The argument behind this paper is interesting, but is not developed in enough detail. Too much of the paper is devoted to the critiques of existing approaches when it would have been better to describe the authors' contribution. It is somewhat ironic that the illustrative prototype is not presented in a way that makes it easy to understand. The figures showing screenshots are too small to be able to read or interpret. Without being able to see the presentation of the system it is difficult to see how it offers an improvement on existing approaches.

I would like to see more emphasis on the theoretical aspects of perception, especially looking a ideas outside the field of architecture. Where are the references to, for example, Tufte? There is a growing body of research on information design that is not mentioned here. Perhaps there are alternatives to the traditional CAD presentation techniques that should be investigated. A thorough exploration of end-user needs is missing from this account -- what is the most effective way to present information to different end-users with different needs? How does the technology affect the way in which students learn about architectural precedents? What is the relation to experience of actual buildings?

The results of the focus group are not described fully, and the conclusion which is presented is so general to be almost useless. This could have been exploited in a much better way.

The paper is generally well written, but could benefit from closer proof-reading. The references also need to be corrected: the reference for Akin et al seems to be messed up -- only Akin's surname appears.