This research aims to obtain more insight in the perception of fabric drape and how fabric drape can be cat-egorized With the current 3D virtual technologies to simulate garments the fashion and clothing industry can speed up work processes, improve accuracy and reduce material consumption in fit, design and sales. Although the interest in 3D technology is increasing, the implementation on a large scale emerges only slowly. At the threshold between physical and virtual fitting the fashion industry faces new challenges and demands re-quiring responses out of rule. The measurement of fabric drape started in the first half of the previous cen-tury, after the introduction of 3D garment simulation fabric drape gained interest from more researchers to obtain information for the virtual drape. Intensive research has been undertaken to define ‘fabric hand’, however, research is limited for the definition of fabric drape. Better understanding of how fabrics drape and how they can be selected based on their drape might contribute to the understanding of the virtually as-sessed material and accelerate the selection process of virtually, as well as digitally presented fabrics. For this research the drape coefficient of 13 fabrics, selected based on their drape, was measured with the Cusick drape tester. Images and videos of the fabrics draped on pedestals were presented to an expert tex-tile panel who were asked to define the fabric drape. From these definitions categories, as well as identifying key-words, were derived. During a group session the expert panel evaluated the drape categories and identi-fying key-words. In the next phase an expert user panel, familiar with the assessment of fabrics in a virtual environment, assessed the appropriateness of the categories and identifying key-words which were present-ed along with the fabric drape images and videos. Moreover, both panels judged the stiffness and amount of drape, next to that they indicated similar draping fabrics. The relation between the subjective assessment of drape and the drape coefficient was investigated. The agreement of the user panel with the drape categories defined and evaluated by the textile panel was high. Further, the agreement of the majority of the user panel with the identifying key-words was above 78%. A strong relation was found between the measured drape coefficient and the subjectively assessed stiffness and amount of drape. Additionally, the analysis of the fabrics combined by the panels based on drape simi-larity, as well as the analysis of the drape coefficients, confirms with previous research, that significantly dif-ferent fabrics can have a similar drape. Fabrics can be divided in drape categories based on the way they drape, and the identifying key-words are useful to distinguish between significantly different fabrics with similar fabric drape. Moreover, the cate-gories are related to the drape coefficient.
MULTIFILE
Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.
