Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A computational model of design critiquing

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of promises of computer-based critiquing systems is that they will help designers improve their solutions in an intelligent manner. Historically, they have tended to concentrate on the representation of the domain, the representation of the user’s knowledge, and a wide variety of communication skills. Nevertheless, the issue of the critiquing competence of the critiquing systems is important; today’s critiquing systems have the limited range and adaptability as compared to the wealth of critiquing strategies employed by human design teachers. Therefore, this paper presents a computer-based critiquing system named the Furniture Design Critic as a computational model of design critiquing based on a systematic understanding of design critiquing practice. This system has the potential to help us implement and formulate a wide range of human critiquing strategies, specifically determining which critiquing methods are selected under which critiquing conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A task model represents a set of subtasks and a structure of these subtasks.

  2. A user model maintains information about a particular user’s preferences, knowledge, and past actions.

  3. Flat-pack furniture making is used as the first studio exercise in the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University. Flat-pack furniture design is fun and easy, which is why design schools often use it as the first exercise for first-year students. Students become familiar with design problem-solving by drawing and modelling. They are given a project with a small set of design constraints. They learn to satisfy basic functionality and pre-determined criteria through a series of three-dimensional experimental compositions of planar wooden elements.

  4. Each constraint in the constraint-based tutors consists of a relevance condition and a satisfaction condition. The relevance condition indicates when the constraint applies, and the satisfaction condition represents states when a certain piece of knowledge has been applied correctly.

  5. R Violated = (number of constraints violated/number of all constraints the program knows).

  6. R ViolatedCritical = (number of critical constraints violated/number of constraints violated)

  7. When saving a furniture design, the program stores three kinds of data in a text file: the parsed data that the Parser has generated, the geometrical data from the drawn diagram, and a list of violated and satisfied constraints for the design.

  8. If the program does not know the designer’s profile (i.e., it has not previously worked with the designer), it simply chooses a predetermined sequence of methods. The program is programmed to choose delivery types in this sequence, specifically to first offer critiques using facilitative delivery types (e.g., interpretation, introduction, or example), because this feedback can prompt a designer to think about and improve the design. When the designer is unable to benefit from facilitative critiques, the critic changes to directive feedback (e.g., demonstration or evaluation). In this case, the critic chooses delivery types in the following sequence: 1) interpretation, 2) introduction/reminder, 3) example, 4) demonstration, and 5) evaluation. The program chooses communication modalities in the following sequence: 1) Textual comments, 2) graphic annotation, 3) textual comments + graphic annotation, 4) textual comments + images, and 5) textual comments + graphic annotation + images.

References

  • Ali NM, Hosking J, Grundy J (2013) A taxonomy and mapping of computer-based critiquing tools. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 39:1494–1520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JR, Corbett AT, Koedinger KR, Pelletier R (1995) Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. J Learn Sci 4:167–207. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony KH (1991) Design juries on trial: the renaissance of the design studio. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RON (2004) The digital design coach: enhancing design conversations in architecture education. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergenti F, Poggi A (2000) Improving UML design using automatic design pattern detection. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, pp 336–343

  • Boyer EL, Mitgang LD (1996) Building community: a new future for architecture education and practice? A special report. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Chun HW, Ming-Kit Lai E (1997) Intelligent critic system for architectural design. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 9:625–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza CRB, Oliveira HLR, da Rocha CRP et al (2003) Using critiquing systems for inconsistency detection in software engineering models. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE 2003). San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 196–203

  • Fischer G (1987). A critic for LISP. In: Proceedings of the 10th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Milan, Italy, pp 177–184

  • Fischer G (1989) Human–computer interaction software: lessons learned, challenges ahead. IEEE Softw 6:44–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer G, Morch A (1989) JANUS: integrating hypertext with a knowledge-based design environment. In: ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia. ACM Press, Pittsburgh, pp 105–117

  • Fischer G, Nakakoji K (1997) Computational environments supporting creativity in the context of lifelong learning and design. Knowl Based Syst 10:21–28. doi:10.1016/S0950-7051(97)00010-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer G, McCall R, Morch A (1989) Design environments for constructive and argumentative design. ACM SIGCHI Bull 20:269–275. doi:10.1145/67450.67501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer G, Lemke A, McCall R, Morch A (1991a) Making argumentation serve design. Hum Comput Interact 6:393–419. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer G, Lemke AC, Mastaglio T, Morch AI (1991b) The role of critiquing in cooperative problem solving. ACM Trans Inf Syst 9:123–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu MC, Hayes CC, East EW (1997) SEDAR: expert critiquing system for flat and low-slope roof design and review. J Comput Civ Eng 11:60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertner AS, Webber BL (1998) TraumaTIQ: online decision support for trauma management. IEEE Intell Syst 13:32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt G, Hochman H, Dafni I (2010) The design studio “crit”: teacher–student communication. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24:285–302. doi:10.1017/S089006041000020X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlotz CP, Shortliffe EH (1983) Adapting a consultation system to critique user plans. Int J Man Mach Stud 19:479–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch C, Ashley K, Mitrovic T (2010) Intelligent tutoring technologies for Ill-defined problems and Ill-defined domains

  • Mastaglio T (1990) User modeling in computer-based critics. In: IEEE The 23rd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Press, Kailua-Kona, pp 403–412

  • Mitrovic A, Weerasinghe A (2009) Revisiting ill-definedness and the consequences for ITSs. In: Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, pp 375–382

  • Mitrovic A, Mayo M, Suraweera P, Martin B (2001) Constraint-based tutors: a success story. Eng Intell Syst. doi:10.1007/3-540-45517-5_103

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrovic A, Koedinger K, Martin B (2003) A comparative analysis of cognitive tutoring and constraint-based modeling. In: Proceedings of the international conference on user modelling, vol 2702, pp 313–322. doi:10.1007/3-540-44963-9_42

  • Mitrovic A, Martin B, Suraweera P (2007) Intelligent tutors for all: the constraint-based approach. IEEE Intell Syst 22:38–45. doi:10.1109/MIS.2007.74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakakoji K, Yamamoto Y, Suzuki T et al (1998) From critiquing to representational talkback: computer support for revealing features in design. Knowl Based Syst 11:457–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochsner JK (2000) Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. A Archit Educ 53:194–206. doi:10.1162/104648800564608

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh Y, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2004) Intelligent critiquing of design sketches. In: Davis R (ed) AAAI (American Association for Artificial Intelligence) fall symposium—Making pen-based interaction intelligent and natural. The AAAI Press, Washington, DC, pp 127–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh Y, Ishizaki S, Gross MD, Do EY-L (2013) A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Des Stud 34:302–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson S (1996) Learning from performance errors. Psychol Rev 103:241–262. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu L, Riesbeck CK (2004) An incremental model for developing educational critiquing systems: experiences with the Java Critiquer. In: Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications (ED-MEDIA). Switzerland, pp 171–175

  • Robbins JE (1998) Design critiquing systems. Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins JE, Redmiles DF (1998) Software architecture critics in the argo design environment. Knowl Based Syst 11:47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA (1985) The design studio. RIBA, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman BG (1992) Survey of expert critiquing systems: practical and theoretical frontiers. Commun ACM 35:106–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press. Cambridge. doi:10.1016/S0898-1221(97)82941-0

  • Souza CRB, Ferreira Jr JS, Goncalves KM, Wainer J (2000) A group critic system for object-oriented analysis and design. In: Proceedings of ASE 2000 (the fifteenth IEEE international conference on automated software engineering), pp 313–316

  • Uluoǧlu B (2000) Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Des Stud 21:33–58. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00002-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver N, O’Reilly D, Caddick M (2000) Preparation ans support of part-time teachers: designing a tutor training programme fit for architects. In: Nicol D, Pilling S (eds) Changing architectural education: towards a new professionalism. Taylor & Francis Spon Press, New York, pp 265–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury R, Burrow A, Drogemuller R, Datta S (2000) Code checking by representation comparison. Computer Aided Architecture Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA), pp 235–244

  • Ye Y (2003) Programming with an intelligent agent. IEEE Intell Syst 18:43–47. doi:10.1109/MIS.2003.1200727

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research and Development Division, Hyundai Engineering & Construction, 17-6, Mabuk-ro, 240 beon-gil, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16891, Republic of Korea

    Yeonjoo Oh

  2. Department of Mechanical & System Design Engineering, Hongik University, 94, Wausan-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul, 04066, Republic of Korea

    Youkeun K. Oh

Authors
  1. Yeonjoo Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youkeun K. Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youkeun K. Oh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oh, Y., Oh, Y.K. A computational model of design critiquing. Artif Intell Rev 48, 529–555 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9509-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-016-9509-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation