Abstract
Designers draw diagrams to think about architectural concepts and design concerns. We are interested in programming a computer to recognize and interpret design diagrams to deliver appropriate tools for the design task at hand. We conducted empirical studies to find out if designers share drawing conventions when designing. In this paper we first discuss reasons to investigate design diagrams. Then we describe our experiment on diagramming for designing an architect’s office. The experiment results show that designers use different diagramming conventions when thinking about different design concerns. We discuss and report our efforts to implement a freehand drawing program.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Akin, O., & Lin, C. (1995). Design Protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies. 16 (#2, April), 211–236.
Do, E. Y.-L. (1995). What’s in a diagram that a computer should understand. In M. Tan & R. Teh (Eds.), CAAD Futures’95: The Global Design Studio, Sixth International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures (pp. 469–482). Singapore: National University of Singapore.
Do, E. Y.-L. (1996). The Right Tool at the Right Time ~ drawing as an interface to knowledge based design aids. In P. Mcintosh & F. Ozel (Eds.), ACADIA 96, Design Computation: Collaboration, Reasoning, Pedagogy (pp. 191–199). Tucson, AZ: Association of Computer Aided Design in Architecture.
Domeshek, E. A., & Kolodner, J. L. (1992). A case-based design aid for architecture. In J. Gero (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Design’92 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Eastman, C. M. (1968). On the Analysis of Intuitive Design. In G. T. Moore (Eds.), Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning (pp. 21–37). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The Dialectics of Sketching. Creativity Research Journal, v.4(#2), 123–143.
Graves, M. (1977). The necessity for drawing: tangible speculation. Architectural Design. 6(77), 384–394.
Gross, M. D. (1996). The Electronic Cocktail Napkin — working with diagrams. Design Studies. 17(1), 53–69.
Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y.-L. (1996). Ambiguous Intentions. In Proceedings, ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’96) (pp. 183–192). Seattle, WA: ACM SIGGRAPH and SIGCHI.
Herbert, D. M. (1993). Architectural Study Drawings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kolodner, J. L. (1991). Improving human decision-making through case-based decision aiding. AI Magazine. 12(2), 52–68.
Laseau, P. (1980). Graphic Thinking for Architects and Designers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Lawson, B. (1994). Design in Mind. Butterworth. Oxford.
Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of Seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies. 13(#2). 135–156.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1996). What Architects See in their Sketches: Implications for Design Tools. In ACM Human Factors in Computing (pp. 191–192). Vancouver, BC: ACM.
Zimring, C., Do, E. Y.-L., Domeshek, E., & Kolodner, J. (1995). Supporting Case-Study Use in Design Education: A Computational Case-Based Design Aid for Architecture. In J. P. Mohsen (Eds.), Computing in Civil Engineering, A/E/C Systems’95 (pp. 1635–1642). Atlanta, GA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this paper
Cite this paper
Do, E.YL. (1997). Computability of Design Diagrams. In: Junge, R. (eds) CAAD futures 1997. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5576-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5576-2_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6350-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5576-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive