Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:54:53.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shape exploration of designs in a style: Toward generation of product designs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2006

M. PRATS ,
C. EARL ,
S. GARNER  and
I. JOWERS
M. PRATS
Affiliation:
Department of Design and Innovation, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
C. EARL
Affiliation:
Department of Design and Innovation, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
S. GARNER
Affiliation:
Department of Design and Innovation, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
I. JOWERS
Affiliation:
Department of Design and Innovation, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Generative specifications have been used to systematically codify established styles in several design fields including architecture and product design. We examine how designers explore new designs in the early stages of product development as they manipulate and interpret shape representations. A model of exploration is proposed with four types of shape descriptions (contour, decomposition, structure, and design) and the results of the exploration are presented. Generative rules are used to provide consistent stylistic changes first within a given decomposition and second through changing the structure. Style expresses both the analytical order of explanation and the synthetic complexity of exploration. The model of exploration is consistent with observations of design practice. The application of generative design methods demonstrates a logical pattern for early stage design exploration. The model provides the basis for tools to assist designers in exploring families of designs in a style and for following new interpretations that move the exploration from one family to another.

Keywords

DecompositionExplorationProduct DesignShape RuleStructure
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2006 , pp. 201 - 215
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 115–147.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G.D. (1933). Aesthetic Measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cappadona, F., Goussard, J., & Sutra, S. (2003). FIORES II: a quantitative approach of aesthetic notions. Collaborative Design MICAD Conf., Paris.
Chan, C.S. (1992). Exploring individual style in design. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 19(5), 503–523.Google Scholar
Chan, C.S. (2000). Can style be measured? Design Studies, 21(3), 277–291.Google Scholar
Chen, K. & Owen, C.L. (1998). A study of computer-supported formal design. Design Studies, 19(3), 331–359.Google Scholar
Duarte, J.P. (2005). Towards the mass customization of housing: the grammar of Siza's houses at Malagueira. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(3), 347–380.Google Scholar
Giannini, F. & Monti, M. (2002). An innovative approach to the aesthetic design. Common Ground—The Design Research Society Conf., London.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 158–174.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E.H. (1960). Art and Illusion. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hoover, S.P., Rinderle, J.R., & Finger, S. (1991). Models and abstractions in design. Design Studies, 12(4), 237–245.Google Scholar
Jowers, I., Prats, M., Earl, C., & Garner, S. (2004). On curves and computation with shapes. Proc. Generative CAD'04 (GCAD'04), Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA.
Kepes, G. (1944). Language of Vision. Chicago: P. Theobald.
Kirsch, J.L. & Kirsch, R.A. (1986). The structure of paintings: formal grammar and design. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 13(2), 163–176.Google Scholar
Koning, H. & Eizenberg, J. (1981). The language of the prairie—Frank Lloyd Wright prairie houses. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 8(3), 295–323.Google Scholar
Krstic, D. (2005). Shape decompositions and their algebras. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 19(4), 261–276.Google Scholar
Loran, E. (1943). Cézanne's Composition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
McCormack, J. & Cagan, J. (2002). Supporting designer's hierarchies through parametric shape recognition. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29(6), 913–931.Google Scholar
McCormack, J.P., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C.M. (2004). Speaking the Buick language: capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars. Design Studies, 25(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Prats, M., Jowers, I., Earl, C., & Garner, S. (2004). Improving product design via a shape grammar tool. Proc. 8th Int. Design Conf., Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Purcell, T. & Gero, J.S. (1998). Drawings and the design process. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430.Google Scholar
Schon, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Simon, H.A. (1975). Style in design. In Spatial Synthesis in Computer-Aided Building Design (Eastman, C.M., Ed.), Vol. 9, pp. 287–309. London: Applied Science Publishers.
Singh, M., Seyranian, G.D., & Hoffman, D. (1999). Parsing silhouettes: the short-cut rule. Perception and Psychophysics, 61(4), 636–660.Google Scholar
Smith, C.S.A. (1981). A Search for Structure: Selected Essays on Science, Art and History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stiny, G. (1994). Shape rules: closure, continuity, and emergence. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 21(Suppl.), S49–S78.Google Scholar
Stiny, G. (2006). Shape: Talking About Seeing and Doing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stiny, G. & Gips, J. (1978). Algorithmic Aesthetics: Computer Models for Criticism and Design in the Arts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Stiny, G. & Mitchell, W.J. (1978). The Palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 5(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
Suwa, M. (2003). Constructive perception: coordinating perception and conception toward acts of problem-finding in a creative experience. Japanese Psychological Research, 45(4), 221–234.Google Scholar
Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 21(6), 539–567.Google Scholar
Suwa, M. & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches?: a protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385–403.Google Scholar
Tapia, M. (1999). A visual implementation of a shape grammar system. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(1), 59–73.Google Scholar