:

/

/

[email protected]

[email protected]

) ( . .

. :

The alteration of designer logical performance during architectural design task Nahith Taha Abdulla

Uriya Noory Saeed

Lecturer University of Mosul College of Engineering L/Dept. of Architecture

Assistant Professor University of Salahaldeen College of Engineering L/Dept. of Architecture

Abstract Although many studies have tried to reduce differences between conceptual models of thinking processes, through the description of the operational performance of any intellectual task includes problem solving, however, because of the design specificity in this regard, and diversity of its motion, there were always, many of obstacles that stand in the way of developing a model describes the operations of reasoning achievement during different architectural design phases. The need for explicit language of designer thinking, and architects performance or how they underlined such aspects, was incentive concern for many contemporary studies, which tried to cover this area in one way or another. This research tries to investigated designer logical behavior during a design process, through the review of inference acts, during conceptual stage of that process, also it tries to investigate the nature of the mobility of this behavior across time of the task. Keywords: Logic, Logical Structure, Architectural Inference, Architectural Design

2008/9/22

2008/5/7 5252

Al-Rafidain Engineering

Vol.17

No.4

August 2009

– . . R. ) "

(Arnheim

." .

. .

(Logical Structure) . (

)

. (Design Behavior) ) (Conceptual Phase ) ( (Epistemological) ) .(

(Retrospective) (Method )

.( 614

: 1978

" )"

(Webster, p. 628)

.(Gregory, 1966, p19) (Principles)

(Cross,1984, p.7) (Procedures) (Practices) 53

: . . (Normative) .(Lang, 1987, p16) (Glass box) . .(Jones, 1992 ,pp 48-52 )

.

(Imaginative) (Cognitive Psychology)

(Symbolic) . (477 .

1998

(Reduction) )

(Coding) Mental ) .(Representations (Jean Piaget)

(Adaptation) Assimilation & )

(Accommodation (Schematization) (Arrangement)

(Judgment)

(Explanation) .

.(Morris, 2004, p.258) (Description)

. (Asimow)

(Testing) Corpus Knowledge for )

(Zeisel,1986, p. 12) . (Presentation) (Imagination) (Heuristic Catalyzed ) (Spiral) (McNeill, 1999, p. 130) 5454

(Checking .

Al-Rafidain Engineering

(Design-Behavior) –

–

Vol.17

No.4

August 2009

(Evaluation-Synthesis) .

(Evaluation-Analysis)

) . (Leclercq, 2002, p. 2) (Thinking Domain) .

(

:

(The Logic of Design and Question of Value ) (1976) (Formal logic Paradigm) (Atomism)

March, )

. (Productive)

(L. March) (1976,p. 266 (Rational Design) (C. Peirce) (Decompositions) (Deductions) . (Suppositions) (Inductions) (Compositions) (Abductions) (

)

. (Premises) .

(Evaluative)

(The Logic of Architecture) (Vocabularies) (Atomic) .

(1990)

(W. Mitchell) (Critical Language)

(Molecular Level) (Metchill,1990, p.70) (Predicates) 55

: . (Knowledge Base) (Design Proposal) .

(How Designers Think) (1997)

(B. Lawson) (Cognitive Psychology) (What Designers Know)

(2004) (Negotiation) .(Lawson, 1997, p. 162).

.

-: Protocol )

-1 (Analysis

Bilda, 2004, )

(J. Gero) . (pp.12-142 -2

.(Kavakli, 2001, p.36) .(Suwa, 1997,p.10)

.(112

-3

)

2008

(1

) ) (Retrospective protocol analysis )

. (1

:

(10)

. -1 ).

(45)

( 5656

Al-Rafidain Engineering

Vol.17

(

No.4

August 2009

)

-2 .

(Segments)

-3 )(

)

( -4 . -5 .

(Proposition Inference) (Immanency)

-1

Intuition ) (Proposition (Pe)

(Deduction Inference) )

-2

(Premises) (

(De)

. (Analogy) (Dea)

. (Induction Inference) )

( (Ie) 57

-3

:

(Open Plan)

(Abduction Inference) )

(

-4

(Ae) . (Retrieval) .

(Logical Analysis of Design Discourse ) Non ) ( Monotonicity ]

[ (2

) (1

.

(Segment) )

(45)

59) (1) 45

6 5 0 2 16 29

0 0 0 0 0 0

40

35

30

25

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 3 4 (Bar Diagrams) (10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1)

20

15

10

5

4 1 0 0 3 8

1 0 0 0 3 4

0 0 0 0 4 4

0 1 0 0 1 2

.

:

5858

Pe De Dea Ie Ae

Al-Rafidain Engineering

Vol.17

)

No.4

August 2009

(De)

(Predictor

(Interpreted) (Premises) (Propositional) (Prejudiced) (Conceptual) .

(Suppositions)

(Dea) (Matching)

-

(Recall) . (Pe)

-

(Subjective) (Personal) . (Ae) .

-

(Contradictions) (Pe)

)(Ae)

(

Goal ) .(Problem Oriented)

(Object Level) .

: )

(

.

(Heuristic) (Oriented

(Process Level) (Variation) -

59

:

.

-

.

. .

(Puzzle)

.

. . . (

6060

10)

Al-Rafidain Engineering

Vol.17

61

No.4

August 2009

:

6262

Al-Rafidain Engineering

Vol.17

No.4

August 2009

: 63

: 1- Bilda, Z., Gero, J., Analysis of a Blindfolded Architect's design Session, In, Gero, J., Tversky, B., & Knight T., (Eds), VISUAL AND SPATIAL REASONING IN DESIGN III, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2004 2- Gregory, S. A. THE DESIGN METHOD, Butterworth & Co. Ltd, London, 1976. 3- Gross, N., (Ed), DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGN METHODOLOGY, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1984. 4- Jones J., C., DESIGN METHODS SEEDS OF HUMAN NEEDS, (2nd Ed.), John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester, 1992. 5- Kavakli, M., & J., Gero, Sketching as mental imagery processing, Design Studies, Vol., 22, No., 4, 2001. 6- Lang, J., CREATING ARCHITECTURAL THEORY, The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold company, New York, 1987. 7- Lawson, B. HOW DEESIGNERS THINK, the design process demystified (3rd Ed) Architectural Press, Boston, 1997. 8- Lawson, B. WHAT DESIGNERS KNOW, (3rd Ed) Architectural Press, Boston, 2004. 9- Leclercq, P., & M., Locus, REPRESENTATION OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS, International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, 14-17, May, 2002 10-March, L., (Ed), THE ARCHITECTURE OF FORM, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976. 11-McNeil, T., Gero, J., & J., Warren, Understanding Conceptual Design Using Protocol Analysis, Research in Engineering Design, No. 10, 1999. 12-Mitchell, W., J., THE LOGIC OF ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN; COMPUTATION AND COGNITION, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990. 13-Morris, C., & A., Maisto, PSYCHOLOGY, (10th Ed.), Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, 2004. 14-Suwa, M., Tversky, B., What Architects See in Their Sketches: Implications for Design Tools Advanced Research Laboratory, Hitachi Ltd., 2520, Hatoyama, Saitama, 350-03, Japan, 1996, No 81-492-96-6111. 15-Zeisel, J., INQUIRY BY DESIGN: TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENT- BEHAVIOR RESEARCH, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984. .1978 ( 28- ,2 ) -16 .1998 (3. ) -17 -18 .2008

6464

Al-Rafidain Engineering

Vol.17

No.4

(

August 2009 )

1

(

) (500) : -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

35

N

25

. .

-1 -2 -3 -4

(45)

. .(scale ruler)

(

2 65

)

: D1(1,.5) U K D2(1,.5) U K D1(2,.5) U K

P1 P2 D2(2,.5)

D1(1,10) U K D2(1,10)

P1 P2

P1

D1(1,15) U K1

P2

D4(2,15) U K1 D5(2,15) U K1

P4 P5

D (3,15) U K1

P1

D1(1,20) U K1 D1(2,20) U K1 D (3,20) U K1

P1 P1 P1

D1(2,25) U K1 D2(2,25) U K2

P1 P2

D1(2,25) U K1

P1

D3(2,.5) U K

P1

P2

P3

D (2,10) U K1 P1 U K2 D (3,10) U K1

P3

P2

P3 P2

D2(1,15) P3

D2 (1,15)

P3

P2

P2

P3

P2

D1(3,25) U K1 P1 D2(3,25) U K2 P2 D3(3,25) U K3 P3 D1(4,25) P1 D2(4,25) D1(1,30) U K1 D3(1,30) P1 D2 (1,30) U K1 D3(1,30) D (2,30) U K P D1 (3,30) U K P D2 (3,30)

D1 (1,35) P P3 D1 (1,35)

P2

P

: = [

=

=P =

=K =U

– 6666

] =D