![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
|
Huda Khan 1)what did you find interesting about the article? not interesting about the article? Some of the concepts I found interesting were the transfer of the structure of successful of human critiquing to computer-supported critiquing systems. There is a balance between automating too much and not providing enough computer support which must be maintained. Allowing the user to have control over the method through which the critic can provide information at breakdown points helps integrate the critiquing process into the overall design process without making the critiquing process seem invasive or annoying (.e.g MS Word Paper Clip Assistant.) Also interesting is that there is not just one form of critic but different kinds of critics that provide information at different places. And finally, the article mentions how the number of rules that need to be built into the critic need not be large at all, as a small number of rules governing known design principles in the domain is sufficient to provide cues to the designer at various steps in the design process. 2)what do you consider the main message of the article? Embedded critiquing systems provide information, feedback, reflection opportunities, and cues that will help the designer in the design process within the context of the design domain. For certain domains, it is not possible to capture all of the knowledge and principles that govern that domain. The creation of "expert" systems within this context is not plausible. Leaving design decisions to the designer, embedded critiquing systems provide some of the benefits of human critiquing without disrupting the design flow. 3)are themes discussed in the article which you would like to know more about? I would like to learn more about any further/other applications of generic, specific, and interpretative critiquing in computer-aided support/collaborative/critiquing systems. Also, how much information is too much or too little? What is the threshold (is there one) which provides just enough support? 4)do you know of other papers, ideas, and systems which are closely related to a.DODEs (Domain Oriented Design Environment) b.Critiquing? I can only think of collaborative office systems (workflow). Lotus Notes, Microsoft Office Assistants, etc. 5)what does the article say about a.design b.learning c.collaboration d.innovative media support for these activities? a,b,c,d) Failure in design is actually a learning opportunity as it allows for reflection on and reevaluation of the design principles that specified the actual designed system/product. Critiquing in the human context is a collaborative activity where collaborators can assess and evaluate the design within the context of the domain, work together to express previously tacit assumptions and ideas about the domain and the design, and through successively reframing the problem and searching for solutions reach a better understanding of possible solutions. Within the context of computer supported critiquing, this collaboration is occurring between a repository of information and rules regarding the domain and the designer, with key design decisions left up to the designer. 6)do you have any ideas how this research could / should be extended based on your own knowledge and experience? I am not sure how the research could be extended but would like to see what work has been done and any further conclusions reached in the areas of the questions I asked under question 3 above. |
