Saturday, May 28, 2011

I never knew her name was Kate....

Not talking royal-brides here – the Kate I am referring to is ‘sort of imaginary’.
We met about 15 years ago. She wore a red dress. Still does, though Kate now is well retired.
If you are a young lad/or lady you may find it hard to believe, but the woman in red was considered to be highly sophisticated not that long ago. A kind of Archicad ambassador too – you saw her, you knew the software behind.

Anyway, looking at Kate, I feel that we’d come a long way... but then, had we?
Our imaginary-ladies may be less boxy, but compare this progress to what goes on behind closed doors (refer to my post on stair-arrows and door-hinging-lines) and the game looks more like snakes and ladders.
Technology pushes us up a rung or two on a ladder; we get better objects, smarter tools, faster graphics...
But then there is a long slide on a snake back to: ‘drawings should look like this and that...’

Why can’t we get rid of the drawing? It is such a liability really, a big heavy chain around our necks.
All of our necks. They may help keep the information imbalance rule the industry but surely it is time for a new set of tools/weapons to start dominating the field? Something a bit smarter, more edgy, exciting.
Stop motion anyone?

Remember the notice board in the pretty Hungarian town of Morahalom? The interesting aspect of the sign was that the room names were written out in Braille and then covered with a Perspex sheet. (probably high up on the wall and out of reach too, though this is just me being a bit ‘smart’ here).


  1. Kate is still usable, in that she doesn't carry too many polygons. I remember a time where the amount of polygons that where used to model Lara Croft where an important topic to discuss.

    But frankly, anything that looks nice in renderings (cars, people, trees) behaves badly in ArchiCAD views, esp. with shadows and 3d hatching.