Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:52:23.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IM-sgi: an interface model for shape grammar implementations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2018

Joana Tching ,
Joaquim Reis  and
Alexandra Paio
Joana Tching*
Affiliation:
Computer Science and Information Technology, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), ISTAR-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal
Joaquim Reis
Affiliation:
Computer Science and Information Technology, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), ISTAR-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal
Alexandra Paio
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), ISTAR-IUL, Vitruvius FABLAB-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author for correspondence: Joana Tching, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Information technologies are a driving force for progress in the design field, allowing new modes of creativity. However, most of the existing computational design tools are focused on the latest stages of the design process and especially directed to drafting operations. Conceptual design tools that support the designer in the creative and inventive early stages of the design project are still in their early development. Shape grammars (SG) were introduced by George Stiny in the 1970s, allowing the generation of designs according to a set of predefined rules. SG computational implementations have the potential to answer the need for tools that can assist designers, architects, and artists in the creative process, offering design alternatives, stimulating new ideas and encouraging the search for new design generation processes. Acknowledging this potential, a user-friendly interface seems essential for the adoption of these tools. Taking Scott Chase's interaction model as background, the aim of the present investigation is to define guidelines and begin to design a graphical-user interface for SG implementations. Inspection methods of human–computer interaction (HCI) were used to analyze existing SG implementations and understand usability issues. Subsequently, HCI ergonomic criteria for interface evaluation were adapted to establish guidelines for the design of an SG implementation interface, called IM-sqi. These guidelines take into account different user groups, adjustable interaction modes for each user group, and the nature of each task performed by the user.

Keywords

Computational creativitycreative processergonomic criteriainterface modelshape grammar implementationsshape grammars
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 24 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Apple, CI (1992) Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Bach, C and Scapin, DL (2003) Adaptation of ergonomic criteria to human-virtual environments interactions. INRIA.Google Scholar
Bastien, J and Scapin, D (1993) Ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. INRIA.Google Scholar
Bastien, JM and Scapin, DL (1995) Evaluating a user interface with ergonomic criteria. INRIA, n° 2326.Google Scholar
Bodart, F and Vanderdonckt, J (1995) Guide ergonomique de la présentation des applications hautement interactives. Presses Universitaires de Namur.Google Scholar
Brown, MH (1998) Perspectives on algorithm animation. ACM CHI'88 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 33–38.Google Scholar
Chase, S (2002) A Model for User Interaction in Grammar-Based Design Systems (Vol. Automation in Construction 11). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Economou, A and Kotsopoulos, S (2014) From shape rules to rule schemata and back. Design Computind and Cognition. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_22Google Scholar
Hollender, N, Hofmann, C, Deneke, M and Schmitz, B (2010) Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human-computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior 26(6), 1278–1288.Google Scholar
IBM. (1989) IBM System Application Architecture, Common User Access: Advanced Interface Design Guide. International Business Machines. doi: SC26-4582-0Google Scholar
Jowers, I, Prats, M, McKay, A and Garner, S (2013) Evaluating an eye tracking interface for a two-dimensional sketch editor. CAD Computer Aided Design 45(5), 923–936.Google Scholar
Karray, F, Alemzadeh, M, Saleh, JA and Arab, MN (2008) Human-computer interaction: overview on state of the art. International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems 1(1), 137–159.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, R (1980) The Arithmetic of Shapes, Vol. 7. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design.Google Scholar
Lewis, C and Rieman, J (1994, 6 16) Task-Centered User Interface Design. Available at http://hcibib.org/tcuid/chap-4.html#4-1Google Scholar
Liew, H (2002) Descriptive conventions for shape grammars. ACADIA.Google Scholar
Ligler, H and Economou, T (2015) Lost in translation: towards an automated description of John Portmans's domestic architecture. SIGRADI 2015, pp. 657–661. doi: ISBN: 978-85-8039-133-6Google Scholar
McKay, A, Chase, SC, Garner, SW, Jowers, I, Prats, M, Hogg, DC, Lim, S (2009) Design synthesis and shape generation. Designing for the 21st Century: Interdisciplinary Methods and Findings, pp. 304–321.Google Scholar
McKay, A, Chase, SC, Shea, K and Chau, HH (2012) Spatial grammar implementation: from theory to useable software. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26(2), 143–159.Google Scholar
Molich, R and Nielsen, J (1990) Improving a human-computer dialogue. Communications of the ACM, pp. 338–348.Google Scholar
Myers, B (2008) A Quick Overview of Human-Computer Interaction. Human Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J (1994) Usability Inspection Methods. Conference Companion *CHI'940, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 413–414.Google Scholar
Ravden, S (1988) Ergonomic criteria for design of the software interface between human and computer. CIM International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, pp. 35–42.Google Scholar
Rudd, J, Stern, K and Isensee, S (1996) Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions 3(1), 76–85.Google Scholar
Scapin, DL (1986) Guide ergonomique de conception des interfaces homme-machine. Technical Report No.77, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en automatique, Rocquencourts, France.Google Scholar
Scapin, DL (1990) Decyphering human factors recommendations. Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems II, pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
Schneiderman, B (1987) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Smith, SM (1986) Guidelines for Designing User Interface Software. Mitre Corporation.Google Scholar
Stiny, G (1977) Ice-ray: a note on the generation of Chinese lattice designs. Environment and Planning B 4, 89–98.Google Scholar
Stiny, G and Gips, J (1975) Shape Grammars and Their Uses: Artificial Perception, Shape Generation and Computer Aesthetics. Munich: Birkhauser, p. 1. doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-5753-6.Google Scholar
Tching, J, Reis, J and Paio, A (2013) Shape grammars for creative decisions in the architectural project. CISTI.Google Scholar
Tching, J, Reis, J and Paio, A (2016) A cognitive walkthrough towards an interface model for shape grammar implementations. Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology 4(3), 92–119.Google Scholar
Trescak, T, Esteva, M and Rodriguez, I (2012) A shape grammar interpreter for rectilinear forms. CAD Computer Aided Design 44(7), 657–670.Google Scholar
Yue, K and Krishnamurti, R (2014) A paradigm for interpreting tractable shape grammars. Environment and Planning B. doi: 10.1068/b3910 7Google Scholar