Contributors:
Matthew Hynam, Ben Hackland, Richard Tyers
The Leap Christmas card invited architecture students to try the dice leap test and offer back feedback. The two examples shown here have been conducted by students on their design projects. Ben Hackland a 3rd year architecture undergraduate student tested leap on the initial master planning element of his end of year project for a spa in Bristol. Richard Tyers a final year architecture graduate tested leap on the layout for his recycling centre near the Eden Project in Cornwall.
Results from other participants showed similar findings but these two examples yielded good material for analyse thanks to the participants carefully capturing the process on film. Following the test both Ben and Richard were separately consulted about the use of Leap! and came to the following conclusions.
Both felt that performing the same leap action twice made them conscious of the previous time they had used it. More variables need to be added so that a user does not get blocked by the Leap! process. Pixalate was found to be a very effective action at lowering the density of information and highlighting areas that were not adequately developed within a plan. Ben suggested that Leap! allows you to see what you want to see and takes away the rest. Both felt that over thinking Leap! held back the process however once engaged with the Leap! process it became a useful tool.
Richard questioned whether an additional move be made that should tell a user how to interpret Leap! and give more variables to the various actions? Could you have different actions for different scales of drawings or stages of a project?
Contributors:
Matthew Hynam, Ben Hackland, Richard Tyers
The Leap Christmas card invited architecture students to try the dice leap test and offer back feedback. The two examples shown here have been conducted by students on their design projects. Ben Hackland a 3rd year architecture undergraduate student tested leap on the initial master planning element of his end of year project for a spa in Bristol. Richard Tyers a final year architecture graduate tested leap on the layout for his recycling centre near the Eden Project in Cornwall.
Results from other participants showed similar findings but these two examples yielded good material for analyse thanks to the participants carefully capturing the process on film. Following the test both Ben and Richard were separately consulted about the use of Leap! and came to the following conclusions.
Both felt that performing the same leap action twice made them conscious of the previous time they had used it. More variables need to be added so that a user does not get blocked by the Leap! process. Pixalate was found to be a very effective action at lowering the density of information and highlighting areas that were not adequately developed within a plan. Ben suggested that Leap! allows you to see what you want to see and takes away the rest. Both felt that over thinking Leap! held back the process however once engaged with the Leap! process it became a useful tool.
Richard questioned whether an additional move be made that should tell a user how to interpret Leap! and give more variables to the various actions? Could you have different actions for different scales of drawings or stages of a project?
Contributors:
Matthew Hynam, Ben Hackland, Richard Tyers
The Leap Christmas card invited architecture students to try the dice leap test and offer back feedback. The two examples shown here have been conducted by students on their design projects. Ben Hackland a 3rd year architecture undergraduate student tested leap on the initial master planning element of his end of year project for a spa in Bristol. Richard Tyers a final year architecture graduate tested leap on the layout for his recycling centre near the Eden Project in Cornwall.
Results from other participants showed similar findings but these two examples yielded good material for analyse thanks to the participants carefully capturing the process on film. Following the test both Ben and Richard were separately consulted about the use of Leap! and came to the following conclusions.
Both felt that performing the same leap action twice made them conscious of the previous time they had used it. More variables need to be added so that a user does not get blocked by the Leap! process. Pixalate was found to be a very effective action at lowering the density of information and highlighting areas that were not adequately developed within a plan. Ben suggested that Leap! allows you to see what you want to see and takes away the rest. Both felt that over thinking Leap! held back the process however once engaged with the Leap! process it became a useful tool.
Richard questioned whether an additional move be made that should tell a user how to interpret Leap! and give more variables to the various actions? Could you have different actions for different scales of drawings or stages of a project?