Assessing perceived credibility of traditional and computer generated architectural representations

This paper presents a study that investigated whether computer generated representations are perceived as more credible means of communicating design than traditional forms of representations. Architects, other professionals, and elected members of the public assessed two computer generated and two hand drawn forms of representation using semantic differential scales. Results show that computer generated photomontage is perceived as the most credible and perspective drawing and as the least credible form of representation. Statistical analysis revealed a remarkable resemblance between the responses by the public and professionals and clear differences between these two groups and architects' perceptions.