Course Documents
     Main Page
     Contact Information
     Course Announcement
     Schedule and Syllabus
     Course Participants
     Discussion Forum
     Swiki Chat Area
     Lecture Material
     Independent Research
     Previous Course
Swiki Features:
  View this Page
  Edit this Page
  Printer Friendly View
  Lock this Page
  References to this Page
  Uploads to this Page
  History of this Page
  Top of the Swiki
  Recent Changes
  Search the Swiki
  Help Guide
Related Links:
     Atlas Program
     Center for LifeLong Learning and Design
     Computer Science Department
     Institute of Cognitive Science
     College of Architecture and Planning
     University of Colorado at Boulder
Rizwan Ansary

Assignment # 5

Role: Summarizer

1. what did you find

1.1. interesting about the article?

The idea of critics was favorite among all producers. However,most of them emphasized that critiquing process should not become annoying or overbearing. It should be helpful and not intrusive. The idea of transferring some part of critiguing process from humans to computers was approached differently.

1.2. not interesting about the article?

The article generally interested most of the people. There were however objections related to examples that were less relevant and the fact that it was dry.

2. what do you consider the main message of the article?

The producers in unanimous in their answers to this question. Allof them thought that the main message was to improve the design process by having inputs from a critiquing system.

A few people also added that the critiquing system is expert in the particular domain that it is providing criticism for.

A few others thought that this system of having critics also helps in the growth and of knowledge as well as improving its quality.

3. are themes discussed in the article which you would like to know more about?
People wanted to explore architectures that were best suited for building such critiquing systems. Some also wanted to know of other situations where such systems could be used. They also wanted to know how much help is enough and how much is intrusive. There was further interest in defining how well would they behave for domains where it is not possible to capture all knowledge and principles.

4. do you know of other papers, ideas, and systems which are closely related to

4.1. DODEs

4.2. Critiquing?

Most people had never come across such systems previously. No one had previously read related research. Of those who were familiar with similar ideas, most had seen computer applications or real world systems at work. e.g. Lotus, MS Office Assistants, home-designing programs.

5. what does the article say about

5.1. design

5.2. learning

5.3. collaboration

5.4. innovative media support for these activities?

Please see Bill Beachley's response.

6. do you have any ideas how this research could / should be extended based on your own knowledge and experience?
The majority of responses indicated a desire to see the idea of critiquing systems presented in the paper applied to a practical domain (e.g. circuit design, software development, website design). There was also a useful suggestion to obtain experimental results from existing critiquing systems.

The most interesting idea for future research (in my opinion) was related to the fault tolerance of such critiquing systems. It would be really interesting to study scenarios where conflicts may arise in the knowledge and established principles of the domain are violated. In other words, what happens when an exception occurs.

View this PageEdit this PagePrinter Friendly ViewLock this PageReferences to this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageTop of the SwikiRecent ChangesSearch the SwikiHelp Guide