This paper frames design knowledge as formalizable physical actions that can more fully exploit future design tools and production methods. As computational design tools become more physically interactive and integrated into our environment we need new research frameworks to develop theories of physical design action as a form of knowledge. Symbolic theories of design knowledge traditionally frame design activity as a mental process and as a result researchers have not fully explored the potential for bodily-based computational design knowledge. We present an action-based design notation drawing inspiration from music performance theory to illustrate how this may impact design research. We discuss findings from situated cognition in cognitive science as an alternative framework for exploring and expanding design knowledge. We conclude with suggestions for future work in robotic-aided design cognition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NewellA.SimonH., Computer Simulation of Human Thinking, Science, 1961, 134, 2011–2017.
2.
SimonH., The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1969.
3.
EastmanC., On the Analysis of Intuitive Design Processes, In: MooreG. ed., Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970, 21–37.
4.
GeroJ., Computational Models of Creative Design Processes, In: Dartnall ed., Artificial Intelligence and Creativity, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994, 9–21.
5.
CrossN., Natural Intelligence in Design, In: CrossN. ed., Designerly Ways of Knowing, Birkhauser, Basel, 2007, 49–62.
6.
VarelaF.ThompsonE.RoschR., The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and the Human Experience, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1993.
7.
WilsonM., Six Views of Embodied Cognition, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2002, 9(4), 626–636.
8.
NoëA., Action in Perception, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.
9.
AksamijaA.IordanovaI., Computational Environments with Multimodal Representations of Architectural Design Knowledge, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2010, 08(04), 439–460.
10.
SchonD.WigginsG., Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing, Design Studies, 1992, 13(2), 135–156.
11.
PolanyiM., The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday Publishing, Garden City, NY, 1966.
12.
StinyG., Shape: Talking about Seeing and Doing, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2006.
13.
KnightT.StinyG., Classical and Non-Classical Computation, Information Technology, 2001, 5(4), 355–372.
SuwaM.PurcellT.GeroJ., Macroscopic Analysis of Design Processes Based on a Scheme for Coding Designers' Cognitive Actions, Design Studies, 1998, 19, 455–483.
GreenoJ.MooreJ., Situativity and Symbols: Response to Vera and Simon, Cognitive Science, 1993, 17(1), 49–59.
21.
AgreP., The Symbolic Worldview: Reply to Vera and Simon, Cognitive Science, 1993, 17(1), 61–69.
22.
SuchmanL., Response to Vera and Simon's Situated Action: A Symbolic Interpretation, Cognitive Science, 1993, 17(1), 71–75.
23.
ClanceyW., Situated Action: A Neuropsychological Interpretation Response to Vera and Simon, Cognitive Science, 1993, 17(1), 87–116.
24.
SmithJ.GeroJ., What Does an Artificial Design Agent Mean by Being ‘Situated’?, Design Studies, 2003, 26, 535–561.
25.
GeroJ.KannengiesserU., The Situated Function-Behavior-Structure Framework, Design Studies, 2004, 25, 373–391.
26.
RobbinsP.AydedeM., A Short Primer on Situated Cognition, in RobbinsP.AydedeM., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, 3–10.
27.
ClarkA., Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.
28.
NemirovskyR.FerraraF., Mathematical Imagination and Embodied Cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2009, 70, 159–174.
29.
AndersonM., Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide, Artificial Intelligence, 2003, 149(1), 91–130.
30.
LyonE., Autopoiesis and the Digital Design Theory: CAD Systems as Cognitive Instruments, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2005, 03(03), 317–333.
31.
VisserW., Design: One, but in Different Forms, Design Studies, 2009, 30, 187–223.
MaherM.GonzalezA.GraceK.ClausnerT., Tangible Interaction Design: Can we Design Tangibles to Enhance Creative Cognition?, Poster session presented at: The Sixth International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, 2014 June 23–25, London, UK. URL: [http://cs.gmu.edu/∼jgero/DCC14-PosterAbstracts.pdf].
34.
SmithwickD.SassL., Physical Design Cognition: Embodied Intelligence for Taming the Digitally Fabricated Singapore Horses, Poster session presented at: The Sixth International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, 2014 June 23–25, London, UK. URL: [http://cs.gmu.edu/∼jgero/DCC14-PosterAbstracts.pdf].
35.
DourishP., Seeking a Foundation for Context-Aware Computing, Human Computer Interaction, 2001, 16, 229–241.
36.
Dade-RobertsonM., Architectural User Interfaces: Themes, Trends and Directions in the Evolution of Architectural Design and Human Computer Interaction, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2013, 01(11), 1–19.
37.
WillisK.LinJ.MitaniJ.IgarashiT., Spatial Sketch: Bridging Between Movement and Fabrication, at: TEI′10 ACM, Cambridge, USA, 24–27 January 2010.
38.
WillisK.XuC.WuK.LevinG.GrossM., Interactive Fabrication: New Interfaces for Digital Fabrication, at: Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction Conference, Portugal, 22–26 January 2011.
39.
ZoranA.ParadisoJ., FreeD – A Freehand Digital Sculpting Tool, In: BaudischP.Beaudouin-LafonM.MackayW.E. eds., CHI′13: The 31st International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Paris, 2013, 2613–2616.
40.
BraumannJ.CokcanS., Digital and Physical Tools for Industrial Robots in Architecture: Robotic Interaction and Interfaces, International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2012, 10(04), 541–554.
41.
OrningT., Pression – A Performance Study, Music Performance Research, 2012, 5, 12–31.
42.
MorsellaE.KraussR, The role of gestures in spatial working memory and speech. American Journal of Psychology, 2004, 117, 411–424.
43.
WespR.HessJ., Gestures maintain spatial imagery. American Journal of Psychology, 2001, 114, 591–600.
44.
KirshD.MaglioP., On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action, Cognitive Science, 1995, 18, 513–549.
45.
Goldin-MeadowS.BeilockS., Action's influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 2010, 5(6), 664–674.
46.
MartinT.SchwartzD., Physical Distributed Learning: Adapting and Reinterpreting Physical Environments in the Development of Fraction Concepts. Cognitive Science, 2005, 29, 587–625.
47.
KirshD., Embodied Cognition and the Magical Future of Interaction Design. ACM Transactions of Computer-Human Interaction, 2013, 20(1), xx–xx.
48.
SchonD, Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 1992, 5(1), 3–14.
49.
SassL.OxmanR., Materializing design: The implications of rapid prototyping in digital design, Design Studies, 2005, 27(3), 325–355.
50.
KohlerF.GramazioM.WillmannJ., The Robotic Touch: How Robots Change Architecture, Park Books, Chicago, 2014.
51.
StinyG., When is Generative Design Design?, Keynote speech at Computation: The New Realm of Architectural Design [27th eCAADe Conference]Istanbul (Turkey), 16–19 September, 2009.
