visual representations illustrating the relationships between design
moves as links that form a network diagram.
The linkography method is based on the idea that the number and type of links between
design moves are a powerful measure of the quality of the design process
(Goldschmidt, 2014). By analyzing the linkographic patterns, it is possible to
understand the relationships between different design decisions and evaluate the
effectiveness of the design process.
The process of drawing a linkograph involves dividing the protocol transcripts into
smaller units identified as design moves. The backbone of the linkograph is an axis
that runs from left to right, on which the design moves are numbered and notated with
nodes or different markers, as shown in Figure 5.5.a. Construction lines are drawn
from each design move at 45-degree angles forwards and backward, to create the link
grid, as depicted in Figure 5.5.b. By repeating this process for every design move on
the axis, a diagonal orthographic grid is formed, bounded by the forward line of the
first move and the backward line of the final move. The resulting grid creates n(n-1)/2
interconnections for n design moves, showing all the possible links between all moves.
Figure 5.5.b shows 5 design moves to create 10 possible link nodes.
101
Figure 5.5 : Steps of drawing a linkograph with five design moves.
As the next step, lines that represent the links between design moves are drawn. To
start notating the links, the observers need to read the parsed protocol several times
and go through all the design moves to identify any links between them. Goldschmidt
suggests that determining whether there is a link between a design move and a previous
move is done by relying on “educated common sense” (Goldschmidt, 2014).
Therefore, it is helpful to have at least two judges to decide on a valid link, as multiple
perspectives can lead to a more accurate recognition of links. If one design move has
a relationship with or reference to a previous design move, it forms a link. The
backward line of the current move is intersected with the forward line of the referenced
move, creating a link, and their intersection is notated with a node. In the example
shown in Figure 5.5.c, move 2 is connected to move 1, move 3 is connected to move
2, and move 5 is connected to both move 3 and move 2, creating four links in total.
5.1.2.1 Links and patterns
In this linear progression, links that are bound forward are called forelinks, while links
that go to preceding moves are called backlinks (Goldschmidt, 2014). Moves that have
no links are called orphan moves, while moves with only backlinks or forelinks are
called unidirectional moves (2014). Moves with a backlink and a forelink are called
bidirectional moves (2014). The most important moves, which create an extensive
number of links, are called critical moves (2014). These link concepts provide useful
information about the design cognition structure of the protocols and help to analyze
modes of thought such as divergent thinking and convergent thinking.
The arrangement of links between design moves creates several link patterns that can
provide insights into the structure and organization of the design thought. Some
common link patterns include chunk, web, and sawtooth (Goldschmidt, 2014; Hatcher
et al., 2018). The linkograph can be divided into graphically distinct sections that form
a triangle, known as chunks (Goldschmidt, 2014). Webs are link patterns that are
102
formed when there are many links among a few design moves, resulting in a dense,
interconnected chunk (2014). Sawtooth patterns are formed when each design move is
connected to the one before it in a sequence, creating a jagged, sawtooth-like pattern
(2014). These patterns are illustrated on a sample linkograph in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6 : Illustration of linkography concepts and terminology on a sample
linkograph devised from a pilot study.
In addition to these visual qualities, there are also numerical measures that provide
additional information about the links between design moves, such as the link span
and link index. Link span is a metric of the distance between two linked design moves
(Goldschmidt, 2014), which can also be used to measure the size of chunks, webs, and
the whole linkograph. Link index is a measure of the proportion of links to moves in a
linkograph or a part of it, calculated by dividing the number of links by the number of
design moves (2014). The link index can provide information about the overall density
of links in a linkograph. However, it is important to be cautious when interpreting the
link index, as a higher value does not necessarily indicate good or creative design. A
high link index can be the result of repetitions or attempts to explore alternative ideas
with little continuity instead, as previous research has shown no correlation between
this value and design quality (Goldschmidt & Tatsa, 2005).
5.1.2.2 Interpreting linkographs
Interpreting a linkograph involves identifying the link types between design moves,
identifying patterns, and analyzing their significance in the design process. By
examining the distribution of these patterns, it is possible to understand how the design
process unfolded and how different design decisions were related to one another.
103
For example, forelinks indicate a divergent thinking process that branches off in
multiple directions and considers a variety of different aspects (Goldschmidt, 2014;
Hatcher et al., 2018), which is associated with originality (Goldschmidt, 2014;
Howard-Jones & Murray, 2003). A design move with a high number of forelinks may
be indicative of a more open-ended and exploratory approach to design.
On the other hand, backlinks indicate a convergent thinking process that combines
existing information to come up with a correct solution to a problem (Goldschmidt,
2014; Hatcher et al., 2018), which is associated with appropriateness (Goldschmidt,
2014; Howard-Jones & Murray, 2003). A design move with a high number of
backlinks may be indicative of a more closed-ended and practical approach to design.
As a result, it is possible to assess the different approaches employed by a designer by
examining the ratio of forelinks to backlinks in a linkograph. A higher ratio of forelinks
to backlinks indicates a divergent approach, whereas a higher ratio of backlinks to
forelinks indicates a convergent approach.
In addition to link types, critical moves that have a large number of links can be used
to identify the most significant design moves. In Figure 5.6, moves 7 and 38 stand out
as critical moves with their higher-than-average number of links in the context of that
linkograph. Move 7 has a distinct forelink, showing that the designer made a reference
to this critical move along the rest of the chunk several times, indicating a divergent
thought process. This critical move has notably affected the rest of the design moves.
Move 38, on the other hand, has a distinct backlink, where the designer has made
several references to other moves on this step, suggesting a convergent thinking
process instead. Therefore, this move effectively ties together the previous steps to
come up with a solution that aids in the development of the design.
5.1.2.3 Linkographic entropy
Gero and associates introduced the concept of entropy to linkography, which has been
studied in several papers by them (Goldschmidt, 2014; Kan et al., 2007; Kan & Gero,
2005, 2008; Pourmohamadi & Gero, 2011). These studies suggest linkographic
entropy measurements as a metric to assess the productivity of design processes. The
concept of entropy utilized is based on Shannon’s information theory, which states that
“the amount of information carried by a message or symbol is based on the probability
of its outcome” (Goldschmidt, 2014; Kan & Gero, 2005, 2008). In this definition,
104
entropy (H) refers to the amount of information that remains to be received or
conveyed before communication is considered complete. When there is only one
possible outcome, no new information is being conveyed, as the outcome is already
known (Goldschmidt, 2014; Kan & Gero, 2008). However, when the potential
outcomes increase, more information is conveyed as the relationship between the
message and the outcome is less predictable. The highest level of entropy is achieved
when the relationship between the message and the result is completely unexpected.
Entropy is used as a way to measure the design productivity notated in a linkograph,
by treating potential links between moves in the linkograph as an OFF state, and
established links as the ON state of information. A linkograph is considered saturated
if all the moves are linked to one another, or empty if there are no links at all. The
entropy of a linkograph is highest when the number of ON and OFF links is
unpredictable, meaning the process allows for surprise and further development.
To illustrate this, a linkograph with n design moves can be imagined as a box with n(n-
1)/2 marbles in it, a marble for each possible link. In this analogy, established links are
represented by black marbles, and potential links by white marbles. If the box is full
of marbles of the same color, the information being conveyed by picking a marble out
of the box is minimal, as the outcome is already known. The highest level of entropy
(H = 1) is achieved when the number of black and white marbles is equal, which is
n(n-1)/4, as the result of picking a marble is completely unpredictable. On the other
hand, the entropy is at its lowest (H = 0) when the linkograph is either empty (full of
white marbles) or fully saturated (full of black marbles).
Gero et al. have proposed measuring entropy in three different rows: backlinks,
forelinks, and horizonlinks, a new concept they propose as the links along horizontal
rows that are used to assess cohesiveness and incubation (Goldschmidt, 2014; Kan et
al., 2007; Kan & Gero, 2005). Gero et al. state that high entropy values (H > 0.93) are
indicative of productive design processes, which occur when the proportion of ON
links is between 35% and 65% of all possible links (Goldschmidt, 2014; Kan & Gero,
2005).
In this study, linkographic complexity and entropy of design protocols were analyzed
using LiNKODER. Initially known as LINKOgrapher, the software that performs a
range of measurements, including entropy calculations and the generation of graphical
linkography outputs, for the analysis of design protocols using the FBS ontology
105
(Pourmohamadi & Gero, 2011). However, LiNKODER uses an obscure entropy
calculation algorithm that outputs forelink entropy (Hf), horizonlink entropy (Hb), and
backlink entropy (Hh) that are bigger than 1 and increase with the number of moves.
Therefore, these values were divided by the number of moves to normalize them and
obtain a measure of entropy per move.
In conclusion, linkography is considered a powerful tool used to gain an understanding
of the connections between different ideas and how they relate to one another
(Goldschmidt & Tatsa, 2005). Kan and Gero list four main advantages of using
linkography as: (1) capturing the process and outcome aspects of design, (2) it can be
used to study small or large projects with varying numbers of participants and without
any temporal limitations, (3) it can be used to study the design process or design
outcome, depending on the research’s focus, and (4) it can be used in varying levels of
detail from cognitive level to design ideation (Kan & Gero, 2017). Therefore,
linkographic entropy analysis is expected to serve as an indicator of the fruitfulness of
the design thought process in this study, allowing for the comparison of the affordances
of different design mediums.
Figure 5.7 presents a linkographic comparison of the protocols of physical and virtual
sessions of a pilot study. The linkographs are juxtaposed back-to-back to allow for a
direct comparison of the design processes in the physical and virtual sessions. The top
linkograph represents the physical session, while the bottom linkograph represents the
virtual session. By analyzing the linkographic patterns in these linkographs, it is
possible to understand the relationships between different design decisions and
evaluate the effectiveness of the design process in both the physical and virtual
sessions.
Table 5.3 presents the results of a linkographic entropy analysis of the same pilot
protocols conducted, comparing the physical and virtual design sessions. The link
index was used as an indicator of the densities of linkographs, providing insight into
the interconnectedness of the design process. This participant had a 25% more
interconnected protocol in virtuo, yet it is not necessarily an indicator of better design,
as explained above. The table also includes forelink entropy (Hf), horizonlink entropy
(Hb), and backlink entropy (Hh) per move. The results show higher per move entropy
of horizonlinks (136%) and backlinks (114%) of VR sessions are higher for this pilot
study participant, indicating a more cohesive and solution-oriented approach in virtuo
106
versus in situ. Similar forelink entropy per move in situ over in virtuo (97%) indicates
similar divergent thinking and exploration levels between the sessions. It also includes
the cumulative entropy per move, which is the sum of the entropies for all types of
links, which is higher in the virtual session overall.
Figure 5.7 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs comparing the protocols of
physical (top) and virtual (bottom) sessions of a pilot study.
Table 5.3 : Linkographic entropy analysis of a pilot study.
Linkographic Entropy
In situ
In virtuo
VR / Phys.
Moves
51
41
80%
Link index
3.08
3.85
125%
Hf per move
0.472
0.459
97%
Hb per move
0.527
0.599
114%
Hh per move
0.233
0.317
136%
Cumulative H per move
1.232
1.375
112%
5.1.3 EEM taxonomy
The Dreamscape Bricks VR application adopts an iterative design activity flow based
on Embodiment - Experience - Manipulation (EEM) activities. This flow is described
in more detail in Section 4.2.1. In this study, the EEM taxonomy was used to categorize
all identified design activities performed by the participants in both the physical
environment using physical LEGO bricks and in the virtual environment of
Dreamscape Bricks VR. The distribution, sequence, and transitions of the EEM actions
allowed for an in-depth analysis of the design activities in each environment.
107
Comparing the EEM actions in situ versus in virtuo provided insights into how the use
of VR may impact the design activities compared to the physical environment.
Table 5.4 shows the common actions identified in design activities using LEGO bricks
categorized with EEM taxonomy. The event types include State, which indicates a
continuous action, and Point, which indicates a discrete action. The descriptions
provide a brief explanation of the nature of each action. Analyzing the distribution,
sequence, and transitions of these EEM actions allowed for a deeper understanding of
the design process that might otherwise be overlooked in self-reported design
protocols.
Table 5.4 : Design activities defined in the EEM taxonomy.
Category
Action
Event Type
Description
Excluded
Non-Time
State
Time to be excluded from the design
session.
Check requirements
State
Read the design task.
Embodiment
Inspection
State
Inspecting state, evaluating the design.
Hold
Point
Hold a brick.
Drop
Point
Drop a brick on the ground.
Try
Point
Try a placement without connecting.
Connect
Point
Connect one LEGO brick to another.
Pick
Point
Choose LEGO bricks from the dispensers.
Experience
Figure placing
Point
Use a human figure/Minifigure for scale.
Scale 1:1
State
Design at the life-size scale.
(In situ default)
Scale 1:10
State
Design at the precision scale
(In virtuo default, VR only)
Scale 1:42.5
State
Design at the figure-sized scale
(VR only)
Teleport
Point
Teleport to another location (VR only)
Manipulation
Separate
Point
Separate one LEGO brick.
Replace
Point
Separate and reconnect one LEGO brick.
Break
Point
A part of structure unintentionally breaks.
Fix
Point
Fix the broken bricks or components.
Rewind
State
Rewind time to undo the last moves.
Restart
Point
Decide to start over.
The EEM framework is similar to the FBS ontology in that it categorizes design steps.
However, there are two key distinctions between the two approaches. Firstly, the EEM
framework categorizes designers' cognitive processes through observed design
actions, which fall under the categories of embodiment, experience, and manipulation.
This approach contrasts with the FBS ontology, which categorizes designers' cognitive
108
processes through their verbal expressions that construct a design narrative rather than
the design artifact itself. Secondly, the EEM framework is created specifically for the
current design protocol’s tools, media, and processes, whereas the FBS ontology
classifies design issues based on self-reported verbalizations and interprets design
processes based on transitions between the issues. The EEM framework, on the other
hand, is based on observed design actions without any interpretation, allowing for a
focus on design actions (such as LEGO brick manipulation actions) that may be missed
by more universal analysis methodologies like the FBS taxonomy. Therefore, the
combination of the FBS taxonomy and the EEM framework allows for a more in-depth
understanding of the design process of designers.
It is important to note that the Scale 1:10, Scale 1:42.5, and Rewind actions listed in
Table 5.4 are specific to the VR environment of Dreamscape Bricks VR and do not
have direct equivalents in the physical environment. These actions were included in
the EEM taxonomy to capture the unique aspects of the design process in VR and to
enable a comprehensive understanding of the potential benefits and challenges
associated with using VR in architectural design process.
Table 5.5 shows a sample comparison of EEM design action occurrence percentages
in a pilot study. These actions include both point and state events. The data in this table
helps to understand the overall distribution and frequency of each type of EEM design
action in each condition.
Table 5.5 : Comparison of EEM design action occurrence percentages from a pilot
study.
Design actions
In situ
In virtuo
VR / Phys.
Total actions
442
207
47%
Embodiment actions (%)
90.27
72.46
80%
Experience actions (%)
3.62
2.42
67%
Manipulation actions (%)
6.11
25.12
411%
This table shows that in the physical session, most of the design actions (90.27%) were
related to embodiment, such as inspecting, trying, or connecting LEGO bricks. In
contrast, embodiment actions made up 72.46% of the design actions in the virtual
session. The virtual session also had a higher proportion of manipulation actions, such
as separating and replacing bricks, at 25.12%, compared to 6.11% in the physical
109
session. This may be because the designer found the VR environment and application
to be more flexible and easier to manipulate than physical LEGO bricks, or it could be
due to the designer simply making more erroneous moves in the virtual session that
needed to be corrected through manipulation actions.
Table 5.6 shows the percentages of the state event durations, such as inspection or
rewinding, in a pilot study. In the physical session, inspecting and picking actions took
up a larger portion of the total design duration (31.47% and 6.54%, respectively) for
this designer, compared to in virtuo, where they had lower proportions (10.82% and
3.14%, respectively). These results suggest that the designer spent more time
considering the design decisions in the physical session.
Table 5.6 : Comparison of EEM design action durations from a pilot study.
Action durations
In situ
In virtuo
VR / Phys.
Pick (%)
31.47%
10.82%
34%
Inspection (%)
6.54%
3.14%
48%
Rewind (%)
n/a
3.13%
n/a
Figure 5.8 illustrates the percentage of time spent on each scale during the virtual
session in a pilot study. It can be seen that the majority of the design time was spent
on the precision building scale (1:10), with 62.53%. The 1:1 scale, which allows for
interacting with life-size virtual bricks, was used for 35.29% of the design time. The
1:42.5 scale, which allows users to experience the design from a Minifigure’s
perspective, was only used for 2.18% of the design time.
Figure 5.8 : Scale durations during the virtual session in a pilot study.
35.29%
62.53%
2.18%
In Virtuo Scale Durations
1:1 Scale (%) 1:10 Scale (%) 1:42.5 Scale (%)
110
This suggests that the precision building scale (1:10) was the most commonly used
scale in the virtual session, while the 1:42.5 scale was used relatively infrequently.
These results may be due to the designer finding the precision building scale to be the
most practical and useful for their design needs.
In conclusion, the EEM taxonomy provides a valuable tool for analyzing and
understanding design processes. By focusing on observed design actions rather than
self-reported verbalizations, the EEM framework complements traditional think-aloud
report coding and provides a detailed and nuanced understanding of the design process.
The sequence and transitions of the EEM actions also allow for a more thorough
analysis of design activities. However, the analysis in this study only focused on the
distribution and frequency of actions and did not include the temporal flow of the
design process. It is also important to note that the EEM taxonomy was customized for
LEGO building activities in this study, but it has the potential to be applied to other
tasks as well. By defining the common actions observed in the design tasks and
categorizing them with the EEM taxonomy, it is possible to gain a deeper
understanding of the design process in various contexts. Overall, the EEM taxonomy
can be used alongside other protocol analysis methodologies, such as the FBS
framework and linkography, to gain a comprehensive understanding of design
processes.
5.2 Study Design
This study involved a within-subjects experimental design with 14 participants. Each
participant took part in two design sessions, one using physical LEGO pieces in the
physical world (in situ), and the other using virtual bricks in VR (in virtuo). The aim
of the study is to compare the design processes and experiences of participants in situ
and in virtuo to assess the impact of VR on the architectural design process. Two
design sessions were arranged to be as comparable as possible, with the only difference
being the medium used.
Before beginning the design tasks, all participants received a short presentation
introducing basic LEGO connection rules, the 1:42.5 human scale assumption (see
Section 3.2.4), and advanced building techniques such as the interlocking principle,
Studs Not On Top (SNOT) building, and using jumper plates for offsetting (see Section
3.2.3). This introduction was intended to increase their awareness of creative
111
architectural flexibility with bricks. Next, as shown in Figure 5.9, they completed two
warm-up sessions of about 15 minutes each, one with physical LEGO bricks and the
other with the Dreamscape Bricks VR application. The VR warm-up session started
after a tutorial on the application to help participants become familiar with the virtual
environment and the virtual design tool. During each warm-up session, participants
were asked to build a model using provided step-by-step instructions without any
design constraints. This exercise allowed them to improve their LEGO building
dexterity and focus on practicing with the design medium itself and minimize
extraneous cognitive load that may be caused by a design task. Each participant
received the same set of two building instructions with comparable levels of
complexity, one to be built with the physical LEGO bricks and the other to be built
with the Dreamscape Bricks VR application. Figures A.7 and A.8 depict the final
models that were to be created during the warm-up sessions using the step-by-step
LEGO building instructions. Table A.1 in Appendix A lists the design tasks and
session order for each participant.
Figure 5.9 : Within-subjects case-crossover design diagram of the study.
The potential carry-over effects of the previous session on the subsequent performance
and behavior of participants were carefully considered in the study design. These
effects may include warming up, becoming familiar with the design tasks, or
experiencing fatigue. To counteract any potential effects of starting with either in situ
112
or in virtuo, the within-subjects study used a case-crossover design in which half of
the participants were allocated to start in the physical medium, while the other half
began in virtual medium. This balanced allocation allows controlling for the order
effect and any practice or adaptation effect that might have occurred if all participants
started with the same condition.
There was no time limit for completing the design sessions, but participants were told
to expect to finish within a range of 40 to 80 minutes. Each participant received two
different design tasks, one for each session, with similar levels of complexity.
5.2.1 Participants
Participants were invited to the study through a call for participants poster announced
at ITU School of Architecture and posted on the institution’s website and social media
(see Figure A.2). Participation was open to all architects, architectural academics, and
the undergraduate/graduate students of ITU School of Architecture who met the
inclusion criteria. Those who had vestibular balance disorders, such as vertigo, or a
history of photosensitive epileptic seizures were excluded with a disclaimer that the
experiment was not intended for people with those conditions for health and safety
issues. A total of 84 applicants expressed their willingness to participate in the study
and their availability by filling out the online application form.
Convenience sampling was used to select a sample of 14 out of 84 applicants based on
their availability for design sessions. In addition, another two applicants were selected
for pilot design experiments to test the experimental procedure, the data and results of
which are excluded from the actual design experiments.
The 14 final participants consist of 9 female (64%) and 5 male (36%) designers, with
ages ranging between 22 and 36 years and a mean of age 25.57 (SD: 4.62). The age
distribution of participants is shown in Table 5.7. Seven of the participants were
undergraduate students at the ITU School of Architecture. Since all undergraduate
participants had a multidisciplinary Foundation Studio
2
background in their education,
student participants were not limited to architecture majors. The participants included
7 architects (50%), 5 architecture students (36%), 1 interior architecture student (7%),
and 1 urban design student (7%). Figure A.4 shows the distribution of professions and
2
See Section 3.3 for the structure of the Foundation Studio system at ITU School of Architecture.
113
educational status among the participants. To ensure participant confidentiality, each
participant was given a pseudonym, and the data were anonymized. Table 5.7 presents
the demographic data of the participants, including the distribution of professions and
educational status.
Table 5.7 : Anonymized list of design experiment participants.
Subject #
Pseudonym
Age
Gender
Profession
Education
1
Lily
29
Female
Architecture
PhD Student
2
Dione
22
Female
Architecture
Undergraduate,
4th year
3
Maxine
22
Female
Architecture
Undergraduate,
4th year
4
Brian
34
Male
Architecture
PhD Student
5
Irene
22
Female
Architecture
Undergraduate,
4th year
6
Esther
22
Female
Architecture
Undergraduate,
4th year
7
Eddie
24
Male
Architecture
PhD Student
8
Tony
24
Male
Architecture
Architect
(non-academic)
9
Amy
24
Female
Architecture
Master’s Student
10
Dory
23
Female
Architecture
Undergraduate,
4th year
11
Morrigan
29
Female
Architecture
PhD Student
12
James
23
Male
Urban and
Regional Planning
Undergraduate,
4th year
13
Azure
24
Female
Interior
Architecture
Undergraduate,
4th year
14
Victor
36
Male
Architecture
Architect
(non-academic)
The participants were asked about their previous VR design experience to gain insight
into their familiarity with VR. Eight participants (57%) had no prior design tool
experience in VR, whereas six participants (43%) declared that they had used some
design or sketching tool in VR.
Prior experience with LEGO bricks was a prerequisite for participant selection. Each
participant confirmed that they had played with LEGO pieces either during their
childhood or at some point in the recent past.
114
The participants were also asked how often they played video games to understand
their proficiency levels in interacting with virtual objects and interfaces. Two
participants (14%) declared that they never play video games, whereas five
participants (36%) play a few hours a year, four participants (29%) play a few hours a
week, and three (21%) participants play a few hours a day (see Figure A.5).
The design protocol experiments in this study were approved by the ITU Social and
Human Sciences – Ethics Committee for Research with Human Subjects (SB-
İNAREK) on November 27th, 2017 (application number 64). Prior to the start of the
study, all participants were given detailed information about the study as well as
participation requirements. The participants were informed of the possibility of
withdrawing from the experiments at any time without being penalized or held
responsible. Written informed consent forms were signed by each applicant who gave
voluntary consent to participate in this study. All study participants completed the
research and authorized the use of their anonymized data and design process outputs
for this study.
5.2.2 Apparatus
Both sessions took place in the same controlled environment: Room 223-E (The White
Room) of the ITU Taşkışla Building, which was rearranged to provide an environment
free of visual distractions.
The physical design sessions were conducted using the pieces in the LEGO
Architecture Studio (#21050) set, two LEGO Minifigures, one LEGO brick separator,
a desk measuring 120 cm by 60 cm, a chair, three approximately A4-sized organizer
boxes with compartments, and a smartphone tripod for video recording (see Figure
5.10). A smartphone was used to record the physical sessions (in 1080p resolution at
a 30 FPS frame rate) and document the physical models.
The virtual design sessions were conducted with Dreamscape Bricks VR, the VR
design application developed for this study, which is detailed in Chapter 4, using a
room-scale VR system setup and a computer. The VR system included an Oculus Rift
CV1 VR headset, two Oculus Touch controllers, and three Oculus sensors, the
technical details of which have been explained in Section 4.4.2. Two alternative PC
setups were used to connect the VR system, enabling the simultaneous conduct of
multiple sessions if needed, with both systems tested to run Dreamscape Bricks VR
115
with comparably high performances offering stable framerates of 80-90 FPS to avoid
bias. The desktop PC was equipped with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti graphics
card, an Intel Core i7 8700K processor, 16 GB of memory, a 24-inch Dell Ultrasharp
monitor, and a Logitech C270 webcam with HD resolution. Its alternative was a VR-
ready notebook PC with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 graphics card, an Intel Core
i7 7700HQ processor, 16 GB of RAM, a 15.6-inch IPS display, and an integrated
webcam with HD resolution.
5.2.3 Experimental setup
The physical design session was a seated experience. The participants were seated on
a comfortable chair at a desk of 120 cm by 60 cm. The selected parts inventory of
LEGO Architecture Studio (#21050) was available and sorted by type in three
organizer boxes with labels for easy access. In addition, two Minifigures were included
as a reference for the human scale. See Figure 5.10 for an overview of the physical
setup.
In the virtual sessions, participants experienced the virtual design space of the
Dreamscape Bricks VR application through a VR headset. The physical dimensions of
the VR experience area were 3 meters by 3 meters. The participants were able to
interact with their designs by moving around freely, sitting, standing up, or even
crouching, and they could change their scale between 1:1, 1:10, and 1:42.5 at any point.
The virtual design space had a building platform of 24 λ by 24 λ, for which LEGO
units (λ) were used as measurement rather than fixed metric units since the users had
the ability to change their scale. The virtual versions of the LEGO pieces used in the
physical sessions were organized on the shelves arranged in three aisles surrounding
the virtual building platform. Pieces were spawned via invisible brick dispensers for
each type of brick on the shelves. When a piece is removed from the shelf, a new
instance of that brick type would spawn after a short delay. Two human figures playing
sitting and lying animations in a loop were given as a reference for the human scale.
The virtual building platform and the parts dispenser shelves are located 1 meter above
the ground. This arrangement keeps the shelves easily accessible around waist level
for the user at all scales while standing and sitting, except when the user is standing on
the platform or a shelf. Dreamscape Bricks VR’s total operational area measures 75 λ
by 75 λ, which is equivalent to 60 cm by 60 cm at the life-size scale (1:1), matching
116
the width of the table in the physical setup. As a result, the dimensions of the physical
and virtual environments match at the life-size scale, ensuring all LEGO bricks are
within the participants’ field of view in both media. 75 λ also corresponds to 600 cm
at the precision building scale (1:10), conveniently double the length of one side of the
VR experience area. Therefore, participants could reach the ends of the operational
area by walking on the VR experience area, teleporting to face backward, and walking
back the same distance. An overview of the virtual setup is shown in Figure 5.11.
The physical sessions were recorded with a smartphone mounted on a tripod. The
virtual sessions in Dreamscape Bricks VR were recorded by capturing the screen using
NVIDIA ShadowPlay. Capturing the physical environment during the virtual sessions
and all the video recordings of retrospective think-aloud protocols were made using
the webcams, with 720p (HD) resolution at 30 FPS.
5.3 Design Tasks
The design experiment included two design tasks, one for the physical sessions and
the other for the virtual sessions. To compare the design process and designers’
experience in situ and in virtuo, the design tasks were designed to be as similar as
possible in terms of functional requirements, scale, and complexity. The following
section describes the architectural design requirements set for the experimental
sessions.
5.3.1 Design Task 1: Shelter
This design task was to design a small survival shelter that would fit inside a 12 λ by
12 λ by 12 λ volume, using LEGO bricks. The shelter was required to have a covered
area to protect from the weather and must include sitting and standing functions
(Figure 5.12).
5.3.2 Design Task 2: Pavilion
A pavilion design was selected as the next design task because it has a similar scale
and requirements as the shelter design task. The pavilion design had to fit inside the
same volume of 12 λ by 12 λ by 12 λ. The pavilion was to be designed using LEGO
bricks for an open park area, with a narrative spatial experience of the participant’s
choice, and must include sitting and standing functions (Figure 5.13).
117
Figure 5.10 : The overview of the physical setup.
Figure 5.11 : The overview of the virtual setup.
118
Regardless of whether their first assigned session was in situ or in virtuo, participants
randomly selected the design tasks by drawing lots using printed handouts. The task
chosen by the random drawing of lots determined their first task. The virtual design
environment in Dreamscape Bricks VR also included the same design requirements
handouts displayed on a virtual tablet object. The researcher was able to set the task
based on the drawn handout using the keyboard.
Figure 5.12 : The handout provided to participants for Design Task 1: Shelter.
Figure 5.13 : The handout provided to participants for Design Task 2: Pavilion.
119
5.3.3 Selection of LEGO parts for the design sessions
Although there are excessive varieties of LEGO pieces, this study used the part
inventory of the LEGO Architecture Studio (#21050) commercial set, which is
specifically intended for architectural design. This set was chosen for a number of
reasons:
• It has a rich inventory of 76 different types of pieces, totaling 1210 pieces. It
contains enough variety of parts to create complex models.
• It was commercially available and easier to acquire.
• It contains parts that are commonly used in architectural design.
• All pieces of the set are white (while a few are transparent), which is helpful to
emphasize the abstract design concepts better, similar to white architectural
models.
In addition to the LEGO Architecture Studio set, white 4L bars were also included in
the inventory for the design experiments (ten pieces for physical sessions and an
unlimited number for virtual sessions).
The number of pieces in Dreamscape Bricks VR was not limited, as one of the
characteristic benefits of VR is the ability to be free from physical limitations. While
the participants were limited by the number of available pieces in the physical sessions,
the virtual sessions provided unlimited parts of each type.
See Figure A.1 for the complete inventory of pieces selected for the design
experiments.
5.4 Data Collection and Analysis
In this design experiment study, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected
in order to understand the impact of VR on the architectural design process and
experience, using the following methods: recording design sessions, documenting
models, conducting retrospective think-aloud protocols, and administering a
participant survey. As illustrated in Figure 1.1, these sequential steps allowed for the
collection of various types of data, including session video recordings, model photos,
retrospective video recordings, and responses to survey questions. This section
120
describes these data collection methods in detail and presents the methods used to
analyze these data.
5.4.1 Recording design sessions
Video recordings of the sessions were used to capture and assess the designers’
behaviors and the design actions during the design sessions.
In the physical design sessions, the video recordings were taken using a smartphone
on a tripod, capturing the physical LEGO pieces and the hands of participants in full
HD (1080p resolution) with audio. Figure A.12 shows thumbnails from a sample
physical session recording.
The virtual design sessions were recorded in full HD resolution with NVIDIA
ShadowPlay. The recordings of the virtual sessions captured the audio and 2D screen
output of Dreamscape Bricks VR overlayed with the simultaneous webcam footage
showing the participant’s actions in the physical environment on a corner of the screen.
Figure A.13 shows thumbnails from a virtual session capture.
The video recordings of design sessions served as the primary visual reference for the
retrospective think-aloud protocols. After the completion of the design sessions, the
participants watched their video recordings or screen captures and provided
retrospective think-aloud comments about their thoughts, actions, and plans during the
design process. This technique, called retrospective think-aloud, is explained further
in Section 5.4.3.
In addition, this study introduces a new action coding taxonomy based on the design
activity flow of the DREAMSCAPE framework: the Embodiment-Experience-
Manipulation (EEM) taxonomy, the theoretical background of which is discussed in
more detail in Section 5.1.3. The video recordings of sessions were coded using the
EEM taxonomy to identify and analyze designer behaviors and design actions. It is
important to note that the EEM coding was conducted on the original recordings
without the added think-aloud comments. Then the durations of design activities were
then reviewed, and the percentages of design action were compared between the
sessions. Section 6.1.4 presents the EEM design actions and durations analysis results
of the design sessions.
121
To investigate the design decision processes, the video recordings of design sessions
were meticulously coded with EEM taxonomy through viewing the videos. BORIS, a
software created for logging and coding events and behaviors in videos (Friard &
Gamba, 2016), was used for video coding. Figure 5.14 shows the BORIS interface
while coding an observation. A PC keyboard was modified with stickers, as shown in
Figure 5.15, to help the video coding process, assigning a design action from the
observation table (Table 5.4) to certain keys. As the video played, the researchers
pressed the corresponding key to log the event. The data is exported as Excel
spreadsheets, which are used to analyze the distribution and frequency of EEM events
and to generate a time series of each design session for further analysis.
Figure 5.14 : BORIS interface during the coding process of a design session using
the EEM taxonomy.
Figure 5.15 : Customized keyboard for video coding.
122
5.4.2 Documenting models
In this study, the final models of each design session were documented using photos
and digital models. After the physical design sessions, the final models were
documented by taking nine or ten photos: four side views, four secondary views by
rotating the side views by 45° from the center, one top view, and another top view with
the roofs or canopies removed if necessary. Final models of the virtual design sessions
were captured using the Photo Mode feature of Dreamscape Bricks VR, taking
screenshots of the model from the same nine to ten views as in the physical sessions.
Additionally, the user scaling feature of Dreamscape Bricks VR allowed for the
capture of interior photos of the virtual models from the designers’ preferred
perspectives, using the VR headset as their viewfinder.
After the completion of experiments, the documentation photos and session recordings
were used to recreate each session’s final model was recreated as a digital model in
BrickLink Studio 2.0, a digital modeling software owned by the LEGO Group that
allows users to create virtual LEGO models. These models were used to produce
publication-quality renders (see Appendix D) and generate build statistics. The build
statistics of the sessions, including design duration, total number of bricks used (which
is verified with Dreamscape Bricks VR’s logs for virtual sessions), total model weight,
build speed, build bulkiness, and bricks variety, were analyzed, and compared.
See Section 6.1.1 for the build statistics results of the design sessions.
5.4.3 Retrospective think-aloud protocols
Following the completion of each design session, participants watched their video
recordings of the physical sessions or screen captures of the virtual sessions on PC.
They were asked to comment on what they were thinking about at the time, what they
were doing, and what they were planning to do next. Retrospective think-aloud
protocols are preferred over concurrent think-aloud protocols in this study to prevent
talking from interfering with participants’ perception while performing design tasks,
as explained in Section 5.1. Playing the video recordings and screen captures of the
sessions simultaneously provided enough visual memory cues for participants to
remember their thoughts during the sessions.
The retrospective think-aloud sessions were recorded with NVIDIA ShadowPlay,
capturing the previous session’s video overlayed with the participant’s retrospective
123
commentary audio and video simultaneously on the top right corner. The voice typing
feature of Google Docs was tried during the capture to dictate the commentary instead
of typing transcriptions manually. However, its Turkish speech recognition was
bordering on useless, and it could only serve as a cue for time-coding the video later.
Figure A.14 shows thumbnails from a sample retrospective think-aloud session
capture.
Once all design sessions were completed, all recorded retrospective think-aloud videos
were transcribed. In order to analyze the think-aloud protocols, the transcriptions were
divided into “design moves” and analyzed using the Function-Behavior-Structure
(FBS) framework and linkography.
The FBS framework, which is explained in Section 5.1.1, involves identifying and
categorizing design issues and design processes within the designers’ comments,
which were compared between the physical and virtual sessions. See Section 6.1.2 for
the FBS design issues and processes comparison results of design protocols.
The FBS coding scheme was used to code the retrospective think-aloud protocols.
Each retrospective video session was transcribed into text. These transcripts were
segmented into individual phrases, each expressing a design thought or action. Then
the coding scheme was these segments are coded with the design issues defined by the
FBS ontology’s design issues.
Linkographic analysis involves mapping the relationships and connections between
these design issues and processes, as detailed in Section 5.1.2. The linkographic
entropies of the design moves were analyzed, and the linkographs of the sessions were
graphically compared. See Section 6.1.3 for the Linkographic entropy comparison
results of design protocols.
To ensure accuracy and reliability in the FBS coding, the retrospective transcripts were
independently coded by both the researcher and a trained coder who is a professional
architect with experience in research and design. The second coder was assigned to
check for intercoder reliability and to provide consistency. The researcher and the
trained coder reviewed each segment of the transcripts and independently coded 100%
of the segments. To assess intercoder reliability, an agreement score was computed by
comparing the assigned codes in an Excel sheet, tallying agreements and
disagreements, and calculating the percentage agreement to measure consistency
124
between coders. The initial percentage agreement score between the two coders was
0.92, indicating a high level of agreement. Subsequently, both the researcher and the
trained coder reviewed the discrepancies until the differences were reconciled in
consensus.
For a complete record of the coded transcripts for each participant, see Appendix E,
which contains the protocols data for all participants.
5.4.4 Participant survey
After completing both design sessions, participants were asked to fill out a participant
survey to assess their experiences and perceptions. The survey consisted of three
sections: (1) a demographic questionnaire, (2) a post-experiment questionnaire, and
(3) a user feedback questionnaire.
The demographic questionnaire included questions about the participant’s name, age,
gender, department, and education status (see Figure A.8). The last two questions were
about the participant’s frequency of playing video games and previous experience with
VR design tools (see Figure A.9).
The post-experiment questionnaire consisted of Likert-type questions comparing the
design potentials of both physical and virtual environments and the advantages of each
environment over the other (see Figures A.8 and A.9). Open-ended questions were also
included to gather further information about issues and participants’ personal
experiences regarding the study design that could not be captured with Likert scale
assessment questions (see Figures A.9, A.10, and A.11). These open-ended questions
section of the questionnaire aimed to explore the following topics:
• Participants’ experience of design and production process in the study
• Participants’ views on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of LEGO
pieces as a design sketch medium
• Participants’ opinions and comments on the use of Dreamscape Bricks VR
application based on their experience in the study
• Participants’ preferences for using Dreamscape Bricks VR as a design tool in
the future
125
The user feedback questionnaire asked participants to evaluate the overall usability
and design of the Dreamscape Bricks VR application in terms of interaction design,
environment design, user interface design, and audio design (Figure A.11).
After the completion of all experiments, the results of the questionnaire were analyzed
using descriptive statistics. The open-ended answers from the post-experiment
questionnaire were categorized and labeled to identify emerging and recurring themes.
The results of the Likert scale questions from the post-experiment questionnaire, the
open-ended answers from the post-experiment questionnaire, and the user feedback
questionnaire are presented in Section 6.1.5, Section 6.2.1, and Section 6.1.6,
respectively.
5.5 Methodology Chapter Overview
This chapter details the methodology utilized to compare the design processes and
experiences of participants who utilized physical LEGO bricks in the real world and
those who used virtual bricks in virtual reality.
The chapter introduces three methods used in the study to analyze the design process
and experience of participants: the FBS framework, linkography, and the EEM
taxonomy. The Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) framework is a protocol analysis
method that involves breaking down the protocols into design moves, categorizing
them by coding, and analyzing the distribution and transitional relationships between
these moves to understand how the designer is thinking and making decisions.
Linkography is a method for visualizing the design process by creating a graph that
shows the relationships between different design moves. The Embodiment-
Experience-Manipulation (EEM) taxonomy is a new action coding taxonomy that was
developed specifically for this study to analyze the behaviors and actions of designers.
It is based on the design activity flow of the DREAMSCAPE framework and
categorizes design actions observed in session videos under three categories:
embodiment, experience, and manipulation.
In Section 5.2, the study design is explained, which employed a within-subjects
experimental design with 14 participants, each of whom completed two design
sessions – one in situ and one in virtuo. The two design sessions were arranged to be
as comparable as possible, with the only difference being the medium used. To balance
126
out any potential carry-over effects between the physical and virtual sessions, the study
employed a case-crossover design in which 7 participants started with physical
sessions, and the other 7 started with virtual sessions. The participants received a short
presentation introducing basic LEGO connection rules and advanced building
techniques before starting the design tasks. They also completed two warm-up
sessions, one with physical LEGO bricks and the other with virtual bricks in VR, to
improve their LEGO building dexterity and become familiar with the design medium.
Section 5.3 introduced the design tasks, which were similar in terms of functional
requirements, scale, and complexity. The first task was to design a small survival
shelter that would fit inside a 12 λ by 12 λ by 12 λ volume using LEGO bricks, and
the second task was to design a pavilion that would fit inside the same volume.
Next, Section 5.4 explains four primary methods used to collect both qualitative and
quantitative data, including (1) recording the design sessions, (2) documenting the
final models, (3) conducting retrospective think-aloud interviews, and (4)
administering a participant survey. The design session recordings were analyzed by
coding with the EEM taxonomy by reviewing the percentages of occurrences and
durations of design activities. The documented final models of the design sessions
were digitized to generate build statistics, such as the number and type of bricks used
in each session. For the retrospective think-aloud data, protocol analysis was
conducted using the FBS framework and linkography. Descriptive statistics were used
to analyze the responses to the survey questions. Overall, the data collected from the
design sessions and the final models were analyzed both individually and in
combination to understand the impact of VR on the architectural design process and
experience.
Chapter 6 will present the design experiment results collected in this study.
127
6. DESIGN EXPERIMENT RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the design experiment study, which aimed to
understand the impact of the virtual reality medium on the process of architectural
design. These results are intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
impact of VR on the architectural design process and experience, as outlined in the
methodology presented in Chapter 5.
The results are organized into three main sections. Section 6.1 presents the analysis of
the quantitative data collected during the study, including build statistics, design issues
and processes as captured by the FBS framework, and the linkography and EEM
design actions and durations identified during the design sessions. Section 6.2 presents
the analysis of the qualitative data collected during the study, including the verbal
comments of participants and the researchers' own observations during the design
sessions. Section 6.3 validates the experimental design of the study by exploring
potential confounding factors such as gender, age, professional experience, LEGO
design experience, video game playing frequency, and previous VR experience of the
participants. It also examines how the physical and virtual sessions may have
interacted with each other.
Overall, the results of the study demonstrate that the cognitive processes reflected in
the protocols were similarly rich in both physical and virtual environments. However,
the use of VR seemed to promote a higher distribution of experience and manipulation
activities in the design sessions. This can be attributed to the designers’ ability to easily
switch between different scales in the VR environment, allowing them to explore and
manipulate their designs from the perspectives of both a designer and an inhabitant in
a more intuitive and immersive manner. In conclusion, it is safe to conclude that
architects and designers are presented with new opportunities to interact and engage
with their designs in ways that were not previously possible when working solely in a
physical environment.
128
6.1 Analysis of the Quantitative Data
This section presents the results obtained from the quantitative data analysis collected
during the study. All quantitative data were assessed and analyzed in IBM SPSS
Statistics 27, JASP, and Microsoft Excel. A variety of statistical techniques were
employed, including descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and graphical
representation of data. Descriptive analysis of the questionnaire and VR data was done
using frequency and percentage for categorical data, means, and standard deviations
for continuous data. Additionally, graphical summaries were used where appropriate
to summarize the data.
The quantitative data that analyzed consisted of the following:
(1) Build statistics of the models produced in the physical and virtual design
sessions,
(2) FBS coded design issues and processes using segments from retrospective
think-aloud protocols,
(3) Linkographic entropy, using segments from retrospective think-aloud
protocols,
(4) EEM design actions and durations observed on event-coded design session
videos,
(5) Survey responses, including demographic data and Likert scale questions that
evaluate the design process in VR versus the physical world, and
(6) User feedback questionnaire evaluating the user experience in Dreamscape
Bricks VR.
The first goal of the analysis was to compare the design processes between the physical
and virtual sessions. The second goal was to assess the influence of the design tool and
the design medium (in virtuo versus in situ) on the design processes and the user
experience. Descriptive statistics were used to determine group averages and to
describe various design metrics. Inferential statistics were used to determine the
significance of differences between the virtual and physical design sessions.
129
6.1.1 Build statistics
The build statistics (design duration, total bricks used, total model weight, build speed,
build bulkiness, and bricks variety) of the in situ and in virtuo sessions were analyzed
and compared using a non-parametric paired t-test (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) to test for
significant differences between the two sessions (see Table 6.1).
Table 6.1 : Build statistics comparison of design sessions and Wilcoxon rank-sum
test results.
Build statistics
In situ
mean
In situ
σ
In virtuo
mean
In virtuo
σ
VR / Phys.
Z-score
p-value
Design duration
(sec)
2502.93
1294.39
3622.64
1591.46
145%
-2.417
0.016
Total bricks used
(pieces)
104.36
42.56
94.64
37.86
91%
-0.91
0.363
Total model
weight (grams)
140.46
45.67
128.22
46.08
91%
-0.502
0.615
Build speed
(pieces/minute)
2.81
1.07
1.69
0.74
60%
-2.794
0.005
Build bulkiness
(grams/piece)
1.39
0.23
1.46
0.53
105%
-0.471
0.638
Bricks variety
(pcs.)
28.86
17.95
19.57
6.62
68%
-2.01
0.044
Each statistical sub-domain is explained in the following sections by interpreting them
with observations.
6.1.1.1 Design duration
The mean design duration of the virtual sessions is 45% longer than the physical
sessions, which shows a significant difference (p = 0.016). This can be explained by
the fact that the physical sessions are carried out in the physical world, which is a more
intuitive and accessible environment for the designers. The physical interactions using
hands in the physical sessions were familiar to the designers, while the virtual sessions
required using the controllers to control their virtual hands. This is a new interface for
the participants, and it takes them more time to learn and master the interaction. This
unfamiliarity could have caused the designers to spend more time in the virtual
sessions.
130
6.1.1.2 Total bricks used
The total bricks used in the virtual sessions are approximately 9% less than that of the
physical sessions, but the difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.363).
Individual results showed varying VR/physical ratios of total brick counts, such as
258% for Brian, 101% for Victor, and 34% for Amy. Therefore, the total amount of
bricks used does not seem to be affected by the design medium, but it might be affected
by the individual designer.
6.1.1.3 Build speed
The average build speed of the virtual sessions is approximately 40% slower than that
of the physical sessions, which is statistically significant (p = 0.005). Similar to the
change in duration, this difference can be explained by the lack of physical interactions
in the virtual sessions. The VR controllers were not intuitive for the designers, and
they had to take time to learn how to use them.
6.1.1.4 Build bulkiness
Build bulkiness is calculated by dividing the total model weight of a LEGO model by
the total number of LEGO bricks used in its construction. A higher build bulkiness
value suggests that the participants tended to use bigger pieces to fill up the volume,
whereas a lower bulkiness value indicates that they preferred smaller, more detailed
pieces for a finer and more intricate design. The virtual sessions have a similar build
bulkiness to the physical sessions (105%), and the difference is not statistically
significant (p = 0.638). The result implies that the selection of bricks and their relative
granularity remains consistent between the virtual and physical environments,
indicating that the design medium does not have a significant impact on the level of
detail or complexity of the structures created by participants.
6.1.1.5 Bricks variety
The virtual sessions have a 32% lower bricks variety than the virtual sessions, which
is statistically significant (p = 0.044). This result could be explained by the fact that
the physical sessions are carried out in the physical world, where designers can feel
and see the bricks, which is not possible in the virtual environment. However, the EEM
action analyses (Table 6.7) show that the participants spent significantly more time
picking bricks. According to the observations, while the participants spent more time
131
choosing the items sorted and labeled in the boxes in the physical environment, they
picked the bricks from the shelves more clearly and decisively in the VR environment.
Furthermore, using a large variety of brick types does not necessarily result in a better
design, as an overview of the in virtuo models does not show a qualitative difference.
6.1.2 FBS design issues and design processes
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show the percentage of occurrences of FBS design issues and
design processes, respectively, found in the retrospective think-aloud protocol
analyses of design sessions.
Figure 6.1 : FBS design issue distribution comparison of design protocols.
Table 6.2 presents a comparison of the distribution of FBS design issues across the
different design protocols studied.
Table 6.2 : FBS design issue distribution comparison of design protocols and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results.
Design issues
In situ
mean
In situ
σ
In virtuo
mean
In virtuo
σ
VR / Phys.
Z-score
p-value
Requirement
3.77
3.23
2.33
1.07
62%
-1.005
0.315
Function
18.64
8.60
12.44
4.34
67%
-2.621
0.009
Exp. Behavior
20.69
7.86
20.06
6.50
97%
-0.105
0.917
Str. Behavior
17.90
9.39
18.06
6.99
101%
-0.282
0.778
Structure
25.08
9.26
27.21
8.10
108%
-0.659
0.510
Description
13.95
4.29
19.94
6.77
143%
-2.229
0.026
The analysis of FBS design issues, as presented in Table 6.2, revealed that there were
significant differences between the physical and virtual in the Function and
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
R F Be Bs S D
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Issues
In Situ
In Virtuo
132
Description categories (p<0.05). Specifically, the participants reflected 43% more
Description issues in the virtual session protocols compared to the physical sessions.
This result can be attributed to the cognitive demands and immersive nature of the
virtual environment. In VR, designers are more likely to describe their work, the
environment, and the process in greater detail, as they navigate and adapt to a novel
context. Furthermore, the use of VR controllers and interfaces may prompt designers
to verbalize their thoughts more often as they interact with the virtual space. On the
other hand, the incidence of Function issues was 33% lower in VR session protocols,
indicating that users tended to make less verbal externalization about the functionality
of their design. Other FBS design issues either occurred at similar percentages or did
not show a statistically significant difference between sessions.
Figure 6.2 : FBS design process distribution comparison of design protocols.
The analysis of design processes, as presented in Table 6.3, revealed that the only
significant difference between the physical and virtual sessions is the category of
Documentation. This finding aligns with the results of Description issues showing a
difference above, as the Documentation process emerges by a transition from Structure
issues to Description issues. Therefore, it is likely to be more prevalent in VR sessions
where more descriptive language is used.
As previously discussed in Section 5.1.1.2, the P-S index is a useful tool for
understanding the balance of problem-oriented and solution-oriented cognitive effort
in the design process. A P-S index value of 1 indicates that the participants’ attention
was equally split between problem-oriented divergent thinking and solution-oriented
convergent thinking. A value above 1 means that the participants were primarily
focused on defining the problem and understanding its constraints, whereas a value
below 1 means that the participants were primarily focused on creating solutions. In
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Form. Synth. Anlys. Eval. Doc. Ref-1 Ref-2 Ref-3
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Processes
In Situ
In Virtuo
133
order to investigate this proportion in the protocol results, the P-S index was calculated
for each design protocol using the FBS coding of design issues and processes, as
outlined in the methodology.
Table 6.3 : FBS design process distribution comparison of design protocols and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results.
Design processes
In situ
mean
In situ
σ
In virtuo
mean
In virtuo
σ
VR / Phys.
Z-score
p-value
Formulation
12.15
6.22
8.77
5.52
72%
-1.412
0.158
Syntesis
10.96
4.67
9.59
5.10
88%
-0.659
0.510
Analysis
7.41
4.72
11.89
5.02
161%
-1.948
0.051
Evaluation
20.49
13.32
19.27
12.59
94%
-0.157
0.875
Documentation
7.28
4.13
11.59
5.35
159%
-1.978
0.048
Reformulation-1
17.47
9.14
18.53
9.69
106%
-0.534
0.594
Reformulation-2
12.58
4.73
12.29
5.06
98%
-0.377
0.706
Reformulation-3
11.67
6.94
8.05
6.59
69%
-1.412
0.158
The results of the mean P-S index analysis are presented in Figures 6.3 and Table 6.4.
Figure 6.3 : Problem-Solution indices comparison of design protocols.
Table 6.4 : P-S indices comparison of design protocols and Wilcoxon rank-sum test
results.
P-S indices
In situ
mean
In situ
σ
In virtuo
mean
In virtuo
σ
VR / Phys.
Z-score
p-value
P-S issue index
1.07
0.43
0.82
0.28
76%
-1.601
0.109
P-S process index
0.68
0.30
0.52
0.20
76%
-1.789
0.074
1.07
0.68
0.82
0.52
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
P-S Issue Index P-S Process Index
Percentage of Occurence
Problem-Solution Indices
In Situ
In Virtuo
134
The P-S issue index for the physical sessions has a mean value of 1.07, suggesting that,
on average, the participants had balanced divergent and convergent thoughts.
However, the standard deviation is relatively high (0.43), indicating that the results
were not homogeneous across the participants. The P-S issue index for the virtual
sessions has a mean value of 0.82, with a standard deviation of 0.28, which is 76% of
the in situ mean value. This difference implies that, the participants in the virtual
sessions were more focused on developing and evaluating potential solutions, on
average. In the virtual environment, the participants can manipulate and visualize their
designs in a more comprehensive manner than in physical sessions. The consistently
lower P-S indices for virtual sessions could be attributed to the immersive nature of
the virtual environment, which may encourage designers to focus more on generating
and evaluating solutions. The virtual environment offers a unique context where
participants can interact with their designs at a human scale, providing them with
greater clarity and understanding of the design problem, and enabling them to generate
solutions more effectively. Furthermore, the use of VR controllers and interfaces may
promote more efficient and precise manipulation of the design elements, facilitating a
more solution-oriented mindset. However, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicates that
these results are not statistically significant, as the p-value (0.109) is greater than the
common threshold of 0.05.
The P-S process index for the physical sessions has a mean value of 0.68, with a
standard deviation of 0.30. The results are not homogenous, and their indication
contradicts the result of the P-S issue index. Therefore, the results indicate a more
complex pattern of divergent and convergent thoughts. The P-S process index for the
virtual sessions has a mean value of 0.52, with a standard deviation of 0.20, which is
76% of the in situ mean value. These results are in line with the P-S issue results of
the virtual sessions, strengthening the evidence that participants in the virtual sessions
were more focused on finding a solution. Yet, with a p-value of 0.074, the difference
is not statistically significant.
Figures 6.4 and 6.5 provide a more fine-grained analysis of the P-S indices by
examining the temporal flow of the design process and how the relative emphasis on
problem-oriented and solution-oriented activities changes over time by dividing the
design protocols into deciles.
135
Figure 6.4 : The temporal analysis comparing mean P-S issue indices in physical
and virtual design sessions by deciles.
Figure 6.5 : The temporal analysis comparing mean P-S process indices in physical
and virtual design sessions by deciles.
The examination of the temporal flow analysis shows that the problem-solution index
varies throughout the design process in both physical and virtual sessions. It is worth
noting that, in contrast to the general mean results shown in Table 6.4, the mean of P-
S issue indices in the deciles results in a P-S issue index of 1.30 in situ and 0.92 in
virtuo. This indicates that the physical sessions were more problem-oriented, and
virtual sessions had a balanced P-S index. In the early stages of the design process, a
higher emphasis was observed on problem-oriented activities in both physical and
virtual design sessions, with the P-S issue index in situ being notably higher than in
virtuo in the first few deciles. However, as the design process progresses, the P-S issue
index in virtuo catches up and even exceeds that of physical sessions in the later stages.
The lower P-S index and higher problem-solution balance in virtuo can be attributed
1.52
2.18
1.20 1.28
1.67
1.17
1.33
0.72
1.12
0.85
1.04 1.16
0.63 0.69 0.86
1.30
0.80 0.69
1.08
0.97
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10
P-S Issue Index
Deciles
In Situ
In Virtuo
0.77
0.86 0.79 0.75
1.11 1.08
0.91
0.37
0.60
0.90
0.88
0.57 0.47
0.57 0.59 0.57
0.79
0.45
0.96
0.74
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10
P-S Process Index
Deciles
In Situ
In Virtuo
136
to the fact that in virtual sessions, users were better able to understand their
environment and had a more comprehensive experience while manipulating objects at
a human scale, compared to being confined to work with a hand-held object in physical
sessions. Thus, it was easier for them to find solutions in virtuo with full interaction
capabilities, which was also reflected in the verbal comments of participants.
The P-S process index demonstrates parallel upward and downward trends for both
physical and virtual sessions. Both sessions show an increase in P-S process indices
towards the end, indicating a shift towards more problem-oriented processes towards
the end of the design sessions. This suggests that participants may have been spending
more time refining their solutions and addressing any remaining issues or challenges
in the later stages of the design process.
6.1.3 Linkography
The linkography analysis was conducted on the segments of the retrospective think-
aloud protocols to visualize the relationships between the design moves made during
the physical and virtual sessions. The links between the design moves of all
participants were coded with FBS ontology and visualized as linkographs, which is
explained in Section 5.1.2, to understand the structure and organization of the design
thought.
The linkographs were examined for the number of moves, link index, backlink entropy
(Hb), forelink entropy (Hf), horizonlink entropy (Hh), as well as visual qualities such
as chunk, web, and sawtooth patterns. The results presented in Table 6.5 show that the
mean number of moves is 20% higher in the virtual sessions compared to the physical
sessions, which is in line with 45% longer design durations presented in Table 6.1.
Despite these findings, it is important to consider the high standard deviations, which
make it difficult to generalize the results, and the fact that the differences are not
statistically significant (p=0.572). Similarly, the link index, a measure of the density
of links in the linkograph, is also 17% higher in the virtual sessions, but this difference
is also not statistically significant (p=0.158).
Possible cognitive explanations for these observed trends could include the immersive
nature of VR, which encourages increase spatial exploration and experimentation,
leading to 20% more design moves and 45% longer sessions as designers spend
additional time iterating and refining their designs. Furthermore, the VR environment
137
facilitates a higher level of manipulation and experience activities in design (Table
6.6), which may induce designers to spend more time engaging with their ideas,
potentially resulting in a higher number of design moves.
Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the observed differences in the mean
number of moves, design durations, and link index between virtual and physical
sessions are not statistically significant, and the standard deviations are high. This
suggests that further research, incorporating larger sample sizes and more controlled
experimental conditions, may be necessary to provide more robust insights into the
cognitive implications of using VR in the architectural design process.
Table 6.5 : Linkographic entropy comparison of design protocols and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results.
Linkographic
entropy
In situ
mean
In situ
σ
In virtuo
mean
In virtuo
σ
VR / Phys.
Z-score
p-value
Moves
120.64
50.17
145.21
72.44
120%
-0.565
0.572
Link index
4.16
1.68
4.87
2.12
117%
-1.412
0.158
Hf per move
0.36
0.07
0.36
0.07
99%
-0.031
0.975
Hb per move
0.41
0.06
0.40
0.09
98%
-0.785
0.433
Hh per move
0.17
0.04
0.18
0.09
104%
-0.031
0.975
Cumulative
H per move
0.95
0.16
0.94
0.25
100%
-0.282
0.778
The linkographic entropy comparisons show that there is no significant difference
between the Hf and Hb per move in the physical and virtual sessions. The Hh per move,
which is a measure of the cohesiveness and solution-orientedness of the design
process, is slightly higher in virtuo sessions, but again this difference is not statistically
significant (p=0.975). Moreover, the cumulative entropy per move is quite similar
(100%) results in situ and in virtuo. Overall, the results suggest that the linkographic
entropy analysis does not reveal significant differences between the physical and
virtual sessions in terms of the exploration level and the cohesiveness of the design
process.
Figure 6.6 shows overlayed linkographs of all design protocols by 14 participants, with
the virtual sessions placed at the bottom and the physical sessions at the top. Darker
shades indicate recurring patterns in the same location and can be used to analyze the
overall structure and organization of the design thought reflected on the linkographs
across participants between physical and virtual sessions.
138
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.
This figure shows that the linkographs for virtual sessions are longer, which is
expected as virtual sessions had 20% more design moves and were 45% longer than
physical sessions on average. The linkographs show that the distribution of chunks,
webs, and link spans appear to be similar in situ and in virtuo. The virtual sessions tend
to have chunks with bigger link spans, which is a result of the longer linkographs. The
virtual sessions feature chunks with larger link spans, which is a result of the longer
linkographs. However, these chunks are neither dense nor dark, indicating that they do
not represent a significant portion of the results.
Overall, the visual examination results of Figure 6.6 align with the interpretations
made from the numerical data in Table 6.5. Again, the linkographic analysis shows no
significant difference between the physical and virtual sessions.
6.1.4 EEM analysis of design actions and durations
The analysis of EEM design actions shows the percentage distributions of
embodiment, experience, and manipulation actions. Significant differences were found
139
in the distribution of EEM action categories between the physical and virtual sessions,
as seen in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 : EEM design actions comparison of design sessions and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results.
Design actions
In situ
mean
In situ
σ
In virtuo
mean
In virtuo
σ
VR / Phys.
Z-score
p-value
Total actions
699.93
322.72
683.50
292.47
98%
-0.345
0.730
Embodiment (%)
85.51
4.89
75.36
6.98
88%
-3.233
0.001
Experience (%)
3.97
2.33
8.65
3.93
218%
-3.233
0.001
Manipulation (%)
10.52
4.71
16.00
5.85
152%
-2.731
0.006
Figure 6.7 : EEM design actions comparison of design sessions.
In the virtual sessions, the actions to experience the design were 118% more, and the
manipulation actions were 52% more, whereas embodiment actions were 12% less
(Figure 6.7 and Figure 6.8). Based on this, it can be argued that the VR environment
is more suitable for experiencing the design on a human scale and making design
changes over this experience.
Table 6.7 and Figure 6.8 present a comparison of the duration of EEM design actions
in the design sessions. When the ongoing actions (state events) of selecting parts (Pick)
and inspecting actions (Inspection) were compared, no difference was found between
inspecting actions. However, it was observed that the selection of the parts took a
significantly (p=0.002) shorter time in virtuo compared to in situ (Figure 6.5 and
Figure 6.6).
85.51 75.36
3.97
8.65
10.52 16.00
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
In situ In virtuo
Distribution of Events
EEM Action Percentages
Manipulation (%)
Experience (%)
Embodiment (%)
140
Table 6.7 : EEM design action duration comparison of design sessions and
Wilcoxon rank-sum test results.
Action durations
In situ
mean
In situ
σ
In virtuo
mean
In virtuo
σ
VR / Phys.
Z-score
p-value
Pick (%)
20.49
6.18
13.17
5.18
64%
-3.045
0.002
Inspection (%)
8.12
7.85
10.33
10.03
127%
-1.036
0.300
Rewind (%)
n/a
-
0.46
0.69
n/a
-2.201
0.028
Figure 6.8 : EEM design action duration comparison of design sessions.
In addition, Figure 6.9 shows that mean scale durations in the virtual sessions revealed
that the participants spent 22.26% of the session at the life-size bricks scale (1:1),
71.36% at the precision building scale (1:10), and 6.37% at the figure-sized user scale
(1:42.5) on average.
Figure 6.9 : Mean scale durations in the virtual design sessions.
20.49
13.17
8.12
10.33
0.00 0.46
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
In situ In virtuo
Distribution of Events
EEM Action Percentages
Rewind (%)
Think (%)
Pick (%)
22.26
71.36
6.37
In Virtuo Scale Durations
1:1 Scale (%) 1:10 Scale (%) 1:42.5 Scale (%)
141
The findings of this study suggest that the VR environment promotes a higher level of
manipulation and experience activities in design compared to the physical
environment. This result suggests that the increased spatial exploration in the
immersive VR environment may have enabled designers to iterate their designs more
often. Additionally, the higher experience percentages and the mean scale durations
show that designers often changed scale and preferred to use scales that are not
possible in a physical medium. The ease of scale-changing in VR enables a more
comprehensive understanding and efficient manipulation of the design, giving
designers a more spatial understanding of their designs.
6.1.5 Post-experiment questionnaire
The results from the questionnaires were initially analyzed using descriptive statistics.
The responses from the Likert scale questions were subsequently analyzed using a
non-parametric paired t-test. The analysis revealed that the participants generally had
a positive attitude towards VR as a design tool. However, participants identified that
certain limitations that need to be overcome for VR to be used more effectively and
efficiently in the design process.
Table 6.8 : Post-experiment questionnaire results.
Questions
Mean Response Value (SD)
Response Variables
Design ideation potential with physical
LEGO bricks*
4.36 (0.63)
1: Very poor
2: Poor
3: Acceptable
4: Good
5: Very Good
Design iteration potential with physical
LEGO bricks†
4.29 (1.20)
Design ideation potential with LEGO bricks
in VR*
4.21 (0.58)
Design iteration potential with LEGO bricks
in VR†
4.29 (0.91)
Advantage of designing with physical
LEGO bricks over LEGO bricks in VR
3.43 (0.94)
1: Much worse
2: Somewhat worse
3: Stayed the same
4: Somewhat better
5: Much better
Advantage of the ability to change scale in
VR over the physical world
4.86 (0.54)
Advantage of the ability to rewind time in
VR over the physical world
4.14 (1.10)
Advantage of having an unlimited number of
parts in VR over the physical world
4.79 (0.58)
Would you use Dreamscape Bricks VR
as a design tool?
0.93 (0.27)
No: 0, Yes: 1
* p>0.05, † p>0.05
142
The results from the questionnaire indicate that there is no statistically significant
difference in the participant's evaluations of the design ideation potential (as indicated
by * in Table 6.8) and design iteration potential (indicated by †) of physical LEGO
bricks and virtual LEGO bricks (p > 0.05). The participants stated that designing with
physical LEGO bricks had a slightly better advantage (3.43/5) than designing with
virtual bricks.
6.1.6 User feedback questionnaire
The user feedback questionnaire showed similar results to the tool’s evaluation and
test cases with plausible success, as presented in Table 6.9.
6.2 Analysis of the Qualitative Data
The qualitative data analysis of this study consists of (1) the analysis of the verbal
comments of participants, and (2) the researchers’ overview and observations of the
design outputs.
Table 6.9 : Participants’ evaluation of the user experience in the
Dreamscape Bricks VR application.
Evaluation Criteria
Mean Response Value (SD)
Response Variables
Dreamscape Bricks VR’s
interaction mechanics with
the environment and objects
4.36 (0.75)
1: Very poor
2: Poor
3: Acceptable
4: Good
5: Very Good
Dreamscape Bricks VR’s
environment design
4.64 (0.63)
Dreamscape Bricks VR’s
user interfaces
4.57 (0.51)
Dreamscape Bricks VR’s
audio design
4.71 (0.47)
6.2.1 Verbal comments of participants
This dataset is obtained from two sources: (1) Open-ended assessment questions from
the post-experiment questionnaire, and (2) selected comments from the transcriptions
of retrospective think-aloud protocols (see Appendix C for all the comments provided).
Inductive analysis was conducted on this dataset of verbal comments of the
participants from the survey and think-aloud protocols, identifying and describing
143
recurring themes and patterns. Table 6.10 presents the positive and negative themes
found in the data of 4000 words collected from protocols and questionnaires related to
the use of Dreamscape Bricks VR and LEGO bricks for design.
Table 6.10 : Thematic analysis of participants’ feedback on using Dreamscape
Bricks VR and LEGO bricks in design.
Comments
Positive Themes
Negative Themes
On Dreamscape Bricks
VR
(12) Changing scale, experiencing the
space iteratively and instantaneously
(9) Ease of connections in VR, fewer
physical limitations
(9) Unlimited parts to use in VR
(8) Difficulty of controls in
the virtual environment
Use of LEGO for design
(10) Modular components help design
faster
(6) Fast feedback with LEGO pieces'
inherent trial and error
(5) Modular components increase
creativity
(4) Familiar and easily comprehensible
(3) Ability to design three-
dimensionally
(2) Similarity of physical and virtual
LEGO interactions
(9) Modular components
decrease creativity
The following four themes emerged from the study:
1) Scaling and ‘experiencing’ during the design process: The participants found
that the use of a VR design tool made it easier to perceive the spatiality of their
designed buildings. They were able to view the design from various
perspectives and orientations. Some participants reported difficulty
manipulating the design elements initially due to their lack of familiarity with
the VR experience. However, most participants found the ability to scale the
design to be a significant advantage over traditional physical modeling
methods. The majority of participants noted that it was easier to grasp the size
and dimensions of the architectural design during the design process in VR.
Many participants also expressed a preference for working with a 1:10 scale,
which is ten times larger than the physical environment, and were able to walk
through their designs at a 1:42.5 scale. According to the participants’
comments, being able to change the scale during the VR design experience also
brings the sensation of “experiencing” the building, and this contributed to the
design process.
144
2) Customization and flexibility due to faster trial and error: Although some
participants commented on stumbling through the unfamiliarity of the VR
design application, a common theme among their feedback was the increased
speed and efficiency, especially due to the availability of rapid trial and error.
Participants commented that when they change their minds, they could
instantly shift to a new solution or rapidly correct their mistakes. The
participants were able to explore multiple design alternatives and were able to
adjust the design with fast feedback from the building.
3) Activity flow and navigation: The participants enjoyed the VR design process
since they were able to walk and navigate around the design space. The
participants also showed a preference for designing on the ground floor and
were able to walk through the building easily.
3) Virtual materials and textures: The participants enjoyed using the virtual
materials and textures and found them to be very helpful in developing the
design. They were able to see how the building would appear at night and
during daylight and how it would look from a distance. They also found the
textures and materials to be very helpful in making the design look realistic.
Another analysis was conducted by identifying the most frequently repeated words in
a 4000-word compilation of comments on the tool and process after filtering stop
words (e.g., “I,” “the,” “a,” “and,” “but,” “this,” “that,” etc.). The ten most frequently
repeated words are as follows in order: (1) design, (2) scale, (3) parts, (4) environment,
(5) LEGO, (6) physical, (7) VR, (8) time, (9) process, (10) human.
The top ten words list and the word cloud visualization
3
of the 150 most frequent words
(see Figure 6.10, font size is scaled by the frequency of the word) are useful to identify
recurring themes. However, words like “design” and “scale” could have been used as
a noun or as a verb in different contexts. Therefore, another analysis was conducted
on the same compilation dataset with an AI-based language processor
4
to identify
relevant words this time. The ten most frequently repeated phrases are (1) physical
3
The word clouds in this section are generated using an open source tool called “d3-cloud” by Jason
Davies, which is available at https://github.com/jasondavies/d3-cloud.
4
MonkeyLearn’s word cloud generator (https://monkeylearn.com/word-cloud/) was used, which is a
free online tool that uses NLP-based AI to recognize phrase pairs or connected phrases. “d3-cloud”
was used for the visualization of the results.
145
environment, (2) human scale, (3) design process, (4) virtual reality, (5) VR
environment, (6) design tools, (7) virtual environment, (8) LEGO piece, (9) human
figure, and (10) different scale. Figure 6.11 shows a word cloud visualization of the
twenty most frequent phrases, with each font size directly proportional to the word
frequency.
Figure 6.10 : Word cloud visualization of the 150 most frequently repeated words
in the participants’ comments.
Figure 6.11 : Word cloud visualization of the 20 most frequently repeated phrases
in the participants’ comments.
146
This word frequency analysis reveals that the concepts of scale, human scale, and time
as recurring themes that are not directly related to the experiment setup, media, tools,
or processes (such as VR, environment, LEGO, or design).
The most important finding of this study was that VR is a suitable medium for
architectural design. The participants in this study were able to use VR to design a full-
scale building. The participants enjoyed the VR design process since they were able to
walk and navigate around the design space. In physical design sessions, it is difficult
to walk around the model as the participants need to move around the table and chairs
to get a different perspective or orientation. In VR, the participants found it easy to
walk around and navigate within the design space. While designing in VR, the
participants were able to see the building from different perspectives and orientations.
The ability to pan, zoom, and rotate around the design in real time provided the
participants with a greater understanding of the design and improved the design
process.
The participants also found the ability to change the scale to be very useful in the VR
design sessions. The participants were able to see the design in different scales, from
a bird’s-eye view to a close-up view and everything in between. The ability to
temporarily change the scale also helped the participants to get a better understanding
of the design.
6.2.2 The researchers’ overview
The researchers’ overview includes the memos from design sessions, an overview of
the design models, and an interpretation of the individual linkographs (see Appendix
D). This overview highlighted important insights, which are summarized in this
section.
The study found that the stress levels of participants who were recent graduates or
currently enrolled in their undergraduate degrees negatively impacted their design
processes in the virtual environment. These participants were observed to be more
conscious about their design decisions and felt a sense of duty and responsibility
towards the design task, which led to prolonged design times and a lack of focus.
Additionally, the physical discomfort caused by the VR headset contributed to this
stress, leading to a desire to quickly complete the task and remove the headset.
147
In contrast, participants who had completed or were currently enrolled in graduate
studies were observed to handle the design process better, completing their tasks
quickly and maintaining a focus on the design without any stress or tension.
The use of LEGO bricks for the design task was intended to create an intuitive and
direct manipulation experience for the users by assuming familiarity with the basics of
LEGO building interactions. However, the participants' architecture education, which
familiarized them with CAD tools, affected their design thinking, leading them to look
for features commonly found in CAD tools, such as grouping and copying.
The immersive virtual environment provided by Dreamscape Bricks VR, with its
ability to scale the user and provide an unlimited number of LEGO bricks, along with
the ability to undo actions by rewinding time, was effectively utilized by the
participants and proved beneficial to their design process.
6.3 Experimental Design Validation
A series of statistical tests were conducted on the results to support the null hypothesis
and validate whether the unintended or dismissed variables caused a significant effect.
6.3.1 Gender of participants
The study did not anticipate any significant gender-related differences among the
participants. While some gender-related differences in participant behavior were
observed, there were no significant differences in the quantitative design metrics. The
cumulative linkographic entropy results of virtual sessions were compared to those of
physical sessions, and the results were statistically insignificant (MWU=20.00,
p=0.797). Thus, it can be concluded that gender has no significant effect on design
performance in VR compared to design performance in the physical environment.
6.3.2 Age and professional experience of the participants
Significant differences between the age of participants in the experiment were not
anticipated. Although the age of participants is an essential factor in human behavior,
differences were ignored because the proficiency levels of individual users were
different from the rest of the sample, which would be equally effective in both in the
virtual and physical sessions and would contribute equally to both sides of the
comparison.
148
6.3.3 LEGO design experience
No significant differences were expected between participants with varying levels of
LEGO experience, as all participants had sufficient experience in this domain and
underwent warm-up sessions prior to the experiments. While some differences in
participants' mastery of building with LEGO bricks were observed, they were not
considered significant with the sample size used in the study. Furthermore, individual
differences would be present in both sessions and contribute equally to both sides of
the comparison.
6.3.4 Video game playing frequency
Initially, it was expected participants who frequently play video games would exhibit
more proficiency with virtual interfaces, thus, demonstrate better performance in
virtuo than in situ. The comparison test between the frequent video game playing status
and the ratio of cumulative linkographic entropy results of the virtual sessions to the
physical sessions did not show any significant correlations (MWU=21.00, p=0.710).
Therefore, no significant correlation was found between the participants’ video game
playing frequency and their design complexity in VR.
6.3.5 Previous VR experience of participants
A comparison test was conducted on the participants’ previous experience with VR to
examine if those with previous VR experience would perform differently than those
with no prior experience. The results of the study revealed no statistically significant
difference (MWU=24.00, p=1.000) between the two groups in terms of their
cumulative in-virtuo/in-situ entropy ratio, suggesting that there is no advantage in
terms of design performance for participants who are familiar with VR design tools.
6.3.6 Selection of design tasks
Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysis was conducted on the build statistics and
cumulative linkographic entropies of the Shelter task and the Pavilion task to
determine whether the tasks were equivalent in terms of design complexity. As the
results in Table 6.11 show, the participants’ number of bricks used, build speed, and
linkographic metrics are similar in both tasks. The only statistically significant
(p<0.02) differences are total model weight and build bulkiness. The result is in
agreement with the assumption that the shelter would have a more sheltered outer
149
envelope while the pavilion has a more open and permeable structure. On average,
similar numbers of bricks were used for shelter design (105 bricks) and pavilion design
(94 bricks), and the total brick count between the tasks has an 11% difference, which
is not statistically significant (p>0.05). The linkographic cumulative entropy and link
indexes for the shelter and pavilion sessions have a difference of less than 10%,
indicating that the design tasks were equivalent in terms of design complexity, as
anticipated.
6.3.7 Interaction of physical and virtual sessions
A comparison was made between the ratio of cumulative in virtuo entropy to
cumulative in situ entropy of participants who started with virtual sessions and those
who started with physical sessions. The results of this comparison showed no
significant differences (MWU=15.00, p=0.259) between the two groups, indicating that
there was no significant correlation between the order of the sessions and VR
performance that is higher than in situ performance.
Table 6.11: Build statistics and linkographic entropy comparison of shelter and
pavilion design tasks and Wilcoxon rank-sum test results.
Design metrics
Shelter
mean
Shelter
σ
Pavilion
mean
Pavilion
σ
Shelter /
Pavilion
Z-score
p-value
Design duration
(sec)
3529.64
1800.11
2595.93
1083.25
136%
-1.664
0.096
Total bricks used
(pieces)
104.64
47.25
94.36
31.72
111%
-0.408
0.683
Total model
weight (grams)
156.26
38.28
112.43
42.31
139%
-2.606
0.009
Build speed
(pieces/minute)
2.08
1.11
2.41
1.04
86%
-0.785
0.433
Build bulkiness
(grams/piece)
1.63
0.42
1.23
0.28
132%
-2.48
0.013
Bricks variety
(pcs.)
21.14
6.20
27.29
18.80
77%
-0.848
0.396
Linkographic link
index
4.70
1.86
4.33
2.02
108%
-0.596
0.551
Cumulative
entropy
0.97
0.21
0.92
0.20
105%
-0.471
0.638
150
151
7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results of this study, conducted using the Dreamscape Bricks VR application, have
demonstrated the potential of using VR as a design tool in architecture and that
immersive virtual environments provide a very effective medium to understand the
spatial qualities of the design. In this study, the participants found that the use of
Dreamscape Bricks VR offered several advantages understanding the spatial qualities
of the design. The flexibility and efficiency of the experimental design application
allowed for the exploration of a wide range of design alternatives and facilitated the
conceptualization and communication of design ideas. Participants were also able to
see the design from different perspectives and orientations.
It is important to note that the findings presented in this study are specific to the context
of using Dreamscape Bricks VR application for architectural design tasks.
Generalizations about the overall effectiveness of VR in architectural design should
be made with caution, as different applications and tasks may yield different results.
Nevertheless, the study indicates that VR has the potential to enhance certain aspects
of the design process, such as providing a better sense of the size of the architectural
design by allowing users to change scale during the design process in VR.
7.1 Discussion of the Results
This study found that using Dreamscape Bricks VR offered several advantages in
understanding the spatial qualities of the design, such as flexibility, efficiency, and
facilitating the conceptualization and communication of design ideas. Participants
could explore design alternatives from different perspectives and orientations,
enhancing the design process. These key findings are synthesized below, highlighting
their relevance to the broader literature and their contributions to the architectural
design field.
152
7.1.1 Intuitive design tools in VR
Participants of all levels of education and expertise found LEGO bricks intuitive and
practical to design with. The use of LEGO bricks in the design was a decision made
based on the participants’ familiarity with the tool since childhood. However, the
experiments show that the frequent CAD use in architectural education and practice
made the participants familiar with the CAD tools, which affected the thinking styles
in the design processes. In this study, the participants requested some common CAD
tool features, such as grouping and copying. However, the use of these features was
deliberately avoided in this study in order to prevent an advantage for repetitive
building processes in the virtual sessions as opposed to the physical brick building.
This study's findings contribute to the architectural design field by highlighting the
potential benefits of integrating VR-based design tools that emphasize familiarity and
intuitiveness. This observation aligns with previous research indicating that the use of
tangible, intuitive tools in VR can enhance designers' creativity and problem-solving
abilities (Lau & Lee, 2015; J. H. Lee et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2018). These findings
suggest that the use of more intuitive design tools within VR environments can
facilitate more efficient and flexible design workflows, ultimately leading to improved
design outcomes.
7.1.2 Impact of multi-scalar design exploration in VR
The ability to change user scale in the VR environment emerged as the most significant
advantage, as noted by the participants. This study highlights the potential of VR to
facilitate a more dynamic and immersive exploration of spatial design at various scales
which allows designers to make more informed decisions.
User comments suggest that changing user scale can help the designer make more
informed spatial design decisions since it is easier to get a feel for the size of the
architectural design during VR design. For example, when participants shrank
themselves to the figure-sized user scale (1:42.5) to walk and navigate through their
designs, they could better perceive the designed interior space and feel the size.
Participants were also able to perceive the overall form of the building by switching to
a life-size bricks scale (1:1) and achieving greater precision in the 1:10 scale.
The real-time feedback and ability to perceive the building from varying scales
concurrently during the design process offer a powerful tool for designers to make
153
more informed decisions in VR. By enabling seamless switching between different
scales and perspectives, VR environments foster imaginative inhabitation and a
comprehensive understanding of the design, ultimately leading to better architectural
outcomes.
7.1.3 Cognitive processes and design actions in VR
The FBS design issue and design process analysis showed similar results in VR and in
the physical environment. The analysis reveals that the cognitive activity is slightly
more problem-oriented in situ and more solution-oriented in virtuo. This finding
suggests that the use of VR as a direct manipulation medium may foster a solution-
oriented cognitive mode due to the lack of physical constraints and the flexibility of
interactions on various scales. This aligns with the recurring themes identified in the
participant's comments (Table 6.10).
The analysis of EEM actions showed significant differences in the distribution,
transition, and duration of design actions between the physical and virtual sessions.
The results indicate that the VR medium is more suitable for experiencing the design,
making design changes over this experience, and evaluating design alternatives than
the physical environment. This suggests that the experience and manipulation options
in the VR medium complement the limited manipulation options in the physical
medium.
In the design sessions, the physical environment serves as a container for creating
design representations with LEGO bricks at the object scale. On the other hand, the
VR environment provides a medium for designers to experience, embody, and
manipulate the design spatially and as an object. The VR design tool allows users to
navigate through the model and freely change the point of view to observe the whole
model, rather than having to move and rotate the model in the physical space to try to
observe the entire model within the restricted viewpoints.
This study's findings contribute to the architectural design literature by shedding light
on the cognitive processes and design actions in VR, highlighting the potential of VR
to foster a more dynamic and immersive design experience.
154
7.1.4 Longer design durations in VR
As shown in Table 6.1, there was a statistically significant difference in session
duration between physical and virtual sessions (p=0.016), with physical sessions
lasting an average of 42 minutes (SD = 21.5) and virtual sessions lasting an average of
61 minutes (SD = 26.5). The observed longer design durations in virtual sessions can
be attributed to the immersive nature of VR, which encourages increased spatial
exploration and experimentation. Designers may spend more time iterating and
refining their designs in the virtual environment, leading to more design moves and
extended sessions. Previous study recommends that maximum duration of immersive
VR sessions to be between 55 and 70 minutes in cognitive neuroscience and
neuropsychology research (Kourtesis et al., 2019), indicating that the extended design
durations in VR observed in this study fall within an acceptable range for effective and
productive use of the technology.
A previous study found that task complexity could affect time estimation in virtual
reality environments (Li & Kim, 2021), which may have implications on the longer
design durations observed in this study. As task complexity increases, participants'
time estimation errors also increase, suggesting that designers might lose track of time
or underestimate the duration spent on a task in virtual environments (Li & Kim, 2021).
This phenomenon could contribute to the longer design durations observed in virtual
sessions, as the immersive nature of VR, which isolates the users from the physical
environments, may cause them to become more engrossed in their tasks and less aware
of the passage of time. Additionally, the flexibility and ease of modifying designs in
VR might lead to designers spending more time refining and perfecting their creations,
ultimately resulting in extended design sessions.
However, it is also essential to consider the impact of physical comfort on the design
process in virtual environments. The currently available VR headsets are relatively
heavy and bulky, causing slight levels of fatigue and eyestrain after a specific time of
use. This limitation may have partially impeded the potential for a natural and
comfortable design experience and could have contributed to the longer design
durations observed in the virtual sessions.
155
7.1.5 Effect of spatial perception in VR
Based on the participants’ comments on the cognitive design process and the analysis
of the design activities, a strong focus on spatial and object perception was observed,
which was influenced by the varying scales. This result may be related to the human
visuospatial perception. Current understanding of the human visual system suggests
subdivision of the human visual system between the ventral stream (temporal lobe)
and the dorsal stream (parietal lobe) based on two key visual functions: object
identification and spatial navigation (Kravitz et al., 2011; Mishkin et al., 1983;
Tversky, 2005). As illustrated in Figure 7.1, the ventral stream is responsible for object
recognition, whereas the dorsal stream is debated to support the perception of spatial
relationships between objects in the environment (McIntosh & Schenk, 2009; Mishkin
et al., 1983). Another model postulates that the ventral stream is responsible for the
vision for perception and the dorsal stream for the vision for action (Goodale & Milner,
1992). Recent research presents a more nuanced understanding of visuospatial
processing, identifying three pathways emerging from the dorsal stream (Kravitz et al.,
2011). This division is seen as heuristics to guide the theoretical and experimental
research. These pathways are not mutually exclusive, as both ventral and dorsal
streams work in parallel and communicate through functional network connections
(McIntosh & Schenk, 2009; Schintu et al., 2014). Despite ongoing debates surrounding
the precise neuroanatomical nature of human visuospatial processing, a complex yet
discrete relationship exists between the dorsal stream's visuospatial functions and the
ventral stream's object-vision functions. This intricate interplay between the two
streams allows for the integration of spatial information and object recognition,
ultimately contributing to a comprehensive understanding of our visual surroundings.
This neuroanatomical perspective on human visuospatial processing reveals important
differences between designing via object-scaled representations, such as scale models
and drawings, versus designing and experiencing the space itself spatially. The
architectural design process in the physical environment primarily focuses on object
identification. On the other hand, designing in VR allows for changing user scale and
inhabiting the design artifact spatially, engaging not only object vision but also
providing comprehensive spatial perception and navigation. This dual engagement
offers architects a more comprehensive understanding of their designs by perceiving
spatial relationships between objects and their surroundings. As a result, architects can
156
visualize and explore their creations from multiple perspectives and scales in VR,
fostering a more holistic and embodied experience, which in turn enhances the design
process.
Figure 7.1 : Illustration of the dorsal and ventral streams in the human brain.
Designing primarily through object vision, without experiencing the space first-hand
but mentally inhabiting the scaled artifact to imagine its spatiality, can be compared to
a deaf composer writing music without being able to hear it, relying only on the note
representations to imagine the finished product. Since architectural design products
are intended to be experienced spatially by others, an architect’s ability to design with
the vision of spatial perception should be a key to understanding the underlying effects
of VR on the design process.
It is worth noting that the spatial cognition is not limited to the design and experience
of spaces alone. Tversky suggests that half of the cortex is involved in spatial thinking
and abstract thought uses the same brain circuitry underlying spatial thought (Tversky,
2019). This indicates that understanding and utilizing spatial cognition can
significantly impact the design process.
Tversky identifies three interconnected spatial realms: the space of the body, the space
around the body, and the space of navigation (Tversky, 2006, 2019). The space of the
body concerns proprioception and body schema, the space around the body pertains to
the immediate environment where we can interact with objects, and the space of
navigation involves the broader environment in which we navigate and orient
ourselves. These spatial realms play a crucial role in the design process, as they
collectively contribute to our understanding of space and the formation of abstract
157
ideas. Thus, Tversky introduces the concept of spraction, which highlights how
actions in space give rise to abstract thoughts, which are then translated into gestures
and mental representations (Tversky, 2019). This process underscores the importance
of spatial thinking in the formation of abstract ideas and communication. Therefore,
enhanced spatial perception in immersive VR experiences can assist designers to
develop more refined ideas in both physical and mental spaces.
Furthermore, this study's results indicate that immersive VR experiences, as the
DREAMSCAPE framework suggests, effectively engage designers with all three
spatial realms. Through immersion, designers are bodily present in their creations,
engaging the design space with the space of their body. By utilizing intuitive design
interactions of embodiment and manipulation of the virtual design space, designers
can interact with the space around their body. The immersive spatial experience
aspects of the framework enable them to explore and comprehend the space of
navigation in the virtual environment. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that by
effectively engaging designers through all three spaces we inhabit, the
DREAMSCAPE framework holds the potential to not only leverage spatial thinking
but also the abstract thought that is intertwined with it.
Conventional architectural practice uses physical models to evaluate and communicate
design ideas during the design process. In Libro Architettonico, Filarete describes this
process through an analogy of the scaled drawing or model being a baby building that
is conceived through the partnership of the architect and the patron, which grows up
to become a mature building after the construction (Kruft, 1994; Terim, 2019).
However, in some cases, such as the Siege of Rhodes anecdote, the scale models that
seem to respond to a need may prove otherwise on a bigger scale (Vitruvius, 1914).
This example highlights the limitations of scale models, emphasizing the necessity for
alternative approaches to spatial representation and perception.
Drawing from the historical context of architectural scale and the importance of
empathetic bodily projection and spatial perception, the immersive experience of VR
offers unique advantages over traditional CAD representations. The use of compasses
and other instruments historically aided in establishing a connection between the
architect's bodily measures and drawing measures by allowing architects to mentally
inhabit their drawings and connect with the scale of the design (Emmons, 2005).
Conversely, zoomable and scaleless legacy CAD drawings lack a specific scale and a
158
precise point of view, removing the crucial aspects of embodiment and physicality
from the design process.
In this light, the use of virtual reality to physically simulate and experience artifacts at
variable scales can be a valuable addition to the practice of architecture, combining
design by building and design through representations.
7.2 Research Implications and Contributions to the Field
The study shows that immersive VR not only serves as a tool for design representation
but also a strong designing medium for immersive experiences and imagination,
shaping designers' thinking and approaches differently. The findings align with
existing theories and concepts in the field of architecture and VR, suggesting that
immersive virtual environments encourage designers to spatially experience and
explore design in novel ways, which can lead to fresh creative opportunities and
innovative designs.
This section presents how the study contributes to the field by showcasing the potential
of VR in different sub-domains:
(1) Enhancing architectural design education and distance education: Integrating
VR into architectural design education offers immersive and spatial learning
experiences for students, facilitating deeper spatial understanding and
exploration of design artifacts. The study's findings and the DREAMSCAPE
framework provides insights into the integration of VR in architectural design
education, including remote and distance learning, by enabling collaboration
and learning opportunities that transcend geographical limitations and broaden
educational access. By emphasizing embodied interactions and direct
manipulation in immersive VR tools, educators can develop more engaging
and effective learning experiences, leading to enhanced understanding and skill
development.
(2) Promoting designing by building: The use of immersive VR in architectural
design practice can lead to improved spatial understanding, enhanced
creativity, and efficient communication between designers, clients, and
stakeholders. Leveraging VR for designing by building can enable a more
intuitive and tangible design process, allowing architects to directly engage
159
with their designs and explore ideas in real-time, similar to how dreamers
simultaneously create and inhabit their dreamscapes. This immersive approach
provides designers with spatial experiences across various scales, fostering
dynamic and fluid workflows. The DREAMSCAPE framework addresses the
disconnect between physical and virtual design media by emphasizing
intuitive, analog interactions and direct manipulation within VR design tools.
This re-engagement of the body in the design process enhances the designer's
connection to their work, fostering a more immersive and organic design
experience.
(3) Challenging legacy CAD approaches: The DREAMSCAPE framework and
the study's findings contest traditional and rigid CAD approaches,
characterized by windows, point-and-click interactions, and menus, which
have long dominated architectural design. By emphasizing embodied
interactions, direct manipulation, and immersive experiences, the research
exposes the limitations of conventional CAD tools in fostering creativity and
design exploration. This shift in thinking, rather than merely adapting existing
CAD methods to virtual environments, paves the way for innovative and
flexible design tools that overcome the constraints of legacy CAD approaches,
ultimately revolutionizing the architectural design process.
(4) Potential for diverse component integration: The Dreamscape Bricks VR
application, emphasizing direct manipulation and immersive design
experiences, illustrates the potential for adapting the DREAMSCAPE
framework to accommodate diverse modular components beyond LEGO
bricks. The integration of various component types, such as parametric
elements, building components, or BIM objects, can broaden the scope of its
applications. These customizations can facilitate the exploration of new design
methodologies in various fields, such as urban planning strategies, or
environmental considerations, ultimately advancing architectural design
practices and outcomes. The research findings and guidelines derived from the
DREAMSCAPE framework can contribute to the ongoing development of VR
design tools that explore diverse component integrations and future
applications.
160
In conclusion, this study highlights the transformative potential of immersive VR in
architectural design and education. By questioning traditional CAD methods and
introducing the innovative DREAMSCAPE framework, the research deepens our
understanding of the connections between designers, tools, and the design process in
immersive design environments. Demonstrating the framework's adaptability across
diverse sub-domains, the study emphasizes the importance of VR in shaping the future
of architecture. Harnessing the opportunities provided by immersive VR technology
will be vital in promoting creativity and refining design practices. Building upon these
findings, Section 7.3 explores the key implications of the DREAMSCAPE framework
and its Embodiment-Experience-Manipulation (EEM) approach.
7.3 The DREAMSCAPE Framework: Key Implications
The DREAMSCAPE framework seeks to bridge the gap between physical and virtual
media in architectural design by re-engaging the body in the design process, mirroring
the way dreamers are both the architects and inhabitants of their dreamscapes. The
notion of embodied consciousness suggests that human consciousness perceives the
world through the body and its physicality. Traditional digital media tools, such as
CAD software, have expanded our capacity to create design representations but have
inadvertently disconnected the body-space-design artifact relationship from the
physical processes of design. The DREAMSCAPE framework aims to utilize
immersive VR as a medium to re-establish this connection by offering immersive and
embodied interactions within the design environment.
The EEM approach, which is at the core of the DREAMSCAPE framework,
emphasizes the cyclical interplay of three types of activities: embodiment, experience,
and manipulation. This approach allows designers to fully immerse themselves in the
design process, engage with their conceptual ideas, and manipulate their designs in
ways that transcend the constraints of traditional CAD tools. Through the embodiment
and manipulation actions, designers can create and explore ambiguities, fostering the
potential for discovery and innovation. The immersive experience in VR differs
significantly from those in the physical medium, as demonstrated by our study's
findings. The virtual environment enables a more direct and intuitive interaction with
design elements, allowing for a deeper understanding and evaluation of the design
space. VR design tools that do not support embodied and spatial design exploration
161
risk falling into the same pitfalls as traditional CAD tools, which often impose rigid
constraints on creativity and interaction. By contrast, the DREAMSCAPE framework
promotes an immersive, organic experience that nurtures creativity and design
exploration, thereby avoiding these shortcomings.
The following guidelines represent key implications gathered from the study,
highlighting essential aspects of direct manipulation, natural interactions, and design
exploration in the virtual environment.
(1) Intuitive interactions, natural engagement, and direct manipulation– Design
VR tools that enable users to interact with the virtual environment using
familiar, natural gestures and actions, closely reflecting the way they would
interact with the physical world. Prioritize direct manipulation, biomechanical
symmetry, and compatibility with the user's task and domain for a seamless
and efficient experience. Implement intuitive controller methods to enable
more lifelike interactions, allowing users to perform actions with their virtual
hands as they would in the real world.
(2) Embodiment, experience, and manipulation activities for design exploration–
It is essential to differentiate between a design tool and an architectural
visualization tool. The platform should not merely present a polished, finished
look, but instead, serve as a sketching and modeling tool in VR that enables
designers to fully immerse themselves in the design process and engage with
their conceptual ideas. Promote exploration and manipulation of objects within
the virtual environment to facilitate unique perspectives and interactions that
go beyond the limitations of the physical world, such as adjusting the user's
scale to experience a model from an inhabitant's perspective.
(3) Immersive feedback and visual interactions– Provide users with appropriate
and timely feedback, along with realistic responses to their actions and
interactions within the virtual environment, ensuring they remain aware of their
surroundings and the system's status. Incorporate realistic physical simulations
and high-fidelity interactions with objects using familiar real-world metaphors,
enabling users to engage with the virtual environment seamlessly.
(4) User control and freedom, persistence, and clear guidance– Allow users to
have control over their actions and the ability to undo or redo them when
162
necessary. Design the VR system to anticipate and prevent potential
unintended user actions, offering safeguards and guidance to minimize the
occurrence of mistakes. Enable users to save and load their work, allowing
them to resume where they left off and ensuring a seamless design experience
that respects their creative process and progress. Facilitate collaboration,
communication, and learning among users if the application supports multiple
users. Providing an accessible tutorial or guidance system can help users learn
the basics of navigating and interacting with the virtual environment,
promoting a more enjoyable and user-friendly experience. However, it is also
crucial to ensure that the features and controls are intuitive and easy to use,
minimizing the cognitive load and allowing users to focus on the creative
aspects of their work.
(5) Consistent immersive environments with a high sense of presence– Maintain
consistency in the user interface, interaction patterns, and terminology across
the virtual environment, adhering to established guidelines and conventions.
Ensure that the virtual environment is clean and uncluttered, with a visually
appealing and user-friendly interface. Enhance the user's sense of presence by
incorporating realistic spatial perspectives, high-quality visual detail, highly
interactive and responsive activities, realistic spatial audio, and haptic feedback
effects that can simulate a range of interactions.
(6) Navigation, orientation, and spatial awareness– Support users in navigating
the virtual environment by providing clear landmarks, orientation cues, and
wayfinding aids. Offer user-centered locomotion and navigation design
tailored to the specific application and user preferences, minimizing motion
sickness and discomfort, while considering the advantages and drawbacks of
each VR locomotion technique. Implement effective VR locomotion methods
with high usability and immersion, the highest spatial awareness, optimum
accessibility, and minimum real-world constraints.
(7) Comfort, usability, and best practices in VR development– Design the virtual
environment to minimize motion sickness, fatigue, and eye strain by
prioritizing high-quality visuals, high resolution, and high frame rates while
maintaining low latency. Optimize performance using efficient rendering
techniques and level-of-detail management to maintain a consistent, smooth
163
frame rate and enhance the user's overall sense of presence. Offer accessible
help resources and documentation within the virtual environment, as well as
clear guidance for features that are more intuitive and require minimal training.
Strike a balance between visual fidelity and computational efficiency to deliver
a seamless and immersive design experience that allows users to engage with
the environment without distraction and concentrate on their creative work.
These guidelines serve as a flexible foundation that can inform the development of VR
design tools. By focusing on these critical aspects, the aim is to foster a more intuitive,
immersive, and creative design experience for users while allowing for adaptation and
growth as new insights and technologies emerge.
7.4 Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research
A major limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size of 14 participants
in the main study, which constrains the generalizability of the findings to a larger
population. While statistical and qualitative analysis methods were employed in this
study, future research with larger sample sizes would be desirable to explore the design
process and experience in VR in more depth. Moreover, conducting semi-structured
interviews, with a duration of up to 90 minutes, could generate a more extensive
qualitative database, potentially uncovering in-depth insights into the designers'
experience with VR design.
Another limitation of this study was the state of the VR technology at the time of the
research. Despite significant advancements in recent years, with VR systems becoming
smaller and more compact, they were still relatively heavy and bulky during the study,
which may have hindered the designers' intuitive design process and caused some level
of fatigue and eye strain after prolonged use. However, technology continues to
improve, and more portable and lightweight VR systems, with no more discomfort
than a pair of sunglasses, are expected to become available. This will present a
significant opportunity for the integration of VR in both design practice and research.
Therefore, it is anticipated that similar studies will be conducted on advanced stand-
alone VR systems in the near future.
Measuring the cognitive load experienced by participants while engaged in the design
tasks was beyond the scope of this study. However, recent advancements in VR
164
technology have enabled the integration of physiological sensors to effectively assess
cognitive load during immersive VR tasks (Armougum et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2017). For instance, the HP Reverb G2 Omnicept Edition, a state-of-the-art VR
headset released in May 2021, features integrated physiological bio-sensors such as
pupillometry, eye-tracking, and pulse plethysmography. These sensors have been
employed in the development of a multimodal inference engine that predicts cognitive
load with an average classification accuracy of 79.08% (Siegel et al., 2021) during
cognitively demanding tasks in VR environments. As more advanced VR headsets
become available, the potential to investigate cognitive load in VR-based design tasks
increases. Incorporating cognitive load measurements in future research can provide a
more comprehensive understanding of designers' experiences, which can further
inform the development of VR tools and environments optimized for user experience
and cognitive load management.
Another area worth considering for future research involves addressing the limitations
in direct manipulation and hand tracking technologies in XR systems, as discussed in
Section 4.3.1. Next-generation devices, such as Ultraleap hand tracking cameras,
provide enhanced tracking capabilities with 170 degrees of vertical and horizontal
FOV and improved finger tracking. Moreover, new XR headsets and stand-alone VR
headsets come with integrated hand trackers, improving the overall user experience.
As these technologies continue to advance, they can offer a more natural and intuitive
way for designers to interact with virtual objects and environments. However, in
addition to hand tracking, haptic feedback, which provides the sensation of touching
an object, is also essential and currently absent in air-grabbing interactions with virtual
objects. Emerging haptic feedback gloves and force feedback devices are under
development, but they are not widely adopted as yet. Progress in hand tracking
capabilities, combined with haptic feedback technologies, could significantly enhance
the user experience and design process in VR. These advancements would enable
designers to manipulate virtual objects with greater precision and ease compared to
handheld controllers. Consequently, this could further bridge the gap between physical
and virtual design environments, allowing for even more seamless transitions between
the two mediums. By addressing these limitations and incorporating advanced hand
tracking and haptic feedback technologies, future studies could offer additional
insights into the potential benefits of VR for architectural design.
165
This study has a defined context of the design tasks, which were intentionally kept at
a first-year level to ensure completion within a relatively short time frame, ideally
around 40 minutes. As shown in Table 6.1, the average duration of physical sessions
was 42 minutes, while virtual sessions lasted about 61 minutes. The participants were
asked to design small habitations with similar requirements, namely a pavilion and a
shelter, free from any pre-conceived design plan, both with physical LEGO pieces and
in VR with virtual LEGO pieces. These design requirements only resemble a small
portion of real-world architectural design scenarios. Therefore, it might be difficult to
generalize the results to a larger architectural design domain. However, the primary
focus of this study is on the impact of VR on the architectural design process in a more
general sense, and the outcomes may still be applicable to a broad range of educational
and professional contexts. Thus, the selected design tasks were suitable and they
performed well for the scope of this study. Future research could consider analyzing
various stages of the architectural design process with a variety of specific design tasks
and briefs to gain a more comprehensive understanding of VR’s potential in the field.
7.5 Conclusions
This experimental study investigated the impact of virtual reality on the architectural
design process by comparing experiences in both VR and physical environments,
utilizing LEGO bricks as basic design components. The research aimed to understand
how VR, as a tool for design representation and immersive experiences, could uniquely
influence designers' thinking and approach. The comparison between in situ and in
virtuo design experiences highlighted two key differences: the ability to design
through building and enhancing the design experience via the real-time spatial
experience of design artifacts.
As the prevalence of metaverse environments continues to grow and XR technologies
advance, the adoption of VR in architecture is expected to grow. The DREAMSCAPE
framework and tools like Dreamscape Bricks VR can facilitate this shift by providing
intuitive and immersive design experiences, enabling the experience and manipulation
of ideas within a virtual environment. With the advent of more accessible XR
technologies and lighter headsets with more advanced capabilities, architects may
uncover new creative opportunities in virtual environments and in the metaverse,
fostering innovative applications of VR in architectural design and education.
166
This study developed Dreamscape Bricks VR to support real-time multi-user
interaction and established the foundation for future collaborative design sessions.
Further research should investigate the potential for the DREAMSCAPE framework
to evolve into a comprehensive design platform within the metaverse. By incorporating
features such as collaboration, resource sharing, and real-time communication, the
DREAMSCAPE framework could revolutionize how architects work and learn in the
emerging digital environments.
In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that the use of VR in architectural
design can unveil new possibilities, particularly in the early conceptual stages.
Immersive virtual environments, which allow designers to spatially explore their
designs with high immersion and simulated bodily presence, encourage users to
spatially experience and explore design artifacts in novel ways. This introduces fresh
creative opportunities, additional perspectives, and the potential for more innovative
designs that might otherwise remain uncovered. The results of this study position VR
as a highly effective design tool and environment for concept development, conceptual
design, and design development. These findings suggest that VR has the potential to
revolutionize architectural practice and education in the near future, becoming an
essential design medium for architects worldwide.
7.6 Notices and Disclaimers
This research was supported by the Research Fund of Istanbul Technical University
(ITU BAP Project ID: 41269). The DREAMSCAPE design experiments in this study
were approved by the ITU Social and Human Sciences – Ethics Committee for
Research with Human Subjects (SB-İNAREK) on November 27th, 2017 (application
number 64). In this context, all design experiment participants gave their consent for
the use of their anonymized data and design process outputs for this research.
Dreamscape Bricks VR is a virtual reality application developed by the author of this
thesis with Unreal Engine by Epic Games, Inc. Unreal Engine is used under Engine
License for Creators (non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable), which is
free-to-use and 100% royalty-free for non-commercial projects.
For this work, educational licenses provided by Istanbul Technical University were
used for Microsoft Windows 10 Pro, Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2019, and
167
IBM SPSS Statistics 27. Autocad 2019-2022 and Maya 2019-2022 were used with free
Autodesk educational licenses. Personal licenses and subscriptions for the following
software and services in the development of this thesis: Microsoft 365 Family for word
processing and spreadsheet management; Adobe Creative Cloud for digital content
creation and digital publishing; Grammarly, GPT-3 by OpenAI, and InstaText for AI-
powered proofreading and editing. The author reviewed, edited, and revised the final
version of this thesis and takes full responsibility for its content. In both Dreamscape
Bricks VR and the illustrations of this thesis, Mixamo’s 3D human character models
and animations were used, which are free to use in personal and commercial projects
for Adobe ID owners. Free and open-source Blender, BORIS, and JASP software are
used for additional 3D modeling, video event coding, and generating statistics,
respectively.
Throughout this work, LEGO® construction blocks are referenced numerous times.
LEGO, LEGO Architecture, the LEGO logo, and the Minifigure are trademarks and
copyrights of the LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, endorse, or authorize this
non-profit academic research work. The LEGO Architecture Studio 21050 set was
used in the design experiments of this study. The mentioned set’s brick inventory is
also reproduced as 3D models for the Dreamscape Bricks VR application, following
the LEGO Group’s “fair play” guidelines (LEGO Group, 2018). LDraw, a free and
open standard for digitizing LEGO brick configurations as CAD models, was used as
a secondary reference for the dimensions of the real-life bricks. The selected inventory
of LEGO bricks is modeled in Maya and Blender. The BrickLink Studio 2.0 and Part
Designer software were used for digitizing and illustrating LEGO brick configurations
as CGI. BrickLink is a trademark of LEGO Group. Both of these software programs
are the property of LEGO BrickLink, Inc.
The original texts, visuals, images, figures, and charts in this work belong to the author
of this thesis (unless a citation, reproduction notice, or caption specifies otherwise) and
are protected by copyright and Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which can be shared and used for non-
commercial and academic purposes as long as this work is cited and proper attribution
is given to the author.
168
169
REFERENCES
Achten, H., & Turksma, A. (1999). Virtual Reality in Early Design : the Design
Studio Experiences. AVOCAAD Second International Conference
Proceedings, 317–326. http://cumincad.scix.net/cgi-
bin/works/Show?_id=e719&sort=DEFAULT&search=virtual
reality&hits=2442
AIA. (2020). Firm Survey Report 2020.
https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2020-
11/2020_Firm_Survey_Report.pdf
Aish, R. (1979). 3D input for CAAD systems. Computer-Aided Design, 11(2), 66–
70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(79)90098-8
Akın, Ö. (1986). Psychology of Architectural Design. Pion.
https://archive.org/details/psychologyofarch0000akin
Alphin, T. (2015). The LEGO Architect. No Starch Press.
Alvarado, R. G., & Maver, T. (1999). Virtual Reality in Architectural Education:
Defining Possibilities. ACADIA Quarterly, 18(4), 97–99.
http://cumincad.scix.net/cgi-
bin/works/Show?_id=4d95&sort=DEFAULT&search=virtual
reality&hits=2442
Andrews, C., Southworth, M. K., Silva, J. N. A., & Silva, J. R. (2019). Extended
Reality in Medical Practice. Current Treatment Options in
Cardiovascular Medicine, 21(4), 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-
019-0722-7
Ansell-Pearson, K. (2002). Philosophy and the Adventure of the Virtual. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203469361
Armougum, A., Orriols, E., Gaston-Bellegarde, A., Marle, C. J. La, & Piolino,
P. (2019). Virtual reality: A new method to investigate cognitive load
during navigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVP.2019.101338
Ashrafganjouei, M., & Gero, J. S. (2021). Exploring the effect of a visual
constraint on students’ design cognition. Artificial Intelligence for
Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, 35(1),
3–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060420000335
170
Balk, S. A., Bertola, M. A., & Inman, V. W. (2013). Simulator Sickness
Questionnaire: Twenty Years Later. Driving Assessment Conference,
257–263. https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1498
Banfi, F., Brumana, R., & Stanga, C. (2019). Extended reality and informative
models for the architectural heritage: from scan-to-BIM process to
virtual and augmented reality. Virtual Archaeology Review, 10(21),
14. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2019.11923
Barris, G. (1972, December). Mastermind With Building Blocks. LIFE, 76.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=2VYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA76
Bartneck, C. (2019). LEGO Brick Dimensions and Measurements. Bartneck.De.
https://www.bartneck.de/2019/04/21/lego-brick-dimensions-and-
measurements/
Boletsis, C. (2017). The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic
Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology.
Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(4), 24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti1040024
Bott, M. J., & Mesmer, B. (2019, January 7). Determination of Function-Behavior-
Structure Model Transition Probabilities from Real-World Data. AIAA
Scitech 2019 Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-1030
Boud, A. C., Haniff, D. J., Baber, C., & Steiner, S. J. (1999). Virtual reality and
augmented reality as a training tool for assembly tasks. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Information Visualisation, 1999-
January, 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.1999.781532
Bowman, D. A., & Hodges, L. F. (1999). Formalizing the Design, Evaluation, and
Application of Interaction Techniques for Immersive Virtual
Environments. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 10(1), 37–
53. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvlc.1998.0111
Bowman, D. A., Koller, D., & Hodges, L. F. (1998). A methodology for the
evaluation of travel techniques for immersive virtual environments.
Virtual Reality, 3(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01417673
Bowman, D. A., McMahan, R. P., & Ragan, E. D. (2012). Questioning naturalism
in 3D user interfaces. Communications of the ACM, 55(9), 78–88.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2330667.2330687
Bozgeyikli, E., Raij, A., Katkoori, S., & Dubey, R. (2016). Point & Teleport
locomotion technique for virtual reality. CHI PLAY 2016 -
Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human
Interaction in Play, 205–216.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968105
171
Bozgeyikli, E., Raij, A., Katkoori, S., & Dubey, R. (2019). Locomotion in virtual
reality for room scale tracked areas. International Journal of Human
Computer Studies, 122, 38–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.08.002
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2019). The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments
in Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526485656
Buttussi, F., & Chittaro, L. (2021). Locomotion in Place in Virtual Reality: A
Comparative Evaluation of Joystick, Teleport, and Leaning. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(1), 125–
136. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2928304
Campbell, D. A., & Wells, M. (1994). A Critique of Virtual Reality in the
Architectural Design process. University of Washington HITL
Technical Report R-94, 3, 1–7.
http://cumincad.scix.net/data/works/att/0e58.content.pdf%5Cnhttp://w
ww.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-94-3/
Carmigniani, J., & Furht, B. (2011). Augmented Reality: An Overview. In B.
Furht (Ed.), Handbook of Augmented Reality (pp. 3–47). Springer.
Chai, K.-H., & Xiao, X. (2012). Understanding design research: A bibliometric
analysis of Design Studies (1996–2010). Design Studies, 33(1), 24–
43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.004
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications
Ltd.
Cheng, Y., He, F., Wu, Y., & Zhang, D. (2016). Meta-operation conflict resolution
for human–human interaction in collaborative feature-based CAD
systems. Cluster Computing, 19(1), 237–253.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-016-0538-0
Christiansen, G. K. (1961). Toy building brick (Patent No. US3005282A).
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3005282
Coffey, D., Chi-Lun Lin, Erdman, A. G., & Keefe, D. F. (2013). Design by
Dragging: An Interface for Creative Forward and Inverse Design with
Simulation Ensembles. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and
Computer Graphics, 19(12), 2783–2791.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2013.147
Comeau, C., & Bryan, J. S. (1961). Headsight Television System Provides Remote
Surveillance. Electronics, 86–90.
ConstructConnect. (2019). Virtual reality is architecture’s next big game-changer.
AIA.Org. https://www.aia.org/articles/6232562-virtual-reality-is-
architectures-next-big-
172
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Courtney, T., Bliss, S., & Herrera, A. (2003). Virtual LEGO: The Official
LDraw.Org Guide to LDraw Tools for Windows. No Starch Press.
https://archive.org/details/virtuallegooffic0000cour
Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work.
Berg.
Deleuze, G. (1988). Élan Vital as Movement of Differentation. In H. Tomlison & B.
Habberjam (Eds.), Bergsonism (pp. 91–113). Zone Books.
Doma, O. O. (2021). Component-Based Living Units.
http://oguzdoma.com/component-based-living-units/
Doma, O. O., & Şener, S. M. (2021). Using Modular Construction Brick-Based
CAD in Online Design Education. In MusicoGuia (Ed.), Conference
Proceedings CIVAE 2021 (pp. 106–111). MusicoGuia.
Donath, D., & Regenbrecht, H. (1999). Using Immersive Virtual Reality Systems
for Spatial Design in Architecture. AVOCAAD Second International
Conference, 307–318.
Dorta, T., Kinayoglu, G., & Hoffmann, M. (2016). Hyve-3D and the 3D Cursor:
Architectural co-design with freedom in virtual reality. International
Journal of Architectural Computing, 14(2), 87–102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077116638921
Durhuus, B., & Eilers, S. (2014). On the entropy of LEGO®. Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Computing, 45(1–2), 433–448.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-013-0730-9
Eastman, C. M. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive design processes. In G. T.
Moore (Ed.), Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and
Planning (pp. 21–37). MIT Press.
Emmons, P. (2005). Size matters: virtual scale and bodily imagination in
architectural drawing. Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 9(3–4),
227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135913550500028X
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison
of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths
and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.
https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
Finch, A. (2018). The LEGO Architecture Idea Book. No Starch Press.
173
Fonseca, D., Cavalcanti, J., Peña, E., Valls, V., Sanchez-Sepúlveda, M., Moreira,
F., Navarro, I., & Redondo, E. (2021). Mixed assessment of virtual
serious games applied in architectural and urban design education.
Sensors, 21(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21093102
Friard, O., & Gamba, M. (2016). BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event-
logging software for video/audio coding and live observations.
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(11), 1325–1330.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12584
Friedberg, A. (2006). The virtual window: from Alberti to Microsoft. MIT Press.
Frost, P., & Warren, P. (2000). Virtual reality used in a collaborative architectural
design process. 2000 IEEE Conference on Information Visualization.
An International Conference on Computer Visualization and
Graphics, 2000-July, 568–573.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2000.859814
Frost, P., & Warren, P. (2002). Virtual reality used in a collaborative architectural
design process. 2000 IEEE Conference on Information Visualization.
An International Conference on Computer Visualization and
Graphics, 568–573. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2000.859814
Fuchs, P., & Guitton, P. (2011). Introduction to virtual reality. In Virtual Reality:
Concepts and Technologies (pp. 25–32). CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b11612-7
Gao, L., Yu, F., Chen, Q., & Xiong, N. (2016). Consistency maintenance of Do and
Undo/Redo operations in real-time collaborative bitmap editing
systems. Cluster Computing, 19(1), 255–267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-015-0499-8
Gauntlett, D. (2014). The LEGO System as a tool for Thinking, Creativity, and
Changing the World. In M. J. P. Wolf (Ed.), LEGO Studies:
Examining the Building Blocks of a Transmedial Phenomenon (pp.
189–205). Routledge. http://davidgauntlett.com/complete-list-of-
publications/
Gero, J. S., Kan, J. W., & Pourmohamadi, M. (2011). Analysing Design
Protocols : Development of Methods and Tools. Research into Design,
January, 3–10.
Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure
framework. Design Studies, 25(4), 373–391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010
Gero, J. S., & Milovanovic, J. (2020). A framework for studying design thinking
through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains. Design
Science, 6, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.15
174
Gero, J. S., & Tang, H.-H. (2001). The differences between retrospective and
concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the
design process. Design Studies, 22(3), 283–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00030-2
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of
Grounded Theory. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing.
Sociology Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=_BltQgAACAAJ
Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: Unfolding the Design Process. MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qf7d9
Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of
design creativity. Design Studies, 26(6), 593–611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.02.004
Gomes de Sá, A., & Zachmann, G. (1998). Integrating Virtual Reality for Virtual
Prototyping. 18th Computers in Engineering Conference, 6(April
1998). https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC98/CIE-5536
Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception
and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8
Gross, M. D. (1996). Why can’t CAD be more like Lego? CKB, a program for
building construction kits. Automation in Construction, 5(4), 285–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(96)00154-9
Gül, L. F., Uzun, C., & Halıcı, S. M. (2017). Studying Co-design. In
Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 724, pp.
212–230). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5197-
5_12
Gulley, N., & Bloom, A. (1970). The REPUBLIC of Plato: Translated, with Notes
and an Interpretive Essay. The Philosophical Quarterly, 20(80).
https://doi.org/10.2307/2218401
Hatcher, G., Ion, W., Maclachlan, R., Marlow, M., Simpson, B., Wilson, N., &
Wodehouse, A. (2018). Using linkography to compare creative
methods for group ideation. Design Studies, 58, 127–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.002
Heer, J., Mackinlay, J. D., Stolte, C., & Agrawala, M. (2008). Graphical histories
for visualization: Supporting analysis, communication, and evaluation.
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14(6),
1189–1196. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2008.137
175
Heilig, M. L. (1960). Stereoscopic-television apparatus for individual use (Patent
No. 2955156A). https://patents.google.com/patent/US2955156A/en
Heilig, M. L. (1962). Sensorama simulator (Patent No. 3050870A).
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3050870A/en
Holl, M., Oberweger, M., Arth, C., & Lepetit, V. (2018). Efficient Physics-Based
Implementation for Realistic Hand-Object Interaction in Virtual
Reality. 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User
Interfaces (VR), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2018.8448284
Howard-Jones, P. A., & Murray, S. (2003). Ideational Productivity, Focus of
Attention, and Context. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 153–
166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2003.9651409
HTC. (2015). HTC and Valve partner to make virtual reality dream come true.
https://www.htc.com/mea-en/newsroom/2015-03-01/
Huang, J., Chen, Z., Ceylan, D., & Jin, H. (2017). 6-DOF VR videos with a single
360-camera. 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), 37–44.
https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2017.7892229
International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Usability: Definitions
and concepts. In ISO 9241-11:2018(en) Ergonomics of human-system
interaction. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:en
Jeannerod, M., Arbib, M. A., Rizzolatti, G., & Sakata, H. (1995). Grasping
objects: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends
in Neurosciences, 18(7), 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-
2236(95)93921-J
Jerald, J. (2015). The VR Book: Human-Centered Design for Virtual Reality.
Association for Computing Machinery.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2792790
Jiang, H., Gero, J. S., & Yen, C.-C. (2014). Exploring Designing Styles Using a
Problem–Solution Division. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing
and Cognition ’12 (pp. 79–94). Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_5
Kan, J. W. T., Bilda, Z., & Gero, J. S. (2007). Comparing entropy measures of idea
links in design protocols: Linkography entropy measurement and
analysis of differently conditioned design sessions. Artificial
Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing,
21(4), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060407000339
Kan, J. W. T., & Gero, J. S. (2005). Entropy Measurement of Linkography in
Protocol. 1990, 229–245.
176
Kan, J. W. T., & Gero, J. S. (2008). Acquiring information from linkography in
protocol studies of designing. Design Studies, 29(4), 315–337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.001
Kan, J. W. T., & Gero, J. S. (2017). Quantitative Methods for Studying Design
Protocols. In Quantitative Methods for Studying Design Protocols.
Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0984-0
Kan, J. W. T., & Gero, J. S. (2018). Characterizing innovative processes in design
spaces through measuring the information entropy of empirical data
from protocol studies. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, 32(1), 32–43.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060416000548
Kannengiesser, U., & Gero, J. S. (2019). Design thinking, fast and slow: A
framework for Kahneman’s dual-system theory in design. Design
Science, 5, e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.9
Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993).
Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for
Quantifying Simulator Sickness. The International Journal of Aviation
Psychology, 3(3), 203–220.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
Kim, M., Kim, J., Jeong, K., & Kim, C. (2020). Grasping VR: Presence of Pseudo-
Haptic Interface Based Portable Hand Grip System in Immersive
Virtual Reality. International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction, 36(7), 685–698.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1680920
Kittel, A., Larkin, P., Cunningham, I., & Spittle, M. (2020). 360° Virtual Reality:
A SWOT Analysis in Comparison to Virtual Reality. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 2525.
https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.563474/BIBTEX
Kourtesis, P., Collina, S., Doumas, L. A. A., & MacPherson, S. E. (2019).
Validation of the Virtual Reality Neuroscience Questionnaire:
Maximum Duration of Immersive Virtual Reality Sessions Without
the Presence of Pertinent Adverse Symptomatology. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00417
Kravitz, D. J., Saleem, K. S., Baker, C. I., & Mishkin, M. (2011). A new neural
framework for visuospatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
12(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3008
Kruft, H.-W. (1994). A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the
Present. Princeton Architectural Press.
Langer, S. K. (1953). Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
177
Lanier, J. (2017). Dawn of the New Everything: A Journey Through Virtual Reality.
Henry Holt and Co.
Lau, K. W., & Lee, P. Y. (2015). The use of virtual reality for creating unusual
environmental stimulation to motivate students to explore creative
ideas. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(1), 3–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745426
Lee, H., Kim, J., & Banerjee, A. (2010). Collaborative intelligent CAD framework
incorporating design history tracking algorithm. Computer-Aided
Design, 42(12), 1125–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.08.001
Lee, J. H., Yang, E. K., & Sun, Z. Y. (2019). Design Cognitive Actions Stimulating
Creativity in the VR Design Environment. Proceedings of the 2019 on
Creativity and Cognition, 604–611.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3326575
LEGO Group. (2010). Company Profile: An introduction to the LEGO Group.
http://cache.lego.com/upload/contentTemplating/AboutUsFactsAndFi
guresContent/otherfiles/download98E142631E71927FDD52304C1C0
F1685.pdf
LEGO Group. (2013). The stud and tube principle. LEGO® History.
https://www.lego.com/en-us/history/articles/d-the-stud-and-tube-
principle
LEGO Group. (2018a). Fair Play.
https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/legal/assets/blt1a4c9a959ce8e1cb/FairPl
ayBrochure.pdf
LEGO Group. (2018b). Fair Play. https://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/notices-and-
policies/fair-play
LEGO Group. (2021a). Recycled materials - Environment - Sustainability.
LEGO.Com. https://www.lego.com/en-
us/sustainability/environment/recycledmaterials/
LEGO Group. (2021b). The LEGO Group reveals first prototype LEGO® brick
made from recycled plastic. Lego.Com. https://www.lego.com/en-
us/aboutus/news/2021/june/prototype-lego-brick-recycled-plastic/
Li, J., & Kim, J.-E. (2021). The Effect of Task Complexity on Time Estimation in
the Virtual Reality Environment: An EEG Study. Applied Sciences,
11(20), 9779. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11209779
Liang, D. N. Y., Yun, F. N. J., & Minato, N. (2021). Investigating the use of
LEGO® Bricks in education and training: A systematic literature
review. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2021.4.1.17
178
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 0–0.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar,
E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic
comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of
Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
Masurovsky, A., Chojecki, P., Runde, D., Lafci, M., Przewozny, D., & Gaebler,
M. (2020). Controller-Free Hand Tracking for Grab-and-Place Tasks
in Immersive Virtual Reality: Design Elements and Their Empirical
Study. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(4), 91.
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4040091
McIntosh, R. D., & Schenk, T. (2009). Two visual streams for perception and
action: current trends. Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1391–1396.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA.2009.02.009
McMahan, R. P., Lai, C., & Pal, S. K. (2016). Interaction Fidelity: The Uncanny
Valley of Virtual Reality Interactions. In Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (Vol. 9740, pp. 59–70). Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39907-2_6
Meta. (2014). Facebook to Acquire Oculus.
https://about.fb.com/news/2014/03/facebook-to-acquire-oculus/
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality. IEICE
Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329.
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The Development of Constructivist
Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1),
25–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500103
Milovanovic, J., Moreau, G., Siret, D., & Miguet, F. (2017). Virtual and
Augmented Reality in Architectural Design and Education: An
Immersive Multimodal Platform to Support Architectural Pedagogy.
In G. Çağdaş, M. Özkar, L. F. Gül, & E. Gürer (Eds.), 17th
International Conference, CAAD Futures 2017, Proceedings (pp.
513–532). http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-
bin/works/Show?cf2017_513
Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G., & Macko, K. A. (1983). Object vision and spatial
vision: two cortical pathways. Trends in Neurosciences, 6(C), 414–
417. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(83)90190-X
179
Motschnig, R., Pfeiffer, D., Gawin, A., Gawin, P., & Steiner, M. (2017). When
Kids are Challenged to Solve Real Problems – Case Study on
Transforming Learning with Interpersonal Presence and Digital
Technologies . 88–111.
MVRDV. (2012). Porous City LEGO Towers.
https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/179/porous-city-lego-towers
Napier, J. R. (1956). The prehensile movements of the human hand. The Journal of
Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 38-B(4), 902–913.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.38B4.902
Newell, A. (1966). On the Analysis of Human Problem Solving Protocol.
International Symposium on Mathematical and Computational
Methods in the Social Sciences, Rome, July 4-9, 1966.
https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6607919.v1
Nielsen, J. (1994a, November 1). How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation. UX &
Usability Articles from Nielsen Norman Group.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-conduct-a-heuristic-
evaluation/
Nielsen, J. (1994b). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems Celebrating Interdependence - CHI ’94, 152–158.
https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191729
Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems Empowering People - CHI ’90, 249–256.
https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281
Özgen, D. S., Afacan, Y., & Sürer, E. (2021). Usability of virtual reality for basic
design education: a comparative study with paper-based design.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(2),
357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09554-0
Özkan, O. (2016). The compatibility of widely used presence questionnaires with
current virtual reality technology. Bahçeşehir University.
Pallasmaa, J. (2017). Embodied and Existential Wisdom in Architecture: The
Thinking Hand. Body & Society, 23(1), 96–111.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X16681443
Patel, N. K., Campion, S. P., & Fernando, T. (2002). Evaluating the use of virtual
reality as a tool for briefing clients in architecture. Proceedings Sixth
International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2002-Janua,
657–663. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2002.1028845
180
Pollock, S. (2010). Transfer functions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:
Computational Statistics, 2(3), 358–363.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.87
Portman, M. E., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015). To go where no
man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape
architecture and environmental planning. Computers, Environment
and Urban Systems, 54, 376–384.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPENVURBSYS.2015.05.001
Pour Rahimian, F., Ibrahim, R., Rahmat, R. W. B. O. K., Abdullah, M. T. B., &
Jaafar, M. S. B. H. (2011). Mediating cognitive transformation with
VR 3D sketching during conceptual architectural design process.
Archnet-IJAR, 5(1), 99–113.
Pourmohamadi, M., & Gero, J. S. (2011). LINKOgrapher: An analysis tool to
study design protocols based on FBS coding scheme. ICED 11 - 18th
International Conference on Engineering Design - Impacting Society
Through Engineering Design, 2(May 2015), 294–303.
Pourmohamadi, M., Gero, J. S., & Saunders, R. (2011). CAD software as
customisation tools: Using FBS protocol coding scheme to understand
the behaviour of mass customisers. In C. M. Herr, N. Gu, S.
Roudavsky, & M. A. Schnabel (Eds.), Circuit Bending, Breaking and
Mending: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia CAADRIA
2011 (pp. 399–408). https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.caadria.2011.399
Raikwar, A., D’Souza, N., Rogers, C., Kress, M., Williams, A., Rishe, N. D., &
Ortega, F. R. (2019). CubeVR: Digital affordances for architecture
undergraduate education using virtual reality. 26th IEEE Conference
on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, VR 2019 - Proceedings,
1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798115
Ranscombe, C., Bissett-Johnson, K., Mathias, D., Eisenbart, B., & Hicks, B.
(2020). Designing with LEGO: exploring low fidelity visualization as
a trigger for student behavior change toward idea fluency.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2),
367–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09502-y
Resnick, M., & Robinson, K. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity
through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play. MIT Press.
Robertson, A. (2015, October 8). An “ethereal cube” from the 1960s is the reason
the Oculus Rift exists. The Verge.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/8/9479129/ivan-sutherland-proto-
awards-virtual-reality-speech
Robertson, G. G., Card, S. K., & Mackinlay, J. D. (1993). Nonimmersive virtual
reality. Computer, 26(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.192002
181
Rogers, K., Funke, J., Frommel, J., Stamm, S., & Weber, M. (2019). Exploring
interaction fidelity in virtual reality: Object manipulation and whole-
body movements. Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems - Proceedings, Chi, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300644
Rubin, J. S. (1989). The Froebel-Wright Kindergarten Connection: A New
Perspective. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 48(1),
24–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/990404
Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal
protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17(6), 759–769.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202637
Santello, M., Flanders, M., & Soechting, J. F. (1998). Postural Hand Synergies for
Tool Use.
Schintu, S., Hadj-Bouziane, F., Dal Monte, O., Knutson, K. M., Pardini, M.,
Wassermann, E. M., Grafman, J., & Krueger, F. (2014). Object
and space perception – Is it a matter of hemisphere? Cortex, 57(May),
244–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.04.009
Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in
designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-F
Shih, Y. T., Sher, W. D., & Taylor, M. (2017). Using suitable design media
appropriately: Understanding how designers interact with sketching
and CAD modelling in design processes. Design Studies, 53, 47–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.06.005
Shneiderman, B. (1982). Direct manipulation. ACM SIGSOC Bulletin, 13(2–3), 143.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1015579.810991
Shneiderman, B. (1996). The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for
information visualizations. Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on
Visual Languages, 336–343. https://doi.org/10.1109/VL.1996.545307
Shores, T. (2017). Building Blocks of Thought: LEGO® and the Philosophy of Play.
In R. T. Cook & S. Bacharach (Eds.), LEGO and Philosophy:
Constructing Reality Brick By Brick (pp. 27–38). John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Shum, L. C., Valdés, B. A., & Van der Loos, H. M. (2019). Determining the
Accuracy of Oculus Touch Controllers for Motor Rehabilitation
Applications Using Quantifiable Upper Limb Kinematics: Validation
Study. JMIR Biomedical Engineering, 4(1), e12291.
https://doi.org/10.2196/12291
182
Siegel, E. H., Wei, J., Gomes, A., Oliviera, M., Sundaramoorthy, P., Smathers,
K., Vankipuram, M., Ghosh, S., Horii, H., Bailenson, J., &
Ballagas, R. (2021). HP Omnicept Cognitive Load Database (HPO-
CLD) – Developing a Multimodal Inference Engine for Detecting
Real-time Mental Workload in VR.
https://developers.hp.com/omnicept/omnicept-open-data-set-abstract
Siouli, S., Dratsiou, I., Antoniou, P. E., & Bamidis, P. D. (2019). Learning with
Educational Robotics through Co-creative Methodologies. Interaction
Design and Architecture(S), 42, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-
5002-042-002
Sutcliffe, A., & Gault, B. (2004). Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications.
Interacting with Computers, 16(4), 831–849.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2004.05.001
Sutherland, I. E. (1964). Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication
system. SIMULATION, 2(5), R-3-R-20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003754976400200514
Sutherland, I. E. (1965). The Ultimate Display. Proceedings of IFIP Congress, 2,
506–508.
Sutherland, I. E. (1968). A head-mounted three dimensional display. Proceedings of
the December 9-11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I on
- AFIPS ’68 (Fall, Part I), 757.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1476589.1476686
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their
design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385–403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00008-2
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture
and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology
Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-019-09465-
5/FIGURES/1
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive
Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology
Review 1998 10:3, 10(3), 251–296.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
Tang, H. H., Lee, Y. Y., & Gero, J. S. (2011). Comparing collaborative co-located
and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching
environments: A protocol study using the function–behaviour–
structure coding scheme. Design Studies, 32(1), 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.06.004
183
Templeman, J. N., Denbrook, P. S., & Sibert, L. E. (1999). Virtual locomotion:
Walking in place through virtual environments. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(6), 598–617.
https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566512
Terim, B. (2019). Dreaming the body: Filarete’s disegno. In P. Emmons, F. Goffi, &
J. La Coe (Eds.), Ceilings and Dreams: The Architecture of Levity.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351065863
The LEGO Group. (2021). About LEGO® Digital Designer. LEGO.Com US.
https://www.lego.com/en-
us/service/help/Apps_video_games_device_guides/about-lego-digital-
designer-kA009000001dcdmCAA
Trujillo, J. L. H., Maldonado, J. L. T., Millán, C. L., & Abad, S. I. (2017).
Digital space: Comparative evaluation of the latest architectural
techniques. EGA Revista de Expresion Grafica Arquitectonica,
22(31), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.4995/EGA.2017.4234
Tseng, T., & Resnick, M. (2012). Building Examples: Media and Learning
Affordances.
Tuker, C., & Tong, T. (2021). Comparing Field Trips, VR Experiences and Video
Representations on Spatial Layout Learning in Complex Buildings.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2105.01968
Turner, C. (2014). The LEGO® Brick in Architecture Studies. In C. Turner (Ed.),
LEGO Architecture Studio: Create your own architecture (pp. 14–19).
Tversky, B. (2005). Functional Significance of Visuospatial Representations. In P.
Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial
Thinking (1st ed., pp. 1–34). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610448.002
Tversky, B. (2006). Spatial Cognition, Psychology of. In Encyclopedia of Cognitive
Science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/0470018860.s00623
Tversky, B. (2019). Mind in motion: How action shapes thought. Hachette UK.
Ummihusna, A., & Zairul, M. (2022). Investigating immersive learning technology
intervention in architecture education: a systematic literature review.
Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14(1), 264–281.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-08-2020-0279
Unity. (2019). Input for OpenVR controllers. Unity Manual.
https://docs.unity3d.com/2019.1/Documentation/Manual/OpenVRCon
trollers.html
184
Valve Corporation. (2022). Steam Hardware & Software Survey.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-
Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Vitruvius. (1914). The Ten Books on Architecture (M. H. Morgan (ed.)). Harvard
University Press.
Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., & Wang, X. (2018). A Critical Review of
the Use of Virtual Reality in Construction Engineering Education and
Training. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 15(6), 1204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061204
Weinbaum, S. G. (1935). Pygmalion’s Spectacles. Wonder Stories, 7(1), 28–39.
Yang, X., Lin, L., Cheng, P.-Y., Yang, X., Ren, Y., & Huang, Y.-M. (2018).
Examining creativity through a virtual reality support system.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1231–
1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9604-z
Zhang, L., Wade, J., Bian, D., Fan, J., Swanson, A., Weitlauf, A., Warren, Z., &
Sarkar, N. (2017). Cognitive Load Measurement in a Virtual Reality-
Based Driving System for Autism Intervention. IEEE Transactions on
Affective Computing, 8(2), 176–189.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2016.2582490
Zhao, J., Sensibaugh, T., Bodenheimer, B., McNamara, T. P., Nazareth, A.,
Newcombe, N., Minear, M., & Klippel, A. (2020). Desktop versus
immersive virtual environments: effects on spatial learning. Spatial
Cognition and Computation, 20(4), 328–363.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2020.1817925
185
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Methodology Figures of Design Protocols
APPENDIX B: Analytics of Design Protocols
APPENDIX C: Verbal Comments From Participants
APPENDIX D: Samples From Participants’ Individual Designs and Results
APPENDIX E: DVD Containing Protocols Data of All Participants
186
187
APPENDIX A: Methodology Figures of Design Protocols
Figure A.1: Inventory of parts used in the design experiments.
188
Figure A.2 : Call for participants poster.
189
Figure A.3 : Age distribution of the participants (M:25.57, SD: 4.62).
Figure A.4 : Professions and educational status of the participants.
Figure A.5 : Video game playing frequency chart of the participants.
29%
14%
29%
14%
7% 7%
0
1
2
3
4
5
22 23 24 29 34 36
Number of Participants
Age Distribution
50%
36%
7% 7%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Architect Architecture student Interior Architecture
student
Urban and Regional
Planning student
Number of Participants
Profession and Educational Status
14%
36%
0%
29%
21%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Never A few hours a
year
A few hours a
month
A few hours a
week
A few hours a day
Number of Participants
Video Game Playing Frequency
190
Figure A.6 : Warm-up exercise 1: Lever House, instructions and model reproduced
after Alphin’s book: “The LEGO Architect” (2015).
Figure A.7 : Warm-up exercise 2: The Cube Building (original work).
191
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.
192
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.
193
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.
194
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.
195
Figure A.12 : Thumbnails from a sample physical session recording.
Figure A.13 : Thumbnails from a sample virtual session capture.
Figure A.14 : Thumbnails from a sample retrospective think-aloud session capture.
196
Table A.1 : Design tasks and session order for each participant.
#
Subjects
Prior Experiment
In Situ Design Task
In Virtuo Design Task
1
Lily
VR
DT-1: Shelter
DT-2: Pavillion
2
Dione
VR
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
3
Maxine
VR
DT-1: Shelter
DT-2: Pavillion
4
Brian
Physical
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
5
Irene
Physical
DT-1: Shelter
DT-2: Pavillion
6
Esther
VR
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
7
Eddie
VR
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
8
Tony
Physical
DT-1: Shelter
DT-2: Pavillion
9
Amy
Physical
DT-1: Shelter
DT-2: Pavillion
10
Dory
Physical
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
11
Morrigan
VR
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
12
James
Physical
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
13
Azure
VR
DT-1: Shelter
DT-2: Pavillion
14
Victor
Physical
DT-2: Pavillion
DT-1: Shelter
197
APPENDIX B: Analytics of Design Protocols
Table B.1 : Linkographic entropy comparison of individual design protocols.
Subjects
In situ
In virtuo
Link
index
Hf per
move
Hb per
move
Hh per
move
Link
index
Hf per
move
Hb per
move
Hh per
move
Lily
3.42
0.346
0.434
0.148
2.40
0.258
0.287
0.075
Dione
3.63
0.407
0.406
0.158
4.16
0.234
0.267
0.098
Maxine
3.20
0.406
0.456
0.211
5.40
0.331
0.349
0.117
Brian
3.01
0.285
0.354
0.096
7.89
0.326
0.340
0.139
Irene
3.99
0.335
0.394
0.203
2.22
0.309
0.309
0.143
Esther
4.93
0.324
0.359
0.170
7.14
0.485
0.606
0.439
Eddie
3.88
0.421
0.477
0.205
5.89
0.428
0.451
0.226
Tony
3.43
0.283
0.362
0.160
3.09
0.326
0.366
0.162
Amy
2.61
0.387
0.407
0.196
4.22
0.449
0.492
0.202
Dory
2.19
0.244
0.284
0.091
2.28
0.331
0.356
0.122
Morrigan
3.56
0.494
0.468
0.251
4.04
0.392
0.441
0.151
James
5.33
0.417
0.483
0.199
3.95
0.380
0.442
0.218
Azure
6.53
0.324
0.382
0.193
8.29
0.384
0.468
0.255
Victor
8.50
0.404
0.454
0.164
7.27
0.410
0.449
0.208
Table B.2 : Build statistics comparison of individual design protocols.
Subjects
In situ
In virtuo
Design Duration
(sec)
Total bricks used
(pcs)
Total model weight
(g)
Build speed
(pcs/min)
Build bulkiness
(g/pcs)
Bricks variety (pcs.)
Design Duration
(sec)
Total bricks used
(pcs)
Total model weight
(g)
Build speed
(pcs/min)
Build bulkiness
(g/pcs)
Bricks variety (pcs.)
Lily
1071
41
68.7
2.30
1.68
13
1565
55
82.6
2.11
1.50
10
Dione
1516
88
116.0
3.48
1.32
31
2460
137
148.6
3.34
1.08
22
Maxine
1113
94
145.7
5.07
1.55
24
2929
138
129.5
2.83
0.94
21
Brian
1312
67
111.5
3.06
1.66
14
7783
174
181.9
1.34
1.05
27
Irene
3655
128
160.0
2.10
1.25
24
4857
96
84.6
1.19
0.88
33
Esther
3099
79
81.8
1.53
1.04
30
3239
60
115.7
1.11
1.93
12
Eddie
3105
119
161.8
2.30
1.36
25
4811
95
147.9
1.18
1.56
27
Tony
5057
107
171.5
1.27
1.60
21
2384
100
109.8
2.52
1.10
13
198
Table B.2 (continued) : Build statistics comparison of individual design protocols.
Subjects
In situ
In virtuo
Design Duration
(sec)
Total bricks used
(pcs)
Total model weight
(g)
Build speed
(pcs/min)
Build bulkiness
(g/pcs)
Bricks variety (pcs.)
Design Duration
(sec)
Total bricks used
(pcs)
Total model weight
(g)
Build speed
(pcs/min)
Build bulkiness
(g/pcs)
Bricks variety (pcs.)
Amy
1598
73
129.2
2.74
1.77
16
2170
25
38.2
0.69
1.53
15
Dory
1888
87
103.6
2.76
1.19
87
2936
81
148.4
1.66
1.83
21
Morrigan
1779
142
199.2
4.79
1.40
28
2776
72
182.0
1.56
2.53
16
James
2565
119
168.9
2.78
1.42
31
3795
85
167.0
1.34
1.96
24
Azure
4764
220
234.4
2.77
1.07
34
4655
109
72.3
1.40
0.66
18
Victor
2519
97
114.2
2.31
1.18
26
4357
98
186.6
1.35
1.90
15
Table B.3 : EEM action percentages comparison of individual design protocols.
In situ
In virtuo
Subjects
Total Actions
Embody
actions (%)
Experience
actions (%)
Manipulate
actions (%)
Total Actions
Embody
actions (%)
Experience
actions (%)
Manipulate
actions (%)
Lily
283
88.69
4.24
7.07
331
73.41
3.93
22.66
Dione
524
91.98
2.67
5.34
613
88.74
5.55
5.71
Maxine
415
92.29
0.96
6.75
727
82.26
4.40
13.34
Brian
384
85.94
4.17
9.90
1260
80.63
9.21
10.16
Irene
1130
83.98
2.92
13.10
1049
64.16
12.77
23.07
Esther
518
81.66
11.00
7.34
379
71.77
13.46
14.78
Eddie
674
89.02
4.60
6.38
496
77.02
13.51
9.48
Tony
1153
82.13
3.21
14.66
440
84.32
3.64
12.05
Amy
520
79.04
3.65
17.31
332
64.46
8.73
26.81
Dory
596
76.17
5.03
18.79
809
71.57
11.25
17.18
Morrigan
704
91.48
4.69
3.84
459
70.81
13.94
15.25
James
804
86.82
3.98
9.20
896
74.89
7.59
17.52
Azure
1400
83.79
1.71
14.50
954
75.37
9.43
15.20
Victor
694
84.15
2.74
13.11
824
75.61
3.64
20.75
199
Table B.4 : EEM action durations comparison of individual design protocols.
In situ
In virtuo
Subjects
Pick duration
(%)
Inspection
duration (%)
Rewind
duration (%)
Pick duration
(%)
Inspection
duration (%)
Rewind
duration (%)
Lily
16.06
3.32
n/a
9.28
2.12
1.63
Dione
31.05
1.32
n/a
15.91
7.59
0.00
Maxine
28.39
1.69
n/a
27.47
6.77
0.00
Brian
22.02
3.85
n/a
8.34
8.90
0.00
Irene
26.79
4.67
n/a
13.05
13.32
0.90
Esther
11.40
29.84
n/a
10.89
32.33
0.00
Eddie
16.48
20.01
n/a
15.03
9.59
0.18
Tony
21.34
8.86
n/a
15.21
4.87
0.25
Amy
19.93
5.60
n/a
12.07
2.62
0.28
Dory
10.30
9.58
n/a
12.64
19.78
0.00
Morrigan
27.13
9.98
n/a
17.93
28.88
0.00
James
17.52
6.52
n/a
10.06
1.51
2.11
Azure
18.46
3.53
n/a
7.04
6.27
0.00
Victor
20.01
4.90
n/a
9.44
0.00
1.05
Figure B.1 : A sample transcript from Brian's in virtuo design protocol showing
utterances and the corresponding FBS coding.
200
201
APPENDIX C: Verbal Comments From Participants
Table C.1 : Comments provided by Lily in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
In my production process in VR, I had the opportunity to
use LEGO pieces that I had never tried before. Normally
it is difficult to put these pieces one after the other in the
physical environment, but they can be connected in the
VR environment without being affected by gravity and the
force used to connect them. Unfortunately, the production
process is more difficult than the physical environment,
but the ability to move around the environment at
different scales and speeds provides an interesting
experience.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
LEGO can be used as a practical and easily
comprehendible design tool. Since it allows us to play
ignoring the instructions that come out of the box, we
have played flexibly with LEGO since our childhood, and
today we use it as a design tool.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
This is the first time I have created a design in this kind of
environment by connecting pieces together. This is quite
exciting, but also exhausting because of the VR
environment. While we can easily rotate the pieces
between our fingers, in VR this is unfortunately only
possible with larger movements. The designer's ability to
switch between scales is a great advantage at the end of
the design process.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Yes. I give 3 out of 5 for the VR application. 4 out of 5 for
the physical pieces.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* The simple beauty of LEGO inevitably leads designers
to create something aesthetic.
* Thanks to a human figure available there, I looked at the
human figure to understand the scale and I decided
whether it fits or not, and continued the design.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* It is also nice that the environment of VR offers
unlimited and free material.
* Looking at the human scale has allowed me to
internalize the design. I think this feature is very useful.
* When I entered the interior, I saw that the hollow
undersides of the pieces could also be a design detail.
202
Table C.2 : Comments provided by Dione in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
I first worked in the physical environment and then
switched to VR, which provided an advantage in
recognizing the pieces. In VR, I usually formed an idea in
my head and went through it through trial and error. For
example, if I was stuck building the façade, I would go up
on the roof and let the different design parts of the design
direct itself. In architecture, working at a certain scale
prevents us from experiencing the actual product of our
design as we design. But experiencing the structure you
have designed simultaneously as you are designing offers
serious advantages.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
I think it is a more useful tool in terms of time compared
to other methods we are used to. Having different parts
that can be connected to each other, which is not only
possible on the horizontal axes, but also on the vertical
ones, allows us to manage the design process without the
need for other materials. However, having standard parts
can also be considered a disadvantage. Since it is a tool
prone to sharper lines, it may not give successful results
for amorphous forms.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
I liked its design very much. The environment design is
very interesting, from the tutorial stages to building with
LEGO pieces. The sound effects make you feel even more
immersed in the virtual world. Scale changing and rewind
are very well thought out, providing significant
advantages to the designer.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Yes, I would prefer it because of the advantages I
mentioned above.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
-
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* It took some time to get used to VR and think about
what I need to do.
* The process proceeded by trial and error.
* I decided to apply this façade design here, which I also
experienced in the physical environment as well.
* I transferred my experience in the physical environment
here.
* Unlike the process in the physical environment, it was
very useful to be able to experience the space on a human
scale in the VR environment.
* I do not spend a long time on a human scale, because it
is not feasible to continue building here.
203
Table C.3 : Comments provided by Maxine in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
Although the design process was short, I had the
opportunity to design while producing.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
The use of LEGO gives an idea about the design in the
vertical dimension and at the same time offers the
opportunity to implement the desired changes
immediately.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
I think this is a tool that can guide design in the future,
thanks to the ability to see the design at different sizes and
the other benefits that designing in the virtual environment
offers.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Yes, definitely.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* I thought of placing the same columns on all four sides
of the design, but there was not enough pieces.
* Since it was difficult for me to organize the interiors, I
removed the wall.
* I had initially imagined the design to be 1:200 scale, but
then I found out that the scale of LEGO is 1:42.5.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* Thanks to the human figure, I realized that a human can
pass through a two-unit gap.
* When I switched to the human scale, I saw that the
entrance was difficult for people taller than 180 cm.
204
Table C.4 : Comments provided by Brian in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your design
and production process in
this study:
Working in the physical environment, I designed a resting
area that can be used in festival sites. First, I designed the
separator elements that will guide the living/resting areas and
the visual relationship with their surroundings. Designing the
top covering which needs to protect from the sun was
challenging for me. This was because the LEGO pieces
could not hold together rigidly when connected by being
attached to the top piece. In this context, I found that LEGO
has a disadvantage when assembling the cantilevered parts in
return for the advantage of progressing rapidly by connecting
the pieces from the bottom to the top. So while I was
building the roof, I accidentally let it collapse, which set me
back a few steps.
Working in the virtual environment, I designed a cabin that
can be used for nature observation. Thanks to switching
between scales, it was easy to determine the positions of the
gaps in the walls.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
With the use of LEGO, it is possible to come up with a
design quickly, within the geometric parameters that LEGO
allows. However, making some forms requires more effort
because you are bound by the predefined building blocks. At
the same time, while it is possible to change the size of
conventional modeling materials, this is not possible with
LEGO. Designing with LEGO requires solving some
structural issues at this moment, although not completely. It
is not possible to postpone it and move the design to the next
steps. In this regard, it made me feel the emotions I felt when
designing in the BIM environment.
What are your opinions and
comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
I think the biggest advantage of the application is that it
makes it possible to switch between scales quickly. It is
particularly advantageous to be able to experience the design
at 1:1 scale and very quickly switch to a larger scale to apply
the decisions you have made.
Would you prefer to use the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design tool?
Yes, I would.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* The first time the roof collapsed, there was an accidental
difference in design. The second time it remained the same.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* Repetitive actions made me feel like I was physically
building the structure.
* Repeating these steps in both VR and physical feels the
same to me. But in VR it is easier because pieces snap into
place. Sometimes it may not connect properly in the physical
environment.
* Doing it in a VR environment doesn't make me feel any
different. I felt quite like I was building LEGO physically.
205
Table C.5 : Comments provided by Irene in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your design
and production process in
this study:
I realized that production in physical and virtual
environments has different potentials. Making the shelter
design in the physical environment with LEGO provided a
lot of data on shadow, volume, structure, and massing. I tried
to evaluate these data as much as possible. Using LEGO
units was very helpful in designing the block while thinking
about the openings too. Using modular units helped me
orient the mass better. But when the process was over, I
realized that I had overlooked the surfaces.
While designing the pavilion in the virtual environment, my
design process progressed a bit slow as I was not used to the
interface and the use of VR. I faced problems such as
collapsing the structure while holding the pieces, and not
being able to hold more than one piece at the same time. But
changing to different scales helped me a lot in perceiving the
space I created. In this sense, I had better control over the
design.
I had difficulties in time management in both design phases.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
While designing with a physical model, I became more
aware of what I was building and its scale by better
perceiving the volume of each piece during the building
phase. In fact, it allowed me to think at every step. While I
was producing in VR, I had a stronger perception of my
design as I switched between scales as I built the building
and turned the design phase into an experience at the same
time. However, in both environments, I was trying to create
the whole based on the units, which limited me a bit while
designing. I had a little trouble seeing the whole while
thinking about the parts. Since it was far from the design
practice I am used to, I had difficulties in time management
while adapting.
What are your opinions and
comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
Since the environment is isolated from external conditions, it
would be good to give information about the elapsed time in
the design phase. In addition, adding a workshop part where
we can craft the pieces we want, apart from the inventory of
pieces available in the application, can provide good
opportunities. From time to time, I felt the need to stretch or
scale the pieces, which can be added as a feature.
Would you prefer to use the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design tool?
Yes, I definitely would. But I think it will offer much higher
potential when used with other design tools.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* While I imagined a design consisting of surfaces initially, I
realized that I had actually made a design that started with
the block in mind.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* Sometimes, when switching the scale while holding a
piece in my hand, all the pieces were scattered.
206
Table C.6 : Comments provided by Esther in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your design
and production process in
this study:
I expressed my ideas for design tasks with three-
dimensional design tools rather than linear, two-
dimensional design tools and received feedbacks in an
exact sense. I realized how far my previous design
processes had progressed from the perception of three
dimensions. I can say that it was a fun and, at the same
time, educational process for me.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
The advantage is that it encourages three-dimensional
design and allows you to see the design at scale and
make revisions. The disadvantage is that it may cause
you to reduce the design to various units after a point. In
this sense, it encourages straighter forms and corners.
What are your opinions and
comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
I think that the usability of the application is improved,
and it is experienced more comfortably after a couple of
tries. The switch between various scales allows looking
at the design from a different and wider angle before it is
finished. I believe that the versions of the application
that allow interactive collaboration will guide the
collective work positively.
Would you prefer to use the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design tool?
I would prefer it. I think that especially switching
between scales and the possibility to experience the
space in person are very important.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
-
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
-
207
Table C.7 : Comments provided by Eddie in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
I think it is advantageous in terms of making up for
previous mistakes in the design process in a short time and
using time efficiently.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
Its modular system and allow for growth and connection
at any scale can enrich the design decisions.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
Experiencing the space in a virtual environment and being
able to see the designed product definitely contributes to
the conceptual design stage.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Definitely.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
-
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* As I become more fluent with the application and
devices after a while, I make up for the previously wasted
time.
208
Table C.8 : Comments provided by Tony in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
The design process was different than it usually is. It is a
significant advantage to be able to change the scale and
experience the space by oneself, especially when using
VR. It is important to allow the person to feel the material
with their sensory organs in the physical environment. Of
course, the use of LEGO in this study provides an extra
advantage in terms of speed and fun.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
As an advantage, attach/detach is a very fast trial and error
method, which also helps to control the scale. But it does
not give us an unlimited number of possibilities, albeit it
gives a lot.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
It's a really effective tool for the design process in terms
of being able to experience the space, controlling the
scale, and using unlimited materials.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Definitely.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
-
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
-
209
Table C.9 : Comments provided by Amy in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
I preferred to use familiar LEGO pieces in the physical
environment, while I preferred to use different pieces in
VR. I started by imagining the final product in the
physical environment, my ideas in VR developed as I
made it. Using VR made me tired.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
Quite advantageous for orthogonal designs, but otherwise
quite restrictive.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
I think it was a very fun experience. It is good that the
problems that can be experienced are considered, and the
solutions are ready.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
I do not think I would. You have to be experienced and
knowledgeable about the bricks to prefer it as a design
tool. I would not use physical LEGO bricks either.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
-
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* I decided that the most appropriate scale to study is
1:10. Because it's like working on a real desk.
* I couldn't see the pieces clearly at 1:1.
* On this scale, I thought that because I'm huge, so would
a human being, but then I realized the correct scale thanks
to the human figure.
210
Table C.10 : Comments provided by Dory in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
Physical design with LEGO was very enjoyable. Being
able to easily give up, change, and instantly embody the
design ideas offered a powerful design experience. It was
more challenging to make the first design decisions in VR,
but when I had an idea, it was fun to try and manipulate it
because I could work at different scales.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
It is nice that it provides an interactive design opportunity
as it can be considered as a model sketch. The
disadvantage was that it had very specific dimensions.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
It was a pleasant process, I would like to use it while
making my own designs.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Yes.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* I used the trial and error method.
* Sometimes, I placed the LEGO pieces at an angle.
* I imagined how my design would look from the inside.
* Since the combination possibilities and amount of the
material in my hand are limited, I keep trying.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* Since I thought it was difficult to go back and forth, I
first gathered the pieces all together and brought them all
to the desk at once.
* I have a hard time removing the piece at the top because
the others came off as well. It's constantly falling apart.
* Although it's advantageous on a human scale, it's harder
to visualize at 1:1 in VR I guess.
* I envisioned my design better when I switched the scale
and entered the space. In this way, new ideas came to my
mind, and I got away from monotony.
* Perhaps it would be better to start the design on a human
scale.
211
Table C.11 : Comments provided by Morrigan in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
I had fun designing in both sessions. I didn't notice how
the time passed so quickly.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
Having orthogonal pieces seems like a disadvantage. But
it is advantageous to be able to design by understanding
the relations of its parts to each other.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
I think it is very useful to be inside the model by zooming
in and understand its scale, as well as to be able to design
quickly by zooming out and looking at the model from
outside.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Yes.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* I reduced the opening size from 3 units to 2 units, just to
be able to use the transparent parts.
* When I tried to add pieces later, the upper part
collapsed.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* After attaching the pieces, when I accidentally picked
them up and raised them, other pieces came together.
* I used the human figure to understand the scale at first.
Then I realized that it was easier to switch to the human
scale myself.
* Since it is difficult to move back and forth to the central
area at the scale of 1:10, I assemble the pieces where they
are and carry them as a whole.
* It is difficult to go back and forth to the middle area at
1:10 scale. I connect the pieces where they are, then move
to the build area.
212
Table C.12 : Comments provided by James in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
Understanding the concept, creating the first draft of the
concept and determining on its physical boundaries,
detailing
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
Having defined design units can accelerate forming the
design process as well as constrain the design itself.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
It is an ideal workshop simulator for designing with
LEGO, except that it takes some time to get used to the
control mechanisms.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
Yes. It can definitely be a tool for sketching, and the fact
that it lets you design with limited LEGO elements can
prevent the ideas from going beyond certain limits of
physical feasibility.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* Finding the right part takes time.
* Because of the difficulty I had finding parts, I had a
concern to evaluate all the parts I chose.
* Every time I added a new design element, I first looked
at the elements I had taken out of the box.
* The ability to remove the wall as a whole was an
advantage when working on the interiors.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* Finding parts in the VR environment was much easier.
* Being able to switch the scale quickly is very helpful.
Because I used the 1:1 scale to pick the pieces and the
1:10 scale to place them.
* The VR environment requires more counting and
planning.
* I find that it is much easier to determine the dimensions
from the human scale. This changes the experience a lot.
* Since there are no physical obstacles in VR, we can
remove pieces from the middle. To do this physically, we
would have to remove the parts on top of it one by one.
* It was very nice to be able to experience the space by
switching to the human scale at every stage of the design.
* Since walls do not create physical barriers in VR, there
is no need to remove them when designing the interior.
* I had designed and placed the furniture as a
representation in the physical environment. But I created
more detailed designs in VR, because I could view from
the human scale.
213
Table C.13 : Comments provided by Azure in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your design
and production process in this
study:
First, I designed a pavilion in the VR environment. In my design, I
tried to take advantage of the tool's capabilities and enjoy it as much
as possible. I acted with the thought that it was more important to
explore the possibilities of this design tool that I just started using,
rather than how the design was going. Then, in the second session, I
designed a shelter using physical LEGO pieces. Since this is a
process I already have experience with, I made sure the design met
the requirements. I enjoyed this process. I realized that I wanted to
visit and feel the second product I designed, as if it were in VR. That
being said, the feedback from the physical environment and VR
environment were different at times. The combinations that we could
not do in the physical environment or that could easily collapse were
easily done in the VR environment. This situation can offer different
design possibilities, but it can also be misleading occasionally.
Briefly describe your views on
the advantages and
disadvantages of using LEGO
as a design sketch tool:
When designing with LEGO in the physical environment, the number
and variety of parts we have available can limit the design. The
greater the number and variety of pieces, the greater the design
possibilities. The compatibility of LEGO pieces with human scale is
an advantage. By using human figures, it is easy to adjust the scale.
With its modular units and ease of assembly, it provides the ability to
quickly visualize ideas and concepts. The transition from unit to
whole gives the sketching phase a perspective that other design tools
do not have.
What are your opinions and
comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
It eliminates problems such as lack of pieces, disassembly and
assembly difficulties, and the inability to see inside a closed mass
when designing with physical LEGO. By enabling to work at
different scales, it facilitates the processes of building, understanding
the scale, and thinking about how it will look. It allows to experience
inside the designed space without having to be built. Once you get
used to the controls, making changes to the design becomes much
easier than the physical.
Would you prefer to use the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design tool?
Yes.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* In VR, I used a single-layered base to make it easier to remove. In
physical reality, however, I created a double-layered base for more
stability.
* I have to disassemble almost the entire LEGO structure to remove a
tiny piece that I placed in interiors. Such operations are easier in VR.
* The VR environment is much more advantageous than the physical
one when detaching and attaching parts. Because even if the part is in
between, you can remove it by only touching the part you want.
* I placed the stools at a slight angle. This is not possible in VR.
* You have to consider whether the number of parts in the physical
environment is enough or not. In VR, you do not have this concern
because there are an infinite number of parts.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* At the 1:1 scale, the parts are more accessible. Because you can see
the entire area. It is easier to place the parts at the 10:1 scale. You
make fewer mistakes.
* You get a sense of spatiality that you can never get with a scale
model by changing the scale in VR.
* At 1:1 scale, I keep picking up parts and placing them. At this scale
you have the feeling of building a model. At the 10:1, you really feel
like you are building LEGO. At human scale, you can feel the space
as if it were real.
214
Table C.14 : Comments provided by Victor in protocols and the participant survey.
Briefly describe your
design and production
process in this study:
In the physical environment, it is very useful to have the
necessary parts at your fingertips. It is a design process
with rapid results. There are two limitations to progress in
the physical environment, the limited availability of
materials and the lack of real scale. Thanks to VR, both of
these problems have been solved. With VR, you can enter
the space and experience, see and evaluate the space, and
there is no limit to the material.
Briefly describe your views
on the advantages and
disadvantages of using
LEGO as a design sketch
tool:
Using LEGO in design can be beneficial because of the
ease of assembly and quick solutions. The limited variety
of materials can be a downside.
What are your opinions
and comments about the
Dreamscape Bricks VR
application?
I think the application is generally successful. The
features I would like to see added are free walking
(instead of blink teleporting), locking (or grouping) the
parts after connecting, and glowing up the transparent
parts when force is applied.
Would you prefer to use
the Dreamscape Bricks VR
application as a design
tool?
I think it is a nice design program after a few hours of
practice, I would use it.
Selected verbal comments
from physical protocols
* I had to take it apart until I found the right connections
to make it more rigid.
* As I progress by playing with the pieces, an interesting
design emerges by itself.
* The limited number of pieces made it challenging for
me.
Selected verbal comments
from VR protocols
* When I entered the interior, I noticed that a ledge
between the windows was suitable for placing glasses on.
* When I want to pick and move a section, the plates keep
coming apart because the floor consists of a single layer.
* At a scale of 1:1, I can see the plan by looking from
above, and I can place the pieces I want considering the
plan. Working at this scale is very productive.
* If there was a feature like locking, I would like to lock
the completed sections once in a while.
* Being able to experience it from a human scale makes
you feel the sense of space. I think this is very important.
215
APPENDIX D: Samples From Participants’ Individual Designs and Results
1. Shelter and Pavilions From Design Experiments
Figure D.1 : Lily’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.2 : Dione’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.3 : Maxine’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right.
216
Figure D.4 : Brian’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.5 : Irene’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.6 : Esther’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.7 : Eddie’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
217
Figure D.8 : Tony’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.9 : Amy’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.10 : Dory’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.11 : Morrigan’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
218
Figure D.12 : James’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.13 : Azure’s shelter (in situ) on left, and pavilion (in virtuo) on right.
Figure D.14 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ) on left, and shelter (in virtuo) on right.
219
2. Tony’s Design Sessions
Figure D.15 : Tony’s shelter (in situ): Isometric view.
Figure D.16 : Tony’s pavilion (in virtuo): Isometric view.
220
Figure D.17 : Tony’s shelter (in situ): Side views.
Figure D.18 : Tony’s shelter (in situ): Plan view.
221
Figure D.19 : Tony’s pavilion (in virtuo): Side views.
Figure D.20 : Tony’s pavilion (in virtuo): Plan view.
222
Figure D.21 : Comparison of design issue distribution in Tony’s design protocols.
Figure D.22 : Dynamic design issues in Tony’s physical session.
Figure D.23 : Dynamic design issues in Tony’s virtual session.
4.5
17.3
12.8
41.4
15
9
3.8
17.3
13.5 13.5
36.5
15.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
R F Be Bs S D
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Issues
In Situ
In Virtuo
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
113 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133
Percentage of Design Issues
Design Moves
D
S
Bs
Be
F
R
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100
Percentage of Design Issues
Design Moves
D
S
Bs
Be
F
R
223
Figure D.24 : Comparison of design process distribution in Tony’s design protocols.
Figure D.25 : Dynamic design processes in Tony’s physical session.
Figure D.26 : Dynamic design processes in Tony’s virtual session.
14.3
9.5
19
26.2
4.8
9.5
4.8
11.9
6.4 4.3
14.9
2.1
8.5
34
10.6
19.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Form. Synth. Anlys. Eval. Doc. Ref-1 Ref-2 Ref-3
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Processes
In Situ
In Virtuo
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
113 25 37 49 61 73 85 97 109 121 133
Number of Design Processes
Design Moves
Ref-3
Ref-2
Ref-1
Doc.
Eval.
Anlys.
Synth.
Form.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
110 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100
Number of Design Processes
Design Moves
Ref-3
Ref-2
Ref-1
Doc.
Eval.
Anlys.
Synth.
Form.
224
Figure D.27 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs (in virtuo on the left, in situ on
the right) of Tony’s design sessions.
225
3. Azure’s Design Sessions
Figure D.28 : Azure’s shelter (in situ): Isometric view.
Figure D.29 : Azure’s pavilion (in virtuo): Isometric view.
226
Figure D.30 : Azure’s shelter (in situ): Side views.
Figure D.31 : Azure’s shelter (in situ): Plan view.
227
Figure D.32 : Azure’s pavilion (in virtuo): Side views.
Figure D.33 : Azure’s pavilion (in virtuo): Top view.
228
Figure D.34 : Comparison of design issue distribution in Azure’s design protocols.
Figure D.35 : Dynamic design issues in Azure’s physical session.
Figure D.36 : Dynamic design issues in Azure’s virtual session.
2.3
21.2
14.3
10.6
31.3
20.3
1.5
12.8 14.3 12.8
38.3
20.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
R F Be Bs S D
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Issues
In Situ
In Virtuo
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
123 45 67 89 111 133 155 177 199
Percentage of Design Issues
Design Moves
D
S
Bs
Be
F
R
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
119 37 55 73 91 109 127 145 163 181
Percentage of Design Issues
Design Moves
D
S
Bs
Be
F
R
229
Figure D.37 : Comparison of design process distribution in Azure’s design
protocols.
Figure D.38 : Dynamic design processes in Azure’s physical session.
Figure D.39 : Dynamic design processes in Azure’s virtual session.
7.8 9.8
4.9 6.9
9.8
29.4
13.7
17.6
8.6 6.9 8.6 10.3 12.1
29.3
12.9 11.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Form. Synth. Anlys. Eval. Doc. Ref-1 Ref-2 Ref-3
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Processes
In Situ
In Virtuo
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
123 45 67 89 111 133 155 177 199
Number of Design Processes
Design Moves
Ref-3
Ref-2
Ref-1
Doc.
Eval.
Anlys.
Synth.
Form.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
119 37 55 73 91 109 127 145 163 181
Number of Design Processes
Design Moves
Ref-3
Ref-2
Ref-1
Doc.
Eval.
Anlys.
Synth.
Form.
230
Figure D.40 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs (in virtuo on the left, in situ on
the right) of Azure’s design sessions.
231
4. Victor’s Design Sessions
Figure D.41 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ): Isometric view.
Figure D.42 : Victor’s shelter (in virtuo): Isometric view.
232
Figure D.43 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ): Side views.
Figure D.44 : Victor’s pavilion (in situ): Plan view.
233
Figure D.45 : Victor’s shelter (in virtuo): Side views.
Figure D.46 : Victor’s shelter (in virtuo): Plan view.
234
Figure D.47 : Comparison of design issue distribution in Victor’s design protocols.
Figure D.48 : Dynamic design issues in Victor’s physical session.
Figure D.49 : Dynamic design issues in Victor’s virtual session.
0.5
9.3
19.5 19
34.6
17.1
1.1
10.9
25.1
15.8
29
18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
R F Be Bs S D
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Issues
In Situ
In Virtuo
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
122 43 64 85 106 127 148 169 190
Percentage of Design Issues
Design Moves
D
S
Bs
Be
F
R
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
119 37 55 73 91 109 127 145 163 181
Percentage of Design Issues
Design Moves
D
S
Bs
Be
F
R
235
Figure D.50 : Comparison of design process distribution in Victor’s design
protocols.
Figure D.51 : Dynamic design processes in Victor’s physical session.
Figure D.52 : Dynamic design processes in Victor’s virtual session.
6.4
12.8 11.2
15.2
12
24.8
13.6
4
6.5
12.9 11.8
15.1
11.8
23.7
15.1
3.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Form. Synth. Anlys. Eval. Doc. Ref-1 Ref-2 Ref-3
Percentage of Occurence
FBS Design Processes
In Situ
In Virtuo
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
122 43 64 85 106 127 148 169 190
Number of Design Processes
Design Moves
Ref-3
Ref-2
Ref-1
Doc.
Eval.
Anlys.
Synth.
Form.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
119 37 55 73 91 109 127 145 163 181
Number of Design Processes
Design Moves
Ref-3
Ref-2
Ref-1
Doc.
Eval.
Anlys.
Synth.
Form.
236
Figure D.53 : Back-to-back juxtaposed linkographs (in virtuo on the left, in situ on
the right) of Victor’s design sessions.
237
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.
238
239
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name Surname : Oğuz Orkun DOMA
EDUCATION
• B.Arch. : 2012, Bahçeşehir University, Faculty of Architecture and
Design, Architecture
• M.A. : 2014, Bahçeşehir University, Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences, Architecture
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND REWARDS
• 2021 – present Neo Auvra Digital Health Technologies Inc.
(XR Projects Manager, Game Designer)
• 2014 – 2021 Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture
(Research Assistant)
• 2016 – 2019 Crytek Istanbul
(VR R&D Consultant, Level Designer, via İTÜNOVA TTO)
• 2012 – 2014 Bahçeşehir University, Faculty of Architecture & Design
(Teaching Assistant)
PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS ON THE THESIS
• Doma, O. O., & Şener, S. M. (2022a). An investigation of architectural design
process in physical medium and VR. A/Z : ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture,
19(3), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2022.77019
• Doma, O. O., & Şener, S. M. (2022b). Dreamscape Bricks VR: An Experimental
Virtual Reality Tool for Architectural Design. Interaction Design and
Architecture(s), 52, 234–258. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-052-013
• Doma, O. O., & Şener, S. M. (2021). Using Modular Construction Brick-Based
CAD in Online Design Education. In MusicoGuia (Ed.), Conference Proceedings
CIVAE 2021 - 3rd Interdisciplinary and Virtual Conference on Arts in Education,
July 14-15, 2021, Madrid, Spain (pp. 106–111). MusicoGuia.
240
OTHER PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PATENTS
• Doma, O. O. (2018a). EEG as an Input for Virtual Reality. In N. Lee (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games (pp. 1–4). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_176-1
• Doma, O. O. (2018b). Spatio-Temporal Narrative Framework for Architecture in
Video Games. In N. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games
(pp. 1–9). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
08234-9_151-1
• Doma, O. O., & Karahan, R. (2016). Beyin-Bilgisayar Arayüzüyle Sanal
Gerçeklikte Dinamik Etkileşim. In Aslı Aydın Aksan, C. Erten, F. Akipe, H. Oral,
K. Karabağ, & T. Yazar (Eds.), 10. Mimarlıkta Sayısal Tasarım Ulusal
Sempozyumu (MSTAS 2016) (pp. 290–299). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Doma, O. O., & Eyüce, Ö. (2014). Video Oyunu Mekanlarında Mimari Deneyim:
Mekansal, Zamansal, Anlatısal. In O. Çakır, F. Doğan, L. Erbil, C. Gündüz, M. E.
İlal, & B. Taneri (Eds.), 8. Mimarlıkta Sayısal Tasarım Ulusal Sempozyumu
(MSTAS 2014) (pp. 1–11). İzmir Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü.
http://openaccess.iyte.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/11147/4256/1/mstas-
websize.pdf
• Şener, S.M., Torus, B., Şen Bayram, A. K., & Doma, O. O. (2021). Acil Barınma
İhtiyacına Yönelik Bir Konteyner Yerleşimi Tasarım Aracı: bBox. In D. Yıldız
Özkan, & Y. Alkışer Bregger (Eds.), Mekân ve Karşıtlıklar (pp. 251–262). İTÜ
Vakfı Yayınları.
• Torus, B., Şen Bayram, A. K., Doma, O. O., & Şener, S. M. (2020). bBox: A
Framework For Container Settlements. In N. Narlı, B. Torus, & N. Aydın Yönet
(Eds.), The Paradigmatic City (IV): Transforming Cities Selected Papers (pp. 15–
24). Mentora.
• Torus, B., Şen Bayram, A. K., Doma, O. O., & Şener, S. M. (2019). Generative
Systems in Design: A Container Settlement Generator. IaSU “Archi-Cultural
Interactions through the Silkroad,” 51–53.
