Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shape Interpretation with Design Computing

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design Computing and Cognition '12

Abstract

How information is interpreted has significant impact on how it can be used. This is particularly important in design where information from a wide variety of sources is used in a wide variety of contexts and in a wide variety of ways. This paper is concerned with the information that is created, modified and analysed during design processes, specifically with the information that is represented in shapes. It investigates how design computing seeks to support these processes, and the difficulties that arise when it is necessary to consider alternative interpretations of shape. The aim is to establish the problem of shape interpretation as a general challenge for research in design computing, rather than a difficulty that is to be overcome within specific processes. Shape interpretations are common characteristics of several areas of enquiry in design computing. This paper reviews these, brings an integrated perspective and draws conclusions about how this underlying process can be supported.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sloman A (1984) Why we need many knowledge representation formalisms. In Bramer M (ed) Research and development in expert systems, Cambridge University Press, pp 163–183

    Google Scholar 

  2. Prats M, Lim S, Jowers I, Garner SW, Chase S (2009) Transforming shape in design: observations from studies of sketching. Des Stud 30:503–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Corney J, Hayes C, Sundararajan V, Wright P (2005) The CAD/CAM interface: A 25-year retrospective. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5:188–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruce V, Green PR, Georgeson MA (2003) Visual perception: physiology, psychology and ecology (4th Edition). Psychology Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  5. Krstic D (2004) Computing with analysed shapes. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ’06. Springer, Netherlands, pp 397–416

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Wittgenstein L (1991) Remarks on the philosophy of psychology. GEM Anscombe, GH von Wright, H Nyman (eds). Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  7. Liu Y-T (1995) Some phenomena of seeing shapes in design. Des Stud 16:367–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Suwa M (2003) Constructive perception: coordinating perception and conception toward acts of problem finding in a creative experience. Jpn Psychol Res 45:221–234

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Wiegers T, Langeveld L, Vergeest J (2011) Shape language: how people describe shapes and shape operations. Des Stud 32:333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goel V (1995) Sketches of thought. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schön DA, Wiggins G (1992) Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Des Stud 13:135–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? a protocol analysis. Des Stud 18:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schön DA (1988) Designing: rules, types and worlds. Des Stud 9:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gentner D, Bowdle B, Wolff P, Boronat C (2001) Metaphor is like analogy. In: Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN (eds) The analogical mind perspectives from cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 199–253

    Google Scholar 

  15. Casakin HP (2007) Factors of metaphors in design problem-solving: implications for design creativity. Int J Des 1:21–33

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stones C, Cassidy T (2010) Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during graphical design ideation? Des Stud 31:439–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawson B, Loke SM (1997) Computers words and pictures. Des Stud 18:171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dreyfus HL (1992) What computers still can’t do: a critique of artificial reason. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Setchi R, Bouchard C (2010) In search of design inspiration: a semantic-based approach. J Comput Inf Sci Des 10:40–47

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stiny G (2006) Shape: talking about seeing and doing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell WJ (2001) Vitruvius redux. In: Antonsson EK, Cagan J (eds) Formal engineering design synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Saund E, Moran T (1994) A perceptually supported sketch editor. In Symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM, pp 175–184

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jowers I, Prats M, McKay A, Garner S (2011) Design exploration with useless rules and eye tracking. In Culley SJ, Hicks BJ, cAloone TC, Howard TJ, Dong A (eds) ICED11—the 18th International conference on engineering design, The design society, pp 443–455

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bucciarelli L (1994) Designing engineers. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ferguson ES (1994) Engineering and the mind’s eye. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. Henderson K (1999) On line and on paper: visual representations, visual culture and computer graphics in design engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  27. van der Lugt R (2005) How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Des Stud 26:101–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nielson I, Lee J (1994) Conversations with graphics: Implications for the design of natural language/graphics interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Stud 40:509–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Maier AM, Kreimeyer M, Lindemann U, Clarkson PJ (2009) Reflecting communication: a key factor for successful collaboration between embodiment design and simulation. J Eng Des 20:265–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shah JJ (1998) Experimental investigation of progressive idea generation techniques in engineering design. In Proceedings of ASME design engineering technical conference

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stacey M, Eckert C (2003) Against ambiguity. Comput Support Coop Work 12:153–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tang JC (1991) Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. Int J Man Mach Stud 34:143–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lang SYT, Dickenson J, Buchal RO (2002) Cognitive factors in distributed design. Comput Ind 48:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gu N, Kim MJ, Maher ML (2011) Technological advancements in synchronous collaboration: the effect of 3D virtual worlds and tangible user interfaces on architectural design. Autom Constr 20:270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Maher ML, Bilda Z, Gül LF (2006) Impact of collaborative virtual environments on design behaviour. In: Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ’06. Springer, Netherlands, pp 305–321

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Shapiro V, Tsukanov I, Grishin A (2011) Geometric issues in computer aided design/computer aided engineering integration. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 11(2):021005

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pelechano N, Malkawi A (2008) Evacuation simulation models: Challenges in modeling high rise building evacuation with cellular automata approaches. Autom Constr 17:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Li AI-K (2004) Styles, grammars, authors and users. In Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ’04, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 197–215

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mengoni M, Colaiocco B, Peruzzini M, Germani M (2011) Design of a tactile display to support materials perception in virtual environments. IEEE Virtual Reality 2011:227–228

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cagan J, Mitchell WJ (1993) Optimally directed shape generation by shape annealing. Environ Plan 20:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gupta SK, Nau DS, Regli WC (1998) IMACS: a case study in real-world planning. Intell Syst Appl 13:49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Alink T, Eckert C, Ruckpaul A, Albers A (2010) Different function breakdowns for one existing product: experimental results. In Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ’10, Springer, Berlin pp 405–424

    Google Scholar 

  43. Fischer A (2011) Engineering-oriented geometry methods for modelling and analyzing scanned data. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 11(2):021002–021010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Regli W, Kopena J (2010) Challenges in semantics for computer-aided designs: a position paper. In AAAI Cognitive shape processing, Available online: http://www.spatial-cognition.de/CSP/Regli.pdf Last accessed March 2013

  45. Venkataraman S, Shah JJ, Summers JD (2001) An investigation of integrating design by features and feature recognition. In IFIP Conference, FEATS, Valenciences, Frances

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bidarra R, Bronsvoort WF (2000) Semantic feature modelling. Comput Aided Des 32:201–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shah JJ, Anderson D, Kim YS, Joshi S (2001) A discourse on geometric feature recognition from CAD models. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. van den Berg E, Bronsvorrt WF, Vergeest JSM (2002) Freeform feature modelling: concepts and prospects. Comput Ind 49:217–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bronsvoort WF, Noort A (2004) Multiple-view feature modelling for integral product development. Comput Aided Des 36:929–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jha K, Gurumoorthy B (2000) Automatic propagation of feature modification across domains. Comput Aided Des 32:691–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. da Silveira G, Borenstein D, Fogliatto FS (2001) Mass customization: literature review and research directions. Int J Prod Econ 72:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shea K, Ertelt C, Gmeiner T, Ameri F (2010) Design-to-fabrication automation for the cognitive machine shop. Adv Eng Inform 24:251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bourne D, Corney J, Gupta SK (2011) Recent advances and future challenges in automated manufacturing planning. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 11:021006–021016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ahn et al (2001) Cyber cut: an internet-based CAD/CAM system. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 1:52–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Yan X, Gu P (1996) A review of rapid prototyping technologies and systems. Comput Aided Des 28:307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Paterson G, Earl C (2010) Line and plane to solid: Analyzing their use in design practice through shape rules. In Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ’10, Springer, Berlin pp. 251–267

    Google Scholar 

  57. Searle J (1980) Minds, brains and programs. Behav Brain Sci 3:417–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Salustri FA (2002) Mereotopology for product modelling: a new framework for product modelling based on logic. J Des Res 2(1)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Whitehead AN (1929) Process and reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  60. Clarke B (1985) Individuals and points. Notre Dame J Formal Logic 26:61–75

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  61. Gerla G (1995) Pointless geometries. In Buekenhout F, Kantor W (eds) Handbook of incidence geometry, North-Holland, pp 1015–1031

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hanna S (2010) Design agents and the need for high-dimensional perception. In Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ’10, Springer, Berlin pp 115–134

    Google Scholar 

  63. Stouffs R, Krishnamurti R (2004) Data views, data recognition, design queries and design rules. In Gero JS (ed) Design computing and cognition ’04, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 219–238

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Iestyn Jowers’ research is supported by CoTeSys, the Cognition for Technical Systems Cluster of Excellence (www.cotesys.org), funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany

    Iestyn Jowers

  2. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Chris Earl

Authors
  1. Iestyn Jowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Earl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iestyn Jowers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

    John S. Gero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jowers, I., Earl, C. (2014). Shape Interpretation with Design Computing. In: Gero, J. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9111-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9112-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation