Image Source
In his blog post, DâArcy Norman shares his perception of some of the challenges of designing the Audio Visual (AV) systems at the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learningâs new building. He also shares his admiration for the architectural and technological design throughout the building which was mainly inspired by the design principles of transparency and flexibility.
From my role perspective, working as a technology manager in the private sector, and considering the sustainability and stewardship for the implementation of the AV system, I couldnât help but think to myself (respectfully) âwhat were they thinking?â by choosing collaboration carts as their solution. Looking at the year of DâArcyâs post I felt like the Institute chose an outdated option that created problems and became unsustainable in a short period of time as DâArcy acknowledged by saying that within two years of the AV design there were âalready new technologies that have the potential to greatly simplify this design, reducing the reliance on interconnected systems from different vendorsâ. A couple of solutions that I can think of that were available at the time are: transparent glass LED displays and rear projection film, both options could have adhered to the glass walls. By using that type of technology along with projectors mounted on the ceiling it would have simplified the future process of updating only part of the system like the PC or laptop, and not the actual display. Additionally, both of my suggested alternatives not only would have been more cost-effective in the long run but also could have represented better the Instituteâs principles of flexibility and transparency.
Another important topic identified is open access to technology. Although I applaud their empowering approach by letting students use the AV carts and do âcool thingsâ with them, I found contradicting the fact that someone can operate the system simply after a quick orientation knowing that if one of the collaboration carts goes down âthere are literally 15 different things to check, several trips to the mezzanine floor to reboot things and tweak configurationsâ, a process that could bring âthe rest of the studio or first floor offlineâ. From an instructorâs perspective, I would find it unacceptable to go âthrough 15 trips upstairs and back downstairsâ to reboot the system especially after knowing that the equipment was previously utilized by students to watch Netflix or play with their PS4 as DâArcy describes in his post as well.
Reference
Norman, D. (2017, March 11). Lessons learned: AV systems design in the Taylor Institute. https://darcynorman.net/2017/03/11/lessons-learned-av-systems-design-in-the-taylor-institute/
My gosh, I am not sure if I should cry or laugh. I just noticed that I referred to D’Arcy Norman as her the whole time, not realizing he is actually a man. While it doesn’t change my thoughts about his article, I thought I should acknowledge my mistake. Sorry about that đ
Hi Luis, I appreciated how you provided some tangible examples of technological solutions they could have considered at the time that would have been more cost-effective and efficient than their collaboration carts. I wonder about the factors that led to their decision to invest in their AV system. Did they have connections to the tech provider/sales team? Did they have a tech expert on their decision making panel when they considered the proposal prior to purchasing? Were there efforts to bring together a diverse and well-informed panel for this decision? Thanks for your exploration of the various roles in your post.