Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:03:34.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Embedding critics in design environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Gerhard Fischer ,
Kumiyo Nakakoji ,
Jonathan Ostwald ,
Gerry Stahl  and
Tamara Sumner
Gerhard Fischer
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0430, USA (email: [email protected])
Kumiyo Nakakoji
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0430, USA (email: [email protected])
Jonathan Ostwald
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0430, USA (email: [email protected])
Gerry Stahl
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0430, USA (email: [email protected])
Tamara Sumner
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0430, USA (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human understanding in design evolves through a process of critiquing existing knowledge and consequently expanding the store of design knowledge. Critiquing is a dialogue in which the interjection of a reasoned opinion about a product or action triggers further reflection on or changes to the artifact being designed. Our work has focused on applying this successful human critiquing paradigm to human-computer interaction. We argue that computer-based critiquing systems are most effective when they are embedded in domain-oriented design environments, which are knowledge-based computer systems that support designers in specifying a problem and constructing a solution. Embedded critics play a number of important roles in such design environments: (1) they increase the designer's understanding of design situations by pointing out problematic situations early in the design process; (2) they support the integration of problem framing and problem solving by providing a linkage between the design specification and the design construction; and (3) they help designers access relevant information in the large information spaces provided by the design environment. Three embedded critiquing mechanisms—generic, specific, and interpretive critics—are presented, and their complementary roles within the design environment architecture are described.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 285 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Bobrow, DG and Goldstein, I, 1980. “Representing design alternatives” In: Proceedings of AISB Conference, AISB, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Buchanan, B and Shortliffe, E, 1984. “Human engineering of medical expert systems” In: Buchanan, B and Shortliffe, E (Eds), Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, pp 599–612.Google Scholar
Burton, R and Brown, JS, 1982. “An investigation of computer coaching for informal learning activities” In: Sleeman, D and Brown, JS (Eds), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Academic Press, London, pp 79–98.Google Scholar
Chambers, AB and Nagel, DC, 1985. “Pilots of the future: Human or computer?” Commun. ACM 28 (11) 1187–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, J and Begeman, M, 1988. “gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion” Trans. Office Infor. Syst. 6 (4) 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, SW, 1984. “The nature of expertise in UNIX” In: Proceedings of INTERACT'84, IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp 182–186, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ehn, P, 1989. Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts (2nd ed), Arbetslivscentru, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Fischer, G, 1987. “A critic for LISP” In: Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference of Artificial Intelligence, pp 177–184, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
Fischer, G, 1990. “Communication requirements for cooperative problem solving systems” Information Syst. 15 (1) pp 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G, 1991. “Supporting learning on demand with design environments” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences, pp 165–172, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
Fischer, G, 1992. “Domain-oriented design environments” In: Proceedings of 7th Annual Knowledge-Based Software Engineering (KBSE-92) Conference, pp 204–213, McLean, VA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G, 1993. “Turning breakdowns into opportunities for creativity” In: Edmonds, E (Eds), Creativity in Cognition, Penrose Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, G, and Girgensohn, A, 1990. “End-user modifiability in design environments” In: Proceedings of CHI'90, pp 183–191, ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G, Grudin, J, Lemke, AC, McCall, R, Ostwald, J, Reeves, BN and Shipman, F, 1992. “Supporting indirect, collaborative design with integrated knowledge-based design environments” Human Computer Interaction (Special Issue on Computer Supported Cooperative Work) 7 (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G, Lemke, AC, Mastaglio, T and Morch, A, 1991. “The role of critiquing in cooperative problem solving” ACM Trans. Infor. Syst. 9 (2) 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G, Lemke, AC, McCall, R and Morch, A, 1991 “Making argumentation serve design” Human Computer Interaction 6 (3–4) 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G, Lemke, AC and Schwab, T, 1985. “Knowledge-Based Help Systems” In: Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'85 Conference Proceedings, pp 161–167, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Fischer, G, McCall, R and Morch, A, 1989. “Design environments for constructive and argumentativc design” In: Proceedings of CHI'89, pp 269–275, ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G and Nakakoji, K, 1991. “Making design objects relevant to the task at hand” In: Proceedings of AAAI-91, Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 67–73, AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Girgensohn, A, 1992. End-User Modifiability in Knowledge-Based Design Environments, Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. (Also available as TechReport CU–CS–595–92.)Google Scholar
Greenbaum, J and Kyng, M, 1991. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hackman, JR and Kaplan, RE, 1974. “Interventions into group process: An approach to improving the effectiveness of groups” 5 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, R, 1988. Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams, Free Press.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J, 1991. “Improving human decision making through case-based decision aiding” 12 (2) 52–68.Google Scholar
Lave, J, 1988. Cognition in Practice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemke, AC and Fischer, G, 1990. “A cooperative problem solving system for user interface design” In: Proceedings of AAAI-90, Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 479–484, AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCall, R, 1987. “PHIBIS: Precedurally Hierarchical Issue-Based Information Systems” In: Proceedings of the Conference on Architecture at the International Congress on Planning and Design Theory (New York), American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
Nakakoji, K, 1993. Increasing shared knowledge of design tasks between humans and design environments: The role of a specification component, PhD Dissertation Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Norman, DA, 1993. Things That Make Us Smart, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Petroski, H, 1985. To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design, St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M, 1966. The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday.Google Scholar
Popper, KR, 1965. Conjectures and Refutations, Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Prieto-Diaz, R and Freeman, P, 1987. “Classifying software for reusability” 4 (1) 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repenning, A and Sumner, T, 1992. “Using agentsheets to create a voice dialog design environment” In: Proceedings of Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'92), pp 1199–1207, ACM Press.Google Scholar
Rittel, H, 1984. “Second generation design methods” In: Cross, N (Ed.) Developments in Design Methodology, pp 317–327, Wiley.Google Scholar
Rittel, H and Webber, MM, 1984. “Planning problems are wicked problems” In: Cross, N (Ed.) Developments in Design Methodology, pp 134–144, Wiley.Google Scholar
Schoen, DA, 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Silverman, B, 1992. “Survey of expert critiquing systems: Practical and theoretical frontiers” Comm. ACM 35 (4) 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, HA, 1981. The Sciences of the Artificial (2nd ed.), The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, G, 1992. Toward a Theory of Hermeneutic Software Design, No. CU–CS–589–92, Computer Science Department, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Stahl, G, 1993. “Supporting interpretation in design” J. Architecture and Planning Research (Special Issue on Computational Representations of Knowledge) (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
Stahl, G, McCall, R and Peper, G, 1992. “A hypermedia inference language as an alternative to rule-based expert systems” (Submitted to Expert Systems ITL Conference).Google Scholar
Sumner, T, Davies, S, Lemke, AC and Polson, PG, 1991. Iterative Design of a Voice Dialog Design Environment, Technical Report No. CU–CS–546–91, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Winograd, T and Flores, F, 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar