Erasure in Design Space Exploration

Woodbury, Robert; Datta, Sambit; Burrow, Andrew

doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4154-3_26

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, most research focuses on design states and on making action explicit. Little work exists that depends upon computational access to the design space [2,3,4,5]. Yet, it would appear that the design space itself is where the largest gains are to be made.…”

Section: Design Space Explorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rules of the form match and apply create a similar screen between derivation and design space structure to the extent that the apply part of the rules does not create an explicit account of its movement through the structure. Recasting the devices of navigation from rules to operations that make explicit reference to underlying structure permits us navigators to know more about the paths we have taken [4].…”

Section: Representation Of Design Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Woodbury et al [4] introduced a set of fundamental operators over typed feature structure subsumption networks and showed how these could be used to generate explicit design spaces and navigate design spaces in general.…”

Section: Representation Of Design Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Design Space Machinery

Woodbury¹,

Burrow²

2011

PCEEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design Space ExplorationDesign space exploration is the idea that computers can be used to help designers by representing many designs, arraying them in a network structure (the space part) and by assisting designers to make new designs and to move amongst previously discovered designs in the network (the exploration part). This conceptual complex arose from some of the initial ideas that occurred to researchers in design computing. Over the years, the complex has been built through descriptive research on designing, prototype systems, thought experiments, mathematics, and considerable scholarly debate. Today it rests on three premises. Each of these is itself an area of research.The first premise is that exploration is a good model for designer action. Numerous studies have shown the utility of modelling designers as information processing systems that search in order to satisfy goals in a strongly constrained problem space. Furthermore, humans are endowed with specific and limited cognitive structures that constrain their behaviour as searchers and representers of problem spaces. A feature of this research is that it is explained in terms of production; that is, its aim is to reproduce and extend the behaviour of designers.The second premise is that designers would find useful tools that amplify their abilities to represent goals and problems spaces, and to search for designs. Researchers have created a modest number of computer programs that attend to such amplification tasks. One of these, KIRTS/GENESIS [1] has seen industrial application. The results provide weak evidence for the utility of such amplification.The third premise is that computational support for exploration is feasible. Namely, that there are tractable representations and algorithms that provide suitable amplification for design explorers. A large body of literature provides support for this premise. There exist numerous formalisms for representing designs, for acting on designs to produce other designs, and for recording such action. A large secondary literature uses such mechanisms to produce relatively compact generative descriptions of corpora of existing and conjectured design work.Research in design space exploration takes on several distinct patterns. Typically, it addresses representation, search algorithms, task description, or interaction design. Relatively little work focuses on the design space itself. Instead, most research focuses on design states and on making action explicit. Little work exists that depends upon computational access to the design space [2,3,4,5]. Yet, it would appear that the design space itself is where the largest gains are to be made. Designers typically consider a very small number of alternatives in their work, and this is explained by cognitive limits.Why the paucity of research on the design space? Conjecture is easy, and the debate is open. Clearly, prior work on representation and action devices is a prerequisite for serious thought about design spaces. Furthermore, any useful computational a...

show abstract

Section: Design Space Explorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Representation Of Design Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design Space Machinery

Woodbury¹,

Burrow²

2011

PCEEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The formal machinery of design space exploration is explained in the literature~Burrow Woodbury et al, 1999Woodbury et al, , 2000! and is relatively well understood and exemplified in the work of Woodbury and Burrow.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling dialogue with mixed initiative in design space exploration

Datta

2006

AIEDAM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploration with a generative formalism must necessarily account for the nature of interaction between humans and the design space explorer. Established accounts of design interaction are made complicated by two propositions in Woodbury and Burrow's Keynote on design space exploration. First, the emphasis on the primacy of the design space as an ordered collection of partial designs~version, alternatives, extensions!. Few studies exist in the design interaction literature on working with multiple threads simultaneously. Second, the need to situate, aid, and amplify human design intentions using computational tools. Although specific research and practice tools on amplification~sketching, generation, variation! have had success, there is a lack of generic, flexible, interoperable, and extensible representation to support amplification. This paper addresses the above, working with design threads and computer-assisted design amplification through a theoretical model of dialogue based on Grice's model of rational conversation. Using the concept of mixed initiative, the paper presents a visual notation for representing dialogue between designer and design space formalism through abstract examples of exploration tasks and dialogue integration.

show abstract

“…Schien and Flemming [2] posit a multi-dimensional structure for design space, which Schien [3] further elaborates. Woodbury et al [4] show novel operators in a highly structured design space representation. Woodbury and Burrow [5] argue implications of design space representation in general.Yet, it would appear that the design space itself is where the largest gains are to be made.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Notes on the Structure of Design Space

Woodbury

Burrow

2003

International Journal of Architectural Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Design space exploration is a long-standing focus in computational design research. Its three main threads are accounts of designer action, development of strategies for amplification of designer action in exploration and discovery of computational structures to support exploration. Chief amongst such structures is the design space -the network structure of related designs that are visited in an exploration process. There is relatively little research on design spaces to date. This paper sketches a partial account of the structure of both design spaces and research to develop them. It focuses largely on the implications of designers acting as explorers.

show abstract

Erasure in Design Space Exploration

Cited by 16 publications

References 17 publications

Design Space Machinery

Design Space Machinery

Modeling dialogue with mixed initiative in design space exploration

Notes on the Structure of Design Space

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About