|
Tomohiro Oda - Homework #7 1. what did you find 1.1. interesting about the article? This paper states the impact of critiquing processes being embedded into problem solving activities. Embedded critiquing enables a critique prompted at the right time and it makes the cycle of problem solving processes shown in Figure 1 in shorter round-trip time. I think shorter round-trip time of problem reframing process is important especially when the goal is not clear. 1.2. not interesting about the article? Nothing is not interesting, but I don't see a very clear distinction among the three embedded critiquing mechanisms; generic, specific and interpretive. For me, they are at different abstraction levels. My interpretation is that specific critiquing asserts that a critiquing rule is often context dependent, and interpretive critiquing is its implementation for specific complex domains. 2. what do you consider the main message of the article? The right critique has to be made at the right time by the right presentation. Embedded cirtiquing is one promissing approach toward it. 3. are themes discussed in the article which you would like to know more about? I read this paper refering to software development tools. I think most of software development tools have passive intervention strategy, e.g. compilers. One interesting thing but not supportive to the paper is that many programmers currently prefer passive critiquing rather than active one; they write programs with editors and then load them into interpretor although some interpretor systems provide embedded critiquing. 4. do you know of other papers, ideas, and systems which are closely related to DODEs/Critiquing? I think emacs is a good example of embedded critiqing system. The emacs editor automatically choose an appropriate mode according to the filename extention (specific critiquing), highlights some keywords on screen at real-time(active critiquing), and check corresponding parentheses. In addition, it's user modifiable. Another example is CodeBroker. It actively critiques by suggesting reusable components. User profiles can be considered a kind of specific critiquing and user modifiability. 5. what does the article say about design/learning/collaboration/innovative media support for these activities? Critiquing systems have to provide user modifiability so that the systems can adapt to new situations which designers discovered/learned using the design system. Those adaptation can be considered collaborative works. 6. do you have any ideas how this research could / should be extended based on your own knowledge and experience? I think this research could be applied to any software tools. Software engineering tools might be good ones because software engineering processes are full of critiques, revising and problem re-framings. Assignment 7 Summary
|
