4 Comments

1. 1 Ted Cavanagh 01 Feb

   You might be interested to know that the University of Toronto has a paperless team room for its visit this month.

2. 2 Deirdre Hardy 25 Sep
   My concern with all digital representation of the student work for accrediting purposes is based on acting as a critic for all digital final reviews. If the viewer cannot recall exactly the details of images shown at presentation scale and raises a question and a request is made to go back the viewer often experiences "mal de mer"in the process!  Then I just do not see how a NAAB Team can possibly review a Comprehensive Design project for completeness with all persons watching a regular monitor screen.  Such reviewing will require an entirely new Accreditation review process.  To be convinced, I need to hear more details about same.
3. 3 Stephen Temple 18 Sep
   Drawing is still very much what architects do and what students need to do order to learn to think architecture. Drawing is thinking. Learniong to think requires drawing because it is at the speed of thinking. Digital is speed and this speed is often beyond the speed of thought.  Digital, at the push of button as it is, can and often does happen without thought.  "Paperless" implies that drawing does not count in the equation that leads to architecture. Paperlessness is simply counter to the way design happens and with the way learning to design best happens.
4. 4 Kathryn Prigmore 16 Sep
   Relative to designprojects:  Reviewers "get lost" in the digital exhibits because they contain "unlimited" amounts of information - much of which is really cool, but not related to the accredidation.  It is hard for teh team chair to judge how far alon a review is when the team is sitting in front of a computer.  It is much like the phenomonon in offices these days (at least for the larger projectgs I work on).    People put in lots of hours, but until it its printed out we dont know if it is complete or coordianted.  The digital format is gret for checking for additional information on a project but I dont think we should go all digital.  It is probably OK for other "deliveralbes" like exams, powerpoint presentations, reports.  Even now we should be asking for more info regarding digital information.  For example:  How many pages/slides?  How long does the full presentaiton run?  If the informtion is going to be provided to the team before the physical vist, then the proposed change to the process deserves a more in depth analysis.  This could result in a pardigm shift in the review process which takes advantage of the increasingly digital nature of our profession.