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