![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
|
Joel Clawson 1.1 I thought the idea of the critics was interesting. I found the concept of having the critics watch in the background while the user modifies their design and send out their argumentation when needed interesting. 1.2 I did not find the article itself all that interesting. It is an area that just does not interest me. 2. The main message of the article was that in a specific environment, critics can be embedded in a system to help a designer find a good, if not optimal, solution for the design they are trying to create. 3. Not really. This is an area that I do not have much of an interest. 4. It has been a number of years since I have used it, but the home architect programs or home landscaping programs would fit under both categories. 5.1 The article states that design can be improved by using the critics in a domain specific environment. Using the critics and their argumentation, will give the designer a better and more efficient way to solve the problem. 5.2 Learning comes from using the critic system. There is too much information for the user to know about the domain, so they system helps them by telling them what they may have done wrong or what they should consider. 5.3 Collaboration comes in when building the system. Computer scientists, users, and domain experts need to come together to create useful critics and a system that will allow the problem to be solved. 5.4 The innovative media support seems to be the critic system itself. The critics are built into the system and supply support when their constraints have been violated. The critics can be weighted and prioritized to the specific user to provide more reasonable argumentation that will benefit the user. |
