ABSTRACT

ANDERSON, KAREN MILLER. Leveraging Technology and Creativity among Self- Employed Textile Artists and Designers Through the Use of Geometric Software. (Under the direction of Dr. George L. Hodge and Dr. Cynthia L. Istook.)

Self-employed textile artists and designers have many obstacles to overcome; among these obstacles are the use of technology in their work and locating affordable software applications that can be used in their studios. There are a number of specifi c software applications used in industry for textile design. While these systems are extremely powerful and function well for the purpose for which they were designed, they are often expensive, infl exible, and proprietary, which may limit collaboration efforts as well as production capabilities. This very fact may act as a deterrent to the use and adoption of the technology by self-employed artists and designers. There are many software applications that were developed to create patterns for disciplines other than textiles. These programs may have potential for use in textile design and may well be more affordable to the microentrepreneur. Because these applications are mathematical and scientifi c-based software applications, designers are likely to be unaware of their availability and application to textile design. The purpose of this study was twofold. One was to identify and survey the many geometric software applications that have been developed to create pattern and design that have potential for use in the textile industry. The exploration of these applications not only increases awareness of other disciplines, it extends the artist’s vision and creativity. All of the software applications are readily available as freeware, shareware or off-the-shelf. The majority of these applications are downloadable, providing for easy access. The second step was to develop a framework for the Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model and to further develop a sequence of steps in the form of mapping or an algorithim that will provide the leverage needed for the use of technology among self-employed designers and artists. This study will identify not only each step in the process, but also the knowledge needed to complete each step. If the technological skills, knowledge and process are identifi ed, then they can be taught and utilized. The knowledge gained as part of the development of the model will assist with the selection of non-traditional geometry- based applications that can be used in the design and creation process. This study introduces technology-driven design through the use of geometry-based software and a textile design process that can be used by the self-employed artist or designer in his or her own workshop or studio to generate new ideas and aid in the creation of their work.

i BIOGRAPHY

Karen Miller Anderson received her B.F.A. from the College of the Dayton Art Institute. A former Art and Commercial Art teacher, Ms. Anderson left teaching after being introduced to the early Macintosh computer. She then pursued her M.S. at Middle Tennessee State University in Engineering Technology. Upon completing her masters, she joined an Autodesk reseller in Tennessee specializing in CAD solutions for industry, from guitars at the Gibson plant to working with boats at OMC Hydra. Ms. Anderson was invited to sit on the Autodesk National Multimedia Advisory Board and served in that position for three years. After relocating to New York, her corporate customers included Donna Karan, Kenneth Cole, the New York Mercantile Exchange, Steelcase and many others. Ms. Anderson then moved from the CAD to the non-linear video-editing market specializing in special effects hardware and software. Ms. Anderson has contributed articles to the publication Cadalyst, has been mentioned in 3D Artist, and featured in Computer Reseller News. She has beta tested, evaluated and reviewed numerous graphic applications. A recent article by Ms. Anderson, “Machine embroidery: tools, techniques and technologies” appeared in the August 2005 edition of the AATCC Review, International Magazine for Textile Design, Processing and Testing. Ms. Anderson enrolled in the Textile Technology Management Ph.D. program at North Carolina State University’s College of Textiles in 2001. She opened her company KMA Productions in 2002. While continuing her education, she has successfully produced textiles, exhibited her artwork and provided digital services to retail and corporate clients. In 2005 she produced a booklet as part of the Textile Technology Workshop which also provided the case studies for her research. Ms. Anderson contributed to the Self-Employment in the Arts conference at Wake Forest University (2006) as an artist, speaker and business owner. Ms. Anderson’s projected graduation date is August 2006. Although she is busy with

ii the digital services she provides through KMA productions, she is currently working on a new series incorporating photographic collages, digital printing and embroidery. All of Ms. Anderson’s works incorporate digital technology integration throughout her processes.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No one accomplishes something of this magnitude without the support of others. Many people have supported and encouraged me in the attainment of this degree. I am grateful to them all. There are some people, however, to whom I wish to give a special acknowledgement. I would like to thank the fi ve professors on my committee: Dr. George Hodge, Dr. Cindy Istook, Dr. Pamela Banks-Lee, Dr. Moon Suh, and Dr. Thomas Honeycutt for their advice, insights, and inspiration throughout this project and my academic career while attending North Carolina State University. Dr George Hodge and Dr. Cindy Istook have shown extraordinary patience and provided guidance and unique perspectives throughout this project and are deserving of a special thanks for all their efforts. The Textile Technology Workshop was partially funded by the College of Textiles, the Department of Textile and Apparel, Technology & Management at North Carolina State University, and without their necessary contribution this research could not have been accomplished. Friends and colleagues provided an important network of support, and therefore a special thank you to Lisa Parrillo-Chapman for donating her time expertise and friendship. The workshop observers whom are both friends and colleagues: Carol Gonzalez, Janine LeBlanc, Kavita Mathur, Jiyhoun Bae and Narahari Kenkare were of invaluable assistance. The College of Textiles Information Technology Department provided support and assistance which enabled a successful workshop. Beyond the people in my academic world, my friends have listened patiently and supported the accomplishment of this task beyond all reasonable expectations. A very special thank you goes to Marilyn and Paul Dracos for their enduring friendship. Additionally, my friends: Marcie, Brenner, Jennifer Grisby and Mary Eismann have been my support network. Finally, I want to say thank you to my family, especially my husband Edward (Andy);

iv my son, Nolan Smock; and my sister, Carole Runyon, for their patience, love, and support. All of you are my inspiration. To complete this task was a long-held dream, and I appreciate what each of you had to sacrifi ce for the achievement of my dream. This is dedicated in loving memory to my father Clarence H. Miller who always encouraged me in my pursuits. A fellow engineer, inventor, and dreamer, he believed that nothing was impossible to achieve.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix

LIST OF TABLES ...... x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Rationale ...... 2 Statement of problem ...... 2 Purpose ...... 3 Research Questions ...... 4 Limitations os Study ...... 4 Defi nition of Terms ...... 5

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... Employment ...... 10 Creativity ...... 11 Design ...... 13 Conceptual Models ...... 18 Information Technology ...... 19 Design models ...... 20 Technology and art ...... 21 Algorithms and artists ...... 24 Geometry and art ...... 25 Intersections: Textiles, technology and geometry ...... 26 Case studies and research methods ...... 28

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ...... Introduction ...... 30 Methodology ...... 31 Data Collection - Geometric Software Survey - Instrument 1...... 33 Website - Instrument 2 ...... 37 Data Collection (Instrument 3)...... 37 Selection of participants (Instrument 4) ...... 38 Case study ...... 39 Geometric Software Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM) - Instrument 5 .....39 Textile Technology Workshop - Instrument 6 ...... 39 Textile Technology Workshop Book and CD - Instrument 7 ...... 41 Data analysis ...... 41

CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS ...... Introduction ...... 42 Description of the study ...... 42 Instrument 1 - Geometric software uurvey ...... 42 vi Instrument 2 - Website ...... 51 Instrument 3 -Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists survey ...... 51 Instrument 4 - Workshop application survey...... 56 Instrument 5 - Geometric Software – Textile Design Process Model GS-TDPM. ....57 Instrument 6 - Textile Technology Workshop ...... 58 Case Studies ...... 58 Case-studiy 1 ...... 58 Case-studiy 2 ...... 59 Case-studiy 3 ...... 59 Case-studiy 4 ...... 60 Case-studiy 5 ...... 60 Instrument 7 - Workshop book and CD ...... 61 Instrument 8 - Workshop evaluation survey ...... 61 Instrument 9 - Workshop observation log ...... 63 Instrument 10 - Workshop follow-up survey ...... 66 Conclusions ...... 74 Summary ...... 76

CHAPTER V: GEOMETRIC SOFTWARE TEXTILE DESIGN PROCESS MODEL DEVELOPMENT ...... Introduction ...... 78 Testing the Geometric Software used in the GS-TDPM model ...... 78 Textile Technology Workshop (Instrument 8) ...... 81 A step-by-step guide to using the GS-TDPM model ...... 81 Introduction ...... 81 The computer environment ...... 83 Why are graphic fi le formats important? ...... 84 Using images and photographic reference images ...... 86

CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSION ...... Introduction ...... 88 The research questions ...... 89 The instruments used in the study ...... 90 Discussion ...... 92 Summary ...... 94 Recommendations for further study ...... 95

REFERENCES ...... 96

APPENDIX A: Reference Models ...... 102

APPENDIX B: Geometric Software Survey ...... 106

APPENDIX C: Letters ...... 114

vii APPENDIX D: Website ...... 117

APPENDIX E: Surveys ...... 121

APPENDIX F: Textile Technology workshop ...... 141

APPENDIX G: Textile Technology workshop book and CD ...... 143

viii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Research question ansered by instrument used ...... 32 Figure 2. Preliminary sketch for GS-TDPM ...... 34 Figure 3. Software usability by question ...... 44 Figure 4. Which categories do you employ in your work? ...... 52 Figure 5. I can use a computer to do the following ...... 53 Figure 6. How do you use a computer in your work and textile or surface design creations?...... 53 Figure 7. Where do you live ...... 54 Figure 8. Age of respondents...... 54 Figure 9. Which selection best describes where you live...... 55 Figure 10. How many years have you been designing professionally? ...... 56 Figure 11. I can use a computer to do the following- Surveys comparison ...... 75 Figure 12. Which software did the participant select and use? ...... 76 Figure 13. Tiles applied to boundaries ...... 80 Figure 14. Tiles applied to bound shapes ...... 80 Figure 15. Geometric Software Textile Design Process Model ...... 82 Figure A1. Response repertoire ...... 103 Figure A2. Design confl ict model ...... 104 Figure A3. The role of designers in leading creativity in the supply chain ...... 104 Figure A4. Textile design methodology ...... 105 Figure C1. Invitation to complete survey and/or complete workshop application .115 Figure C2. Textile technology workshop acceptance letter ...... 116 Figure D1- Instrument 2 - Workshop website - Home page...... 118 Figure D2- Instrument 2 - Workshop website - In-Depth page...... 119 Figure D1- Instrument 2 - Workshop website - Projects page...... 120 Figure E1-Instrument 3 - Technology and creativity and self-employed artists survey...... 122 Figure E2- Instrument 4 - Workshop application ...... 126 Figure E3- Instrument 8 - Workshop evaluation ...... 129 Figure E4-Instrument 9 - Workshop observation log ...... 132 Figure E5- Instrument 10 - Workshop follow-up survey ...... 136 Figure F1- Instrument 6 - Tiles created by participants in the Textile Technology workshop ...... 142 Figure G1- Instrument 7- Thumbnails of Workshop Book and CD ...... 144

ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Software evaluation criteria ...... 36 Table 2. Usability per each software program ...... 45 Table 3. Software status, geometry types and input preferences...... 46 Table 4. Import and export options of geometric software ...... 47 Table 5. Geometric software by platform, price and availability ...... 48 Table 6. Computer user levels...... 49 Table 7. Software advantages and disadvantages ...... 50 Table 8. Workshop application - I can use a computer to do the following ...... 57 Table 9. Observation log- Questions 1-9- True/False responses ...... 64 Table 10. Workshop follow-up survey - Questions 1-7...... 67 Table 11. Workshop follow-up survey - Questions 9-14...... 69 Table 12. Workshop follow-up survey Question 15 - I can use technology to do the following...... 70 Table 13. Table 13 - 2D and 3D graphic fi le formats...... 85 Table B1. Geometric Software Survey Reference List...... 107

x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

The rapidly expanding rate of technological change presents unique problems to textile artists and designers, especially when many of those who create are among the self- employed. According to the U. S. Department of Labor, more than a half of all artists and a third of all designers and related workers are self-employed (U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). Increasingly, as the U.S. workforce and economy shifts (Kurlantzik, 2004) these workers form microenterprises. According to the Field report (2000) a microenterprise is a sole proprietorship with fewer than fi ve employees. In this study, we defi ne artists as adults who have received training in an artistic discipline/tradition or defi ne themselves professionally as artists, and attempt to derive income from work in which they use their expert artistic skills in visual and the textile arts. Our main focus is on self-employed artists working formally or informally in their attempts to create and sell their work. In order to leverage the use of technology among self-employed textile designers and artists, the use of non-traditional, graphical, geometry-based applications have been explored, resulting in an extended survey of applications which can be used in textile design. The tools currently in use today by textile designers may be economically unfeasible and perhaps technologically challenging to many self-employed designers. This analysis will explore the relationship and integration of computer graphics and technology, geometry and mathematics, and their use in the creation of patterns used in textile design and fabrication. Although much has been made of interdisciplinary studies in the arts, it is crucial for an artist to have an extensive knowledge of computer graphics (Garvey, 1997; Gleick, 1987). Knowing when and how to use the appropriate technological tool is increasingly necessary for today’s artists and designers in order to collaborate with others in the production process and to reach an increasingly global market. As the research for this study progressed, the

1 relationship between design and computer technology and the use of these elements to produce printed, woven, knitted, embroidered and quilted textiles with the use of non- traditional software applications proved to be not only a demonstrational exercise, but a tool that the self-employed microentrepreneur can use to produce viable, reproducible textiles in his or her studio environment. Rationale There are a number of specifi c software applications used in industry for textile design. While these systems are extremely powerful and function well for the purpose for which they were designed, they are often expensive, infl exible, and proprietary, which may limit collaboration efforts as well as production capabilities. This very fact may act as a deterrent to the use and adoption of the technology by self-employed artists and designers. There are many software applications that were developed to create patterns for disciplines other than textiles. These programs may have potential for use in textile design and may well be more affordable to the microentrepreneur. Because these applications are mathematical and scientifi c-based software applications, designers are likely to be unaware of their availability and application to textile design. Statement of the Problem There are a higher proportion of self-employed artists and designers than in all the related professional occupations (U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). Due to the high cost of computer-aided design systems, technology has been under- utilized by self-employed artists and designers (Treadway, 2004). Those artists and designers who received their traditional training before the mid 80’s to early 90’s probably did not use any computer controlled design tools when they fi rst entered the trade (Cleveland, 2004). Therefore, a lack of knowledge contributed to the lack of technology used in business and artistic endeavors. However, this lack of use may limit productivity and the business communications needed for the artist or designer to thrive economically.

2 Fundamental to all art and design is the use of geometric forms, whether those forms are symmetrical, asymmetrical or radial (radiated from the center). The use of repetition in motifs and repeats, interlaced lines, and borders and bands, all form the basis of surface design. Geometric design is one of the oldest forms of decoration. In many cultures across the globe, these designs are used in embroidered and woven fabrics in many ethnic groups. Today one can utilize simple and complex geometric forms in the creation process. The textile designer may create new designs or improve upon older designs through the use of geometrical graphic software applications. All of these patterns and motifs can be created with the use of geometry–based software; however, the use of this software or even its availability may not be known to the self-employed artist and designer. Purpose The purpose of this study was twofold. One was to identify and survey the many geometric software applications that have been developed to create pattern and design that have potential for use in the textile industry. The concepts applied in these technologies come from diverse areas of mathematics and science, such as symmetry (Hambridge, 1967; Stevens, 1996) geometry, fractals, Koch’s curve, kaleidoscopic effects, Penrose tilings (Glassner, 1999) and tessellations (Kaplan, 2004; Schattschneider, 1992). Pattern creation also utilizes generative processes, repetitions and various forms of repeats. Some forms are refl ective of Islamic art, (Akar, 1999; Bourgoin, 1974) while others are based upon Celtic knot work and its geometry (Glassner, 2002; Steen, 1988), and all can be executed on the computer. The exploration of these applications not only increases awareness of other disciplines, it extends the artist’s vision and creativity. All of the software applications are readily available as freeware, shareware or off-the-shelf. The majority of these applications are downloadable, providing for easy access. The second purpose was to develop a framework for the Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model and to further develop a sequence of steps in the form of mapping or an algorithm that will provide the leverage needed for the use of technology among self- 3 employed designers and artists. This study will identify not only each step in the process, but also the knowledge needed to complete each step. If the technological skills, knowledge and process are identifi ed, then they can be taught and utilized. The knowledge gained as part of the development of the model will assist with the selection of non-traditional geometry- based applications that can be used in the design and creation process. This study introduces technology-driven design through the use of geometry-based software and a textile design process that can be used by the self-employed artist or designer in his or her own workshop or studio to generate new ideas and aid in the creation of their work. Research Questions The following research questions provided the foundation for this study. 1. Can geometric software be identifi ed, evaluated and tested for use by textile artists and designers? 2. How are self-employed textile designers and artists currently using computer-based technology? 3. What basic knowledge must textile designers and artists employ in order to utilize computer-based technology? 4. How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry- based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs? 5. Can a Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM) be developed for use by textile artists and designers? 6. How well did the GS-TDPM model leverage the use of technology by textile artists and designers? Limitations of Study The scope of this study has been limited to: (1) self-employed textile artists and designers that are currently working in at least one of the following areas: weaving, digital printing, embroidery, quilting or knitting; (2) software applications from diverse areas of mathematics and science. . (3) The use of a case study methodology and convenience 4 sampling method, and (4) the use of the Microsoft Windows operating systems. All of the software applications were readily available as freeware, shareware or off-the-shelf. The majority of these applications were downloadable from the Web, providing for easy access. Each application was required to have the following attributes: the ability to create a unique tile; easily obtainable by download or online purchasing; reasonably priced; a unique function or feature applicable to textiles; features that allow it to be easily used for textiles; the ability to import and export common graphic fi le formats; and the ability to create original or modifi ed artwork Defi nition of Terms The following terms are used in many of the applications that will be reviewed and utilized for this study. Many are terms used in textile design; others are from computer graphics and technology, science, mathematics and physics. Algorithm. An algorithm is a fi nite set of well-defi ned instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will result in a corresponding recognizable end-state Tiling. A tiling is a collection of sets called tiles which cover a larger set, without gaps or overlaps, which are designed to fi ll a fl at space of the plane. A tessellation is also known as tiling. The shapes making up the tessellation are called tiles. Tilings can be divided into two types: periodic (repeating) and aperiodic (non-repeating), depending on whether they have any translational symmetry (Schattschneider, 1999). Tile fl oors, mosaics, and brickwork generally all display some kind of repeating pattern. In mathematical language, a pattern that repeats in a regular way is called periodic tiling. (Schattschneider, 1999; Steen, 1990). Symmetry. According to Steen (1990, p.6) learning to recognize symmetry trains the mathematical eye. Even though one understands and recognizes symmetry intuitively, it is harder to say just what it is. A simple explanation would be that a fi gure in the plane is symmetric if one can pick up a copy of it, move it around to a new location, and set it back down on the original fi gure so that it exactly matches up again. 5 Types of symmetry. There are several different kinds of symmetry. Each is dependent upon the type of shape and the translation (or translations) applied to the object (Stevens, 1996). This is because there are different ways of moving something in the plane. One way is to just translate it a little, another is to rotate it, and another is to turn it over. As a consequence, there are different kinds of symmetry. Symmetry groups. If a tiling has any symmetry at all, it usually has a lot of symmetry. This is simply because if a symmetry is followed by another, then the tiling can be moved from its initial position to its fi nal position, and it would still match up. In other words, the net effect of doing two symmetries one after the other is itself a new symmetry. Heesch tiling. In 1932, Heinrich Heesch identifi ed the 28 isohedral tilings of the plane that do not involve refl ections. A tiling is isohedral if for any two tiles there is a member of the symmetry group of the tiling that sends one of the tiles into another (Schattschneider, 1999). Fractals. The term “fractal,” coined by the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot, comes from the term fractional dimension. Most objects in the natural world possess fractional dimensions: coastlines, landscapes, and clouds have fractional dimensions of around 1.2, 2.2, and 3.3 respectively. Fractals possess the properties of self-similarity and infi nite complexity within a fi nite area. This can be seen by asking the questions, “How long is the coastline of Britain,” the answer to which is that it depends on the unit of measurement used. The more the coastline is magnifi ed, the more detail emerges--detail which exhibits similarities to larger-scale features. As the measuring unit becomes smaller, the length increases so that in effect the coastline of Britain has infi nite length within a fi nite area (Gleick, 1987; Pickover, 2000). Another type of fractal is “Koch’s snowfl ake,” a curve constructed by taking an equilateral triangle and repeatedly erecting smaller equilateral triangles on the middle third of the progressively smaller sides. Theoretically, the result would be a fi gure of fi nite area but with a perimeter of infi nite length, with an infi nite number of vertices. In mathematical terms, 6 such a curve cannot be differentiated (Pickover, 2000). In contrast to traditional Euclidean geometry, where a shape or curve is defi ned by an equation, a fractal curve is defi ned by an algorithm; a procedure, it is because of the vast numbers of calculations required to produce one image that fractal geometry is such a young fi eld. It was only the advent of fast computers capable of handling the millions of necessary computations and displaying the results graphically that enabled fractals to be seen at last. Now, fractal geometry and its close relative chaos theory – the study of nonlinear feedback systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions - are used as analytical tools in many natural and social sciences from meteorology to economics (Pickover, 2000). Information technology (IT). IT is the technology that is driving what has often been called “the information revolution.” IT includes matters concerned with furthering computer science and technology, design, development, installation, and implementation of information systems and applications. IT refers to computer-based systems. It includes computer hardware and software, as well as the peripheral devices most closely associated with computer-based systems. Graphic fi le formats. There are three general classes of graphic fi le formats: Bitmap or Raster, Vector, and Meta (Murray, 1994). A graphic designer’s choice of which fi le format to use is largely based upon the creation tools available and their compatibility with the desired fi nal output. Bitmap (raster) fi les. A Raster image is composed of units of light, called pixels, which are laid out on a grid. If one increases the magnifi cation of an image, one can see these pixels. They appear as squares on the screen. A Raster program creates objects by grouping pixels. An object is stored as a group of pixels with information about each pixel color. Pixels can be blended to create soft edges and smooth transitions between objects. This makes the format a good choice to use for saving photographs. Bitmap graphics have limited fl exibility because they are resolution and device dependent. This is why bit-mapped graphics become ragged when one shrinks or enlarges them. 7 Programs that enable the user to create and manipulate bit-mapped images are generally called “paint” programs (Murray, 1994). Vector fi les. Programs that enable one to create and manipulate Vector graphics are generally called “draw” programs. A Vector image is composed of mathematical instructions for drawing the image. Each object in a Vector image is stored as a separate item with information about its relative position in the image, its starting and ending points, width, color, and curve information. This makes Vector technology suitable for logos, fonts, and line drawings. An image in Vector format is resolution-independent. It can be resized without losing detail because it is stored as a set of instructions, not a collection of pixels. Each time one displays an image, it is recreated (Murray, 1994). Metafi les. Metafi les combine both Vector and Bitmap data into a single image fi le. Hybrid fi les generally produce fair results, but are least desired when one can identify the fi nal output wanted. WMF (Windows Metafi le Format) is a hybrid graphics fi le format used to exchange graphics information between Microsoft Windows applications. WMF fi les can hold both Vector and Bitmapped images (Murray, 1994). PICT. The PICT format is the hybrid graphics fi le format developed by Apple Computer in 1984. PICT fi les are encoded in QuickDraw commands and can hold both object-oriented images and bitmapped images. Image editors. Also known as paint applications, these are the most popular type of graphics software. Image editors allow one to create bitmap-based images from scratch with a variety of tools intended to mimic natural painting tools. Almost all image-editing software includes features for photo enhancement and retouching. Images that are created and edited in this type of application are referred to as bitmaps because they are made up of a series of pixels in a grid. The advantage to bitmapped images is that one can create photorealistic detail. The disadvantage is that one will always be confi ned by the pixel resolution of the image. Commonly known off-the-shelf imaging software includes the following applications: Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Photoshop Elements, Adobe PhotoDeluxe, Corel Photo-Paint, 8 CorelPainter, Microsoft Picture It, Paint Shop Pro, Ulead PhotoImpact, and Serif PhotoPlus (Murray, 1994). Illustration software. Illustration software allows one to create drawings using lines and curves. These drawings are called Vector graphics as previously defi ned. Vector illustrations can be easily edited by moving points, adjusting curves, and changing the colors of various objects. Because they consist of points and objects rather than pixels on a grid, Vector illustrations are free from the confi nes of pixel resolution. Unlike bitmapped images, they will always print at the highest dpi (dots per inch) possible, giving one printed output with smooth fi lls and crisp lines no matter what size is printed. Commonly known off- the-shelf Vector illustration programs include: Adobe Illustrator, CorelDraw, Macromedia Freehand, Creature House Expression, Serif DrawPlus, and Xara X (Murray, 1994). In addition, many engineering and drafting programs have excellent draw-type functions. These programs are commonly used for drafting architectural and engineering drawings and for making technical illustrations of any kind. They enable the user to prepare fast and accurate drawings and provide fl exibility to change drawings with minimal effort. Software in this category includes: ArchiCAD, AutoCAD, AutoCAD LT, Autosketch, QuickCAD, Cadkey, CATIA, Chief Architect, DataCAD DENEBACAD, and Canvas, DesignCAD 3D MAX Plus, IntelliCAD, MicroStation, PTC Pro Engineer, TurboCAD Professional, Unigraphics and Solid Edge VectorWorks (Murray, 1994). Because the use of a variety of software application tools may ultimately enhance the textile product design process, it is important to have the ability to move fi les between programs. Proprietary software systems tend to have limited fi le translation (import/export) capabilities. Utilities that aid in the translation of graphic fi le formats are referred to as fi le conversion software.

9 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Employment Today, small businesses, specifi cally microenterprises, are increasing in number at a rapid rate (Kurlantzik, 2004). American entrepreneurship trends show growing diversity, an aging work force, a preference for starting companies that fi t personal lifestyles, and a move into global industries, all of which are likely to accelerate in the coming years. A decade from now, the average entrepreneur will be drastically different from even today’s business owners (Kurlantzik, 2004). Among the changes in the makeup of entrepreneurs, there has been a signifi cant increase in women and minority-owned businesses. Not only is there an increase in diversity of business owners, there is also an increase in age as baby boomers have been downsized from corporations or forced into early retirement. The entrepreneur of the future is likely to be older and more in tune with the older population’s needs (Karoly, 2004; Kurlantzik, 2004; National Women’s Business Council, 2004). Among assistance programs to benefi t microenterprises, including loans and other training, the largest obstacle that must be addressed is the use of technology. Some programs have encouraged the use of computers and the training and use of software programs as well as the Internet. Others have assisted clients with technical expertise to increase and improve their marketing efforts. All of them have found that to serve growing businesses they have had to grow themselves and expand their own technological competencies (Malm, 2002). The use of the computer among the self-employed is extensively documented in the report Self-Employment and Computer Usage published by the Small Business Administration, Offi ce of Advocacy. Their fi ndings show that use of computers and information technology differs based on the gender of the business owner. Male business owners were 65.2 % more likely to have a computer and Internet access service than women business owners. Self-employed men were twice as likely to have a higher-speed Internet

10 connection compared to their female counterparts in 2000 (Offi ce of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, 2003). As artists and designers seek self-employment or the development of a microenterprise, they are becoming entrepreneurs and need to combine and integrate technology skills with traditional skills which may have been acquired in previous decades (Greffe, 2004). Two basic changes are taking place for artists in the digital age. They must become entrepreneurs of their talents by combining new skills with traditionally recognized skills. They must join other workers to form a new category built around intellectuality and applied creativity. This last factor determines the number of artists and their place in society (Greffe, 2004). Creativity Creativity and innovation may seem synonymous; however, there are fundamental differences. In fact, creativity is an essential component for innovation (von Stamm, 2003). The development of creative-design technology systems shows creativity in action. Being creative is a process in which a person searches for original and novel ways of thinking and doing. Original and innovative outcomes, whether achieved by the artist in pursuit of a personal quest, or by groups of designers combining their design knowledge toward a collaborative effort, occur as a result of the process of creative thinking. Creativity is not accidental, and by understanding how it works, it can be encouraged and enhanced. This knowledge implies compelling reasons for the inventors of innovative technologies to expand the tools that increase and expand the creative process. For the creative person, the ability to determine how the creative process evolves is of critical importance (Edmonds, 2000). Early defi nitions of creativity defi ned the word in terms of the creative process; that is, a process essentially internal to an individual by which ideas are generated. The creative process can be described as a person’s exploration and transformation of conceptual spaces. The concept of the creative process views creativity as essentially the individual exploration and transformation of conceptual spaces to generate ideas. There is in a long history of 11 research that uses creative process models to describe various phases that occur in the process of being creative, including but not limited to idea generation (Warr, 2005) Conceptual design is also a creation process. It is the creation of functions to fulfi ll customer needs, and the creation of forms and behaviors to realize those functions. Early- stage design ideas have a large impact on the cost and quality of a product. Designers have the freedom to generate and explore ideas without being constrained by parameters that exist at the later design stages. If many ideas are created during conceptual design, there can be plenty of options to choose from, and consequently it is more likely that a good design can be attained (Benami, 2002) One way to increase the number of high quality ideas is to allocate more time for brainstorming. The word “brainstorming” has taken on a variety of popular meanings. For some it means simply to get together and have a casual discussion in order to come up with a few ideas. Some believe that the term brainstorming is the same thing as idea generation. For others, brainstorming is a universal treatment (the only way to be creative) or synonymous with the entire CPS (Creative Problem Solving) process (Isaksen, 1998). Computer tools can facilitate creativity on at least two fairly distinct levels: they can aid in knowledge gathering, knowledge sharing, knowledge integration, and ultimately, idea generation; and they can enable the generation of creative artifacts in a particular domain by providing critical functionality in clear, direct, and useful ways. The optimal computer tool will provide support on both of these levels and, indeed, provide seamless integration between them. There is much opportunity for computer tools to support the creative process. If one accepts that creative acts typically take place within a larger context of knowledge and existing practice, it follows that creating tools that enable learning of and experimentation with that knowledge will facilitate the creative process (Greene, 2002) Another approach is to develop programs that automatically generate ideas (Benami, 2002). Artifi cial Intelligence (AI) approaches have much in common with creative cognition; the goal of both is to identify the types of cognitive processes that lead to creative insights, 12 and both favor a structured approach to creativity rather than one based on simple or random associations among ideas. One way in which creative cognition might contribute to AI approaches stems from its emphasis on trying to identify general cognitive principles of creativity. Such principles could contribute to the development of new forms of creative artifi cial intelligence that could have more general applications. Programs currently used to compose music, for example, have little in common with those used to generate graphic art. Such limitations could be addressed by incorporating principles of creative cognition that are not restricted to narrow domains or applications. It is not necessary to express such principles in strictly computational terms, however, in order for them to have important implications for human creativity (Benami, 2002). Computer science has drawn from and contributed to many disciplines since it emerged as a fi eld in the middle of the 20th century. Those interactions have contributed to the evolution of information technology and have resulted in a signifi cant change that continues to be developed from the creative interactions between computer science and other fi elds (Mitchell, et al., 2003). Design To make the elements of design work effectively, artists or designers must follow certain procedures that help them present their ideas. A number of principles have been applied to design and art that function well to assist the organization process. These procedures are rules that work for increasing both visual sensitivity and creative order. The organizing devices are balance, unity, contrast, emphasis, movement, rhythm, and pattern. They are rarely used separately; rather, they are used in concert with each other. A design may use balance to achieve equilibrium or be used to contrast certain areas, emphasize part of the design, achieve rhythm and movement, and produce an overall pattern. Each principle helps to reinforce the organizing aspect of the other principle and may dominate a design and yet be supported by minor use of the others (Gatto, 1987). 13 Design is the process by which information is transformed into a tangible outcome. Design is the act of planned decision making. Design is usually associated with a person involved in both the design and production of an object. This concept began to change with the outset of the Industrial Revolution, which initiated the division of work and the need for specialization. The development into specialization resulted in the separation of industrial and engineering design; however, almost every product requires an appropriate balance of both. Design is about doing things consciously, not because they have always been done in a certain way. It is about comparing alternatives to select the best possible solution; it is about exploring and experimenting (von Stamm, 2003). New participants, new initiatives, and new thinking are needed if the design disciplines are going to be contributors to the larger picture of design in the Information Age. Change is imperative in academia, not only within design education, but with programs that are potential partners in collaborative projects and research (Boyarski, 1998). A few years ago, an artist or designer might anticipate devoting a lifetime to the development of a style and mastering the selected medium. Today, the artist/designer faces the daunting challenge to not only master a range of traditional media, but to constantly upgrade software skills and knowledge while cultivating a plurality of styles. If there is to be a linkage between hand and brain informed by experience with both traditional and technological tools, what core set of skills and knowledge is needed? End-user software can resist inspiration until the time the computer-based tools become second nature to the artist by increased familiarity and use. It must be learned step- by-step through tutorials, and even the experienced user must be diligent and respond to what the changed version requires. This deliberateness lends itself to a planning process that is commonly employed in areas of design as well as software development. Ideally the design process moves from conception to realization by means of a variety of methods (Garvey, 1997).

14 Superior artistic creativity and design ingenuity cannot be taught; but without proper training, education, and opportunity, these attributes will never be fully realized. Rather than being made obsolete or irrelevant by the proliferation of graphic illustration and paint software packages, traditional artistic and design skills are prerequisites to a full exploitation of the available software. Art and design enjoy a new importance as the most visible contribution to the look, feel and competitive edge that determines success in the marketplace. Art and design education coupled with technological literacy is not a costly frill, but rather is an essential part of the preparation for entering a job market shaped by the global economy (Garvey, 1997). In Designing for the 21st Century (Fiell, 2001) designers provided insight on the state of the integration of design and technology: “An innovative approach is needed for modern textile and surface design, while new and existing methods of application and production need to be continuously explored.” (p.444) Santos & Adolfsdottir “Hands and machines are equal; each works in its own way, each has its own beauty. The designer must fi nd the right balance of human touch and mechanical structures.” (p.486) Reiko Sudo Design, from a historical perspective, has been around for millennia. Formal descriptions of design methods, theories of design, and categorizations of design have existed for only a few decades. Most members of the design community would view current design as much more complex than the design of stone tools, but what has changed about the nature of design over this time? (Atwood, 2002). Early design was driven by the belief that new is better and that technology is good. The designer was unaware of the audience for whom the products were intended, therefore, products were not designed for ease-of-use or to be aesthetically pleasing and did not question the effects those products might have on individuals or society (Atwood, 2002). Up until about the 1950s, a rational step-by-step approach to design served adequately for those artifacts being created. Technical knowledge about the properties 15 of materials was well known, and the step-by-step traditional rational approach for solving problems in a coherent manner was adequate. Research and scientifi c knowledge was familiar with the composition of materials, and designers could adequately predict the outcomes for their artifacts given that no other known variables or principles of design were violated (Atwood, 2002). Around the 1950s, things begin to change. As technological growth accelerated, the focus came around to the objective of serving the industry. The demand for new products encouraged a new defi nition of design, which brought the focus back to the effects of the artifact on people and society, as well on the artifact itself (Atwood, 2002). Around the 1960s, new technologies and new uses for systems had reached the point where a step-by-step approach to design was no longer feasible. Architect Christopher Alexander acknowledges in Notes on the Synthesis of Form that many design problems are reaching “insoluble levels of complexity” (p.3). Problems that used to be somewhat simple in nature had somewhat simple solutions, but as technology, materials, and social structures changed - and changed more and more rapidly - so did the nature and complexity of the design problem. Soon the traditional rational methods used in design started to become inadequate to address the increasing complexity facing designers. This brought about a discussion in the literature of the fi eld and a call for change in the traditional approaches to design problems, an understanding of the nature of the rising complexity in problems facing designers, as well as a need to develop new methods to help handle the enormous number of variables in the emerging design problems (Atwood, 2002). Alexander addresses the problem of design complexity by focusing upon the problem in its potential environment of use. In the fi rst chapter, Alexander defi nes the ultimate object of design as being form. This idea is based on the fact that every design problem begins with an effort to achieve fi tness between two entities, the form 16 in question and its context. The form is the solution to the problem, and the context is what defi nes the problem. He further clarifi es this by discussing that design is not a singular “one”, (p.27) but the ensemble of form and its context, a necessary property of this being “good fi t” (cited in Atwood, 2002). Alexander argues that we do not recognize a good fi t, but rather, we recognize what does not fi t. Alexander illustrates this point by noting that it is almost impossible to name the characteristics of a house that fi ts into its context, but very simple to name the specifi c aspects of a house which do not. The task of design, according to Alexander, is “not to create form which meets certain conditions, but to create such an order in the ensemble that all the variables take the value zero” (p 27), each variable need only be specifi c enough and clearly enough defi ned so that any actual design can be classifi ed unambiguously as a fi t (0) or misfi t (1) (Atwood, 2002). Alexander also discusses the important underlying structural correspondence between a pattern and the process of designing a physical form that answers a given problem. The process that Alexander proposes consists of identifying the patterns in the problem and then decomposing those pieces and units of the problem. Alexander concludes that every aspect of a form can be understood as a structure of its components. He sees each component with a dual nature, fi rst as a unit and second as a pattern. “Its nature as a unit makes it distinct from its surroundings, while its nature as a pattern specifi es the arrangement of its own component units. It is the culmination of the designer’s task to make every diagram both a pattern and a unit”(p.131). By doing so, “the composition of the diagrams will lead to a physical object whose structural hierarchy is the exact counterpart of the functional hierarchy established during the analysis of the problem; as the program clarifi es the component sources of the form’s structure, so its realization in parallel will begin to defi ne the form’s physical components and their hierarchical organization” (Alexander, 1964, p131). By looking at the problem in its context and then breaking the problem 17 components into smaller components, Alexander later goes on to identify and create a pattern language for architecture (Atwood, 2002). Conceptual Models A conceptual model is a high-level description of how a system is organized and operates. It specifi es and describes: the major design metaphors and analogies employed in the design, if any; the concepts the system exposes to users, including the task-domain data objects users create and manipulate; their attributes, and the operations that can be performed on them. The relationship between these concepts and the mappings between the concepts and the task-domain the system is designed to support (Johnson, 2002). A conceptual model of an interactive system is an idealized view of the how the system works - the model designers hope users will internalize this view. Developing a conceptual model as the fi rst design step provides several benefi ts in later steps. The creative process will usually not be linear. As design proceeds from conceptual model to user interface to implementation, it is most likely that the downstream designs will reveal problems in the conceptual model. Early usability testing can, and should, be designed to accelerate this process. Low fi delity, quick prototypes can be focused on the important parts of, and questions in, the conceptual model. Lightweight usability testing can thus evaluate the conceptual model as well as the User Interface (UI) design (Johnson, 2002). If testing exposes problems in the conceptual model, the designer must go back and change it. He or she must resist the temptation to treat the conceptual model as “dead” after an initial UI has been designed from it. If the designer does not keep the conceptual model current as one improves the design, he or she will be regret it in the end when there is not a single coherent high-level description on which to base user documentation, training, or later system enhancements (Johnson, 2002). Changing the conceptual model is painful: it affects the user interface, the documentation, and the implementation. The entire team is affected. But the conceptual model is the single most important part of a design. Therefore, it pays to make it as simple and task-oriented as it can be. One can later do whatever is needed to 18 reconcile the rest of the design with it. Otherwise, the poor users will have little chance of understanding the user interface, because it will be based on a muddled conceptual model (Johnson, 2002). Information Technology According to the authors of Being Fluent with Information Technology (Committee on Information with Information Technology, 1999) Information Technology has an increasing impact on work and use in the home. There has been a general realization that a better understanding of information technology will be helpful to those who employ its use. Writers in the fi eld have adopted the term “fl uency” rather than “computer literacy” in order to clarify the difference between skills learned (computer literacy) and an integrated, extensive knowledge of information technology (fl uency). Those who are fl uent with information technology are able to express themselves creatively and are able to integrate their knowledge into their creative endeavors. Those who are fl uent are able to manipulate the medium and to utilize the expected, as well as the unexpected, in their work (Committee on Information with Information Technology, 1999) In the past, education has focused on skills and the use of computer-based tools instead of fostering a deeper understanding of information technology and its principles and concepts. If an artist or designer has an understanding (fl uency), an abstract understanding and therefore is able to think and problem solve about the technology, data, objects and information, then each of these tools can be increasingly manipulated by the artist in order to create and generate their designs. As part of the creative process, the artist or designer employs many iterations of their design. They plan, design, execute, and refi ne their process and utilize sustained reasoning; this process is similar to the process used in information technology (Committee on Information with Information Technology, 1999). Computer- based technology operates as one directs it; specifi cations of the problem to be solved with information technology must go through a problem solving process much like the one an artist must employ in the design process. 19 Design Models Textile, fabric, and surface designers follow a schedule of planning, producing design ideas and developing artwork prior to the production of their design. Appendix A shows “Moxey’s Response Repertoire, a Systems View of Creativity for the Printed Textile Designs”(p.25), which proposes a technique for experimenting, exploring new ideas, and expanding the knowledge of textile design by preparing the ground for the generation of original fabric ideas. The creation of textile design follows a process where varieties of ideas are explored by the designer in order to produce an acceptable design or fi nished piece (Moxey, 1999). The architect Christopher Alexander developed the Design Confl ict model, (Appendix A), which he refers to as the process of the invention of objects that display new physical order, organization or form in response to a function (Alexander, 1999). Alexander explains his model as simplicity, performance, economy and jointing. An example of this model could be illustrated as follows: The designer has discovered that he would like the optimum performance and the least amount of jointing, however, these elements are at odds with the desire to minimize the cost of the materials. If the cheapest material is chosen for each separate task, the product would not have simplicity, the best performance, or materials which could be easily joined. The negative signs beside a line demonstrate confl ict; the positive signs beside a line demonstrate positive agreement. This is a typical design problem; it has requirements which have to be met and there are interactions between the various demands of the problem which make the requirements hard to meet (Alexander, 1964). Rachel Cooper, School of Art and Design, University of Salford, (2003) developed a model that attempted to show how to facilitate effective integration of technology into product development through design (p.4). This project was concerned with how designers work with organizations and their entire supply chain to enable the integration of technology (knowledge, materials, processes and techniques) more effectively into the creation of new

20 consumer-centered products. She describes the many impacts on product development within a design and technological environment. (Appendix A). The Technological Educational Institution (TEI) of Athens, Greece is part of the four- year European Module in the textile/fashion industry among four European schools of design funded by the Socrates program. The unique feature of this project and its case studies is that they provided the opportunity for European researchers, teachers, students, and designers to explore textile production issues from their home base. This enabled the effective sourcing of textile information by strengthening the interface between education and research technology. The Greek case study focused on the local textile industry. Participants in the case study were asked to design innovative textiles or textile products for household use or fashion and to propose a product for production by the company or cooperative they had interviewed. Dr. Margaret Perivoliotis, employed a data selection method by asking all participants to photograph or sketch all forms, designs and items that inspired them to visualize and possibly create new textiles for the specifi c companies. The adapted textile design methodology, adapted by the participating students and proposed to the collaborating cooperatives for their textile production, is shown in Appendix A (Perivoliotis, 2004). Technology and Art The use of digital technologies is now prevalent in almost all aspects of businesses; their use has also become a part of our recreational lives. With this increase, the use of technologies, including digital media, has led to speculation that all forms of artistic media will eventually be absorbed into the digital medium, either through digitization or through the use of computers in a specifi c aspect of processing or production. Artists that work in different forms of media are making use of digital technologies as a tool of creation for aspects of their art. In some cases, their work displays distinctive characteristics of the digital medium and refl ects its language and aesthetics. In other cases, the use of technology is so subtle that it is hard to determine whether the art has been created by means of digital or analog processes (Paul, 2003). 21 The computer as an artistic tool is in its infancy. Much of what one sees created with computers today is merely a refl ection of the tool, not the mind or soul of a person. Traditional artists and artistically inclined technologists experiment and collaborate, allowing for unique forms of artistic expression. As these forms of expression evolve with the use and development of technology, there will continue to be confl ict with established concepts of what is and what is not art. Artists, however, are innovators. Some will use technology as a means to express their vision and interpretation of the world. Their use of digital media can only add to the richness and diversity of the human experience (Tait, 1998). A designer’s ability to utilize technical knowledge is often dependent on how well the designer is able to communicate with technologists, or, as in the case of the small business owner, become a technologist him or herself. Product design, in this case textiles, should be the result of informed and purposeful thinking in order to create something new that is appropriate and of value in a specifi c context. To achieve commercial success today will often require the collaboration of a group of people from various disciplines. The prime stumbling block to successful collaboration is language. To avoid the breakdown in communication inherent to collaboration, the designer wishing to engage in product development using a new technology must be willing to learn the underlying principles of that technology and develop a competence in using the appropriate technology (Kavanagh, 2004). Since the 1960s, artists and technologists have joined forces to create new forms of understanding and expression. Today there is a worldwide community of innovators engaged in the convergence of art, technology and science. A number of vital and active organizations are engaged in this work (Pearce, 2003). A new breed of contemporary artist engages science and technology not just to adopt the vocabulary and gizmos, but to explore and comment on the content, agendas, and possibilities of this new and emerging media as an artistic tool (Wilson, 2002). Artists are infusing contemporary visual and conceptual paradigms, and scientists are working with contemporary natural and computational paradigms. At the base 22 of much of this work are fundamental philosophical attitudes which date from the Middle Ages and before: the mind/body split and its descendant, the material spiritual split of the Renaissance, which has continued to the present and takes its form in the stereotypes of the artist and the scientist. These philosophical issues have not been updated nor resolved in light of our contemporary collective computer-based community of artists and scientists (Sorensen, 1995). Artists have always engaged in a verbal and visual dialog with their time, transcending disciplines to include the sciences in their intellectual exploration. Scientists are relying increasingly on visual communication, and artists are increasingly creating with computers. There is a common meeting place in the use of technology as in communication facilitator to transfer information, ideas and knowledge between artists and designers. Visual problems, and fi nding their solution, are the language of artists, designers, and scientists, and are the same across disciplines. Scientists have much to gain from communication with artists, given their deep understanding of perception, communication, and visual language (Sorensen, 1995). Visual art is the database of information with which the artist’s creative mind works. It consists of a large degree of visual images, drawn from a myriad of sources. Sorting and making sense of this data by the artist is a highly specialized and refi ned task. While both artists and designers have large stored databases of images, it is important to consider the difference between the two. An individual considering new information, new problems with new data, synthesizing them and reaching towards the new and the fresh, towards clarity and refi nement, is either a fi ne artist or a designer working as a fi ne artist. This person brings a fresh perspective to the fi eld and may be able to create new conceptual or visual models which better fi t the new problems (Sorensen, 1989). As the designer gathers together a visual database many of the fi les (data) will be in a vast array of fi le formats and in either a rater or vector format. Both raster and vector-based software each have their own advantage. Knowledge about what they are 23 capable of doing can reduce production costs and speed up the design development process (Polvinen, 2004). Graphic applications in textile design enhance both output and creativity in this fi eld. This convergence yields not only faster manufacturing and expanded design possibilities but also enhanced artistic expressiveness. Applications are also becoming more accessible, in part because textile designers provide feedback as they use the programs and explore their possibilities (Lear, 1996). Algorithms and Artists Algorithmic thinking refers to a style of working that focuses on the understanding of the process underlying a particular situation and the ability to express it as a sequence of logically ordered steps; the better the understanding of reality, the more effi cient the solutions to problems. The algorithmic paradigm helps to systematize the problem-solving activity, as well as task organization, by making the person conscious of the concepts related to algorithms, their elements, and how to organize them in such way that the problem can be solved. An algorithm is a fi nite sequence of steps, logically ordered, whose execution leads toward the solution of a problem. With an algorithm in place, the process can be carried out mechanically. An algorithm can perform a role in creative activity similar to that of any other constraint used in art practice; the self-imposed limits within which one works in order to free oneself to indulge in creative play and experiment and yet, at the same time, ensure our focused attention. With technology, it is possible to manifest mathematical ideas as images, sounds, sculpture and even poetry. Artists in all media have found mathematical processes of value in their creative enterprise. These processes are often described using algorithms. An algorithm is nothing more than a recipe, a fi nite list of instructions. This recipe will have precise steps to follow, perhaps requiring some initial input (i.e. ingredients). The algorithm will have a desired outcome, and be considered effective if the outcome is achieved. A tasty apple pie is the result of one algorithm, an image or piece of music derived from a mathematical process--generated by a computer program-- is another. In describing 24 mathematical processes with algorithms, beauty and meaning can be discovered. Numbers can be mapped into light and/or sound, and perceived through the senses as visual and auditory creations. It is the mathematical source of these works that has aesthetic worth, the inherent beauty of mathematical expressions. Algorithms, implemented on computers, make it possible for us to see and hear the beauty of mathematical processes (Beyls, 1995). Geometry and Art Mathematics is a vast enterprise. Its practitioners range from the researcher probing the secrets of randomness and order to the amateur who enjoys poking into mysterious patterns among integers, playing with novel tiling arrangements, or pondering sports statistics. Art, too, is a vast enterprise. Practitioners range from the well known artist to the artisan crafting decorative pottery at local fairs. Given the scale and the variety of both artistic and mathematical endeavors, it should come as no surprise that mathematics can inspire art and that art can inspire mathematics. When searching for such interactions between mathematics and art, it turns out to be surprisingly easy to fi nd examples (Peterson, 2001). Maurits Cornelis Escher (1898-1972), is one of the world’s most famous graphic artists (Litchfi eld, 2004). He is most famous for so-called impossible structures, such as “Ascending and Descending”, “Relativity”, and the “Transformation Prints”, and patterns such as “Metamorphosis I”, “Metamorphosis II” and “Metamorphosis III”, “Sky & Water I” and “Reptiles” (Escher, 1994). The concept of infi nity had long captivated Escher, and he sought to depict this elusive notion in visual images. One strategy he employed was to create repeating patterns of interlocking fi gures. Although Escher could imagine how such arrays could extend to infi nity, the actual patterns he drew represented only a fragment of an infi nite expanse. Escher’s mathematically intriguing Circle Limit prints and their repeating patterns also prove to be useful vehicles for becoming comfortable with and teaching hyperbolic geometry (Peterson, 2001).

25 Mathematics speaks though the voice and the physics of nature. This is evident in mathematical artwork from around the world. By observing examples ranging from geometry-based Neolithic designs, the Platonic solids of the Greek, tessellation in Islamic art and Gee’s Bend quilts, Mayan textiles, topology in Celtic knots and Japanese origami, and fractals in African architecture, we see that mathematical art is universal, a world art whose movement is a permanent fi xture in human visual and material culture (Sims, 2004). The mathematics-art methodology exists in the analytic-creative process that characterizes the work of Islamic artists and Italian Renaissance painters who often also functioned as mathematicians. The mathematical aesthetic, which values form over function, has informed conceptual, geometric styles such as Minimalism, Bauhaus and Constructivism (Sims, 2004). Art historians have long been aware of recurring symmetrical patterns of form and color in ancient, tribal, folk and applied arts. Lately, anthropologists have begun using symmetry analysis as a tool to explain how artworks refl ect patterns of human behavior (Washburn, 1988). Intersections: Textiles, Technology and Geometry Many fabrics which are mathematically interesting were discovered long ago by practitioners of the woven cloth. The geometry of fabrics involves ideas from elementary geometry, group theory, number theory and combinatorics (Grunbaum, 1980). The process of weaving a carpet, knot by knot, results in a fascinating relationship between numbers and patterns that is logical, predictable, and mathematically based. These relationships are inherent to the processes of pattern formation. Both mathematics and geometry are at once present. They may be ignored on the part of the weaver or played with purposefully to draw out inherent ambiguities in patterns. The grid of knots, side by side and above one another, is predicated upon the underlying interlacings of warp and weft. The placement of color in repeated sequences sets up a series of relationships of corresponding points such that a plane pattern is established by the layout of the pattern (Bier, 2000). The woven structure is made-up of interlacings, which can also be found in 26 many examples of Celtic art and ornament. Because of the complexity of Celtic art, creating hand-drawn designs is tedious and time consuming and often requires a signifi cant amount of training to do well. Large designs are diffi cult to change and experiment with, since local changes affect the entire knot (Kaplan, 2003). Several software applications currently allow the use of automatic knot generation; all are based on the premise of knot theory. This system can be used as an artistic medium, where artists, designers and novices alike may quickly and easily explore the creation of advanced Celtic knotwork designs (Kaplan, 2003). Within the fi eld of computer graphics, many systems have been developed for visualizing symmetric designs. Recent examples include Kali by N. Amenta, and Tess by Pedagoguery Software Inc., 2000 (Kaplan, 2004). Symmetry, broadly speaking, implies a redundant supply of information. A mirror image contains the same information as the scene that it mirrors. The theory of discrete groups has been developed over the past 100 years as a formalization of the process of extracting a single copy of the information present in symmetric confi gurations (Gunn, 1993). Quilt designs based on mathematical principles are not unusual. Fibonacci numbers and other geometric sequences can be tiled to produce spectacular quilts. Different quilt designs can be based on the principle of modularity: the use of a small set of basic elements and their recombination in order to create a large (or even infi nite) series of modular designs. The modularity principle can offer an explanation for how the same or similar, sometimes very sophisticated patterns, have been discovered independently by different cultures, distant in space and time (Daniel, 2001). Quilting has an ancient history; an ivory fi gure of an Egyptian pharaoh wearing a quilted coat that dates from 3400 B.C. and a circa 980 B.C. patchwork canopy thought to have belonged to an Egyptian queen testify to their antiquity. Sixth century B.C. Scythian tombs in the southern Siberian Altai Mountains and Hunnish tombs in Mongolia from the fi rst century A.D. hold evidence of quilting by those ancient cultures (Beeman, 2003). 27 The history of the patchwork quilt is linked to the history of the printed textile. Today, the availability of digital printing in the studios of quilt makers and textile designers signals a change in how these artists and designers can interact with the constructed textile surface. While digital textile printing will not replace more labor-intensive processes of image development, it will signifi cantly affect the way that imagery is created for and within the quilt surface. The ability to use sophisticated design software and other more specialized computer applications to transfer the output of those digital manipulations to fabric on equipment that can be easily accommodated in the independent maker’s studio suggests that the distance that once existed in the production process between the printed textile designer and the user can be effectively, if not inexpensively, eliminated. Those working in the area of quilt design are in the very early stages of these explorations. As technologies develop and become more discipline-specifi c, as manufacturers and software developers become more aware of a broadening audience for their products, and as both hardware and software become more affordable and omnipresent, the process of digitalization will contribute to the ongoing transformation of the quilt medium and culture (James, 2003). Case Studies and Research Methods Procedures for performing case studies vary from organization to organization, and situation to situation. It is possible that two different simulation analysts faced with the same manufacturing problem would perform their case studies differently, obtain different results, and reach different conclusions. The standardization of the case study methodology and development of generic case studies will increase the likelihood that the simulation process will be deterministic, i.e., produce repeatable results (McLean, 2003). Some general observations on case studies follow. In Gillbam (2003), a case study is defi ned as “...one which investigates the case to answer specifi c research questions and which seeks a range of different kinds of evidence, which is there in the case setting, and which has to be abstracted and collated to get the best possible answers to the research questions. No one kind of source of evidence is likely to be suffi cient (or suffi ciently valid) 28 on its own (p.1218).” This use of multiple sources of evidence, each with its strengths and weaknesses, is a key characteristic of case study research (McLean, 2003). Social science case study researchers use observation, data collection, and analysis to develop theories that explain social phenomena and behaviors. Simulation analysts use observation and data collection to develop “as-is” models of manufacturing systems, facilities, and organizations (McLean, 2003) Case studies are often used in the data collection of technological and process- driven events over a defi ned period of time (Creswell, 2003). The case-study method has a long and respected history in the mainstream management literature. The philosophy and implications of the case-study method have received considerable attention, and there are a number of standard texts on the approach. The method is also gaining acceptance, along with other qualitative methods, within the small business and entrepreneurial research community (Perrin & Ram, 2004). Although attempts are made to ascertain attitudes by means of questionnaires, the results can be unsatisfactory, as a simple check next to a yes or no may not adequately refl ect the intention of the participant. The case study can go much further than this simple analysis and can discuss greater variations. Additional information is benefi cial to the researcher who may use it either as explanatory notes to the fi ndings produced from the questionnaire or as raw material for content analysis (Lubbe, 2003).

29 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

Introduction The majority of textile designers and artists in the U.S. are self-employed and tend to use technology much less than their industry counterparts (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004). This is due to a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that many received their training in the 70s to 90s (Cleveland, 2004; Greffe, 2004), before technologies were well developed to support their use within the design process. In addition, technological developments have been spurred by the textiles industry’s need to remain competitive in a global economy. Although industrial equipment has long been part of the textile process, the use of computerized equipment has been relatively short. This specialized equipment, as well as the software and hardware used to enable this technology, have a very large economic impact on large companies. The use of this equipment and its accompanying technologies tend to be prohibitive for the small company or microentrepreneur (Treadway, 2004). As prices for computer equipment continue to fall (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2003), access to computer equipment increases and becomes viable for the self-employed artist or designer. As the U.S. textile market decreases, many designers fi nd themselves not only among the self-employed, but also collaborating globally for material and production capabilities. While all may not depend entirely on their income as a self-employed textile artist and designer, most wish to improve their creative progress, are comfortable working independently and hope to be economically successful in their endeavors. A designer’s ability to bring a “design” to the point of visualization, or even further to the fi nished product, is directly related to their knowledge of and ability to use the tools at their disposal. From the very simple to extremely complex, the breadth of applications that can be used for textile design is truly astounding. Many of the features readily available now

30 have previously been limited to expensive dedicated systems. Such applications are the wave of the future for textile designers and artists. The depth and breath of mathematical graphical creation tools allows designers the ability to create an infi nite number of “new” designs. The designer is limited only by his or her lack of knowledge of available tools and the skills needed to use them. The applications evaluated in this analysis, in addition to industry applications that were not evaluated, are only tools. If used advantageously, they can truly enhance the designers’ creativity in addition to increasing their creative output, which is critical to success in the textile complex. Designers’ creative manipulation of these tools and their understanding of the technological limitations will not only increase their abilities as designers, but will give them the skills needed in industry and added value in the market, as they resolve time consuming integration issues. Methodology The purpose of this research was to 1.) Identify, survey and test usability of geometric software applications suitable for textile design and to 2.) Develop a framework for the Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model that leverages the use of technology among self-employed artists and designers through the use of geometric software applications. The design process encompasses creativity and innovation (von Stamm, 2003) as well as the integration of art science and technologies. The goal of this research was to leverage individual technology use among artist and designers by increasing their understanding of technology in use today. The following research questions guided the development of the GS-TDPM model, surveys and case-studies These studies were used to obtain information to further develop the model and to answer the research questions. Those are: 1. Can geometric software be identifi ed, evaluated and tested for use by textile artists and designers?

31 2. How are self-employed textile designers and artists currently using computer-based technology? 3. What basic knowledge must textile designers and artists employ in order to utilize computer-based technology? 4. How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry- based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs? 5. Can a Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM) be developed for use by textile artists and designers? 6. How well did the GS-TDPM model leverage the use of technology by textile artists and designers?

Figure 1- Research question answered by instrument used.

32 As each step in the GS-TDPM model was identifi ed, an instrument was developed for the case study and survey validation. All of the instruments developed for this study are listed in Figure 1. The target audience was identifi ed as self-employed artists and designers, and then a comprehensive survey of useable software applications was identifi ed and tested for usability. A vital step in the development and validation of this research was to create a process model to use as a guide. This model was based on literature review, the requirements of the technology components as shown in Appendix A (Cooper, 2000), and discussion with experts in the fi eld. The process model analyzed the skills and knowledge needed for the design process, and detailed the textile design process, from preparation and idea generation, parameters required by geometry-based software, and an understanding of and appropriate use of graphical fi le formats to determine the appropriate fi le format for post-processing, and to create a prototype. Figure 2 show the preliminary sketch for the GS-TDPM model which was developed and refi ned as additional data was applied to the model Data Collection - Geometric software survey - Instrument 1 A Geometry software survey was conducted and is the basis upon which this study was founded. The following were the objectives of the geometric software survey. In order to identify the available software, it was necessary to not only have a complete description, but to have a physical, legal copy of each application. Each of the applications were identifi ed through literature reviews, online references, and recommendations, and had to meet keyword descriptors before they were considered. The following were the objectives of the geometric software survey: (1) To identify mathematically based off-the-shelf and downloadable software that would aid in the design creation process; (2) To survey the capabilities of the identifi ed applications; (3) To evaluate the applications based on specifi c criteria; and (4) To test the usability and applicability of the specifi c applications for textile embellishment (embroidery), digital printing, and weaving. Although nearly a hundred different applications were evaluated, once the survey criteria was applied, the fi eld was further narrowed within those considerations. If an 33 Figure 2- Preliminary sketch for GS-TDPM.

34 application did not allow for saving then it was discarded unless it was the only application which could perform a unique pattern or image. Other applications that only ran as an online Java applet were also discarded. Other considerations were the quality of the image resolution and the ability to save in a variety of fi le formats. In all cases if a program showed uniqueness not available elsewhere then it could be included, even if it did not meet the stated criteria. The initial questions developed for the evaluation of the software were based upon national and state educational computer literacy standards and the specifi c features required for the selected software to be implemented in the textile design process as determined by this researcher’s extensive experience and knowledge of the software industry. The questions shown in Table 1 assisted in the determination of the usability of the software and its usefulness in the design creation process. The use of this software foremost had to be available to self-employed artists and designers and to produce tiles to be employed in the GS-TDPM model. The software evaluated did not have to meet all of the questions listed to be usable, Only 17 of the 18 questions listed in Table 1 needed to be met to satisfy the selection criteria. The software evaluated had to be easily obtained by download or an easy ordering process and be within an affordable price range of $ 0-$300.00. If a program adhered to the Windows standard and was easily installed and executed then it was included in the survey. A help menu was useful but not absolutely necessary as often the interface was straightforward and a menu was not needed. The process of using the program especially as the diffi culty level increased required a tutorial or documentation. As long as this information was available in some form; as a text or PDF fi le or online the software was considered to have documentation. A preferred environment for the software was a Graphical Users Interface (GUI) however, that was not a reason for omission, merely a preference for those who prefer to work in that environment. Many programs adhere to a Microsoft Windows environment

35 where the menus are standardized for ease of use, often these will allow for an edit to clipboard function which can be easily used when switching between applications. Table 1 - Software evaluation criteria. 1. Is the software easily obtainable or available? 2. Does the software fall within the user’s budget? 3. Is the installation straightforward? 4. Is there a help menu? 5. Does software include documentation? 6. Does the software interface provide the user with an appropriate environment? 7. Does the software allow edit functions including copy to clipboard? 8. Can user navigate through the program without diffi culty? 9. Does program respond to input as indicated by directions? 10. Does the program have the ability to save work? 11. Does the program have printing capabilities? 12. Does the program have the ability to import in multiple formats? 13. Does the program have the ability to export in multiple formats? 14. Can the user create new designs by draw or paint functions? 15. Can the user create new design from a photograph? 16. Can the user create new designs by using input parameters? 17. Does the program have the capability to generate multiple images or tiles? 18. Can the tiles or images be saved in an appropriate format?

Many programs can be confusing or directions can be unclear, therefore their ranking in this category should serve as a warning that only an advanced user should attempt this program. Similarly, input and expected outcomes should be a consistent responsiveness in the use of the program. Most programs evaluated have a manner of saving the work performed in a proprietary format so the user may come back to previously saved projects. The availability of printing was considered but not required and was also evaluated. The ability to import or export graphics as needed was very important, although if the program was unusual enough in the creativity allowed then it could also be included without that feature. Questions 14, 15 and 16 are really one question, it is only the manner of input which changes as some programs allow input by drawing, paint or geometric input parameters. Perhaps the most important ability of each software program evaluated was the 36 ability to create an array of interesting tiles. The tile created had to be saved, exported, copied to clipboard or screen captured in order to be useful in the creation process. Website - Instrument 2 A website was created for communication, delivery of surveys and information pertaining to the workshop. Content development included the surveys and their links, where the data was gathered at the host site for further processing. The content of the website was developed as a communication tool to increase delivery of the information describing the workshop and a portal for the surveys administered. Data Collection This study utilized many instruments. Figure 1 lists research questions and instruments used in this study to meet those questions. Among instruments used this study employed the use of four questionnaires, one observation log, contributions to the Textile Geometry website and the employment of the Geometric Software - Textile Design Process Model in a hands-on workshop. The initial survey (instrument 3 - Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists) provided the overall information on who was the target audience. The questions included artist information, technology, demographic, and employment information. This survey had the largest number of respondents (114) of all the instruments used and provided the foundation for the continuation of this study. This survey provided information for research question number one: Can geometric software be identifi ed, evaluated and tested for use by textile artists and designers? This survey also supplied the information needed to develop the instructional materials for the workshop by providing the answers to question number two: How are self-employed textile designers and artists currently using computer- based technology? The technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists, questionnaire was a blind study, delivered via the internet. All of the questionnaires were delivered and compiled through the use of the internet and “Survey Gold”, a web-based software survey application. In the initial letter 37 e-mailed (Appendix C - Figure C1) to national surface design groups, state and local arts organizations, and individual artists, the recipient was encouraged to forward the letter to other textile artists and friends. The forwarding to other groups and friends created a “snowball effect,” therefore the number of emails sent was an unknown factor. Links to the survey and workshop application was included in the emailed letter. Once the respondent clicked on the link, he or she was taken to the questionnaire or workshop application, which allowed online submission. The data was gathered at the host site (Survey Gold) and the responses were downloaded from the host site and populated into the local Survey Gold database. The survey ran for approximately two weeks, and then was removed from the website. At the end of the two weeks 114 respondents had answered the questionnaire and 14 applicants had responded to the application to attend. After receipt of respondents’ applications, each respondent received a letter of acceptance. This was followed-up by emails and telephone calls to confi rm or decline workshop enrollment (Appendix C). A Workshop evaluation questionnaire was given at the end of the workshop to evaluate the success of the model. A Workshop-follow-up questionnaire was also used; to expand on the workshop data, this questionnaire was emailed to each participant. Selection of Participants Approximately 80 letters were sent via email to local craft guilds and centers, specialty shops (yarn, sewing, and embroidery), regional arts councils, textile design organizations, and guilds. Each letter had a link to a separate Uniform Resource Locator, the global address of documents and other resources on the World Wide Web or URL. One link was to the survey Technology and creativity and self-employed artists (Instrument 3); and the other link was to the Workshop application (Instrument 4). Those contacted were encouraged to send the letter to other colleagues. (See Appendix C for letters sent out with links to survey and workshop application.) All response data from the Textile Technology Workshop Survey were used as validation for the GS-TDPM. 38 Case Study The purpose of the case studies was to test the GS-TDPM model. Fourteen participants were sent an acceptance letter detailing the dates, time and location of the workshop (Appendix C) and invited to attend a two-day workshop. Once a fi nalized group of fi ve had committed, they were sent the workshop schedule and instructions on what reference materials were needed for the workshop. The geometry-based software selected for each student was based on skill level, previous experience and interest. Each attendee had an observer who recorded observations with the Workshop observation log (Appendix E). In creating the workshop format, many details needed to be resolved. These details included: the fee to be charged for the workshop, a space for the workshop, the date and time of the workshop, the type and amount of computer stations available and the scheduling of support personnel. Each observer was assigned to a participant, not only for observation, but also to assist with technical or user problems as they were needed. Directions, workshop schedule and materials needed for the workshop were emailed to the fi nalized participants. Geometric Software - Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM) - Instrument 5 The development of a Geometric Software - Textile Design Process Model (GS- TDPM) was created and used as the foundation for the design process utilized in the workshop. The initial sketch used as a basis for further development. The validation of this model was the successful completion of the design projects by the participants in the Textile technology workshop (instrument 6). Textile technology workshop - Instrument 6 The observations during the workshop provided the data to answer question number three: How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry-based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs? During the workshop, participants contributed to an online web-site (Appendix D) to record and share

39 learning experiences. This information was used as a comparison between observable use and the participant’s view of use and progress. The participants selected for the workshop were instructed by a letter emailed to each attendee prior to the workshop on the method of preparation for their graphic fi les so that they could begin working immediately upon attending the workshop. Attendees were instructed to bring reference fi les of images that were scanned or photographed digitally. The attendees were also instructed to prepare reference fi les. Some of the programs used in the workshop allow the creation of designs; others needed photographic reference fi les in the BMP format which is constrained, at 150 ppi. Other applications use JPG’s which should be created at 400 ppi., X is constrained at 300 ppi. Attendees were told that if they were unable to convert their images, they should burn a CD and the images would be converted. Further instructions detailed the physical setup of the classroom and computers. Computers were provided in the classroom with pattern creation software installed. Attendees were instructed to bring CD’s to copy their individual work onto. In addition to the pattern creation software provided, the seminar also used CorelDraw, so attendees were told that if they owned Corel Draw and had it on their laptop, that it may save them time in the fi nishing process. The observations log survey was utilized during the workshop provided the data to answer research question number 4. How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry-based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs? At the end of the workshop the Workshop evaluation survey (Instrument 8) was completed by participants which also assisted in answering research question number 5, Can a Geometric Software Textile Design Process Model GS-TDPM be developed for use by textile artists and designers? The Evaluation survey, Observation log and Workshop follow-up survey (Appendix E) provide the data for question number six - How well did the GS-TDPM leverage the use of technology by textile artists and designers?

40 Workshop book and CD -Instrument 7. A book and CD of the collected pattern creation software application demos, shareware, and limited-time-trials were created for each participant after determining their current and expected technical expertise. The demos and tutorials in the book and CD were limited to shareware and fully functional demos that could be legally installed on the computers available. The book consisted of instructions for the project which would be accomplished in the workshop as well as a comprehensive listing of resources and ideas for further post-workshop work (Appendix G). The accompanying CD had animated tutorials, image fi les, graphic fi le format defi nitions, software demos, a database and chart of geometric software that resulted from the geometric software survey, which can be used in the textile design process, were invaluable references. Data Analysis All survey responses and observations were compiled into a task specifi c survey and statistical analysis database using Survey Gold Pro by Golden Hills Software, Inc. The data was analyzed in various forms: total responses, subsets of data fi ltration by specifi c instances and cross-tabular data and tabular listings. Data manipulation features allow the fi ltration of respondents or drill down to see a list of respondents who provided a particular response. Results were exported to other tools by the exportation of data in the following formats: Excel, SPSS, HTML and text data formats. The results of the analysis are displayed in publishable form or graphical representation as deemed appropriate. The technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists survey determined who the target population was and how they employed technology. The rest of the surveys and case-studies were directed at only those who attended the workshop. The participants in this study responded to the survey questionnaires, which allowed concrete values to be assigned to questions. The workshop allowed direct observations of participants. Each participant was assigned an observer who used a computer-based log to enter observable data. The hands-on project given attendees allowed the testing and validation of the GS-TDPM model.

41 CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS

Introduction This study was designed to predict the leveraging of technology use among self- employed textile artists and designers by creating an employable model utilizing simple and complex geometric software. This chapter provides a description of the data collected during the study and the results of the data analyses. It includes the demographic information, the results of responses, and an examination of the case-studies. Description of the Study The purpose of this study was to develop a reproducible Geometric Software - Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM). A review each of the instruments used to collect data and pertinent information is presented here. The instruments assessed are as follows: Instrument 1- Geometric software Survey; Instrument 2 - Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists survey; Instrument 3 - Website; Instrument 4 - Workshop application; Instrument 5 - Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM); Instrument 6 - Textile technology workshop; Instrument 7 - Workshop book and CD; Instrument 8 - Workshop evaluation survey, Instrument 9 - Workshop observation log; and Instrument 10 - Workshop follow-up survey. Each of the instruments was used to answer the research questions, provide case studies, and assist in the development of the GS-TDPM model. Instrument 1 - Geometric software survey Instrument 1 (Appendix E) provided data to answer research question 1 - “Can geometric software be identifi ed, evaluated and tested for use by textile artists and designers?” The initial step in this study was to identify and test a variety of geometric software that could be used in textile design. The software was identifi ed through research, literature reviews, online fi ber groups, websites specializing in geometry and mathematics, articles which focused on innovations in the fi eld of design, and expert recommendations. 42 In order to identify the available software, it was necessary to have not only a complete description, but also a physical legal copy of each application. Each application had to meet keyword descriptors before it was considered. These keywords included the following terms: algorithms, chaos, fractals, geometry, knotwork, mathematics, patterns, quilt, symmetry, tessellation, tiles and tiling. The following were the objectives of the geometric software survey: (1) To identify mathematically based off-the-shelf and downloadable software that would aid in the design creation process; (2) To survey the capabilities of the identifi ed applications; (3) To evaluate the applications based on specifi c criteria; and (4) To test the usability and applicability of the specifi c applications for textile embellishment (embroidery), digital printing, and weaving. Figure 3 shows overall software usability based upon the following questions: 1. Is the software easily obtainable or available? 2. Does the software fall within the user’s budget? 3. Is the installation /execution straightforward? 4. Is there a Help menu? 5. Does software include or is there available documentation? 6. Does the software interface provide the user with an appropriate environment? 7. Does the software allow edit functions including copy to or from clipboard? 8. Can the user navigate the program without diffi culty? 9. Does the program respond to input as indicated by directions? 10. Does the program have the ability to save work? 11. Does the program have printing capabilities? 12. Does the program have the ability to import graphics? 13. Does the program have the ability to export graphics? 14. Can the user create new designs by draw or paint functions? 15. Can the user create new designs from an image or photograph? 16. Can the user create new designs by using input parameters? 17. Does the program have the capability to generate multiple images or tiles? 18. Can the tiles or images be saved in an appropriate format? Table 2 shows the usability of each software program listed by percentage of positive responses for each software application listed.

43 Overall Software Usability

% Yes

100.00%

90.00% Question 1 Question 2 80.00% Question 3 Question 4 70.00% Question 5 Question 6 60.00% Question 7 Question 8 50.00% Question 9 Question 10 40.00% Question 11 Question 12 30.00% Question 13 Question 14 20.00% Question 15 Question 16 10.00% Question 17 Question 18 0.00% Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 numbers.

Percentage of Products with a 'yes' answer by question.

Figure 3 - Software usability by question.

Depending upon the user’s experience, he or she will need to be aware of the status of the software; this refers to whether the software is stand-alone, plug-in fi lter or an add-in. A user who has little knowledge or does not have a host program needs such information in order to make an informed decision. The type or status of the software would also have a bearing on the ease of installation and how the product is used. All the programs in this study use some type of geometry in the development of the image or tile; user interests could help in the selection and determination of the correct programs. Other selection criteria are based upon the preferred input method used; these may range from simple draw and paint programs to photo manipulation or complex numeric input. Table 3 displays selection criteria, status, geometry and input type. The number of available import/export options increases the fl exibility of the software. In some cases importation may not be needed; however, in all cases the ability to send the image from one program to another is of the utmost importance. Table 4 displays the import and export 44 fi le types available for each software program evaluated. The geometric software by platform shown in Table 5 displays each individual software application evaluated, the computer platform, price, and if the software provided a demo in a full or limited version. Of the software surveyed 100% of the software was available for Windows, whereas only 30 % was available for the Macintosh.

Table 2 - Usability per each software program. Apophysis KaleidoMania 68.40% 94.70% Artlandia 52.60% KaleidoTile 3 73.70% Bob 57.90% Kali 73.70% Cellab 52.60% Knots 3D 73.70% Celtic Knots Designer Mehdi Kaleidoscope 73.70% 73.70% Centarsia Photo Repeat 78.90% 84.20% Chaos Preztangles 47.40% 78.90% Chaos Pro QuiltMaker 44.80% 73.70% Corel KPT Collection Repligator 84.20% 89.50%

Creative Impulse 2000 84.20% Symmetoy 78.90% C. F. Spiral Generator 73.70% Symmetry Works 84.20% Fractal Forge 73.70% Terrazzo 84.20% Fractal Snowfl ake Gen. 57.90% Tess 84.20%

Gliftic 89.50% TileDeams 73.70%

Kaleider 89.50% Ultra Fractal 82.40%

Many of the applications evaluated were free or shareware, allowing the inexperienced user to test the software and increase his or her knowledge of computer- based technology. In order to evaluate any software it is necessary to determine the level of experience of the user. Many states and local school systems have a mandated computer skill level, as do colleges in various “technology across the curriculum” programs. The skills listed in Table 6 have been adapted to meet the requirements of the textile artist and designer.

45 Table 3 - Software status, geometry types and input preferences. Title Stand- alone / Plug-in fi lters Geometry Input type / Add-on software.

Apophysis Stand-alone Fractals Input parameters Artlandia Add-on Translations, Rotate, Scale, Refl ect, Mathematical expressions GlideRefl ect, Shear. Tile, tiling

Bob Stand-alone Aperiodic (i.e. non-repeating) tiling Input vertex on Rhombii Cellab Stand alone Random pixels. Input parameters Celtic Knots Designer Stand-alone Knot geometry. Paint Chaos Stand-alone Fractals Input parameters Chaos Pro Stand-alone Fractals Input parameters Corel™ KPT® Collection Plug-in Tiling, fractals Input parameters

Creative Impulse 2000 Stand-alone Tiles, repeat, mirror, rotate, random, Input parameters Kaleidoscope, Random, Hexagon, twist, circles.

Custom Fibonacci Spiral Generator Stand-alone Fibonacci spirals Image

Centarsia Stand-alone Mosaic Image Fractal Forge Stand-alone Fractals Input parameters Fractal Snowfl ake Generator Stand-alone Fractals Input parameters, rays, rotate, scale

Gliftic Stand-alone Generative, iterations Combination - input parameters, photos and draw-vector.

Kaleider Stand-alone Kaleidoscope Combination - input parameters, photos.

KaleidoTile 3 Stand-alone Tessellations, symmetry groups Input-parameters Kali Stand-alone Symmetrical pattern, 17 tiling groups Draw/paint KaleidoMania Stand-alone Kaleidoscopic patterns., symmetry, Draw/paint/Photo transformations, and isometries

Knots 3D Stand-alone Knot theory Input parameters Mehdi Kaleidoscope Plug-in Multiple symmetries /kaleidoscope. Photographs/input parameters

Photo Repeat Plug-in Tiles, repetitions, rotations, Photographs/images/input parameters. superimpositions, skewing, horizontal or vertical image inversion, repeats. Preztangles Stand-alone Triangles, squares and hexagons, Input parameters tiling QuiltMaker Stand-alone Block geometry, Rotate:, Vertical Paint/Input parameters Copy:, Horizontal Copy:, Right, Diagonal , Left Diagonal, Checkerboard. Repligator Stand-alone Generative, iterations Photographs Symmetoy Stand-alone Symmetric or non-symmetric, Draw/paint kaleidoscopic designs, geometric mosaics and 3D polyhedron models. Symmetry Works Add-on Automatically applies rotations, Draw/input parameters refl ections, and transformations, pattern generation. Terrazzo Plug-in Tiling, symmetry, Kaleidoscopic. Photograph/image Tess Stand-alone Symmetry groups, translations Draw/Paint TileDeams Stand-alone Geometry, symmetry, mosaics, Draw/input parameters tessellations, mandalas. Ultra Fractal Stand-alone Fractals. Input parameters

46 Table 4 - Import and export options of geometric software. Title Import Export Apophysis None JPG. Artlandia None Copy only to Bitmap or Metafi le. Bob None None Cellab BMP Celtic Knots Designer None Jpg, Png, Psd, Tif, PCX, Tga, Bmp Chaos None Gif Chaos Pro Jpeg, Png, Bmp Corel™ KPT® Collection Extensive. Same as paint program Extensive. Same as paint program used. used. Creative Impulse 2000 Bmp Bmp Custom Fibonacci Spiral Bmp, Jpg, Tif, Gif Bmp Generator Centarsia Bmp, Jpg, Gif Bmp, jpg. Fractal Forge None Png, Jpg, Bitmap Fractal Snowfl ake Generator None Bmp, Ai

Gliftic Choice-none, wmf, dxf, png Bmp, jpeg,Tga, Pcx, Png Kaleider Tif, Tiff, Jpg, Jpeg, Bmp, Png, Tif, Tiff, Jpg, Jpeg, Bmp, Png, Ppm, Tga Ppm, Tga KaleidoTile 3 Paste Copy Kali None Paste KaleidoMania Bmp Bmp Knots 3D None Bmp ,Pov, Vrml2, Obj, Dxf, Stl Mehdi Kaleidoscope Extensive - Same as host Extensive - Same as host application. application Photo Repeat Extensive - Same as host Extensive - Same as host application. application Preztangles None Bmp, Emf, Jpeg QuiltMaker None Bmp, copy Repligator Bmp, Tga, Jpg, Pcx ,Png Bmp, Tga, Jpg, Pcx, Png Symmetoy None Bmp Symmetry Works Extensive - Same as host Extensive - Same as host application application Terrazzo Extensive - Same as host Extensive - Same as host application application Tess None Dxf, Eps, Wmf, Gif, Pcx, Svg TileDeams None Bmp Ultra Fractal Fractal fi les only. Bmp, Psd, Jpg, Jpeg, Tga, Tiff

47 Table 5 - Geometric software by platform, price and availability. Title Platform 1 Platform 2 Price Demo

Apophysis WIN Free FULL Artlandia WIN MAC $245.00 None

Bob WIN Free Full

Cellab WIN Free Full

Celtic Knots Designer WIN $28.00 Demo/timed

Chaos WIN Free Full

Chaos Pro WIN Free Full Corel™ KPT® Collection WIN MAC $99.00 None

Creative Impulse 2000 WIN $59.95 Demo/30 day

Custom Fibonacci Spiral Generator WIN $30.00 Demo/small renderings only

Centarsia WIN Free/postcard Full

Fractal Forge WIN Free Full

Fractal Snowfl ake Generator WIN Free/$10.00 (Vector) Full

Gliftic WIN $29.95 Demo/crippled

Kaleider Win/XP/NT/98 $24.00 None KaleidoTile 2 Win/ MAC Limited Free Full Kali WIN MAX Free Full KaleidoMania WIN MAC $39.95 None

Knots 3D WIN Free Full Mehdi Kaleidoscope WIN Free Full Photo Repeat WIN MAC $99.00 None

Preztangles WIN Free Full

QuiltMaker WIN Free Full

Repligator WIN $34.95 Demo

Symmetoy WIN $34.95 Demo / 8 times Symmetry Works WIN MAC $215/$241 None Terrazzo WIN MAC $99.00 None Tess WIN MAC $36.00 Demo

TileDeams WIN $14.99/$24.99 Demo/ 7 days

Ultra Fractal WIN $49.00 Demo/watermarked

The criteria for the evaluation of user levels was broken into the following levels; Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced. The user level assisted in determining the identifi cation the level of software surveyed as shown in Table 6.

48 Table 6 - Computer user levels. Beginning Intermediate Advanced Perform basic software Cut and paste among applications Troubleshoot successfully when basic operations (e.g. open/save/ problems with my computer or printer create/delete fi les, format occur. text and cut/copy/paste, print).

Use the computer to run a Understand fi le structure to create directories Troubleshoot advanced system problems, few specifi c programs. and to save, organize, and move fi les. including reinstalling and confi guring the operating system.

Select, open, and save Use a scanner or digital camera. Move fi les between folders and drives, documents on different and I maintain my hard-drive storage size drives. within acceptable limits.

Send an e-mail with an Run two programs simultaneously, and have Create original illustrations from a blank attachment. several windows open at the same time. page combining design elements such as text, photographs and illustrations.

Seek information when it is Troubleshoot successfully when basic Create a new image and perform in electronic formats. problems with my computer or printer occur. advanced manipulations of the image.

Use a paint program. Learn a new program on my own. Convert graphics from one fi le format to another. Understand the importance of a back-up Determine the difference between a system vector and raster program. Download, install and execute a computer Use a CAD program. program or plug-in. Install basic peripheral devices (printer, zip drive, scanner). Successfully copy or burn a CD. Perform simple manipulations on an existing image (download, upload, resize, crop, change format from one kind to another). Understand the different types of images (.gif, .jpg, .bitmap) and their characteristics and am able to choose among them appropriately.

Add special effects to an image (color, lighting, reverse image, etc.). Use a draw program. Import and export graphic fi les.

All software listed had distinct advantages and disadvantages; from limited export to poor interface, to running from a DOS shell. Some of the software was easy to use, and other programs were much more diffi cult. The advantages and disadvantages are also listed in Table 7.

49 Table 7 - Software advantages and disadvantages. Title Level of diffi culty Advantages Disadvantages Apophysis Advanced Strong scripting language. Help Complex geometry. and tutorials available. Artlandia Advanced Excellent for Mathematicians. Requires Mathematica to use and extensive mathematical knowledge. Bob Intermediate Line and fi ll. No export. Cellab Intermediate Unusual programs Must run from .Bat fi le in DOS shell. Celtic Knots Designer Beginner Easy to use None. Chaos Intermediate Unusual programs. Must run from .Bat fi le in DOS shell. Chaos Pro Intermediate Multiple layers, High-end features. Complex interface.

Corel™ KPT® Collection Intermediate Multiple fi lters in one package. Requires additional software. Has awkward interface. Creative Impulse 2000 Intermediate Great for quilters. Limited export functions. Custom Fibonacci Spiral Intermediate Easy to us, good interface. Source image must be between Generator 10-300 pixels. Centarsia Intermediate Clean interface. Needs large collection of photos. Fractal Forge Beginner Clean interface, fl exible. None. Fractal Snowfl ake Generator Beginner Easy to use. None. Gliftic Intermediate/ Unusual, powerful. None. advanced Kaleider Beginner Easy to use. None. KaleidoTile 3 Beginner Easy-to-use. Limited. Kali Beginner Easy-to-use. No export. KaleidoMania Beginner Eay-to-use. Limited import/export.. Knots 3D Intermediate Well-designed interface, help fi le. None. Mehdi Kaleidoscope Beginner/ Easy to use. None. Intermediate Photo Repeat Intermediate/ Challenging/powerful. Diffi cult to navigate. Advanced Preztangles Beginner Well-designed, help fi le, nice None. interface. QuiltMaker Beginner Simple interface, tutorial and help. None. Repligator Beginner Clear interface, online help and None. tutorials. Symmetoy Beginner Easy-to-use. Needs load blank page. Symmetry Works Intermediate/ Clear interface, online help and Serial number tied to Illustrator Advanced tutorials. software. Terrazzo Beginner/ Vector-based. Arbitrary naming of symmetries. intermediate Tess Beginner Well designed, Help fi le. None. TileDeams Beginner Easy-to-use. Confusing navigation. Ultra Fractal Intermediate/ Extensive, Advanced graphic and None. Advanced computing needed.

50 Instrument 2 - Website The creation of a website was a necessity for communication as well as delivery of surveys and information pertaining to the workshop. As post-workshop questions arose, further instructional material was posted on the website. All questionnaires were delivered via the website links, where the data was gathered at the host site and retrieved. Once the data was retrieved, the results were exported in both text and data formats. The content of the website was developed as a communication tool to increase the effi ciency and delivery of information describing the workshop and as a portal for the surveys administered. The website currently has had over 500 page loads. In reviewing visitor statistics, the cross- section of visitors by country for the last 100 visits was: 97% from the U.S., one visitor from India, one from Israel and one from the United Kingdom. Other statistics pertained to computer systems, such as type of operating system and resolution. The system statistics for the last 100 views were: 83.00% Windows XP; 8.00% Unknown; 3.00% Mac OS X; 2.00% Windows 2000; 2.00% Windows 98; 2.00% Windows 2003. Instrument 3 -Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists survey Instrument 3 (114 responses) was divided into three sections, Artist information, Technology and Demographics. The survey respondents were those working with textiles as artists and designers. Of those surveyed, 97% were currently producing fi ber-based works of art versus 3% non-producers. Participants were requested to select all of the categories which they employed in their work (see Figure 4). In response to the question: “Have you attempted to sell or exhibit your work in the past year?’ 97.2 % answered indicated that they were attempting to sell of exhibit their work versus 2.6 % which had not. When respondents were asked if they were registered with the State Department of Revenue, 53.5% were registered, whereas, 46.5% were not registered. The fi nal question in this section asked if they were a sole-proprietorship; the response was 78.1% indicated they were a sole-proprietorship whereas 21.9% were not.

51 Total Number of respondents. (114)

110

100

90 Quilting 77.2%

80

70

60 Digital Printing Embroidery 50 46.5% 43%

40 Weaving

30 28.1% Knitting 18.4%

20

10

0 Textile categories Note: Respondents were allowed to select up to 5 (all) categories. Figure 4 - Which categories do you employ in your work?

The second section of the survey - ”Technology” - addresses research question (2) - “How are self-employed textile designers and artists currently using computer-based technology?” - and research question - (3) “What basic knowledge must textile designers and artists employ in order to utilize computer-based technology?” Of those surveyed, 79.8% use a personal computer (PC) versus 20.2% that use a Macintosh computer. The survey results show that 20.1% always use a computer in their textile design creations,

61.4% sometimes use a computer, with the remaining 18.42% never using a computer. The computer technology level showed that of these artists, 66.7% can use a draw program and 63.2% can use a paint program; other knowledge levels are shown in Figure 5. Artist employ different methods and processes in their work which is refl ected in their responses to the question: “How do you use computer technology in your textile or surface design creations?” (See Figure 6). In response to the question “How do you use a computer in your work?” The participants could select up to three (all) categories - designing, business functions and e-mail only. The results to both of these questions are combined in Figure 6 52 Based on 114 respondents.

110 99.1% 97.4% 100 86.8% 91.2% 90 79.8% 78.9% 79.8% 75.4% 80 66.7% 63.2% 70 59.6% 60

50 39.5% 40

Number of respondents. 30

20

10

0 Respondents knowledge level. Note: Percentage of knowledge level by question.

Send an email with an attachment. Install a computer program. I can learn a new program on my own. I can use a scanner or digital camera. I can use a draw program. I can use a paint program. I can download and install a computer program or plug-in. I can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows opened at one time. I know how to import and export graphic files. I know how to convert graphics from one file format to another. I know the difference between a vector and raster program. I know how to burn a CD.

Figure 5 - I can use a computer to do the following.

Business functions CAD/Drafting

Colorways

Designing digital camera

digital fabric printing

Digital images/photos Do not use/I don't/ I can't

download designs

draw email

embroidery

knitting Computer use by textile artists marketing paint

patterns/stencils

print quilting

scan 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 Frequency response. Note: Based upon 114 respondents Figure 6 - How do you use computer technology in your work and textile or surface design creations? 53 Based on 114 respondents.

110

Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT, NJ, 100 NY, PA)

90

80 Midwest (IN, IL, MI, OH, WI, IA, KS, MN, 70 MO, NE, ND, SD) South 60.5% 60

50 South (DE, DC, FL, GA, MD, NC. SC, VA, WV, AL, KY, MS, TN, AR, LA, OK, TX) 40 Total number of responses. 30

Northeast Midwest 20 14% 14% West West (AZ, CO, ID, NM, MT, UT, NV, WY, 10.5% AK, CA, HI, OR, WA) 10

0 Geographic location of the 114 respondents who participated in Instrument 3 - Technology, creativity and self-employed artists survey.

Figure 7 - Where do you live?

45 46-55 years. 40.4% 40

56-65 years 35 33.3%

30

25

20 36-45 years 16.7%

Percentage in age category. 15

10 66+ years 6.1% 26-35 years 5 3.5%

0 Age categories.

Figure 8 - Age of respondents 54 Based on 114 respondents.

110

100

90

80

70

60 Urban area 100,000+ Metropolitan people 50 area Micropolitan (City) area Rural 37.7% 50,00+ (Small town) area 40

Total number of respondents. 10,000-50,000 (Farms) 22.8% people 2,500 people 30 17.5% 21.9% 20

10

0 What type of area the repondents lived in. (based on 114 respondents).

Figure 9 - Which selection best describes where you live?

The third section - demographics - was limited to the United States and divided by region as identifi ed by the U.S. Census Bureau. The 114 respondents primarily lived in the South as shown in Figure 7, and were primarily between 45-65 years of age with the lowest percentage among those in the 26-36 age bracket as shown in Figure 8. 98.2% were female. The respondents lived in urban, metropolitan, micropolitan and rural areas with the largest percentage of living in urban areas; the remainder was closely divided among the rest (see Figure 9). The fi nal closing question of the survey - “How long have you been designing professionally” - showed the largest group has been designing for as many as 20 years or more (see Figure 10). 55 114 Respondents.

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

Number of respondents. 20+ years. 26.3% 30 0-2 years. 3-5 years. 6-10 years. 11-15 years. 17.5% 14% 19.3% 18.4% 20

10

0

Number of years respondents had been designing professionally.

Figure 10 - How many years have you been designing professionally?

Instrument 4 - Workshop application survey. Initially 14 applications were approved for the Textile technology workshop. Due to illness, family emergencies and scheduling confl icts, a fi nal total of 5 participants confi rmed their applications. The fi rst section - applicant information, had 4 questions consisting of contact information. Question 5 - Are you currently producing fi ber based articles or works of art? - produced 5 positive responses with all respondents actively creating artwork. Question 6 - Which of the following do you employ in your work? Weaving, Knitting, Quilting, Embroidery or Digital Printing found all respondents employed quilting, 4 employed digital printing and embroidery, 2 knitted and 1 employed weaving. In response to the Question, 7 - Have you attempted to sell or exhibit your work in the past year? - 4 out of 5 had attempted to do so. 56 The second section: Technology experience - began with Question 8 - I can use computer technology to do the following. Responses are ranked from high to low (see Table 8). Question 9 - I have a working knowledge of the following geometric terms: Tiling, Tessellation and Symmetry. All respondents knew the terms tessellation and symmetry, 4 out of 5 respondents knew the term tiling. Questions 10 and 11 were an agreement to attend the Textile technology workshop and pay the workshop fee. All respondents agreed to do so. Table 8 -Workshop application- I can use computer technology to do the following. Number of Questions. responses. Send an e-mail with an attachment. 5 I can use a scanner or digital camera. 5 I can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows opened at one time. 5 Install a computer program. 4 I can learn a new program on my own. 4 I can use a draw program. 4 I can use a paint program. 4 I know how to burn a CD. 4 I can download and install a computer program or plug-in. 4 I know how to import and export graphic fi les. 3 I know how to convert graphics from one fi le format to another. 3 I know the difference between a vector and raster program. 3 Note : 5 is the maximum number of respondents.

Instrument 5 - Geometric Software – Textile Design Process Model GS-TDPM. In response to research Question 5) “Can a Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM) be developed for use by textile artists and designers?” - and 6) “How well did the GS-TDPM model leverage the use of technology by textile artists and designers?” - the artists and designers who engaged in this case study utilized the developed model and all participants successfully completed the project using the elements of the GS- TDPM model. The participants’ responses after the use of the GS-TDPM show an increase in the use of technology as a result of utilizing the model.

57 Instrument 6 - Textile technology workshop The observations, surveys and tools utilized during the workshop provided the data to answer to research question 4: How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry-based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs? During the workshop, participants contributed to an online web-site (Appendix D) to record and share learning experiences. The data gathered from the workshop was used as a comparison between observable use and the participant’s view of use and progress. Case Studies The fi ve participants who attended the workshop were the focus of this study. All of the participants were female and experienced artists and designers. The age brackets of the women were as follows: two were in the 46-55 age bracket; another two were in the 56-65 age bracket; and one was in the 65+ age bracket. The marital status of the participants was: two married, two widowed, and one single. The participants came from a broad economic background; in fact, each participant was in a separate category ranging from $10,000 – $20,000 a year to $75,000 - $100,000 a year. A narrative description about each participant provides additional background information. Case-study 1 - This participant recently relocated from Texas to North Carolina upon her husband’s retirement. Her earliest memories include “handmade” items from her mother and grandmothers. She was exposed to handmade clothing of all kinds from many disciplines. From her grandmothers and mother she learned crocheting, quilting, rug hooking, knitting, quilting and needlepoint. Her mother sewed clothing, made hats from scratch, knitted, and also did needlepoint. If she showed an interest in learning one of these skills, they would buy the supplies and teach it to her. She spent her high school and college years making her own clothes and knitting matching sweaters. She later began spinning because of a shortage of knit shops to purchase wool yarn; she has also learned how to weave and has a small table loom. She has recently begun making bobbin and fi let laces. If she sees someone

58 perform a skill, she can then follow the written directions. Her eyes have to learn it before she can use written instructions. She is married with two grown children. Case-study 1 has an in-depth knowledge of hand textiles. She learns by seeing and is capable of following instructions. Her exposure to technology has been limited to e-mail use. She would be categorized at a beginner user level. She currently supplements her income with part-time work demonstrating her hand-skills to tourist groups. She would like to increase her use of technology in her pursuits. Case-study 2 - This participant came to textiles rather accidentally. She states she was brainwashed in art school (in the late ‘60s) to regard anything that smacked of “women’s work” with contempt. After reaching a dead end in painting - it just wasn’t a good “fi t” - she took a year off from it. She had an old quilt top she had picked up accidentally inside of a suitcase at a fl ea market. Needing to keep her hands occupied, she thought to sandwich and quilt this quilt-top, and realized that quilting was the medium that fi t her best. This was 20 years ago; she is still quilting today. This participant is a professional educator; she is a professor in an art program and has advanced technology skills. She usually has worked on a Macintosh computer. Case-study 3 – This woman has an MFA in Scene Design and has her own needlework and quilting design company. In addition, she is working with a well known needlework publisher doing designing, editing, and graphic work. She is also exploring the possibility of creating original designs which would be sold retail in digital format as downloads. Her mother has always sewn and knitted, and when in 1996 a friend suggested she try designing painted canvases for needlepoint, she went to the local Michael’s and bought a couple of kits. After fi nishing these projects, she began designing her own needlepoint designs. Her fi rst designs were available in 1997. She looks forward to creating new and interesting designs. Her current projects include designing and creating home décor accessories. She is married to a college professor and costume designer and has three dogs

59 and one cat. This participant has well-developed technological skills. She is at an advanced computer user level. Case-study 4 - Was married to a pastor until he recently passed away. She is a retired elementary and junior high school art teacher and has taught both adults and preschool for many years. She has also worked with several church quilting groups over the years, which she perceives as her traditional apprenticeship. She has been designing and making her own art quilts for 25 years. She says she has been sewing for as long as she can remember. As a perennial student, she is always learning a new technique or exploring a new material. After years of teaching, then 12 years of being a primary caregiver (she was recently widowed), she can now focus on her own designing and teaching. She has had a computer since 1990 and hopes to develop an online business selling patterns that she already has, along with the fractal ones that she is developing and, hopefully, incorporate downloadable fabric design for printing. Since she is now 72, she would rather focus on designing and teaching and does not want to tie herself down with more manufacturing and shipping chores than is absolutely necessary. Her son is developing a web-site for selling his photos, so her business will be associated with that for the technological end of things. This participant is an advanced computer user and has previously used geometric software in her quilt designs. Case-study 5 – This participant states that she has always been interested in fabric, thread, and yarns and the textures, patterns and colors these create. She has learned how to manipulate fabric and create designs through the many classes she has taken with the quilter’s guild in Raleigh. The visiting artists who instructed these classes have shown her how an artist’s work evolves through the years and she has found this to be very benefi cial. She has also audited art classes at Meredith College in color theory, design, drawing, and painting, as well as surface design on fabric. She is recently widowed and hopes to be able to devote more time to exploring textile design and production. She is an intermediate computer user who prefers to learn in a formalized, hands-on setting.

60 Instrument 7 - Workshop book and CD This instrument was developed as a resource tool for workshop participants. The in- formation it provided assisted in the execution their projects. The CD provided had geometric software applications and tutorials that the participants could continue to us and learn on their own. Instrument 8 - Workshop evaluation survey Question 1 of the workshop evaluation (instrument 8) - In what areas will you ap- ply geometry-based applications? - showed that of the 5 case study participants, four of the participants will employ quilting, digital printing and embroidery. Two of the participants responded that they will use weaving. Questions two through seven of the Workshop evalua- tion survey (Instrument 8) are as follows: Question 2. Will you use computer technology more frequently in your work after the workshop? Question 3. Have you increased your knowledge of graphic fi le formats? Question 4. Will you install and use additional geometry-based applications, other than those you used in the workshop? Question 5. Will you use your design “as is” or employ some form of post- processing? Question 6. Do you know the difference between a vector and raster application? Question 7. Will you purchase additional graphic applications as a result of this workshop? Of the six questions represented here, all fi ve participants responded “yes”, to fi ve of the six questions. One participant did not feel she had increased her knowledge of graphic fi le formats. Question 8 - “What program will you purchase next?” - participants responded that 3 would purchase a draw program and 2 would purchase a paint program. With regard to the answers to question 9 - ”Will you transfer your design data to a CAD/CAM program - 3 respondents answered “yes” and 2 answered “no”. In response to question 10 - “What type

61 of manufacturing process will you use to complete your project?” - The respondents each had a unique response: 1. I will sew and embellish with embroidery. 2, Traditional rug hooking methods will be used. I will also do quilting, weaving, and knitting. 3. Inkjet printing, Photoshop 4. I will probably produce book(s) ebooks and CDs. 5. Print to fabric, additional surface design processes, quilting. Question 11 requested an image of their completed projects and Question 12 asked the participants the following: “In your own words, describe what has been the most benefi cial aspect of this workshop.” The respondents replied: 1. “The most benefi cial aspect of the workshop was being able to experiment with the different software, to learn about graphic fi le formats, and meet the other workshop participants. “ 2. “This was my fi rst exposure to any graphics program. I am encouraged that I have the skills and knowledge base to explore unfamiliar programs and successfully use them. I see unlimited design possibilities for my personal work.” 3. “Networking, inspiration.” 4. “Being able to see such variations and the options in design these programs can produce, coupled with recent advances in technology, has me intrigued with the idea of creating designs for consumers to print fabric and paper products in a downloadable format.” 5. “It was great to work with a group of people at similar levels of computer knowledge and its application to fi ber art.” In response to Question 13. How did you fi nd out about this survey? (Instrument 3 - Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists.) - the participants responded that 2 62 saw a post online on the Quiltart list, 2 were notifi ed through a friend; and 1 was forwarded an e-mail. The conclusion of the evaluation was Question 13 - “ Please select the amount you would be willing to pay.” - The respondents would be willing to pay $250.00 - $350.00 for a similar workshop. Instrument 9 - Workshop observation log The observations during the workshop provided the data to answer research question number 4 - “ How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geom- etry-based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs?” Each participant was assigned an observer to record their observations and answer the ques- tions in the observation log. The observation log consisted of 23 questions. Table 9 displays the responses to questions 1-12.

63 Table 9 - Observation log- Questions 1-9 - True/False responses. Number of Questions. responses. 1. Student can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows open at the same time. TRUE 5 2. Student can download and install a computer program or plug-in. TRUE 4 FALSE 1 3. Student can use photo-editing software. TRUE 4 FALSE 1 4. Student can use a scanner or digital camera. TRUE 5 5. Student can use a draw program. TRUE 5 6. Student can learn a new program on their own. TRUE 5 7. Student knows how to import and export graphic fi les. TRUE 4 FALSE 1 8. Student knows how to convert graphics from one fi le format to another. TRUE 4 FALSE 1 9. Student knows the difference between a vector program and a raster program. TRUE 4 FALSE 1 10. Student knows how to burn a CD. TRUE 4 FALSE 1 11. Student knows how to send an e-mail with an attachment. TRUE 5 12. Student has a working knowledge of geometric terms. TRUE 5

64 Question 13 - Comments - This section asked for a description of how the participant ap- proached their work, or any diffi culties they encountered. 1. “See evaluation form.” 2. Because she is a Mac user, she is not quite familiar to using a PC. I caused some confusion in using the different applications for the workshop. Also, some of the software was easy to learn by herself and others were not, depending on the software features. She found Kaleidomania more attractive to use than Tess, although one was a draw or “create” application and the other used a photo reference. 3. “She can use a scanner but not a digital camera. In general when learning a new program, she will buy the most comprehensive source book she can fi nd, and try to learn everything about the program.” 4. “On installing a computer program or plug-in: She can install, provided it is sen- sible. Learning a program on her own: If help fails, she can learn as a last resort. She com- mented that some help fi les are terribly helpless.” 5. “She came prepared and had fl exible ideas about how to approach it.” Question 14 - Was the subject prepared adequately to begin work? (Reference mate- rial). Each subject had prepared fi les as suggested in the correspondence letters (Appendix C). Question 15 - Which software did the subject select and use? - is illustrated in Figure 12. Corel Draw was required in order to fi nish the project. All other software was optional. Questions 16- 22 were all yes or no questions. The questions are listed as follows: 16. Was the subject able to generate several ideas? 17. Was the subject able to input the parameters required? 18. Did the subject experiment with and refi ne ideas? 19. Did the subject use post-processing? 20. Was the subject able to create a prototype? 21. Did the subject refi ne the prototype? 22. Did the subject complete the project developed? 65 All the observations were positive on these queries. Final question 23 required commentary from observers at the end of the workshop. Those comments are as follows. 1. “See evaluation form.” 2. Observer stated: “This is a great opportunity to use a variety of pattern generation software. The software works well to create geometric patterns for designers. 3. She used her own motif (reference fi le) as a tile and used the same motif in Ka- leider and Corel Draw for her work.” 4. “She got several ideas by looking into the samples shown during the class and said it was very helpful.” 5. “Had trouble with the network. She is used to working at home without using a net work.” This concludes the questions from Instrument 9 - Observation log survey. Instrument 10 - Workshop follow-up survey After the workshop participants had returned to their homes they were e-mailed a re- quest to complete Instrument 10- Workshop follow-up survey. This request allowed addition- al data to be gathered on the workshop participants. Table 10 displays the results of questions 1-7 of the Workshop follow-up survey.

66 Table 10 - Workshop follow-up survey - Questions 1-7. Questions. Number of responses. 1. What gender are you? Female 5 Male 0 2. Please mark the highest level of education completed. Bachelor Degree 4 Graduate Degree 1 3. Which category fi ts your age bracket?

46-55 2

56-65 2

65+ 1 4. What is your annual household income?

$10,000-20,000 1

20,000-30,000 1

40,000-50,000 1

50,000-75,000 1

75,000-100,000 1 5. What is your current martial status?

Single 1

Married 2

Widowed 2 6. Are you currently employed outside the home?

Yes 3

No 2 7. Are you retired now?

Yes 2

No 3

67 The responses to question 8 were in an open-ended format. The narrative that is these responses is as follows: Participant 1 - As long as I am able, I would like to continue sharing the love of textile arts and skills that I have with the public, teaching privately, demonstrating publicly, and learning new skills in workshops and from books. I am moving into the creation phase of my textile experience. What I do is done more for the love of it, and preservation of archaic skills for the next generation than to create income. Elementa- ry Education was my major; history was my minor. My passion is all things “fi bery.” I am able to combine all three in my demonstration work. Participant 2 - “Do my own art work. “ Participant 3 - ‘I am unoffi cially retired and have not completed my plans for my unoffi cial retirement.’ Participant 4 - ‘I don’t plan on retiring since I own my own business.’ Participant 5 - ‘I’ve been retired since 1993. I was a primary caregiver until two years ago.’ In 1990 I helped found QuiltUniversity.com. I earn my extra income by teaching at QuiltU. At the moment, I do not sell anything.’

68 Table 11 - Workshop follow-up survey - Questions 9-14. Number of Questions. responses. 9. What percentage of your income is derived from your textile design work or creations?

1-10 percent 4

31-40 percent 1

10. Where do you live in the US? (According to U.S. Census map)

11. Midwest (IN, IL, MI, OH, WI, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) 1 South (DE, DC, FL, GA, MD, NC. SC, VA, WV, AL, KY, MS, TN, AR, LA, OK, TX) 4

Urban area 100,000+ people 2

Rural area (Farms) 2,500 people 3

12. How long have you been designing professionally?

0-2 years. 1

6-10 years. 1

20+ years. 3

Technology

13. What computer platform do you use.

Mac 1

PC 4

14. How often do you use a computer in your textile design work?

Always 3

Sometimes 2

69 Question 15 of the Workshop follow-up survey repeated the question - I can use technology to do the following. Table 12 - Workshop follow-up survey Question 15 - I can use technology to do the fol- lowing. Questions. Number of responses. I can use computer technology to do the following. Send an e-mail with an attachment. 5 Install a computer program. 5 I can learn a new program on my own. 5 I can use a scanner or digital camera. 5 I can use a draw program. 5 I can use a paint program. 5 I can download and install a computer program or plug-in. 5 I can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows opened at one time. 5 I know how to import and export graphic fi les. 5 I know how to convert graphics from one fi le format to another. 5 I know the difference between a vector and raster program. 5 I know how to burn a CD. 5

Question 16 was an open-ended question - “How do you use technology in your tex- tile or surface design creations?” Participant 1 - As a quilter, knitter, basket maker, needle-pointer, cross-stitch- er, spinner, weaver, lace-maker, painter, gourd carver, rug hooker, dyer, embroiderer, chair caner, etc., I have long used the computer for research, e-mail, and accounting.

But now, a whole new world of possibilities has opened up to design more of my own creations, rather than execute someone else’s creation that has been purchased or found in research. I can explore color options. I can explore sizing options. I can print out my own patterns. I can now use software that I own that has gone unused for years. Participant 2 - I have done photo transfer on fabric using both a scanner and Photoshop. Plus I use Photoshop for other surface design applications. I do need a draw program for my computer so I don’t have to cut and paste copies together! 70 Participant 3 - I print directly onto fabric, or onto heat transfer media that I transfer to fabric. I make and maintain a website that displays my work, I use e-mail to conduct business (exhibition correspondence, search for textile supplies, books, etc; e-mail images of my work) Participant 4 - I teach design and creativity related classes online at QuiltUni- versity.com. I use CorelDraw, Photoshop and Painter primarily, also Kaleider, Illus- trator, Electric Quilt and Paintshop Pro. I use a number of Fractal programs, including Apophysis and Ultra Fractal. At this time a large part of my work is directly related to my online teaching. I also have a good digital camera and a digital projector. Participant 5 - I use computer technology to develop the designs and then to prepare them for publishing. Also, some of my Quilting products are sold in CD format in addition to printed format. In response to Question 17 - How do you use a computer in your work?, All partici- pants used the computer as a design tool, 4 participants used the computer for business func- tions and 1 used the computer for e-mail but not business functions. Question 18 was an open-ended question, “How has the workshop benefi tted you?” Participant 1 - I had been considering fabric design as a part of my fractal ex- ploration. The workshop gave me a focus and an opportunity to consider the business end of fabric design. The networking, particularly with my roommate, was a valuable part of the experience. The possible connection for printing fabric may be of future use. Participant 2 - It forced me to start researching printing solutions for the prob- lems I want to solve. Though I hardly have time to make something that utilizes the few patterns I was able to create (being a Mac user, I spent most of my time trying to do basic things on the PC), making it is helping me work through the problems I’ve been trying to solve and which I will be working on in my sabbatical next year. This has been very productive if it wasn’t all fun. 71 Participant 3 - It has benefi tted me enormously, both in actual skills and in self confi dence that I have the ability and can explore new programs without crashing my computer. I better understand fi le extensions (and have a written reference in the workshop book) and understand the opportunities to combine various graphics pro- grams. My formal computer training began in the days of 1’s and 0’s, stacks of key punch cards, and early programing languages. I progressed to several document pro- grams, data base, and spread sheet programs. But I have had no training since the late 80’s and early 90’s. Certainly not any exposure to graphics at all. For me, computers performed necessary functions, not creative ones. Now I can create! Seeing the work of other students in the workshop was enlightening, both the work the fi ve of us did in the workshop and the work we were surrounded by in the classroom itself. Participant 4 - The workshop benefi ted me by being able to learn about the design software and having a book I could take home to use as reference. I enjoyed meeting the other women and learning about their textile history as well as how they are earning a living in the textile fi eld. The discussion about microbusinesses helped to understand how technology can help those who have textile skills to gain income. Participant 5 - This workshop has opened up a new range of options for the further diversifi cation of my designing. The contacts that I made were great and I know that I now have additional research resources that were not available to me pre- viously. Question 19 - Did you fi nd the website useful? If so how? Participant 1 - I have seen my own work in living color on the web site. How gratifying! I have enjoyed seeing other’s work. It is inspirational! Having the instruc- tions for burning a CD there is comforting, as that was a new skill for me. I have always used fl oppy’s, both large and small, but never burned a CD before. My com- puter skills qualifi ed me as the baby of the class. The site itself was easy to use and is

72 now bookmarked in my “favorites”. I’d love to have a site of my own for my business to showcase my skills. Maybe I could do THAT now! Participant 2 - “I’m a retired art teacher and I have a fairly good background in tech- nology and graphics but I am always interested in other’s usage, their comments and the links they fi nd useful.” Participant 3 - “It has been a very effective and effi cient way to keep in touch and to disseminate information.” Participant 4 - “It made me aware of other solutions to creating repeated pattern.” Participant 5 - “The website is useful both to keep up with additional information about textile technology and to see visuals for inspiration.” Question 20 - the fi nal question in the Workshop follow-up survey - was : ‘Have you/ will you used the booklet and CD that accompanied the workshop? Will you continue to use this as a reference?” Participant 1 - “I have used both the booklet and CD and have installed some of the programs but have not had the time to experiment. One of my goals is to use the software on a regular basis. “ Participant 2 - I have used it, and will use it more. I intend to purchase/ac- quire at least one “paint” program and one “draw” for I now see the capability of them functioning together. The Textile technology workshop book will be a resource for this purchase. I will use it to help decide which programs, and then use the re- sources in the back to purchase/acquire them. The defi nitions were helpful also, as my math experience ended with Algebra 2. Participant 3 - “I will be downloading and using many of the programs that we ex- plored and taking my design work into new directions.” Participant 4 - I’ve been busy doing income tax, so have not taken time to explore the CD but I will do so. I already have most of the graphics programs that apply to my style. I’m glad to have this information in a concise form. 73 Participant 5 - “Yes, but, it’s of limited use to this Mac user. But I have downloaded some of the Mac programs. “ Conclusions After determining how textile artists and designers were using technology, the next step was to identify the basic knowledge required to leverage the use of technology among the participants. This was accomplished by analyzing the responses to research question 3: “What basic knowledge must textile designers and artists employ in order to utilize computer-based technology?” The statement “I can use technology to do the following” was repeated with each instrument, at each step of the study. The answers to this question helped to identify the user level of the participants attending the Textile technology workshop.

The participants’ user levels were identifi ed as: (1) beginning, (2) intermediate, and (3) advanced. Other issues identifi ed were the participants’ familiarity with network computers and operating systems. The participants’ previous familiarity with the Windows XP operating system; affected how quickly they were able to complete their projects. Of the 5 participants all but one used the Windows operating system; the other used a Macintosh computer. The answers to these questions also resulted in a comparative analysis portraying the technological awareness before, during, and after the workshop. The results are illustrated in Figure 11. Sections 1 and 3 are based on the participant responses to instruments 4 (Workshop application) and 10 (Workshop follow-up); section 2 utilizes the data from instrument 9 (Observation log) - the observation of the participants and their actual user level. In response to research question 4: “How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry-based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs?” - All Workshop attendees were able to generate several ideas by using the geometric software applications. They were able to accurately input parameters required to execute their designs. They used post-processing applications to refi ne their prototypes. Finally, the workshop attendees were able to produce and complete 74 a fi nished project by using textile digital printing. The attendees were able to use a variety of applications to complete their projects. Due to the location of the workshop, which software could be deployed over the network, and the number of legal copies available, the fi nal software available to attendees was limited to those in Figure 12, which is a list of the software selected and used by the participants.

I can use computer technology to do the following.

5 Send an email with an attachment.

Install a computer program.

I can learn a new program on my own. 4

I can use a scanner or digital camera.

I can use a draw program. 3 I can use a paint program.

I can download and install a computer program or plug-in. 2 I can run more than one program simultaneously, Number of participants. and have several windows opened at one time. I know how to import and export graphic files.

I know how to convert graphics from one file format 1 to another. I know the difference between a vector and raster program. I know how to burn a CD. 0 123 Workshop application Observation log Follow-up survey Instrument 4 Instrument 9 Instrument 10

Note: Chart shows increase in technloogy skills by participants.

Figure 11 - I can use a computer to do the following- Surveys comparison.

75 Which software did the participant select and use?

5 Corel Draw

Kaleider

4 Kaleidomania

Tess

3 Celtic Knots Designer

Fractal Snowflake Generator

Gliftic 2 Number of participants Kali

Knots 3D 1 Preztangles

Ultra Fractal

0 Software selected by participants.

Figure 12 - Which software did the participant select and use?

Summary Each instrument used in this study provided important data in answering the six research questions. Research question 1 - “Can geometric software be identifi ed, evaluated and tested for use by textile artists and designers?” - was answered by the data provided by instrument 1 (Geometric software survey); instrument 5 (Geometric Software-Textile

Design Process Model), and instrument 6 (Textile technology workshop). The data for research question 2 - “How are self-employed textile designers and artists currently using computer-based technology?” , was provided by instrument 2 (Website); instrument 3 (Survey: Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists); instrument 4 (Workshop application), instrument 5 (Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model); and instrument 6 (Textile technology workshop). Research question 3 - “What basic knowledge must textile designers and artists employ in order to utilize computer-based technology?” -

76 Utilized all the instruments used in this study (1-10). Research question 4 - “How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry-based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs?’ - research question 5: “Can a Geometric Software - Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM) be developed for use by Textile artists and designers?” - and research question 6: “How well did the GS- TDPM leverage the use of technology by textile artists and designers?” , were all answered by instrument 2 (Website), instrument 5 (GS-TDPM), instrument 6 (Textile technology workshop); instrument 7 (Workshop book and CD), Instrument 8 (Survey: Workshop evaluation), instrument 9 (Workshop observation log), and instrument 10 (Survey: Workshop follow-up). Without each of these instruments, the data utilized in this study would not have been possible.

77 CHAPTER V GEOMETRIC SOFTWARE - TEXTILE DESIGN PROCESS MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Introduction The GS-TDPM provides a framework, map, model or guide to allow others to implement the Geometric Software - Textile Design Process Model. Each step in the model is based upon previous information or knowledge in order to implement. It is important to review the knowledge needed at each step, as a lack of familiarity will result in the failure to proceed. The GS – TDPM is designed as a tool to leverage technology among self-employed or independent textile artist and designers. Testing the Geometric Software used in the GS-TDPM Model

The applications listed in the Geometric Software Survey were tested by this researcher and the participants in the textile technology workshop. The testing included output to the appropriate Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) applications in the areas of weaving, digital printing and embroidery. In order to develop the GS-TDPM model, the geometric software had to be identifi ed and tested. The software programs listed in the Geometric Software Survey are those identifi ed for the design creation process (Table 3). The succeeding steps were to survey the capabilities of the identifi ed applications, to evaluate the applications based on specifi c criteria such

as the properties of the created geometry, and to test the usability and applicability of the specifi c applications for textile embellishment (embroidery), digital printing, quilting and weaving. The software evaluated fell into two separate categories: Stand-alone software and Plug- ins or fi lters. Plug-in modules are software programs developed by Adobe Systems and by other software developers in conjunction with Adobe Systems and products which accept the Adobe plug-in format. The plug-ins add features to Photoshop, Jasc Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photo Paint and other paint-type programs. They are installed in folders inside the Plug-ins 78 folder. Most Adobe Photoshop format plug-ins (.8BF) are compatible with other photo- paint programs. These plug-ins provide an amazing number of effects for graphics, text and images, and are made with a paint or illustration program that the user chooses. Some of these plug-ins are available for free off of the Internet. They are usually simple to use, with some adjustment to the effects and a preview window available on a simple interface. More advanced plug-ins are available from various software companies. These can offer a vast array of options and effects for the designer of art, textiles and graphics. Stand-alone software usually has extensive import/export options and does not depend on an external engine/application in order to use it, thereby saving additional expense. Stand-alone is easier to add and remove from the computer. It operates in an uncluttered environment and is easier to ascertain performance requirements. The software used for the purposes of this study utilized several methods of creating an image. Some utilized Draw or Paint functions; others required numeric input parameters to create an image, while others manipulated a photographic image. If the application used photographic images, and those images had been sized or converted to the appropriate fi le formats, they were imported and manipulated using the required input parameters. All of the geometry software programs used varying elements of geometry or mathematical expressions which were applied for numerous transformations, thereby creating individual tiles, which were saved into the appropriate folder with the correct fi le format for further processing. If the end product was intended for digital printing this completed the designer’s process. If the designer wished to use his or her tiles in an object with defi ned interior or exterior boundaries, then the process continued. The artist could then export their creation to a weaving or embroidery application if needed. In order to create a fi lled pattern object it is preferable to have a vector type application. In this study we used Corel Draw, 1) because of its handling of tiles in fi lled areas and 2) Some of the case-study respondents were already familiar with its use. Figures 13 and 14 show tiles applied to a boundary. In Figure 13, the example shown is how to apply the created tiles to a scarf. After the completion of the 79 fi ll-boundaries step, the designer can print to a digital printer, export to a CAD program or continue to post-process. Every geometric software application identifi ed was tested by digital printing and bound region process. Some of the applications, where appropriate, were further tested for use with embroidery and weaving. If the designer chooses embroidery he or she must also be fl uent in both graphic and embroidery fi le formats and the software application required for the computerized machinery which will be employed.

Figure 13 – Tiles applied to boundaries. Figure 14 - Tiles applied to bound shapes. In creating a woven pattern from the software Tess, the creation of a lattice, periodic tiling as a woven pattern, was used. The lattice pattern was created in the geometric software Tess, then exported via a WMF File (Windows Meta File) to Corel Draw. The line thickness was adjusted in Corel Draw, exported to a TIF fi le and post processed in Adobe Photoshop. The created TIF fi le was imported into the Scotweave Artwork module (CAD). The fabric was produced on a Staubli Jacquard loom (CAM) that was used for the testing of applications in the software survey. In order to increase the complexity of each of the designs, a mathematical program in which one could create knots was used. These knots were reminiscent of a Celtic-type design. The user is allowed to input a variety of mathematical parameters to form complex knot type patterns. Knots 3D allows the user to work in 3D as well as 2D. The user can export the fi le in 2D via DXF, or EMF (Enhanced Metafi le Format). For the purposes of testing the design, 80 after the fi le was created, it was exported from Knots 3D then imported into CorelDraw. The pen outline was defi ned as 0 for the black outlines so that they were just clear color lines. The image was imported as an EMF Enhanced Metafi le Format fi le into Corel Draw from Knots 3D. The fi le created was imported into the embroidery software and produced on a Tajima embroidery machine. While some of the applications tested were suitable for two or more areas, embroidery proved the exception due to the necessity of having clearly defi ned regions or line art. When weaving a simple, clearly defi ned design, drawn and fi lled areas worked best. Quilting and digital printing were extremely fl exible and allowed for the use of photographic based images. Textile technology workshop - Instrument 6. All of the case-study participants employed the GS-TDPM in the creation of their project. The workshop consisted of individualized instruction, computer-based tutorials and a handbook. Although the advanced students could have been successful without an instructor, the novices were clearly in need of assistance. However, each participant not only completed their project, but also completed an additional project in the ensuing months. Some participants went even further: entering a project in the Southeastern Fiberfest, developing an online group for fractal quilting and creating a line of accessories and other textile and surface design projects. The participants in the case studies were able to complete projects in digital printing. Knowing the medium (quilt, embroidery, knitting, weaving, digital printing) in which one will work is a necessity before beginning the design process. The majority of the participants applied the GS-TDPM technique to quilting and digital printing while the remainder used rug hooking. A Step-by-Step Guide to using the GS-TDPM Model Introduction. Each step of the GS-TDPM model has defi ned prerequisites. These prerequisites include the knowledge and skills needed in order to successfully utilize the model by self-employed textile artists and designers. The self-employed designer must depend on his or herself in order to complete each step of the process. The GS-GDPM is hardware and software dependent which requires basic technology skills as defi ned or user 81 levels as defi ned in Table 6. The selection of software used in the GS-TDPM model was accomplished with instrument 1 of the geometric software survey. Each step of the model

Figure 15 - Geometric Software - Textile design process model. shown in Figure 15 is described fully, detailing not only the methodology but the practical production requirements each step requires. 82 The Computer Environment. Before one can begin using the GS-TDPM model the designer must be familiar with the computer and the software which will be used. Knowing the capabilities of the computer environment (Step 1) will leverage the use of technology and contribute to successful imaging. If the designer must call for help from a computer technician, he or she should know the make and model of the computer, what type of processor it has, the size of the hard drive (ROM) and the space remaining. Graphics take a large amount of memory (RAM). Common ranges of RAM are 256, 512 and 1GB (Gigabyte). When rendering large images, the more RAM the better. The designer should know how the hard-drive is organized and setup folders (directories) for special projects. If the designer is familiar with the computer environment, that knowledge will aid in the selection of the appropriate software. After the artist or designer has a basic familiarity with the computing environment, they may proceed to step 2 and begin the GS-TDPM process. Designers should determine before they begin their designs how their designs will be produced or manufactured. In Step 3 the question “What are you designing for?” refers to the production of designs through the use of weaving, knitting, quilting, embroidery or digital printing. If the designer is unfamiliar with the production application, then the application should be investigated as to its requirements of not only the graphic form, which could be line, fi ll, a combination or a photograph (Step 4) but also the graphic fi le types required. The use of digital photographs or images used in Step 5 requires the ability to acquire these images electronically through the use of a scanner, digital camera, or to prepare them in a computer graphic application. Once these fi les have been created they should be checked for fi le format compatibility.

The selection of software as required in Step 6 should be carefully evaluated for user level, machine and software requirements and how the image is generated. If a paint type image is required at a beginning user level, then this will narrow the selection process. At each step in the process it is important to check the compatibility of the graphic fi le formats. Other considerations would be if the software is a stand-alone, plug-in or add-in. For a

83 beginning user a stand-alone application would be appropriate as it would not initially require any other applications. After the software selection has been achieved then the designer must choose how they will obtain their software. The designer may purchase and download the selected software or order the CD and documentation. Once the software has been obtained, the user will then need to install the program (Step 7). When installing new programs, the designer should make a note as to the default location. It may look something like this: C:\program fi les\pedagogery\tess. If the designer has purchased their software online and is downloading from the internet, the designer will need a folder to download to before the program is installed into its preferred directory. Some programs may be compressed into a “zipped format” and will need a utility such as Winzip to extract the fi les. Once the program has been installed, the designer should read the manual, help guide or tutorial before beginning. This will save many problems later. Why are graphic fi le formats important? In order for one to be a better designer, one must understand the variety of tools available to enhance the end product or design. When one attempts to re-create the GS-TDPM Model, it is evident that virtually every step is dependent upon graphic formats used by the geometric application (see Table 13) and by the post-imaging and CAD applications. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 14, Step 8 of the GS-TDPM Model. Many of the applications used for testing the GS-TDPM require the use of .BMP images, with further constraints on size and width. Other applications would allow multiple fi le formats with limited constraints. Before purchasing and installing the selected software for test purposes, the import and export requirements were carefully examined. Some applications require a set size and low resolution whereas others do not have any limitations.

84 Table 13 - 2D and 3D graphic fi le formats. 2D Graphic File Formats Extension Application 3DS 3D Studio AI Adobe Illustrator AVI Audio Video Interleave BMP Bitmap CALS CCITT Group 4 Computer Aided Acquisition and Logistics Support CGM Computer Graphics Metafi le DPX Digital Picture Exchange CDR Corel Draw DWG AutoCAD DXF AutoCAD EPS Encapsulated PostScript GIF CompuServe Graphic Interchange Format HPGL Hewlett Packard Graphics Language ICO Icon IGES Initial Graphics Exchange Specifi cation JPEG Joint Photographics Experts Group PCD Kodak PhotoCD PCX PC Paintbrush Exchange PDF Portable Document Format PICT Macintosh Picture PLC HP PLC Printer PS PostScript PNG Portable Network Graphics PSD Adobe Photoshop PSP Paint Shop Pro QT Quicktime RAS Sun Raster File RTF Rich Text Format SVG Scalable Vector Graphics SWF Macromedia Flash TGA Targa Graphics TIFF Tagged Image File Format WMF Microsoft Windows Meta File EMF Enhanced Meta File 3D File Formats: 3DS The 3D Studio Format MLI 3D Studio’s Material-Library Format DXF Used by Autodesk’s AutoCAD FIG Used by REND386/AVRIL FLT MulitGen Inc.’s OpenFlight format IGES Initial Graphics Exchange Specifi cation LWLO Lightwave 3D fi le formats LWOB Lightwave 3D Object LWSC Lightwave 3D Scene NFF Used by Sense 8’s WorldToolKit ENFF Extensions to Eric Haines’ NFF OBJ Wavefront Object Files OFF A 3D mesh Object File Format OOGL Object Oriented Graphics Library PLG Used by REND386/AVRIL POV Persistence of Vision ray-tracer QD3D Apple’s QuickDraw 3D Metafi leformat TDDD Imagine & Turbo Silver ray-tracers VIZ – Used by Division’s dVS/dVISE VRML Virtual Reality Modeling Language WLD Used by REND386/AVRIL

85 Using images and photographic reference images. The programs included in the geometric software survey are interesting, challenging and exciting; unfortunately, they all have different size, format, and location preferences. Many of these programs have sample images. The designer should open a sample image in the image folder, check the image size and resolution, and make a note of the fi le format and location before launching the chosen application. Some programs will allow a full browse function, while others are limited to their default location. If the selected program uses photographs, then after starting the application (Step 9) the fi rst action required is the importation of the photograph. The user must select the appropriate fi le format and locate the directory where there photographs are stored in order to import the photograph. If the program has a browse function locating the photograph (fi le) is rather simple, however some of the programs require image location (photograph) within the program’s directory. This can be determined by reading the documentation before launching the program. Depending on the application chosen, Step 10 requires input by the user, this may be accomplished by draw or paint functions and the selection of geometric parameters, while other applications may require numeric input parameters only. After the multiple images have been created in Step 11 the user proceeds to step 12 and continues to create and refi ne the images produced. In Step 13 the user may choose to end the process or continue into a post-processing application. Step 14 requires a decision: if the design should be implemented by using a draw (vector) or paint (raster) application. Once this decision has been made the designer fi nalizes the design and knows what is being made (Step 15). The additional steps at this level require the ability to use additional readily available Draw or Paint type programs. In this study the Draw program selected was Corel Draw, a favorite among quilters and embroiderers. Once the program has been launched (Step 16) the designer should create an outline of the shape required, taking careful consideration of interior and exterior boundaries required (Step 17). The interiors of the bound shapes are

86 fi lled with tiles defi ned as to the parameters of the X and Y axis (Step 18). The designer has now completed this process (Step 19) unless they will continue on to the appropriate CAM application, and further export the design (Step 20).

87 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was twofold. One was to identify and survey the many geometric software applications that have been developed to create pattern and design that have potential for use in the textile industry. The concepts applied in these technologies come from diverse areas of mathematics and science such as symmetry, geometry, fractals, kaleidoscopic effects, tilings, and tessellations. Pattern creation also utilizes generative processes, repetitions and various forms of repeats. Some forms are refl ective of Islamic art, while others are based upon Celtic knot work and its geometry. All of which can be executed on the computer. The exploration of these applications not only increases awareness of other disciplines; it extends the artist’s vision and creativity. All of the software applications are readily available as freeware, shareware, or off-the-shelf. The majority of these applications are downloadable, providing easy access. The second purpose was to develop a framework for the Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model and to further develop a sequence of steps in the form of mapping or an algorithim that will provide the leverage needed for the use of technology among self-employed designers and artists. This study identifi ed not only each step in the process, but also the knowledge needed to complete each step. The knowledge gained as part of the development of the model assisted with the selection of non-traditional geometry-based applications that can be used in the design and creation process. This study introduces technology-driven design through the use of geometry-based software and a textile design process that can be used by the self-employed artist or designer in his or her own workshop or studio to generate new ideas and aid in the creation of their work. This research has attempted to answer the initial questions proposed for this study, and the ensuing results of the study provided a large amount of data and information, but it also raised new questions and indicated new directions for research. This chapter will discuss

88 the results of the study, speculate on the possible causes of the results, attempt to draw some conclusions, and make several recommendations. The Research Questions Research question 1 - Can geometric software be identifi ed, evaluated and tested for use by textile artists and designers? As a result of the geometric software survey, thirty software applications were identifi ed, evaluated, and tested for use in the creation of textiles. Applications were tested for use in digital printing, weaving, embroidery, and quilting. Research question 2 - How are self-employed textile designers and artists currently using computer-based technology? As a result of the survey: “Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists,” computer use among artists is the highest as a design tool, followed by digital fabric printing. Among the 114 respondents ,slightly over 50% were using these technologies. Almost 40% use digital photos or pictures; while approximately 25% use scanning technology. The use of the web and e-mail, quilting and drawing all showed slightly over 20%. Some of the respondents did not use a computer at all in their work, accounting for almost 17% of the respondents. The creation of patterns (as in a template) was utilized by 14% of the respondents. The remainder of those surveyed used weaving, business, ideas, embroidery, camera, and knitting, which were all below 8%. Research question 3 - What basic knowledge must textile designers and artists employ in order to utilize computer-based technology? The results of the survey “Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists,” the development of the “user level” tables and the fi nal GS-TDPM model determined the basic knowledge and skills needed to apply computer-based technology. Research question 4 - How successful were selected textile artists and designers in the use of geometry-based software applications as an idea generator in order to create original designs? All of the textile geometry workshop participants were able to successfully utilize the software for the completion of their project. In an additional follow-up, each of the participants completed on their own an additional project using geometric software. 89 5. Can a Geometric Software-Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM) be developed for use by textile artists and designers? The GS-TDPM model created is a software-based process. If the self-employed textile artist and designer is willing to learn or already has the technological skills necessary then he or she can use the GS-TDPM model that has been created. The GS-TDPM was tested and refi ned based upon the data provided by the testing and the use of the preliminary model by the case-study participants. 6. How well did the GS-TDPM leverage the use of technology by textile artists and designers? The GS-TDPM model was successful, not only in documenting the process, but also in the completed outcome of the projects given to the case study participants. The instruments used in the study Instrument 1- Geometric Software Survey. The identifi cation, testing and evaluation of the software was the foundation upon which this researched was based. This process was extremely time consuming as each software application needed to be purchased, installed and evaluated. In order to test the usability of the software as a tool usable for textiles, each design created, by each software application also had to be tested for output with a CAM application. The geometric software applications purchase price are shown in Table 5 however, that amount does not include hidden associated costs. Each software application was identifi ed as stand-alone, plug-in, or add-in, denoting if an underlying application needed to be used. All plug-ins need an underlying application which accepts the plug-in fi le format. The most popular choice would be Adobe Photoshop which is priced at $649.00. Another plug-in evaluated only worked with Adobe Illustrator which has an associated cost of $499.00. Artlandia required Mathematica at $1,880.00, and in order to create a design using bound areas, required the use of the Corel graphics suite at $399.00. The software program Gliftic allows the importation of new user forms however, these must be created in AutoCAD which retail at $3,995.00. As each design was tested there were associated output costs which are not refl ected in this study.

90 Instrument 2 - Website. The development of the website was a necessary tool for the delivery of the surveys and ongoing communication between the workshop participants. The creation of a website and its associate language has been made easier with new development tools but requires constant maintenance as new information becomes available. Instrument 3 - Technology, creativity and self-employed textile artists survey. The creation of the survey instrument was aided by the use of the software “Survey Gold”; however, the web survey form must be uploaded as an HTML document to a web server where respondents can access it via an internet address. The link (URL) to the web survey was then placed at an appropriate location on the web site. The web-based survey process was an effective tool in the gathering of information for the survey. Notifi cation of the survey was sent to national and local surface and textile design organizations, with a request to forward the information to others who would be interested in participating in the survey thereby creating a “snowball” effect in the dissemination of the material. The letter sent had an embedded hyperlink to the survey. Although this process had the intended result of obtaining responses, there was not a way to determine how many letters were actually sent or forwarded to others. Instrument 4 - Workshop application. The workshop application was administered in the same manner as Instrument 3 - Whereas instrument 3 was a blind study, Instrument 4 required contact information. Each applicant was notifi ed by e-mail that their application was received and were given additional information on the Textile geometry workshop with a request for the workshop fee. Those who sent in the fee were accepted. Instrument 5 – Geometric Software. Textile Design Process Model (GS-TDPM). The creation of the GS-TDPM was an ongoing process as new data was gathered and tested. Although the focus of the model was on the geometric software and the textile design process, it was necessary to include information on the computing environment upon which the applications were used. Each step of the model, a total of 20 steps, was developed through the testing of the software and its use in the textile technology workshop. The model 91 developed proved reliable upon its fi nal testing and use by the participants in the workshop. Instrument 6 – Textile Technology Workshop. The Textile Technology Workshop and its participants were invaluable not only in testing the software and the GS-TDPM model, but also in assessing the user level, knowledge and skills needed to successfully deploy the model. Instrument 7 - Workshop Book and CD. In the workshop or instructional environment the use of the workbook provided not only instructional material, but also a resource for the participants in the form of necessary background information, glossary, tutorials, product demonstrations, and a resource guide. Instrument 8 - Textile technology workshop evaluation. The workshop evaluation was administered in the same manner as Instruments 3 and 4. The evaluation provided the information on the success of the workshop and the deployment GS-TDPM model. Instrument 9 - Observation Log. The observation log was administered in the same manner as Instruments 3, 4 and 8. The use of the observers and the log each observer kept allowed the distinction between perceived and observed skills. Instrument 10 - Workshop follow-up survey. The workshop follow-up survey was administered in the same manner as Instruments 3, 4, 8, and 9. The follow-up survey allowed a drilling-down or a more in-depth gathering of data, of the participants in the study allowing for additional informational data to be gathered among the study participants. Discussion The majority of textile artist and designers who responded to the initial survey were all producing and attempting to sell or exhibit their work. Although they considered themselves self-employed, only slightly more than half (53.3%) had registered with the State Department of Revenue. They are largely operating in the informal economy (Malm, 2003). According to one of the workshop attendees: “The discussion about microbusinesses helped me to understand how technology can help those who have textile skills gain income”. Clearly there is a need not only for leveraging the use of technology in design but also the 92 use of technology in business functions. The basics of the use of technology and business fundamentals should be part of all educational outreach programs. According to the follow-up survey, the workshop attendees found the use of the website to be gratifying and useful. They were able to see their own work as well as the work of the other workshop attendees. The website allowed the dissemination and exchange of information which was vital to the survey, workshop, and follow-up. Currently two of the attendees have their own website, and one has developed her own online group for fractal quilts. A future use of the internet could be an online cooperative of those self-employed textile artists and designers in order for them to sell or market their work. As part of the workshop, a booklet was developed, not only as a step-by-step guide but also as a resource for the designers to use after the workshop (Anderson Miller, 2005). This booklet also included a CD with demos, tutorials, and photos. As this proved to be an invaluable resource, a 2nd edition, available to the public, as well as workshops based on this study in various parts of the U.S. would be useful. One workshop attendee stated, “I have used Textile Technology Workshop: Enhancing Creativity Version 1, and will use it more. I intend to purchase/acquire at least one “paint” program and one “draw” program, for I now see the capability of them functioning together. This book will be a resource for those purchases. I will use it to help decide which programs, and then use the resources in the back to purchase/acquire them. The defi nitions were helpful also, as my math experience ended with Algebra 2.” In today’s world of globalization, it is more important than ever to be not only computer literate, but also well-versed in the integration of computer technology across all interests and disciplines (Committee on Information with Information Technology, 1999). For those that are self-employed, access to computer technology in their creative endeavors is only part of the whole. They need to understand how business functions and communications are also part of that technology.

93 A report entitled Being Fluent with Information Technology states that many people approach computers tentatively and with little confi dence even if they have been using computers for years. This seeming paradox probably derives from the fact that they have little true understanding of the technology. The training for the applications they know has concentrated on using the tools and has ignored more general description of principles and concepts. When something goes wrong, or a new application is available, people with such backgrounds are at a loss to know what to do and often experience frustration. They must get help, further adding to their feeling of not being in control, and the help they receive usually treats the immediate problem without imparting more basic knowledge, thus perpetuating the problem (Committee on Information with Information Technology, 1999). Through the use of the GS-TDPM model, users gain confi dence in not only using the tools but also a deeper understanding of the underlying technology upon which to build what an individual must know and understand about information technology in order to use it effectively and productively for his or her own purposes. Summary

This study has provided information that can be applied to designing other investigations in this area, although studies have been conducted on the self-employed and the self-employed artist. These studies have not focused on the self-employed textile artist and designer, nor have they offered a practical guide for leveraging creativity and technology use among this group. This study brings to the forefront a group that has not been recognized and provides information of interest to not only the subjects of this study - the self-employed textile artist and designers - but also those whom provide information and instruction to those entering this fi eld and those who are currently employed in this fi eld. Within this study the population is primarily female and of middle age and of that population, only 50% were using technology as a design tool, and approximately 18% did not use technology at all. When accessing the use of technology in business functions the percentages drop even lower to less than 8% and less than 7 % of the respondents used 94 technology as an idea generator. Clearly there is a demonstrable need to address these concerns among this population. As a descriptive study, this research provided new information but its major benefi ts which will be that it addresses a population that has not been previously studied, thereby pointing the way to new avenues to study. Recommendations for Further Study These pages have described a few of the applications for using mathematical software in the development of textile applications. Continued interaction with this software (or others) allows the techniques shown in this study to be used individually and in various combinations. These combinations could include quilting, digital art, printing and embroidery in one project or weaving and embroidery in another. The possibilities are only limited by imagination and creativity. Further development of the GS-TDPM model could be extended by continuing into the CAD functions. As the technological skills of the self-employed artist or designer increase so will the use of CAD in their productions. Many of the technology skills developed as a result of the GS-TDPM model will transfer to the use of CAD. Another possibility, which has not been addressed in this study, is the use of this software with knitted fabrics. There is an increasing array of knitting software that allows the importation of scanned images and photographs. A few of the programs that have these capabilities are: DesignaKnit, Cochenille’s Stitch Painter Gold, and Stitch and Motif Maker. These programs would allow the self-employed artist or designer to create and distribute their own patterns and designs.

95 REFERENCES

Akar, A. (1992). Authentic Turkish Designs (p. 3). New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form (15th edition, pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Anderson Miller, K. (2005). Textile Technology Workshop. Smithfi eld, NC: Self.

Atwood, M., McCain. (2002). How does the Design Community Think about Design? Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems, Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques, pp. 125-132.

Beeman, L. (2003, Nov/Dec.). Connecting Centuries, Countries and Cultures: Quilting and Patchwork in South Asia. Piecework, 11, 61-5.

Benami, O., Jin. (2002, September). Creative Stimulation in Conceptual Design. ASME 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 1-13.

Beyls, P., Bell. (1995). Algorithms and the Artist. International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (p. 496). New York, NY: SIGGRAPH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques.

Bier, C. (2000). Choices and Constraints: Pattern Formation in Oriental Carpets. Forma, 15, 127-132.

Bourgoin, J. (1977). Islamic Patterns (p. 2). New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

Boyarski, D. (1998, July). Designing Design Education. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(3), 7-10.

Candy, E., Edmonds. (2002, October). Modeling Co-Creativity in Art and Technology. Creativity and Cognition, Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Creativity and Cognition, SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Human Interaction, pp. 134-136.

Candy, L., Edmonds. (2000, August). Creativity Enhancement with Emerging Technologies. Communications of the ACM, 43(8), 63-65.

Cleveland, A., Cleveland. (2004, Spring). Coming of Age in a Digital World: The Portfolio Grows Up. TD&T, 40(2), 10-16.

Committee on Information with Information Technology. (1999, 05/04/15). Being Fluent 96 with Information Technology (pp. 1-34). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cooper, C., Wootton. (2003). Design Drivers: The Role of Designers in Leading Creativity and Innovation in the supply Chain. Retrieved December 5, 2004, from www.uiah. fi /attachment.asp?path=1;1456,2806;11678.

Cooper, S., Dann. (2000). Developing Algorithmic Thinking with Alice. In The Proceedings of ISECON 2000, 17, 1-5.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (p. 15). Lincoln: Sage Publications.

Escher, M. (1994). M.C. Escher: The Graphic Work ( John E. Brigham, Trans.) (pp. 9-11,14). New York, NY: Barnes and Noble Inc by arrangement with Taschen Publishing.

Field. (Fall 2000). Microenterprise Development in the United States: An Overview.

Fiell, C., Fiell. (2001, 04/11/27). Designing the 21st Century. Hohenzollernring: Taschen.

Garvey, G. P. (1997, August). Retrofi tting Fine Art and Design Education in the Age of Computer Technology. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics, 31(2), 29-32.

Gatto, M., Porter. (1987, 04/11/27). Exploring Visual Design (2nd ed., p. 134). Worchester: Davis Publications Inc.

Glassner, A. (1999). Andrew’s Glassner’s Notebook: Recreational Computer Graphics (pp. 183-218). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Gleick, J. (1987, 04/11/29). Chaos: Making a New Science (pp. 116-119). New York: Viking Penquin, Inc.

Greene, S. (ACM Press). (2002). Characteristics of Applications that Support Creativity. Communications of the ACM (New York, NY), Special Issue: Creativity and Interface, 100-104.

Greffe, X. (2004). Artistic Jobs in the Digital Age. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, 34(1), 79-94.

Grunbaum, B. S., C. (1980, May). Satin and Twills: An Introduction to the Geometry of Fabrics. Mathematics Magazine, 53(3), 139-161.

Grunbaum, B., Shepard. (1989). Tilings and Patterns: An Introduction (pp. 1-11). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Gunn, C. (1993, September). Discrete Groups and Visualization of Three-Dimensional Manifolds. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and 97 Interactive Techniques, pp. 255-262.

Hambridge, J. (1967). The Elements of Dynamic Symmetry (3rd ed., pp. xi-xvii). New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

Isaksen, S. (Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo - Creativity Research Unit). (1998). A Review of Brainstorming Research: Six Critical Issues for Inquiry. Buffalo, NY.

James, M. (2003, Nov/Dec.). The Digital Quilt. Fiberarts Magazine (Loveland, CO), 30, 26- 31.

Johnson, J., Henderson. (2002, January). Conceptual Models: Begin by Designing What to Design. Interactions: ACM Press, 9(1), 25-32.

Kaplan, C., Salesin. (2004, April). Islamic Star Patterns in Absolute Geometry (2, Vol. 23, pp. 97-119).

Kaplan, M., Cohen. (2003). Computer Generated Celtic Design. Proceedings of the 14th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering, pp. 9-19.

Karoly, L., Zissimopoulos. (2004). Self Employment and the 50+ Population. AARP: Washington, DC, 2004. Retrieved 25/10/2004, from http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ econ/2004_03_self_employ.pdf.

Kavanagh, T. (2004). Designers Managing Technology. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology Management, 4(1), 1-7.

Kurlantzik, J. (2004, January). About Face. Entrepreneur Magazine. (The Face of Entrepreneurship Has Evolved Over the Years, and Today It’s Dramatically Different. But What Will the Entrepreneur of the Future Look Like?). Retrieved 28/10/2004, from http://www.Entrepreneur.com/article/0,4621,312260,00.html

Lear, A. (1996, September). From Fiber to Pixels to Fiber Again. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 16(5), 4-5.

Litchfi eld, T. (2004). Recreational Mathematics? World of Escher. Retrieved 12/12/2004, from http://worldofescher.com/misc/penrose.html.

Lubbe, S. (2003, September). The Development of a Case Study Methodology in the Information Age. Ubiquity: An ACM Magazine and Forum, 29.

Malm, E. (2002, March). Helping Make Entrepreneurs “Tech Savvy”: The Experiences of Four Grantees. Field Forum(11). Retrieved 05/11/2004, from http://www.fi eldus.org/ publications/Field_Forum11.pdf.

98 Malm, E. (2003, March). The informal Economy and the Microenterprise in the United States. FIELD Forum(14). Retrieved 5 7 2004, from http://www.fi eldus.org/ publications/Field_Forum14.pdf.

McLean, C., Shao. (2003, December). Generic Case Studies for Manufacturing Applications. Simulation Conference, 2003. Proceedings of the 2003 Winter, 2, 1217-1224.

Mitchell, W. J., Inouye, A. S., & Blumenthal, M. S. (2003). Beyond Productivity: Information, Technology, Innovation, and Creativity (1st Edition, p. 268). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Moxey, J. (1999). A Systems View of Creativity for the Printed Textile Design Industry. June 2, 1999. Retrieved November 16, 2004, from http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/ead/ work/moxey2.pdf.

Murray, J., vanRyper. (1994). Encyclopedia of Graphics File Formats (pp. 76-80). O’Reilly & Associates, Inc.

National Women’s Business Council. (2004, August). Key Facts About Women Business Owners (Fact Sheet). Retrieved 28/10/2004, from http://www.nwbc.gov/keyfacts/ Key-Facts-About-Women-Business-Owners-2004.pdf.

Paul, C. (2003, 04/11/10). Digital Art (pp. 8, 27). New York, NY: Thames & Hudson.

Pearce, C. (2003). BRIDGES I: Interdisciplinary Collaboration as Practice. Leonardo, 36(2), 123-128.

Perivoliotis, M. (2004, July/October). A European Module in the Textile Industry. Fibres and Textiles in Eastern Europe, 12(3), 8-12.

Perrin, L., Ram. (2004). Case Study Method in Small Business and Entrepreneurial Research. International Small Business Journal, 22(1), 83-101.

Peterson, I. (2001/207-218, 04/11/27). Fragments of Infi nity. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Pickover, C. (2000, 04/12/12). The Pattern Book: Fractals, Art and Nature (pp. viii-ix). Hackensack: World Scientifi c Publishing Co.

Polvinen. (2004, January). Raster/Vector Design Development Workfl ow. AATCC Review, 4, 12-14.

Rucker, R. (1998). Cellular Automata Basics. Retrieved 12/12/2004, from http://www.cs.sjsu. edu/faculty/rucker/capow/index.html.

99 Schattschneider, D. (1999). Visions of Symmetry: Notebooks, Periodic Drawings and Related Work of M. C. Escher (pp. 31-33). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Sims, J. (2004). Introduction: Visual Forms in Our Rhythms. International Review of African American Art, 19(3), 4.

Steen, L. (1988, 29/04/). The Science of Patterns. Science, New Series, 240(4852), 611-616.

Steen, L. (1990). On the Shoulders of Giants: New Approaches to Numeracy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Stevens, P. (1996). Handbook of Regular Patterns. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Tait, W. (1998, February). The Space Between: Fine Art and Technology. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics, 32(1), 17-19.

Treadway, C. (2004). Digital Creativity: The Impact of Digital Imaging Technology on the Creative Practice of Printed Textile and Surface Pattern Design. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology Management, 4(1), 1-10.

U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004, March). Artists and Related Workers Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved 13/11/2004, from http://www. bls.gov/oco/ocos092.htm.

U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004, 18/05). Designers Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved 07/07/2004, from http://www.bls.gov/ oco/ocos090.htm.

U.S. Small Business Administration, O. o. A. (2003, April). Self Employment and Computer Usage. Retrieved 25/10/2004, from Offi ce of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration: http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sepc.pdf.

von Stamm, B. (2003). Managing Innovation, Design and Creativity. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Warr, A., O”Neill (ACM Press). (2005). Understanding Design as a Social Creative Process. Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (New York, NY), Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 118-127.

Washburn, D., Crowe. (1988, 04/12/05). Symmetries of Culture: Theory and Practice of Plane Pattern Analysis. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Wilson, S. (2002, 04/11/11). Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science and Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

100 APPENDICES

101 APPENDIX A Reference Models

102 Figure A1 - Response Repertoire - Moxey: in a Systems View of Creativity for the Printed Textile Designs which shows a model referred to as a Response Repertoire (Moxey, 1999).

103 Figure A2 - Design Confl ict Model (Alexander, 1964).

Figure A3 - The role of designers in leading creativity in the supply chain (Cooper, 2003).

104 Figure A4 Textile design methodology (Perivoliotis, 2004).

105 APPENDIX B Geometric Software Survey

106 Table B1 Geometric Software Survey Reference List.

1. Artlandia Artlandia, Inc. www.artlandia.com [email protected] 2015 Barberry Cr. Champaign, IL 61821-5862 USA 888-972-6366 217-355-4672 WIN/MAC $245.00 Student discount available. Must have Mathematica.

2. Apophysis http://www.apophysis.org WIN Free

3. Bob JKS Software www.stephencollins.net/penrose [email protected] Stamford, CT USA WIN Free

4. Cellab www.mathcs.sjsu.edu/faculty/rucker/cellab.htm USA WIN Free

5. Celtic Knots Designer www.celticdesigner.com [email protected] Rita Godfrey AU $28.00

107 6. Chaos http://www.mathcs.sjsu.edu/faculty/rucker/chaos.htm USA WIN Free

7. Chaos Pro http://www.chaospro.de/ [email protected] Martin Pfi ngst Germany WIN Free

8. Corel KPT Collection Corel Corporation www.corel.com [email protected] 1600 Carling Avenue Ottawa, Ontario K1Z 8R7 Canada 800-772-6735 613-761-9176 WIN/MAC $99.00 Academic discount available.

9. Creative Impulse 2000 ABCDesign www.creativeimpulse2000.com [email protected] Soft Expressions Sharla Hicks 1230 N. Jefferson Street, Suite M Anaheim, CA 92807 USA 888-545-8616 714-630-7414 WIN $59.95

108 10. Custom Fibonacci Spiral Generator Natural Intelligence http://www.chromatism.net,[email protected]),, Edward S. May Howardsville, VA, 24562 USA WIN Demo/small renderings only, $30.00 - Full renderings when purchased.

11. Centarsia http://www.happyhumans.com/centarsia/, [email protected] Daniel Lewis, 1060 North Stolle Way Meridian, ID 83642 USA WIN Free/postcard

12. Fractal Forge http://www.fractovia.org/uberto [email protected] Uberto Barbini Cannaregio 517 Venezia - 30121 Italy WIN Free

13. Fractal Snowfl ake Generator AI Studio http://a-i-studio.com [email protected] Dr. Jevgeni Bekassov Moscow, Russia Free

14. Gliftic Ransen Software www.ransen.com [email protected] Owen Ransen Via Vittorio Veneto San Giorgio su Legnano, (MI) 109 Italy 39 0331 400856 39 0331 404 318 WIN $29.95

15. Kaleider Whizical Digital Imagery http://www.whizical.com/index.htm, [email protected] Jeff Win/XP/NT/98 $24.00

16. KaleidoTile http://www.geometrygames.org/KaleidoTile/, [email protected],, Jeff Weeks, Win/MAC Limited/Full Free

17 Kali http://geometrygames.org/Kali/,[email protected],, Jeff Weeks WIN/MAC Free

18. KaleidoMania Sandpiper software http://www.keypress.com/catalog/products/software/Prod_KaleidoMania.html Kevin D. Lee WIN/MAC $39.95

19. Knots 3D www.abbott.demon.co.uk/knots.html [email protected] Steven Abbott Ipswich, England WIN Free

110 20. Mehdi Kaleidoscope http://www.mehdiplugins.com/english/kaleidoscope.htm http://www.mehdiplugins.com/english/contact.htm WIN Free

21. Photo Repeat 1.5 Human Software www.humansoftware.com [email protected] 14510 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 USA 408-399-0057 408-399-0157 WIN $99.00

22. Preztangles http://www.pretzangles.com/ Matthew Kells WIN Free

23. QuiltMaker Quiltmaker software http://www.quiltmakersoftware.com [email protected] WIN Free

24. Repligator Ransen Software www.ransen.com [email protected] Owen Ransen Via Vittorio Veneto San Giorgio su Legnano, (MI) Italy 39 0331 400856 39 0331 404 318 WIN $34.95

111 25. Symmetoy Hufnagel Software www.hufsoft.com [email protected] PO Box 747 Clarion, PA 16214 USA 814-226-5600 814-226-5551 WIN $34.95

26. Symmetry Works Artlandia, Inc. www.artlandia.com [email protected] 2015 Barberry Cr. Champaign, IL 61821-5862 USA 888-972-6366 217-355-4672 WIN/MAC $164.95 Academic discount available. Must have Adobe Illustrator.

27. Terrazzo Xaos Tools Inc www.xaostools.com Xaos Tools, Inc. 582 San Luis Rd. Berkeley, CA 94707 USA 510-525-5465 WIN/MAC $99.00

28. Tess Pedagoguery Software Inc. www.peda.com [email protected] Jeff Tupper 4446 Lazelle Ave. Terrace, B.C. V8G 1R8 Canada 250 638 8606 112 250 638 8606 WIN/MAC $36.00

29. TileDeams ZayanteCreek http://www.zayantecreek.biz/tiledreams. WIN Demo/7 days, $14.99/$24.99

30. Ultra Fractal www.ultrafractal.com [email protected] Frederik Slijkerman Amsterdam The Netherlands WIN $49.00

113 APPENDIX C Letters

114 Figure C1 - Invitation to complete survey and/or complete workshop application.

Hello textile artists and designers,

We need your help! Please take a moment to fi ll out the survey at the link below and forward this letter to other organizations, artists and designers who could help us gather this information.

North Carolina State University’s College of Textiles is conducting a research study on Technology and Creativity among Self-employed Textile Artists and Designers. This research involves an on-line survey about your work and how you use technology. The survey is directed to those who are actively exhibiting or selling their work, and will take about 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

There should be no risk to you from participating in this research. Information that you provide will be kept confi dential, and you will not be referred to by name in any report about our results. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects in Research at 919-515-4514.

While there is no direct benefi t to you from participating in this research, what we learn may help us develop better educational programs and outreach activities for self-employed textile artists and designers.

In addition to the survey, we are conducting a Textile Technology Workshop at North Carolina State University. The purpose of the workshop is to acquaint textile designers and artists with a variety of software that can help idea generation and the creation of patterns and designs. As part of our research, we will observe the workshop activities, and will ask attendees to complete an evaluation form at the end of the workshop. The workshop fee is $95.00, and space is limited; therefore applicants will be notifi ed upon acceptance.

Participation in this research is entirely voluntary, and there is no penalty if you choose not to participate. If you choose to participate, please click the links below to go to the survey and/or workshop application.

Please click this link and fi ll out the application for the workshop: http://home.earthlink.net/~kander5699hsd/WorkshopApplication.HTM

Please click on the link to complete the questionnaire: http://home.earthlink.net/~kander5699hsd/Technologyandcreativity.HTM

For more information about the research, please contact me directly at [email protected], or see my website located at: http://home.earthlink.net/~kander5699hsd/

Don’t forget! Please forward this letter to your friends and colleagues who may be interested in this information.

Thank-you, Karen Miller Anderson Ph.D. Candidate North Carolina State University College of Textiles

115 Figure C2 - Textile technology workshop acceptance letter.

Hello, Good News! You have been accepted for attendance to the Textile Technology Workshop!

Please send the amount of $95.00 within one week payable to North Carolina State University to:

Dr. Cynthia Istook Textile Technology Workshop College of Textiles Department of Textile and Apparel Technology and Management Box 8301, NCSU Raleigh, NC 27695-8301

If you have received this letter and cannot attend, please let us know immediately. Airport International Airport (RDU) Raleigh-Durham International Airport - Durham

Directions to the Velvet Cloak Inn from the Airport. From RDU International Airport From I-40 East take exit 289 (Raleigh North and East) which becomes Wade Avenue. At third traffi c light make right on Faircloth Street. At fi rst traffi c light make a left on Hillsborough Street. The Velvet Cloak Inn is approximately two miles on the right at 1505 Hillsborough Street (You will pass NCSU). Hotel

Velvet Cloak Inn 1505 Hillsborough St Raleigh, NC 27605 1-800-334-4372 $69.00 + tax/night some restrictions

Map Approximately .25 miles from Campus http://www.velvetcloakinn.com/

Please let us know if you would like to share a room so that we may assign a roommate.

Rooms are being held under “Textile Creativity Workshop” NC State. Please call and reserve your room immediately as there is a basketball conference the same weekend.

North Carolina State University’s College of Textiles is located on the Centennial Campus Building 700 Go to 3rd. Floor. To Rm. 3412, you are at the Digital Design Lab.

Campus Map http://www.ncsu.edu/campus_map/

Thank you, Karen Miller Anderson Ph.D. Candidate North Carolina State University College of Textiles 116 APPENDIX D Website

117 Figure D1- Workshop website - Home page.

118 Figure D2- Workshop website - In-Depth page..

119 Figure D2- Workshop website - Projects page

120 Appendix E Surveys

121 E1-Instrument 3 -Technology and creativity and self-employed artists survey.

Instructions Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, check the boxes most applicable to you or fi ll in the blanks. I consent to participate in this survey by completing this questionnaire.

Artist information

1. Are you currently producing fi ber based articles or works of art? (Select only one.) Yes No

2. Which of the following do you employ in your work? (Select all that apply.) Weaving Knitting Quilting Embroidery Digital Printing

3. Have you attempted to sell or exhibit your work in the past year? (Select only one.) Yes No

4. Are you registered as a business with the State Department of Revenue? (Select only one.) Yes No

5. Is your business a Sole-Proprietorship? (Select only one.) Yes No

Technology

6. What computer platform do you use. (Select only one.) Mac 122 PC

7. How often do you use a computer in your textile design work? (Select only one.) Always Sometimes Never

8. I can use computer technology to do the following. (Select all that apply.) Send an email with an attachment. Install a computer program. I can learn a new program on my own. I can use a scanner or digital camera. I can use a draw program. I can use a paint program. I can download and install a computer program or plug-in. I can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows opened at one time. I know how to import and export graphic fi les. I know how to convert graphics from one fi le format to another. I know the difference between a vector and raster program. I know how to burn a CD.

9. How do you use computer technology in your textile or surface design creations? (Provide one response only.)

10. How do you use a computer in your work? (Select all that apply.) Designing Business functions email only

Demographics

11. What is your gender? (Select only one.) Female Male

123 12. Which category fi ts your age bracket? (Select only one.) 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66+

13. Education (Select all that apply.) High School Some College Associate Degree Bachelor Degree Graduate Degree

14. What percentage of your income is derived from your textile design work or creations? (Select only one.) 1-10 percent 11-20 percent 21-30 percent 31-40 percent 41-50 percent 51-75 percent 76-85 percent 86-100 percent

15. Where do you live in the US? (According to U.S. Census map) (Select only one.) Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT, NJ, NY, PA) Midwest (IN, IL, MI, OH, WI, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) South (DE, DC, FL, GA, MD, NC. SC, VA, WV, AL, KY, MS, TN, AR, LA, OK, TX) West (AZ, CO, ID, NM, MT, UT, NV, WY, AK, CA, HI, OR, WA)

16. Which selection best describes where you live? (Select only one.) Urban area 100,000+ people Metropolitan area (City) 50,00+ Micropolitan area (Small town) 10,000-50,000 people Rural area (Farms) 2,500 people

124 17. How long have you been designing professionally? (Select only one.) 0-2 years. 3-5 years. 6-10 years. 11-15 years. 20+ years.

125 E2 -Instrument 4 - Workshop application.

Instructions Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, check the boxes most applicable to you or fi ll in the blanks.

Please provide the following (*required)

First Name*

Last Name*

Applicant information Workshop application

1. Full name. (Provide one response only.)

2. Complete street address (Provide one response only.)

3. City, State, zip (Provide one response only.)

4. Contact information: email, telephone, cell (Provide one response only.)

5. Are you currently producing fi ber based articles or works of art? (Select only one.) Yes No

6. Which of the following do you employ in your work? (Select all that apply.) 126 Weaving Knitting Quilting Embroidery Digital Printing

7. Have you attempted to sell or exhibit your work in the past year? (Select only one.) Yes No

Technology experience

8. I can use computer technology to do the following. (Select all that apply.) Send an email with an attachment. Install a computer program. I can learn a new program on my own. I can use a scanner or digital camera. I can use a draw program. I can use a paint program. I can download and install a computer program or plug-in. I can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows opened at one time. I know how to import and export graphic fi les. I know how to convert graphics from one fi le format to another. I know the difference between a vector and raster program. I know how to burn a CD.

9. I have a working knowledge of the following geometric terms. (Select all that apply.) Tiling Tessellation symmetry

Workshop enrollment

10. I would like to attend the Technology workshop for textile artists and surface designers. Saturday, March 5, 2005 (9-5) and Sunday, March 6, 2005 (10-12) (Select only one.) Yes No 127 11. If accepted I will pay $95.00. (fee due upon acceptance.) (Select only one.) Yes No

128 E3 -Instrument 8 - Workshop evaluation.

Instructions Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, check the boxes most applicable to you or fi ll in the blanks.

Applied Technology

1. In what areas will you apply the geometry-based applications? (Select fi ve.) Weaving Knitting Quilting Embroidery Digital printing

2. Will you use computer technology more frequently in your work after the workshop. (Select only one.) YES NO

3. Have you increased your knowledge of graphic fi le formats? (Select only one.) YES NO

4. Will you install and use additional geometry-based applications, other than those you used in the workshop? (Select only one.) YES NO

5. Will you use your design “as is” or employ some form of post-processing. (Select only one.) As is Post-processing

6. Do you know the difference between a vector and raster application? (Select only one.) YES NO

129 7. Will you purchase additional graphic applications as a result of this workshop? (Select only one.) YES NO

8. What type of program would you purchase next? (Select only one.) Draw Paint

9. Will you transfer you design data to a manufacturing or CAD/CAM process? (Select only one.) YES NO

10. What type of manufacturing process will you use to complete your project? (Provide one response only.)

11. Will you submit your fi nished project to the Textile Geometry workshop? (Select only one.) YES NO

12. In your own words, describe what has been the most benefi cial aspect of this workshop. (Provide one response only.)

13. How did you fi nd out about this survey? (Provide one response only.)

14. This workshop was partially funded with a grant from the College of Textiles at NCSU, future workshops would have a price increase. Please 130 select the amount you would be willing to pay. (Select only one.) $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 $350.00 $400.00

131 E4-Instrument 9 - Workshop observation log.

Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, check the boxes most applicable to you or fi ll in the blanks.

Please provide the following (*required)

First Name*

Last Name*

Observation questions.

1. Student can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows open at the same time. (Select only one.) True False

2. Student can download and install a computer program or plug-in. (Select only one.) True False

3. Student can use photo-editing software. (Select only one.) True False

4. Student can use a scanner or digital camera. (Select only one.) True False

5. Student can use a draw program. (Select only one.) True False

6. Student can learn a new program on their own. (Select only one.) True 132 False

7. Student knows how to import and export graphic fi les. (Select only one.) True False

8. Student knows how to convert graphics from one fi le format to another. (Select only one.) True False

9. Student knows the difference between a vector program and a raster program. (Select only one.) True False

10. Student knows how to burn a CD. (Select all that apply.) True False

11. Student knows how to send an email with an attachment. (Select only one.) True False

12. Student has a working knowledge of geometric terms. (Select all that apply.) True False

13. Comments (Provide one response only.)

Section 2. Textile Design Process

14. Was the subject prepared adequately to begin work? (Reference material) (Select only one.) 133 Yes No

15. Which software did the subject select and use? (Select all that apply.) Kaleider Celtic Knots Designer Gliftic Custom Fibonacci Spiral Generator Repligator Symmetoy Tess Ultra Fractal Creative Impulse 2000 TileDeams Bob Cellab Chaos Chaos Pro Fractal Forge KaleidoTile 2 Kali Knots 3D Preztangles Fractal Snowfl ake Generator Centarsia Kaleidomania KPT Xaos Tools Corel Draw

16. Was the subject able to generate several Ideas? (Select only one.) Yes No

17. Was the subject able to input the parameters required? (Select only one.) Yes No

18. Did the subject experiment with and refi ne ideas? (Select only one.) Yes 134 No

19. Did the subject use post-processing? (Select only one.) Yes No

20. Was the subject able to create a prototype? (Select only one.) Yes No

21. Did the subject refi ne the prototype? (Select only one.) Yes No

22. Did the subject complete the project developed? (Select only one.) Yes No

23. Comments (Provide one response only.)

135 E5-Instrument 10 - Workshop follow-up survey .

Instructions Answer questions as they relate to you. For most answers, check the boxes most applicable to you or fi ll in the blanks.

Participant information:

1. First Name (Provide one response only.)

2. Last Name. (Provide one response only.)

3. Address: (Provide one response only.)

4. City: (Provide one response only.)

5. State / Province (Provide one response only.)

6. Postal code (Provide one response only.)

7. Phone (Provide one response only.)

136 Background Information

8. 1. What gender are you? (Select only one.) Female Male

9. Please mark the highest level of education completed. (Select only one.) High School Some College Associate Degree Bachelor Degree Graduate Degree

10. Which category fi ts your age bracket? (Select only one.) 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 65+

11. What is your annual household income? (Select only one.) $10,000 - $20,000 20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 - $40,000 $40,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - 75,000 75,000 - 100,000 100,000+

12. What is your current martial status? (Select only one.) Single Married Widowed

13. Are you currently employed outside the home? (Select only one.) Yes No 137 14. Are you retired now? (Select only one.) Yes No

15. What are your plans upon retirement? (Provide one response only.)

16. What percentage of your income is derived from your textile design work? (Select only one.) 1-10 percent 11-20 percent 21-30 percent 31-40 percent 41-50 percent 71-75 percent 76-85 percent 86-100 percent

17. Where do you live in the US? (According to U.S. Census map) (Select only one.) Northeast (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT, NJ, NY, PA) Midwest (IN, IL, MI, OH, WI, IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD) South (DE, DC, FL, GA, MD, NC. SC, VA, WV, AL, KY, MS, TN, AR, LA, OK, TX) West (AZ, CO, ID, NM, MT, UT, NV, WY, AK, CA, HI, OR, WA)

18. Which selection best describes where you live? (Select only one.) Urban area 100,000+ people Metropolitan area (City) 50,00+ Micropolitan area (Small town) 10,000-50,000 people Rural area (Farms) 2,500 people

19. How long have you been designing professionally? (Select only one.) 0-2 years. 3-5 years. 6-10 years. 11-15 years. 138 20+ years.

20. What computer platform do you use? (Select only one.) Mac PC

21. How often do you use computer technology in your textile design work? (Select only one.) Always Sometimes Never

22. I can use computer technology to do the following. (Select all that apply.) Send an email with an attachment. Install a computer program. I can learn a new program on my own. I can use a scanner or digital camera. I can use a draw program. I can use a paint program. I can download and install a computer program or plug-in. I can run more than one program simultaneously, and have several windows opened at one time. I know how to import and export graphic fi les. I know how to convert graphics from one fi le format to another. I know the difference between a vector and raster program. I know how to burn a CD.

23. How do you use computer technology in your textile or surface design creations? (Provide one response only.)

24. How do you use a computer in your work? (Select all that apply.) Designing Business functions email only

139 In your own words.

25. How has the workshop benefi ted you? (Provide one response only.)

26. Did you/have you found the website useful? If so how? (Provide one response only.)

27. Have you/will you used the booklet and CD that accompanied the workshop? Will you continue to use this as a reference? (Provide one response only.)

28. Please tell us a little about yourself. Your background, how you became interested in textiles and anything else you would like to share. (Provide one response only.)

140 Appendix F Textile Technology workshop

141 Figure F1 - Instrument 6 - Tiles created by participants in the Textile Technology workshop.

142 Appendix G Textile Technology workshop book and CD

143 Figure G1 - Instrument 7- Thumbnails of Workshop Book and CD

144