Dwight wrote:
Jacob wrote:
For instance: Perhaps our colleague using just three pens can show here how efficient it is in order to benefit others. Adaptability brings complexity.
Okay- I'll bite. Well- it's an interesting topic actually - because in answering that one needs to address the complexity of interfacing the software tools with 'technique' and the set of prodigiously complex learned mental routines that go into producing design (we'll use a building as an example, since most of us are architects here, I'm assuming - though I've found it a superb tool for most industrial design projects I've done too).
At any rate - the efficiency (in this case) is simply limited to the very fact of allowing oneself only a limited palette of choices. Where it gets complex and nuanced is in the drawing technique one uses. For example - to draw buildings one can use many different approaches. Three that I can think of might be called 'sculptural depth cueing', 'symbolist' and 'figure-ground'*. I use the first approach. So this is where things get a little bit hairy and personal in an office setting. Often times such issues aren't really addressed. There is seldom any budget to look at how figurative representation happens in a set of construction documents, let's say, in a team setting. So this ties back to my original comment about personalization of tools and training long after much time has been invested in a 'personal style'. And there are, of course, many aspects of the program which are open to such personal interpretation (layering strategies, data management, typography, model husbandry, etc etc..) and so it goes. I'm just trying to say that there are problems with glomming willy nilly onto an established bureaucratic structure or system. It ain't always easy...!
I hope this makes at least some sense.
* definitions of above coined terms:
1. 'sculptural depth cueing'
- the grouping of line weights (pens) to pay sole heed to differences in implied depth - i.e. 0.07mm pen for depth changes between 0 and 10cm, 0.15mm for 10-60cm and something like 0.30mm for 60+cm, etc... this is how I prefer to do things - though it often requires modification and overdrawing.
2. 'symbolist'
- probably the most widely used method because it requires very little extra work - but often makes the most chaotic looking drawings. Different types of objects carry different weights. So - we're simply distinguishing between different architectural items represented on the plan.
3. 'figure-ground'
- only the items most relevant to the sheet itself are emphasized with a heavy pen - all other information is portrayed with lightweight pen or with grey colour, etc... can work really well (!) in a drawing set for readability - but again requires tweaking.
