situated creativityweb.mit.edu/%7ejgero/www/02%a54.208%a5situatedcreativity.pdfsituated creativity....

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

SITUATED CREATIVITY

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Unexpected discoveries-UXD (emergence)and new functions as goals-Ginv1 –Empirical results

50 100 150 200 250 300

segment number

0-2

-1

0

1

2

3UXD Ginv1

correlation period = 37%

from Suwa, Gero and Purcell 1998

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Constructive memory

S I T U A T I O N

EXPERIENCE MEMORIES

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Constructive memory

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Hypothesizing

pull

push

Interpretation

ExternalWorld

ExpectedWorld

InterpretedWorld

Action

SITUATEDNESS: An interaction ofdifferent worlds

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Process Theory of Designingbased on FBS

PROCESS THEORY ofDESIGNING1 = formulation2 = synthesis3 = analysis4 = evaluation5 = documentation6 = reformulation -17 = reformulation -28 = reformulation -3

F = function = transformationBe = expected behavior = comparisonBs = behavior derived from structureS = structureD = design description

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

push-pullfocussingcomparisontransformation

SITUATED FBS THEORY OFDESIGNING

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Formulation

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Synthesis

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Analysis

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Evaluation

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Documentation

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Reformulation Type 1

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Reformulation Type 2

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Reformulation Type 3

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Initial Representation

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Example

Sepulchral Church, Sir John Soane, 1796

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Learning the situatednessCs1

Cs2Sm Ad

PrRc

FocusSituation

Duality

Sm

Pr

Ad

Rc

Focus

Situation

Situation

f1t1

f2

t2

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Multiple situations

R30

R31

R28

R29

k1 k2

k3k4

Focus

R32

SituationR27

R26

R24

R25

k2

k3k5

Focus Situation

k1

k2

k3k6

Focus Situation

k1

(F1) (t102)(F1) (t101)

(F1) (t1)

Regularity I

Regularity II

Regularity III

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Duality between focus and situation – or why differentdesigners see different things in the same externalrepresentation

R30

R31

R28

R29

k1 k2

k3k4

Focus

R32

SituationR27

R26

R24

R25

k2

k3k5

Focus Situation

k1

k2

k3k6

Focus Situation

k1

(F1) (t102)(F1) (t101)

(F1) (t1)

k2

k1k5

Focus Situation

(F3) (t3)

k3

k2

k3K1

Focus Situation

k6

(F6) (t6)

k1

k2

k3

k4

Focus Situation(F4) (t4)

Regularity I

Regularity II

Regularity III

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Cs3

Cs3(a)

Cs2(a)

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Implementation

S2

S3

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S2

(a) (b)

S2

S3

S1

S1

S1

S1

S2

S3

S1

S1

S1

S1

S3S3

S3

(c) (d)

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

(a)

(b) (c)

S5

S2

S5

S5

S2

S5

S1

S2

S5

S1

Providing different moves(alternatives) in responseto design actions

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

SITUATED ANALYSIS

Pedestrians may be attracted to other pedestrians or objects.

Pedestrians try to maintain a comfortable distance fromobstacles like walls.

Pedestrians try to maintain a comfortable distance from otherpedestrians.

Pedestrians try to move as efficiently as possible to adestination.

Description of situated social force

1 2

3

4

pedestrian

obstacle

destination

attraction

repulsion

• Designing doors

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Narrow door

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Wide door

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Two doors

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Situated Sketching (after Stiny & Schön)

An area of interest is focused on.

Memory constructed from previous, recalled experiences.

Situations are constructed/recalled.

“Interesting” new shapes are learned.

�

�

�

�

�

Situated “Reflection-in-Action”

source(s)...

target

goal

UXDperceivingagent

targetre-represented

sourcere-represented

targetcanonical

representation

source canonicalrepresentation

biasing

situated analogicalconjecture

non situatedanalogical conjecture

InputParser

design problem

DesignChooser

target design

RepresentationMaker

canonical representationof target

Design Analyzeralternative goal

RepresentationMaker

re-presentation oftarget

Analogy Makeranalogical conjecture

RepresentationMaker

directed representationof set of source designs

Analogy Makerset of source

designs

Output Formattermodified target design“reflection

”framing

analogymaking

design

context

part

relation

behaviour

behaviour

behaviour

function

functionattribute

behaviour

part

part

relation

attribute

attribute

attributefunction

function

behaviour

causal link

relevancy link

design

context

part

relation

behaviour

behaviour

behaviour

function

functionattribute

behaviour

part

part

relation

attribute

attribute

attributefunction

function

behaviour

causal link

relevancy link

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

horizontalsupport

backsupport

elevation

function:providecomfortablesitting

CHAIR“in user context”(canonicalcontext)

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

function:providecompactness

CHAIR“in storage”(alternativecontext)

Behaviour: self-fitting

B: internal cavity

B: fit side edges

B: fit inverted

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

CUP“on dinner table”(canonical context)

Function:provide drinkcontainer

thermoinsulation

hold liquidcontents

‘flat white’

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

CUP“in storage”(alternativecontext)

Function:providecompactness

Behaviour: self-fitting

B: fit inverted

B: fit top-bottom

B: internal cavity

B:conical shape

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

Behaviour Match: internal cavity

Analogical conjecture: cup(bottom) - chair(seat)

cup(side) -chair(legs)

Structure Feature Transfer: conical shape

Behaviour Mapping: fit top-bottom

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

analogical conjecture

TARGET:

modified structure

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002

MIT Class 4.208 Spring 2002