Feature/update documentation

docs/knowledge/case-studies/bim.md

@@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ Its layer model related construction phases to their physical depth. This suited
 
 ## Scenario
 
+![Map-Interaction on the Elastic Display]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/img/kb/case-studies/bim_overview.png)
+
 ### Supporting Construction Consultations
 
 The application was intended to help participants communicate project status, examine dependent processes, and negotiate responses to delays or conflicts. The **construction plan occupied the centre of the display**, with compact schedule and cost summaries along the top and left edges. Expanding these summaries provided access to detailed planning views.
@@ -83,6 +85,8 @@ Semantic zoom kept the initial map uncluttered and progressively revealed more d
 
 Semantic layers filtered the map by construction process. In the selected scenario, work in deeper ground layers generally preceded work above them; completed layers were sealed before subsequent work began. The ordering of underground services, road construction, and landscaping therefore allowed physical depth and process sequence to share a layer representation.
 
+![Layer Navigation]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/img/kb/case-studies/bim_layers.png)
+
 Full-map navigation and local layer inspection were separated visually: the map could be magnified and moved, while the magic lens exposed a selected process layer within its surrounding context. Deformation depth selected the layer displayed inside the lens.
 
 Three ways of switching between these interactions were explored:
@@ -99,6 +103,8 @@ The compact timeline showed deviations from the original schedule for individual
 
 Pressing the timeline expanded it into a **hierarchical Gantt chart with three levels**, allowing processes to be expanded or collapsed. Dependencies were represented using the critical-path method. PlanningLineGlyph features communicated temporal tolerances and changes, including critical changes that caused dependency conflicts or delayed the overall project.
 
+![Interface Concept]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/img/kb/case-studies/bim_interface.png)
+
 Pressing a task provided semantic zoom through three information levels:
 
 | Detail level | Information shown |
@@ -113,6 +119,8 @@ Cost ranges were omitted because, in the scenario, these figures were not normal
 
 ### Manipulating Tasks and Resetting the Application
 
+![Interaction Concept]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/img/kb/case-studies/bim_interaction-concept.png){:.full-width-scheme .transparent-background}
+
 The **Shift gesture** adapted the two-contact translation concept from [Glyphboard](glyphboard.md). Contacts near a task bar were interpreted according to their positions relative to it:
 
 - **Move a task:** Press on either side of the bar. It moves towards the deeper contact, as though sliding into the depression.

docs/knowledge/case-studies/layers.md

@@ -91,7 +91,9 @@ Layers provided three ways to explore the same content. Magic Lens had separate
 
 In Pixel Blending, the grayscale values corresponding to the resting plane and maximum deformation were configurable. This allowed the dataset to be mapped, for example, entirely to the depth range reached by pressing inward.
 
-The modes were not available in every combination. **Texture2D supported all four selectable variants, whereas TextureArray supported Pixel Blending, a single Magic Lens, and Layer Navigation. Multiple texture-array lenses were not implemented in the reported study.**
+The modes were not available in every combination. **Texture2D supported all four selectable variants, whereas TextureArray supported Pixel Blending, a single Magic Lens, and Layer Navigation. Multiple texture-array lenses were not implemented in the reported case study.**
+
+![Shader Lens Options]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/img/kb/case-studies/layers_masks.png){:.full-width-scheme .transparent-background}
 
 ### Lens Appearance and Orientation
 
@@ -112,6 +114,8 @@ A separate **layer widget** represented the available depth range as a vertical
 
 ### Datasets and Application Contexts
 
+![Lens Examples]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/img/kb/case-studies/layers_examples.png)
+
 The experimentation environment adapted earlier FlexiWall content and explored larger layer stacks:
 
 | Content | Exploration supported by the study |
@@ -135,6 +139,8 @@ Global options also covered depth-range mapping, calibration, debugging views, a
 
 ## Findings and Discussion
 
+![Glyphboard: Interaction Concept]({{ site.baseurl }}/assets/img/kb/case-studies/layers_influences.png){:.full-width-scheme .transparent-background}
+
 ### Combining Earlier Results
 
 Layers brought together several strands of the preceding studies: