2.3 Introduction
2.3.4 Mapping the translation of Web 2.0 technology into the design process
76
in associations can cause the collaborative design network black boxes to be opened to reconsider its contents (Tatnall, 2009). As a result of the performativity nature of Web 2.0, the network is only temporarily stabilised or black-boxed through the alignment of interest among the actors involved in the process.
77
computer-supported platforms. The introduction of the VDS has resulted in the evolution of a complex design landscape that attempts to respond to the changing landscape in design (Schnabel & Ham, 2013; Smithers, 2010).
For example VDS offers an extension of the design studio outside of the limitations of scheduled classes, something that fits in with many university students’ work hours and nomadic lifestyles. Designers are able to represent processes and outcomes in digital forms that can be accessed anytime/anywhere through the Internet using both asynchronous and synchronous communication systems (Maher, Simoff, & Cicognani, 2006). Scholars who studied VDS design environments agree that the studios were established to allow action while physically distant. Other reasons are due to the dictates of the design (Achten, 2001), as a way of enhancing student communication (Schmitt, 1997), or for the desire to use digital communication (Kurmann, 1995) and other digital tools (Maher, Simoff, & Cicognani, 2000).
As such, Schnabel and Ham (2014, p. 229) note that the “VDS has evolved as a learning environment that allows students in various locations to engage synchronously and asynchronously in design learning”.
Although the developments in technology reported in VDS have had a big impact on the design studio, their dependence on hard and software skills as well as familiarity with the media and learning environment have limited their influence on how design is carried out in practice (Ham
& Schnabel, 2011). The major challenge with VDS is that the virtual environments are created by simple asynchronous communications tools such as email and static posting sites, which do not allow the spontaneous real-time communication which is characteristic of collaborative design. In addition, the use VDS does not recognise social engagement as crucial or central to the overall process of construction of knowledge in design. It is for such reasons that some design researchers have raised the need for a constant revisiting of the VDS until such a point that we have a fully integrated studio where the borderlines between the realms of the designers, their tools and the mode of communication are dismantled (Ham, 2010; Mitchell, 1995). With the arrival of Web 2.0 technologies the only logical step to develop the VDS was to leverage the social and collaboration affordances of Web 2.0 technology (Schnabel & Ham, 2012). This technology has the potential to transform VDS into taking new directions that can address the shortcomings identified in past research.
78
As (Potts, 2008, p. 1) points out Web 2.0 technologies;
“…are today used by professionals who want to see more unified, holistic experiences that will support collaboration, knowledge sharing, and information validation by participants across multiple systems.”
Consequently, the social network VDS (SNVDS) became the successor of the VDS and has been integrated into design learning since 2009 (Ham & Schnabel, 2011). Web 2.0 technology has been introduced into the design studio for various reasons. For example, Ham (2010) and Schnabel and Ham (2013) note that Social Networks, a form of Web 2.0 technology, were first used in design studio learning as a means of engaging students in the architectural design process outside of the limitations of the University’s Learning Management System. Owen et al., (2006) in Schnabel and Ham (2012, p. 399) point out that;
“…ease of communication, leadership opportunity, democratic interaction, teamwork and sense of community are some of the improved aspects offered by Web 2.0 technology or social network as they are addressed in some sections of the literature.”
From the above, it can be concluded that the integration of Web 2.0 into design learning can transform the design learning space and practice by facilitating student designers to engage with the design task anytime anywhere. Use of Web 2.0 has the potential to extend design practice beyond the conventional boundaries of time and space (Ham, 2010; Ham & Schnabel, 2011).
Thus, from an affordance point of view, Web 2.0 technologies bring a wide range of capabilities to the collaborative design process. For example, YouTube and similar applications can be used to change the face of design learning in a number of ways. In addition to their obvious function as a medium for submission and repositories of design projects assignments, the technology can be used to allow student to make design representation through videos, graphics and audio, in ways that have never been achieved by their predecessors. Thus, Web 2.0 technology, such YouTube could be used as a submission and presentation medium as well as an a design learning space for demonstrating the learning of other skills and proficiencies in technology required for the design project (Ham & Schnabel, 2011). Student engagement with YouTube as a medium of video offers a more dynamic mode of design presentation through its ability to enable high-quality sound, motion, voice-over and text to be integrated into studio projects. Significant potential exists here in future developments using multimedia in the design studio to overcome the problems identified above in relation to limited professional and
79
industry exchange within design studios. Due to the ease with which Web 2.0 technologies can be used, students are not taught video making, but use easy and freely available video-making programmes such as iMovie HD and Windows MovieMaker, which they can learn from countless tutorial videos posted on YouTube. This helps universities to overcome the skill training overheads essential for much application software used in a technical field such as engineering design. The adoption of Web 2.0-based applications can help resolve technical issues with regard to efficient and effective use of technology in design work.
Furthermore, Boulos and Wheeler (2007, p. 8) note that the use Web 2.0 “requires a low level of technical skills; anyone can publish and access content anytime, anywhere”. This opens up opportunities for the creation of an open, democratic and transparent bottom-up communication system (Kolbitsch & Maurer, 2006). For example, in their study of Web 2.0- facilitated collaborative design projects between students and staff from Deakin University and students from Hong Kong, Ham and Schnabel (2011) noted that social network applications like Skype act as enablers of the SNVDS by allowing a line of communication and collaboration between the stakeholders. Skype is a free application that allows high-definition video and voice communication over the Internet. Through Skype student designers are able to share texts, images, drawings and photos of physical models in development.
These authors also established that Web 2.0 based applications such as Ning assisted not only as information repositories for students’ research work on the project but also as a meeting place for them to discussion, exchange and explore their ideas (Ham & Schnabel, 2011). Web 2.0 technology gave student designers opportunities to interact and work outside studio hours.
In the traditional space at the university they were limited to use of emails and telephone calls only in circumstances where special consideration was required, for example notification of absences, illnesses or other problems. Web 2.0 technologies were used to allow students to post their latest project work for their lecturers and external experts to assist them with relevant comments for their progress. This was done both on- and off-campus, thus further blurring the distinction between the virtual and the real. However, Ham and Schnabel (2011) also point out that some limitations might occur, depending on the use of an appropriate audio and video system as well as the available bandwidth.
In conclusion, I want to note that the literature indicated the potential of Web 2.0 technology to take the design environment and practice to the next level. With the proliferation of nomadic
80
digital technologies there is great potential for further engagement with Web 2.0 technology in the VDS. Coupled with the almost ubiquitous student access to the Internet and various forms of mobile computing devices, Web 2.0 technology has potential to facilitate a more engaging design learning environment that intersects various physical and virtual realms, as well as social and cultural elements of the design.
The Web 2.0-facilitated design studios (SNVDS) differ from the traditional models of design studios in that the students themselves became the primary contributor to skills, content and knowledge required for the design project. They also differ from the conventional notion of design as problem solving due to the different ways in which the problem is framed due to the mediation provided by the technology employed (Schnabel & Ham, 2012; Schnabel & Howe, 2009). The SNVDS not only helps to frame the problem differently (Kvan & Gao, 2004) but also engages designers through the collaborative design, that results in a collective intelligence that enables designers to come up with a wide diversity of design solutions.