Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:01:13.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The whittled design space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2006

ÖMER AKIN
ÖMER AKIN
Affiliation:
School of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper by Woodbury and Burrow is examined using four criteria: completeness, discrimination, alternative approaches, and combining exploration in different problem domains. Although the paper covers significant aspects of the search space literature it leaves out some relevant aspects of the cognitive approach. It fares much better in terms of discriminating important concepts and alternative approaches to the modeling of the design search space. The structure–function–behavior model is suggested as an analogy for the central parameters of the search space paradigm. The Woodbury and Burrow paper reveals more than what has been accomplished up to now in the design search space area, but its task still remains incomplete.

Keywords

Alternative ApproachesCombining ExplorationsCompletenessDiscriminationStructure–Function–Behavior Model
Type
RESPONSE TO KEYNOTE
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2006 , pp. 83 - 88
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

Akın, Ö. (1986). Psychology of Architectural Design. London: Pion Ltd.
Akın, Ö. (2002). Case based instruction strategies in architecture. Design Studies 23(4), 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akın, Ö. & Dave, B. (1986). Formal representation of design knowledge and process. Proc. CIB.86 Advancing Building Technology Conf., Washington, DC.
Akın, Ö. & Moustapha, H. (2004). Why is formal notation helpful in design–cognition research? Proc. Design Cognition and Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Akın, Ö. & Sen, R. (1996). Navigation within a structured search space in layout problems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23(4), 421–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carpenter, B. (1992). Logic of Typed Feature Structures With Applications to Unification Grammars, Logic Programs, and Constraint Resolution. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 32 (Van Rijsbergen, C.J., Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Chandrasekaran, B. & Milne, R. (1985). Reasoning about structure, behavior, and function. ACM SIGART Bulletin Archive, Vol. 93, pp. 4–55. New York: ACM Press.
Eastman, C.M. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive design processes. In Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning (Moore, G.T., Ed.), pp. 21–37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Flemming, U., Bhavnani, S., & John, B. (1997). Mismatched metaphor: user vs. system model in computer-aided drafting. Design Studies 18, 349–368.Google Scholar
Gero, J. & Kannengiesser, U. (2003). The function–behaviour–structure view of social situated design agents. Proc. CAADRIA03.
Jones, J.C. (1970). Design Methods—Seeds of Human Futures. New York: Wiley.
Kedrov, B.M. (1966). On the question of the psychology of scientific creativity. Soviet Psychology 5(2), 16–37.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review 63(1), 81–97.Google Scholar
Özkaya, I., Akın, Ö., & Woods, V. (2004). Emerging CAD processes: The case of computer aided requirement management. In Proc. Generative CAD Systems Symp., Carnegie Mellon University, School of Architecture, September 12–16.
Wade, J.W. (1977). Architecture, Problems and Purposes. New York: Wiley.