Advertisement

Designerly Pick and Place: Coding Physical Model Making to Inform Material-Based Robotic Interaction

  • Daniel Smithwick
  • David Kirsh
  • Larry Sass
Conference paper

Abstract

To study how designers explore ideas when making physical models we ran an experiment in which architects and undergraduate students constructed a dream house made of blocks. We coded their interactions in terms of robotic pick and place actions: adding, subtracting, modifying and relocating blocks. Architects differed from students along three dimensions. First, architects were more controlled with the blocks; they used fewer blocks overall and fewer variations. Second, architects appear to think less about house features and more about spatial relationships and material constraints. Lastly, architects experiment with multiple block positions within the model more frequently, repeatedly testing block placements. Together these findings suggest that architects physically explore the design space more effectively than students by exploiting material interactions. This embodied know-how is something next generation robots will need to support. Implications for material-based robotic interaction are discussed.

Keywords

Modify Interaction Perceptual Action Material Interaction Interaction Sequence Verbal Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the MIT-SUTD International Design Center for funding this research.

References

  1. Anderson M (2003) Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artif Intell 1–40Google Scholar
  2. Bernal M, Haymaker J, Eastman C (2015) On the role of computational support for designers in action. Des Stud 41:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilda Z, Demirkan H (2003) An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Des Stud 24:27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilda Z, Gero J, Purcell T (2006) To sketch or not to sketch? That is the question. Des Stud 27:587–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark A (2008) Supersizing the mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fjeld M, Barendregt W (2009) Epistemic action: a measure for cognitive support in tangible user interfaces? Behav Res Methods 41(3):876–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldin-Meadow S, Beilock S (2010) Action’s influence on thought: the case of gesture. Perspect Psychol Sci 5(6):664–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldschmidt G (1991) The dialectics of sketching. Creat Res J 4(2):123–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldschmidt G (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Des Stud 15(4):158–174MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gursoy B, Ozkar M (2015) Visualizing making: shapes, materials, and actions. Des Stud 41:29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kavakli Gero J (2002) The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers. Des Stud 23:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim M, Maher M (2008) The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Des Stud 29:222–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirsh D (2011) Thinking with the body. In: Proceedings from the 30th annual cognitive science societyGoogle Scholar
  14. Klemmer S, Everitt K, Landay J (2008) Integrating digital and physical interactions on walls for fluid design collaboration. Hum Comput Interact 23:138–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knight T, Stiny G (2015) Making grammars: from computing with shapes to computing with things. Des Stud 41:8–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kohler M, Gramazio F, Willmann J (2014) The robotic touch: how robots change architecture. Park Books, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  17. Lemons G (2010) The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design. Des Stud 31:288–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maher M, Gonzalez A, Grace, K, Clausner T (2014) Tangible interaction design: can we design tangibles to enhance creative cognition? In: Sixth international conference on design computing and cognition, London, UK, 23–25 June 2014Google Scholar
  19. Martin T, Schwartz D (2005) Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cogn Sci 29:587–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mills C (2011) Designing with models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Sass L (2008) A physical design grammar: a production system for layered manufacturing machines. Autom Constr 17:691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schon D (1992) Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Behav Res 5(1):3–14Google Scholar
  23. Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Suwa M, Purcell T, Gero J (1998) Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designer’s cognitive actions. Des Stud 19:455–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Willis K et al (2011) Interactive fabrication: new interfaces for digital fabrication. Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction Conference, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  26. Yang M (2005) A study of prototypes, design activity and design outcome. Des Stud 26:649–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Youmans (2011) The effects of physical prototyping and group work on the reduction of design fixation. Des Stud 32:115–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zoran A, Paradiso J (2013) FreeD—a freehand digital sculpting tool. In: The 31st international conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Smithwick
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • David Kirsh
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Larry Sass
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.MIT-SUTD International Design CenterSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.MITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations