![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
|
Scott Zweig assignment #5 2/4/04 Interesting about the article? The most interesting thing I found about the article was the use of critiquing, a "human-like" function in a computer-based design environment. With this we are able to work with a computer almost like a partner in a team of designers, each giving their input and helping to fix and explain problems. The wealth of knowledge needed to complete any kind of design dilemma, is not usually contained within one single mind of a designer or client. And so with the introduction of a general/specific set of rules and standards to help guide us, we can get suggestions that will help offset the "symmetry of ignorance" in a particular situation. Not interesting about the article? I didn’t find anything in the article to be particularly uninteresting; it is just that sometimes I get bogged down by all the dry, technical jargon. I understand what the words mean, it’s just how they are strung together to create ideas that are somewhat difficult to grasp. What do you consider the main message of the article? The main message in the article is that through very valuable experiences with a 'critic' evaluating your work (in whatever field) your knowledge and understanding of the potential of your design will grow and become more clear and concrete. It doesn’t eliminate the contributions of collaboration with others; it just puts a different spin on it. So instead of having just one "physical" mind working on the "kitchen design" at a given moment (for example) you have the mind of the designer and the "mind" of the computer based system critique. It is kind of like having a little guy up on your shoulder looking at your work and giving suggestions when needed. And the best part is you can program the 'little guy' to help you only in certain situations where a clearly identified rule or standard is broken. Are themes discussed in the article which you would like to know more about? I would like to know more about how the computer based critiquing environments are tested for usability with users and how they can be applied to all kinds of working situations. Do you know of other papers, ideas, and systems which are closely related to DODEs or Critiquing? I am unaware of any other papers or discussions on these particular topics. In fact, this article is the first time I read about this 'new' technique. What does the article say about? Design: this article talks about design as a multi-functional tool. design is a very complicated process and with the ability to function in different ways these systems help designs of all types to come to fruition. Learning: it helps us to understand that design is a learning process, and without learning there would be no advancements or further achievements because we wouldn’t be learning anything new. change is good, and learning brings change. Collaboration: this article teaches us again, how we cannot usually create something truly magnificent on our own. Whether it is a concept mentioned and then changed by a partner or teammate or a suggestion made by the design program itself, these suggestions, these inputs are the bread and butter of collaboration. Without them, design would be flat and boring. Innovative media support for these activities? this type of system is extremely useful in bringing together support for these types of activities. with the ability to create rules and design standards, the support is in the hands of the user. the more advanced our problem-solving abilities get, the more important they will be to helping solve everyday media related technological issues. Do you have any ideas how this research could / should be extended based on your own knowledge and experience? No, not really. But I would love to try working with a critiquing system in designing a website or writing a paper. |
