Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:45:36.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A typology of design space explorers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2006

ROBERT F. WOODBURY  and
ANDREW L. BURROW
ROBERT F. WOODBURY
Affiliation:
School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
ANDREW L. BURROW
Affiliation:
Spatial Information Architecture Laboratory, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The act of design is a complex of actions and abilities that is evolving and often highly individual. Given the context of human–computer interaction, and a commitment to the model of design space exploration, we identify two axes that help position efforts to realize this model: the spectrum of strengths and needs that stretches from the machine to the human, and the time scale of events in design. Considering a section of each reveals a landscape that prefers certain activities and gives rise to particular emphases. This paper places the other authors in this Special Issue upon this map, and argues the value of typed feature structures and information orderings to the endeavor of realizing design space explorers.

Keywords

Design Space ExplorationHuman–Computer InterfaceKnowledge RepresentationTyped Feature Structures
Type
AUTHORS' RESPONSE
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 143 - 153
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aish, R. & Woodbury, R. (2005). Multi-level interaction in parametric design. SmartGraphics, 5th Int. Symp., SG2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3638 (Butz, A., Fisher, B., Krüger, A. & Oliver, P., Eds.), pp. 151–162. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Akın, Ö. (2006). The whittled design space. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, A. & Woodbury, R. (1999). π-Resolution in design space exploration. CAADfutures '99: Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures, pp. 291–308. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Burrow, A.L. (2004). Negotiating access within WIKI: a system to construct and maintain a taxonomy of access rules. HYPERTEXT '04: Proc. 15th ACM Conf. Hypertext and Hypermedia, pp. 77–86. New York: ACM Press.CrossRef
Chang, T.-W. (1999). Geometric typed feature structures: towards design space exploration. PhD Thesis. University of Adelaide.
Chien, S.-F. & Flemming, U. (1997). Information navigation in generative design systems. CAADRIA '97: Proc. Second Conf. Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (Yu-Tung Liu, J.-H.H. & Tsou, J.-Y., Eds.), Vol. 2, pp. 355–366. Hsinchu, Taiwan: National Chia Tung University.
Datta, S. (2006). Modeling dialogue with mixed-initiative in design space exploration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 129–142.Google Scholar
Dennet, D.C. (1995). Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. London: Penguin.
Erhan, H. (2003). Interactive support for modelling and generating building design requirements. PhD Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University.
Erhan, H. & Flemming, U. (2004). Interactive support for modelling and generating building design requirements. GCAD '04: Proc. 2004 Int. Symp. Generative CAD Systems (Akin, O., Krishnamurti, R. & Lam, K.R., Eds.).
Flemming, U. (1978). Wall representations of rectangular dissections and their use in automated space allocation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 5(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, U. (1980). Wall representations of rectangular dissections: additional results. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 7(2), 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, U. (1986). On the representation and generation of loosely-packed arrangements of rectangles. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 13(2), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, U. (1989). More on the representation and generation of loosely packed arrangements of rectangles. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 16(3), 327–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, U. (2006). Yes, and by the way …. thoughts on “Whither design space?” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 89–94.Google Scholar
Flemming, U. & Chien, S.-F. (1995). Schematic layout design in the SEED environment. ASCE Journal of Architectural Engineering 1(4), 162–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GNU Project. (2005). Concurrent versions system—CVS. Accessed at www.nongnu.org/cvs/ on November 30, 2005.
Goldschmidt, G. (2006). Quo vadis, design space explorer? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 105–111.Google Scholar
Graphisoft. (2005). Archicad. Accessed at www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad on November 30, 2005.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Krishnamurti, R. (2006). Explicit design space? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 95–103.Google Scholar
Özkaya, I., Akın, Ö., & Woods, V. (2004). Emerging CAD processes: the case of computer aided requirement management. GCAD '04: Proc. 2004 Int. Symp. Generative CAD Systems (Akin, O., Krishnamurti, R. & Lam, K. P., Eds.).
Penn, G. (2006). Design space amd typed feature logic. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 121–128.Google Scholar
Piela, P.C. (1989). ASCEND: an object-oriented computer environment for modeling and analysis. PhD Thesis. Carnegie Mellon University.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Simon, H.A. (1980). The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM 38(9), 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, I.E. (1963). Sketchpad: A Man–Machine Graphical Communication System. Technical Report 296. Cambridge, MA: MIT Lincoln Lab.
van Langen, P.H.G. & Brazier, F.M.T. (2006). Design space exploration revisited. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wille, R. (1992). Concept lattices and conceptual knowledge systems. Computers and Mathematerial Applications 23(6–9), 493–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, R., Datta, S., & Burrow, A. (2000). Erasure in design space exploration. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '00: Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence in Design, pp. 521–544. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Woodbury, R.F., Burrow, A.L., Datta, S., & Chang, T.W. (1999). Typed feature structures in design space exploration. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 13(4), 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar