Ryan Coyer

Aaron Schram

Assignment 07

1. what did you find (articulate the answers in your own words)

1.1. interesting about the article?

We found the idea of a software critic interesting. It seems like a very helpful thing for experts and novices alike. The idea itself seems very good but only if it is implemented in the way it was discussed, as a helper. If it were to get to the point where it was annoying, especially to an expert, it could hinder work performance as opposed to helping it.

Kitchen design is a subject that people don't frequently think about (but we all use our kitchens daily), so the discussion in the context of kitchen design was very interesting.

1.2. not interesting about the article?

It was all relevant to the subject matter.

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

The main message of the article was that computer as well as human based critiquing can play an important role in the design process. The article discussed critiquing with a computer as the primary critical agent. Critiquing can help experts and novices fulfill trivial requirements as well as better suit their customer's design needs.

3. are themes discussed in the article which you would like to know more about?

We would like to know more about how the users of the system reacted to the computer critic. We would like to know whether it was more helpful or hurtful to the design process, depending on the level of user expertise. We would most especially like to know if, in the time following the submittal of this paper, a critiquing system has been tested for software design.

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

4.1. DODEs

Only the few specified in this paper.

4.2. Critiquing?

Microsoft's Office suite has the office helper animation (the user can define the form of the helper... from a paperclip to Einstein). This seems to be a basic computer critic with regards to document composing.

4.3. analyze “spelling correctors” as a critiquing system

The Apple operating system has spelling correctors integrated within most applications that run in it.

5. what does the article say about

5.1. design

The article explains how computer critiquing can aid designers to better serve requirements and customers. Additionally, it addresses the difficulties inherent in the implementation of the design critiquing program itself. An expert in the domain of kitchen design needed to provide the rule base for the critiquing program in this case, so a critiquing program applied to any domain would need an expert to populate the rule base.

5.2. learning

Critiquing can help domain novices expand their knowledge while still producing a quality product. This allows them to learn the requirements as they design, which will allow them to rely less and less on the feedback of the critical agent. (For example, if you see MS Word change 'Wendesday' to 'Wednesday' often enough, you'll begin to spell it correctly in the first place).

5.3. collaboration

This paper addresses the viability of computers as collaboration partners. Computer critiquing allows the user to hear a critique, diagnose its relevance, and make a better informed decision... which is very much like collaboration with a requirements-savvy human mentor.

5.4. innovative media support for these activities?

Innovative media support can be very useful to have this type of support, particularly in settings where there aren't enough experts available to teach novices. If you can spare an expert for long enough to populate a rule base, you can later replicate his expertise as much as needed.

6. do you have any ideas how this research could / should be extended based on your own knowledge and experience?

This research could be extended into the field of common operating systems. The OS could notice what you are working on and provide you with relevant information or criticism as you work. This feature would be extremely helpful if the OS could have access to the internet in order to look up relevant information and help you with your current project... or at least point you towards more credible sources of information.