國 立 交 通 大 學
建築研究所碩士論文
初探設計類比思考之三種現象-傳統媒材與數位媒材
Three Phenomena of Analogical Thinking in Design
Conventional Media vs. Computer
研 究 生：廖元鈺
指導教授：劉育東
Three Phenomena of Analogical Thinking in Design
Conventional Media vs. Computer
研 究 生：廖元鈺 Student：Yuan-Yu Liao
指導教授：劉育東 Advisor：Yu-Tung Liu
國 立 交 通 大 學
建 築 研 究 所
碩 士 論 文
A ThesisSubmitted to Graduate Institute of Architecture College of Humanities and Social Sciences
National Chiao Tung University in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master
In
Science of Architecture
September 2008
Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China
類比思考在設計領域中一直扮演著重要的角色，設計師常會轉化其他領域的事物
作為靈感的來源。然而在設計領域中目前尚未有一套完整的類比思考理論，其理
論多半引用於其他領域。此外，設計類比思考在過去也一直與傳統媒材中的手繪
做連結，鮮少探討其他媒材發展類比思考的可能性，例如近來最常被注意到的電
腦媒材。因此本研究針對設計思考的議題，並從媒材的角度出發，去探討兩個問
題，其一，設計領域中類比思考的共通性；其二，在傳統媒材和電腦媒材中類比
思考過程的差異性。為了達到這個研究目的，本研究分成數個部分，包含邀請受
測者完成兩階段實驗、以口語分析結合視覺資料來分析數據、最後提出三種現
象。從實驗中的三種現象中瞭解到類比思考是一種設計者、類比來源、設計目標、
和媒材的互動關係，設計者在這個過程中扮演最重要的角色，他們可以決定並轉
化他們有興趣的來源，而設計者的設計能力和創意力也決定了類比的深度。媒材
在這過程中扮演輔助的角色，意謂媒材可以間接的改變設計過程和設計結果，媒
材本身的特質更讓類比思考過程有更多變化性。此研究結果希望對於設計領域研
究設計師設計思考議題有另一個方向的認識。但因本研究為初探性質的研究，所
以所選用的受測者人數較少，在未來的研究中會邀請更多設計者的參與，做更廣
泛的類比思考的研究，並期望提出一套設計領域類比思考的模式。
In
this research, the author proposes three phenomena of analogical thinking in design. Analogy has been ascribed a key role in the architecture design. Until now, there is no a complete theory describing how analogical thinking process works in design domain. Moreover, analogical thinking always relates to freehand sketches and rarely connects with other medium. Therefore, this research attempted to investigate the analogical thinking from the perspective of design media. Two purposes in this research are to study the common points of analogical thinking in design field, and the differences of analogical thinking process in conventional media and computer. In order to achieve the objectives, there are three parts consisted in this research including two phases of experiment, analyzing the data and addressing three phenomena of analogical thinking. According to the results of analysis, analogical thinking is an interaction between designers, analogical sources, design target, and design media. Designers play the most important role in analogical thinking process because they can choose and transfer the idea which they are interested in. The analogical depth also depends on the designer's imagination and creativity. On the other hand, the design media play a supporting role in analogical thinking process. It means that the characteristics of design media not only affect design process and design result but also offer the variability of analogical thinking design. The contribution of the research is a preliminary understanding of analogical thinking in design field. The limitation of the research is owing to few numbers of subjects and still no theory describe how analogical thinking works in this field, the author use the common research method of investigating design process. The research discusses some phenomena of analogical thinking in design field. Our further study will focus on broad approach of analogical thinking and offer a framework of analogical thinking process.在我研究所的兩年，我經歷了很多風風雨雨，而這本論文是我兩年最後心血的結
晶，也許不夠完美，但是卻是一個巧妙的終點，也是我展開研究生涯的起點。在
這過程中，一直在支持我鼓勵我幫我加油給我最好的建議的劉育東老師，我要對
您致上最高的感謝和敬意，沒有老師的支持絕對沒有現在堅強的我。這份師恩，
元鈺會永記在心。
也非常感謝論文口試中，千惠老師的細心指導，您幫我指正我論文中許多大大小
小的問題，對我一個剛進入研究領域的學生來說，能遇上這樣的口試老師真的很
幸運。此外，還有政緣老師的精準，讓我看到我論文中的盲點。
這次研究可以順利完成，要感謝很多很多協助或是參與我實驗研究的同學們，包
含小杰倫、老趙、子豪、聖荃、柳吟、估達、致遠、豆豆…等等好多好多人，要
不是你們提供你們的創意思維，這份研究是沒辦法有這些成果，你們才是我這段
時間研究的精髓。
我還要感謝我的家人，要不是你們背後默默的支持，我是沒辦法走到這一步。
最後，我的生涯剛起步，明年我會離開台灣這塊土地，但我依然會堅持自己的信
念，努力不懈。我也會用我的熱忱去堅持下去這份夢想。
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Problem and Objective 2
1.3 Research Steps 3
Chapter 2: Background Review
5
2.1 Role of sketching in the deign process 5
2.2 Analogy in design 8
2.3 Digital media in Architecture 15
Chapter 3: Experiment
21
3.1. The experimental clarification 21
3.2. Experimental scheme 25
3.3. The summary of the experimental process 27
Chapter 4: Results and Analysis
39
4.1. Coding scheme 40
4.2. Three phenomena of analogical thinking 46
Chapter 5: Conclusion and suggestion
59
5.1 Conclusion 59 5.2 Limitations 60 5.3 Future Studies 61
Reference Table
62
Appendix
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Research Background
Analogy, which refers to similarity between relationships, is of particular importance because it is the main human cognition affecting human learning, thinking, working, and creative work throughout everybody’s whole life. Yet Plato declared the analogy was “the most beautiful bond possible.” Umberto Eco ridiculed analogy as “Hermetic semiosis”, the cabbalistic obsession and paranoid credulity that uncritically leaps to link everything in the cosmos to everything else. Moreover, both the proportional and the participatory varieties of analogy are inherently visual. It requires perspicacity to see what kinds of adjustments need to be made between uneven cases to achieve a tentative harmony. It also presupposes discernment to discover the relevant likeness in unlike thing (Stafford, 2001).
Throughout the design domain, analogy has been ascribed a key role in the architecture design (Lawson, 2004; Rowe, 1998; Leclercq, 2002). Donald Schön, who was interested in the formulation of problems as the basis for action throughout his career, pointed out how powerful the transfer of concepts from one case to the next and from one field to another can be (Goldschmidt, 1999).Most architects used pencil or charcoal pencil to develop their idea in conceptual design process. The lines they drew are obscure that leads to the possibilities of analogy (Smith, 2005). All most architectural designers have their own notebook. When they impress by something, such as any objects, natural forms, or architectural projects, they will note these things by simple sketch with the pencils and their notebooks. Then, they develop their design and try to observe percept, discriminate, and image by these sketches. Thus, visual experience is the essential to designers to discovery new ideas that depend on the quality and quantity of other types of “references”. There are different kinds of reference that support the developing design. For example, in creative and conceptual designing, architects often look to books, magazines, and other collections of images to find forms they can adopt and adapt in designs (Do and Gross, 1995) Studying more high quality architectural projects also a powerful way to lead designers’ invention and imagination. Moreover, natural form and biological development provides a possible source to inspire some ideas about the production of diversity during design development (Gero, 2006).
In the age of conventional media, most of analogies could be studied by designers’ freehand sketching and scholars deduced these two-dimensional sketching materials to understand the design thinking and design process. However, the appearance of digital media has not only
broken the mode of visual analogy in design, but also raised the controversial issue about the possibilities of analogical thinking happened in other kind medium, except for conventional media. Depend on the merit of the new media, the analogy in architectural design has greatly advanced during recent years. To cite one example, zoomorphic appeared in the nineteenth century and few buildings simulated animals or plants. In twentieth century, the concept of “zoomorphic” became more flourish because of the improvement of technologies and the invention of computers. Genetic algorithms, one new mode of finding the best solution relying on working with computer, have much practical merit because it is modeled on natural processes of evolution. Generative architecture ideally allows environmental parameters to dictate the architectural solution as nature does during ontogeny (Williams, 2003). Definitely, this new issue merits our attention. If scholars are to develop efficient design tools for architects, we must know more about analogy in architectural design than presume it is unchangeable in design.
1.2 Problem and Objective
1.2.1 Research Problem
As was stated above, it could be known that the importance of analogy in the architectural field. Studies of design method and process often identify analogy, metaphor, and visual references as important activities in creative designing. Even tough not all architectural designs use analogy in the conceptual design process, it is undoubtedly that analogy is play an important role in stimulating designers’ innovation and exploration. Analogical thinking process is a process that designers stimulate designer’s creativities and design ideas by integrating or associating with their individual life experience, the nature of objects, the whole creation on the earth, the physics, or life experience. However, There is no a complete
theory describing how analogical thinking process works in design domain. When the
researchers discuss this issue, they usually cited theories from other areas, such as Gentner’s (1983) Structure-Mapping Theory and Holyak and Thagard’s (1996) the notions of “System Structure”.
Moreover, when scholars explore designer’s analogical thinking, they almost focus on
sketching and rarely talked about the possibilities of other medium, such as computer.
Generally, analogical thinking are happened in the conceptual design process, which in the traditional view sometimes also means drafted sketching process. Designers use freehand sketch as its primary mode of development because sketching has the essential “dense, ambiguous, and amorphous” fostering their creative capabilities (Goel, 1995; Do and Gross, 1995).Nevertheless, the development of digital media improves the possibilities and broadens
the representation of architectural design in recent years. Many architects begin their original ideas, develop their conceptual design, and expand their invention with digital tools, but some researches are shown that drafted sketching process could not be replaced due to the computational conception requesting humans though to be precise, rigid, discrete and unambiguous which are well known that is difficult to be happened in the human cognitive. It means that traditional designers and some scholars think that sketching-thinking with pencil-remain is an essential design skill (Herbert 1993; Lawson 2004; Robbins 1994).
However, appearance of computer has created a new ear for the modern society. Definitely, computers have been the primary media to think, record, and communicate with others. More and more people note everything with the machines, not pencils. To the architectural design domain, it has already been proved that the conceptual design process could be happened in only digital media (Hanna and Barber, 2001). In spite of the differences between two kinds of media, the digital media could provide with more various essential, which could not be possessed by the conventional media, such as continuous, continuous pliability, localized focus, fluid, biomorphic—in other words quintessentially analogue(Porada, 1999).
1.2.2 Research Objectives
Until now, there is no definite research method to investigate the process because few scholars in design domain focus on how analogical thinking process works. Moreover, analogical thinking always relates to freehand sketches and rarely connects with other medium. Therefore, this research attempted to investigate what is common point of
analogical thinking in design field. Another question is how design medium affect the analogical thinking process. Therefore, two purposes in this research are shown below.
The main goal of this study is to provide experimental evidence regarding differences and similarities of analogical thinking in conventional media and computer.
1. The same point of analogical thinking process in design field
2. The differences of analogical thinking process in conventional media and computer
1.3 Research Steps
In order to achieve the objectives, there are three parts consisted in this research. Firstly, the experiments are involved two phases. In the phase one, subjects are asked to generate concepts with conventional media, such as pens or pencils, which the subjects used habitually. When the subjects finish their design assignment, they are asked a brief interview which includes describing their design process and answering some specific questions about their
sketches for the minor data of analysis. In the phase two, the author would like to understand the same thing as the first experiment in a computer-aided way. The unsuitable subjects were eliminated from the phase one of the experiment and the suitable ones proceed the phase two of experiment which also contains the same kind of design assignment. Finally, the author chooses three subjects from six subjects.
After these experiments, the second part of the method is the analysis of the results from the fore experiments. The major analytical source is the visual data from experiments, and the minor data is form the verbal data which are the design processes describing by subjects and the questions that subjects been asked after the experiments. Then, the author uses a coding scheme to analyze the major visual data and minor verbal data. In addition, one pilot experiment would be gone on to confirm the structure of experiments is feasible and reasonable. The final part of the research is analyzing the whole data and addressing three phenomena of analogical thinking in design.
Fig 1.3.1a The Research Structure
This paper structures as five chapters. First chapter give the simple image of this paper and research problem and goal. Second chapter introduces the research background and formal related work. Third chapter plans the entire structure of the experiment. And based on the third chapter the analysis of experimental results is showed in chapter four. Fifth chapter is conclusion, limitation and future studies.
Chapter 2: Background Review
2.1 Role of sketching in the design process
2.1.1 Design process
Design process has been widely explores in design research domain. Form follows function and function follows form—is a classic expression in design for a long time. Different views about design process have emerged in the last forty years. Alexander (1964) proposed “analysis-synthesis” model for design activities. B. Munari has proposed that design is a process from problem to solving (Liu, 1996). W. Peña and S. Parshall (1987) asserted that design is a process from problem-seeking to problem-solving. DA Schön and G Wiggin (1992) advocated a theoretical model of design thinking "seeing-moving-seeing" and they have the idea that design is a circulation, which means a progress from finding problems with seeing, modifying models with moving, and then observing effects with seeing again. A. Purcell and J. Gero(1999)have proposed that a characteristic of the design process is the use of a number of different types of sketches, and the relatively unstructured and ambiguous sketch occurs early in the process.
Nevertheless, R. Hanna and T. Barber (2001)have proposed that the digital media has transformed the traditional design method of ”sketching-to-concept formulation” into “a CAD approach-of thinking-to-concept formulation,” which means that designers do not need to use sketching to construct their design when single digital media is used in design process. It demonstrates that the new media has changed the design process. It also means that working in the three dimensional forms demands the architect to more than just a problem solver (Abdelhameed, 2004). The design process has no ideal step-by-step technique; rather, there are many different styles of decision-making, each with individual quirks as well as manifestations of common characteristics (Rowe, 1998). According to Goel(1995), design process has been recognized as involving complex cognitive tasks. The basic activities in design includes exploration of the problem space, creation preliminary solutions, understanding consequences of design decision, and so forth.（Achten and Joosen, 2003）
2.1.2 Sketching
Even though some scholars asserted that the sketching has replaced by single digital media in the design process (shown above), sketching still possesses some important characteristics deserving our attention. Theses characteristics are also helpful to make us know more about
design process, understand how creativities are stimulated by sketching and try to find the same nature happened in the digital media.
Sketching of image has been a part of human cultural production for a very long time. If evidence from hunting gathering societies in any guide, people drew before they built. As a symbol, sketching has a dual and contradictory nature for societies. Sketching is the phenomenal representation of a conceptual practice; moreover, sketching can also provide a code or template that guides the social production of the object it represents. Within architectural practice, sketching as a pure cultural conception and cultural production defines the world free of any institutional, political, or economic constraints (Robbins, 1994).
At the same time, sketches are the designer’s principal means of thinking: the origin, nature, and method of obtaining knowledge in architectural design can be explained largely in terms of a few culture-dependent properties of study sketching (Herbert, 1993). Sketching today serves as primary medium for generating, testing, and recording individual architect’s own creative and conceptual musing about a design. Sketching is also seen a language because it is used to communicate ideas with others and to instruct other about design, and describe a world of objects through a series of personal and conventional representations. It cannot be described by any grammar because of its level of ambiguity and the multiplicity of ways that it can be seen, cannot be readily described by the use of other sketching in the same way (Robbins, 1994).
In addition, sketching are more than just a convenient way of working out design problems. According to the book “what designers know” by Bryan Lawson (2004), the process of sketching is one of the best ways we know to absorb design ideas. The need to pass an idea from eye to mind and then hand results in a level of understanding not necessarily achieved when simply looking at or even photographing an object or place. Paper and pencil sketches are one form of externalization of mental images, and therefore can inform us about characteristics of these images (Gero, 2001).Architectural designers are taught to use conventional paper and pencil media when developing conceptual designs. Beginning with the simple sketch, the doodle, and the proverbial cocktail napkin diagram, designers develop ideas graphically through the medium of freehand soft line sketching on tracing paper. Sketching activities include finding, adapting and combining new forms with previously learned shapes and structures, for example from precedents, design studio experiences and case studies. Designers sketch to explore design solutions, to record their ideas, or to illustrate them and communicate them with others. The act of sketching is important not only as a vehicle for communication; it actually helps designers see and understand the forms they
work with (Do and Gross., 1995). Architects could not promote their idea without using sketching in it germination or its evaluation. Wile defining, exploring, and redefining a design problem, architects construct, evaluate, and form their design ideas by utilized different type of sketching (Abdelhameed, 2004).
Fig 2.1.2.a Sketching thinking process（Laseau, 2001）
When we understand the importance of the freehand sketching, how it is difficult to be replaced and what the special characters it possessed deserves the attention. Early in the process, designers generate as many ideas as possible. Freehand sketching are integral to this process, raw sketches that can be readily generated, revised, refined, and consolidated in concert with development of the ideas. Sketches serve as a thinking tool for designers (Robbins, 1994; Schön, 1992; Goldschmidt, 1995). Suwa (2001) also presents a view about freehand sketching. He asserts that sketches are used by professionals not just to express ideas but also to generate new ones. Reexamining old sketches, even one’s own, can lead to the discovery of new ideas. It is through their reinterpretations that old sketches may be used to generate new ideas. One way is through regrouping parts of a sketch to form new wholes. Goel(1995) indicates three characters about why the symbol system of sketching be correlated with the preliminary stage of design process, which including: firstly, the dense ordering of symbols in the system of sketching gives the tokens a degree of fine-grandness by making every distinction count as a different symbol. This reduction in distance between symbols helps insure that possibilities are not excluded and helps to transform one symbol into another. Secondly, ambiguity of the symbol system of sketching insures that the reference and/ or contents of symbols during the early phases of design are indeterminate. Ambiguity is important because one does not want to crystallize ideas too early and freeze design development (Fig 2.1.2.b). Lastly, the dense ordering of reference or content classes in the symbol system of sketching insures that possibilities are not excludes and helps to transform one idea into another.
Fig 2.1.2.b Le Corbusier: part of sketch showed the ambiguity (Herbert, 1993)
2.2 Analogy in design
2.2.1 Analogy
Analogy, born of the human desire to achieve union with that which one does not possess, is also a passionate process marked by fluid oscillations. Perceiving the lack of something－ whether physical, emotional, spiritual, or intellectual － inspires us to search for an approximation resemblance to fill its place(Stafford, 2001). Analogy is also a particularly useful approach for solving an unfamiliar new problem without adequate or directly applicable knowledge. The idea in the use of analogies in theory construction is to use knowledge from some other domain as a source of new ideas to construct the theory in the target area (Prieditis 1988). The aim of the cognitive activity is “to simulate” the perceived real while elaborating a mental analogy, and to simulate the conceived real while elaborating an analogon idea. In these conditions, the analogy, that appears us in the beginning and to the term of the knowledge, is the means and the end of it at a time. (Morin, 1986)
It is possible to find examples of analogous models in very early stages of human development, since one of the most common strategies for resolving problems is in fact imitation, the reproduction by other means of an external referent, often taken from nature(Pita, 2005). Based on the nature of the knowledge transferred from previous experience to the new problem, the analogical reasoning approach can be classified into two categories: transformational analogy and derivational analogy (Carbonell 1982). Transformational analogy adapts the solutions to the past problems for the new problem. Derivational analogy applies the past problem solving processes or methods to solve the new problem. By analogy, the relations between the new problem and some past experience or knowledge about a particular phenomenon can be found. This experience or knowledge can be placed in the new situation so that the new problem can be better understood or a new plan for solving the problem can be generated (Gero, 1991).
2.2.2 Analogy oriented architecture
Throughout the design literature, analogy has been ascribed a key role in the design of architectural masterpiece (Lawson, 2004; Rowe, 1998; Leclercq, 2002). The reason analogy is important in the context of design has to do with the displays that designers consult. As noted earlier, such displays are extremely diversified in nature and origin, and as we shall presently show, they do not necessarily benefit design as exemplars within the domain in which the designer is working (Goldschmidt, 1995). To support analogy, discovery and invention are presented as an important focus of their work. Discovery brings the power to bear on a problem at a moment in time and the success of discovery in design is greatly dependent on the quality and quantity of the other types of graphic thinking. Invention seeks the basic discovery, the original idea for the project; concept formation converts the discovery into a graphic and verbal statement that can give the basic direction to the full development of the project. The power of a good inventor to invent depends on his ability to see analogies between results and, secondarily, on his ability to see them between devices (Laseau, 2001).
Figure2.2.2.a visual analogical process by sketching (Do and Gross, 1995)
The design literature uses the term” analogy” very loosely, as we use it in everyday life, where it often denotes similarity or resemblance in a general sense (Goldschmidt, 1995). It is a process that designers stimulate their creativities and design ideas by integrating or associating with their individual life experience, the nature of objects, the whole creation on the earth, the physics, or life experience. It means that architects inspired their design ideas by their experience. According to Rowan’s opinion (1962), the term “experience” defined that the quality of individual life, and perhaps the survival of human life as a whole, depends on the ability and disposition of human being to think original thoughts, to reshuffle familiar facts into new pattern of meaning, to perceive reality behind illusion, and to engage in daring leaps of the imagination. For example, Tzonis(1992) has dwelt on the use that was made by Le Corbusier of a number of images, which Tzonis refers to as precedents, including a ship, a wine bottle-rack, the savage hut and the Greek temple. Tzonis claims that the forms Le Corbusier invented for Unite Habitation were (Figure2.2.2.b), in part, in analogy to those
images, which Le Corbusier retrieved from memory (Goldschmidt, 1995). Other Examples can be found in the oeuvre of no less than Frank Lloyd Wright, Rem Koolhaas and Gerrit Rietveld- the name only a few. The columns of Wright’s Johnson Wax building (Figure2.2.2.c), for instance, would have been shaped by analogy to water lilies. (Leclercq, 2002)
Figure2.2.2.b [a] The Unite Habitation in Marseilles [b] The Ocean Liner Poster (Goldschmidt, 1995)
Figure2.2.2.c The columns of Wright’s Johnson Wax building
Empirical research on analogy in architectural design has focus primarily on the use of visual analogies (Leclercq and Heylighen, 2002). Of all instances of analogy, designing is most concerned with visual analogy. Sketching gives rise to interactive imagery and enhances analogical reasoning (Goldschmidt, 1995). Graphic design process is assisted by sketching. Most architects used pencil or charcoal pencil to develop their idea in conceptual design process. The lines they drew are obscure that leads to the possibilities of analogy (Smith, 2005). There are two possible ways that the analogy happened in graphic design process. First, designers look for forms that are similar in shape to what they have in mind, and perhaps rough sketches on the sketching board suggest or recall a shell, a rock, or an architectural precedent. Le Corbusier’s crab shell roof for Ronchamp would seem to fit this category. Second, designers think of forms that are linked through some concept about the design at hand. For example, the section of Kahn’s performing art center at Fort Wayne has the form of
a violin in its case. Here the concept of music and the need for acoustic richness in a concert hall seemed to play a key role in suggesting the building’s form. We call these two ways of finding visual references ‘shape reminding’ and ‘conceptual reminding’ (Do and Gross, 1995).
In addition, analogy is a powerful problem solving strategy that can help explain new and non-routine problems in terms of familiar ones. The production of an unlimited number of unexpected solutions that are significantly different from earlier designs is a characteristic of non-routine design. Design problems are described as major examples of non-routine problems (Gero and Maher 1993). Thinking in terms of analogy involves the transfer of prior knowledge from a familiar situation (named the source), to a situation that should be elucidated (named the target). Structure-Mapping Theory supports the view that an analogy can be characterized as the application of a system of major structural relations from a source, to the problem to be solved (Gentner 1983).
2.2.3 The classification of analogy
When we understand the importance of analogy in design domain, we should know how to definite analogies and where analogies come from. Different views are showed by several scholars.
Firstly, Ricoeur (1994) reported five levels of analogy: the analogy of proportion and equal relations, form, function, organization or structure, the free analogy, or poetical. The five levels are established on the whole state of language. In the poetics, analogy in the sense of “proportion” is at the root of the fourth class of metaphor. Proportion relates two quantities of the same kind in direct relation of one to the other. The structure is the arrangement of parts in a piece of writing. Other levels, such as form or function, are the elements of language. In addition, the “property” does not be included in the five levels of analogy since the property belongs to the sphere of things, not of a word. But the limitation does not happen in design field.
1. Proportion: equal relationship between A and B 2. Form: a way of writing
3. Function: some special purpose of a word or a writing
4. Organization or Structure: the arrangement of parts of literature or poem. 5. Free analogy or poetical: imaginative metaphor and showing deep feeling
Secondly, William Gordon(1968) has defined four types of analogy: symbolic, direct, personal, and fantasy.
1. Symbolic: it is a comparison between general qualities of the two objects, such as the Latin cross and the plans of many churches.
2. Direct: it compare parallel facts or operation. For instance, the house is designed to have the same cooling characteristics as a tree shades.
3. Personal: the designer identifies himself directly with the elements of the problems. Assuming that the prime consideration for this house is warmth and comfort on the winter days without large use of nonrenewable resource, the designer might imagine him to be the house. To make himself comfortable, he might lie close to the ground below the ridge so the cold wind can pass over his head.
4. Fantasy: it uses a description of an ideal condition desired as a source for ideas. In the case of our recreational house, the designer might fantasize about a house that opens itself up when the client arrives on the weekend and automatically close up when the client leaves. It could symbolize a tulip that opens and closes.
Moreover, Paul Laseau(2001) also defined these “references” in details(Figure2.2.3.a). He showed that the analogies are easily recognized in our everyday invention. The possible models from which to draw analogies can be classified by categories as physical, organic, or cultural, and the subcategories include:
1. Structural: Referring to shape or relationship. 2. Mechanical: The way something operates 3. Control: Maintaining a condition
4. Plant: Goal orientation and differentiation 5. Animal: Behavior
6. Man: imagination and choice
7. Society: interaction, competition, organization 8. Symbolic: conventions, references, suggestions
Figure2.2.3a The sources of analogies (Laseau, 2001)
In addition, among the all kinds of sources of analogies, organic analogy, which is also called the biologic analogy, is the most important type of visual analogy. Biology is a recursive source of architectural inspiration due to the tight relationship between form and function, the natural balance of forces and the corresponding geometric solutions found in living beings. Roughly, one can classify historical analogies between architecture and biology into two main categories. The first tries to mimic biological forms and the second biological processes (Couceiro, 2005).It is very common to see life forms represented in architecture. We have all seen buildings with biomorphic allusions to plants, animals or even anthropomorphic allusions. Furthermore, architects and designers like Frank Lloyd Wright have referred to organic architectures not only from the shape but also from the functioning point of view (Couceiro, 2005). Accounts of creative architectural design often mention natural and artificial objects as sources of architectural form. For example, Le Corbusier wrote, “the shell of a crab picked up on Long Island in 1946 is lying on my sketching board. It will become the roof of the chapel”. Le Corbusier also urged young architects to study and draw from nature. Similarly, Wright stated that the form of his Unitarian meeting house in Madison, Wisconsin derived from the form of hands clasped in prayer (Do and Gross, 1995).
Figure 2.2.3.b:.
[a] Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp - a crab shell;
[b] Wright’s Unitarian meeting house - hands clasped in prayer. (Do and Gross, 1995)
2.2.4 The Construction of Analogy
To instantiate the utilities of analogical thinking to designing, the author shows some theories of analogy from other fields. Firstly, K. Holyak and P. Thagard(1996) proposed the notions of “system structure” given with the help of explaining analogical thinking. It fundamentally involves the simultaneous satisfaction of the constraints of similitude, structure and purpose. The analogy functions through a construction of relation between the object source and the goal object in establishing relations of different level of similitude. When people think analogically, people do much more than just compare two analogs on the basic of obvious similarities between their elements. Similarity at a more general level emerges as the results of applying the constraints of structure and purpose. These constraints apply at all stages in analogy use: selection, mapping, evaluation, and learning. After a source analogy has been selected, that maybe by active retrieval from memory or by some references point it out, mapping can guide the construction of similarities between the source and target. Once two situations have been mapped and the source has been used to generate inferences about the target, one might suppose that the job is done- the process is evaluation. The final stage is learning more general schemes as a consequence of solving problems by analogy.
Secondly, Gentner(1983) asserted that an analogy can be categorized into surface analogy and deep (structural) analogy. Surface analogies relate to easily accessible or superficial concepts of object properties. Structural analogies, on the other hand, involve a system of higher order relations that are based on deep properties of a familiar situation. The structure-mapping theory distinguishes three levels of complexity in analogical thinking, each of which is tied to an increasingly abstract form of explicit knowledge: attribute mapping(based on attributes of objects), relational mapping(based on higher-order relations between relations), and system mapping(based on higher-order relations between relations).The interpretation rules are characterized as implicit rules for mapping knowledge about a base domain into a target domain. Gentner’s structure mapping theory paves the ways for a theory of transfer of configurationally relations from a display(base, or source) to a task at hand(target). Configurational qualities equate syntax which stands for structure, whereas issues of subject matter equal semantics, or object attributes and features in Gentner’s model. The notion of configurational transfer is important because it is relevant to our efforts to provide the designer with assorts displays in the form of visual databases. Besides, Novick(1988) has shown that for experts, problem solving makes positive use of analogical transfer when the features shared by the base problem and the target problem are structural. In contrast, when the base and target share surface features (object attributes) transfer is more like when the problem solvers are novices, and it is often negative transfer.
Moreover, Casakin (2004) reported that the main processes of analogical reasoning consist of: (i) identification and retrieval; (ii) mapping and transference. An analogy can be established between two different domains, each of which embrace dissimilar knowledge, but with a common shared correlation based on similar structural aspects. This type of analogy is known as “between-domain”, where the source and the target problem belong to different and distant domains. In cases in which source and target are embedded in the same or very close domain, the analogy is called “within-domain” (Casakin , 2004). In addition, Ilse M. Verstijnen(2001) addressed the third kind analogical domain “ within domain” that is the source and target stem from the same domain. Therefore, analogy has different aspects and three kinds of domains, and where the sources of domains come from.
2.3 Digital media in Architecture
2.3.1 Conventional media and Digital media
The development of media has several periods. In ancient time, almost architects expressed their design process with written record (Hweitt, 1985). Designers only showed their abstract concepts of visual design by two-dimensional sketchings before the Renaissance era when the
representation of architecture design was still limited (Goldschmidt, 1999). Even though the scale models have appeared in Ancient Egypt, classic Greece, and Imperial Rome, they almost were used to religious activities (Smith, 2004). The most important attribution of Renaissance architects was that they started to use a vast number of small-scale models in the design process to display their concepts. This new way of representation could make the result of design more accurate (Millon, 1994).
By the beginning of the twenty century, the limitation of traditional architectural form was broken by a few architects, but these innovation buildings were only built by imagination. However, the way we engage in the design process has been changed the appearance of new technology when computer appeared. The traditional media as sketch concretes designer’s ideas in the way of sketching plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives on a sheet of paper, but the computer media serves as an integrated design tool provides 3D modeling, animation, audio/video representation, and even the virtual reality and the co-operation in internet environment on design. Such character of this new media not only make the complexity of design form possible, but also effectively speed the design process, lower the budget, and improve the communication with each other (Lin, 2003). It not only breaks the traditional design methods but also increases the possibilities that exist within the design experience: digital media has the capacity to improve design cognition, intuition, and creativity (Hanna and Barber, 2001). It is possible that the traditional architectural elements, forms, and the spaces are redefined by digital media because it offers designers a better way to think (Madrazo, 1999).The impact of computer media on design is enormous and powerful.
2.3.2 Comparisons between two media
In 1963, Ivan E. Sutherland, who is the pioneer of using digital media, proposed that the plan of developing the sketchpad, the digital medium of line sketching. After that a large number of researches focus on computer-aided design. Three important characters of the digital performance include: First, digital information was transformed into the eyeable algorithm. Secondly, users-defined parameters are display by hierarchical menu or input. Lastly, computer-aided designs use machine, such as printers, the appearance of images, and computer-aided manufacturing. Digital media restructure the architectural representation that leads to infinite possibilities (Mitchell, 1998; Ho, 2006).
However, some scholars question the probability that the conventional media could be replaced by the digital media. For example, Goel(1995) argues that the cognitive computational conception of the world requires our thought processes to be precise, rigid, discrete and unambiguous; yet there are dense, ambiguous, and amorphous symbol systems,
like sketching, painting, and poetry, found in the arts and much of everyday discourse that have an important, nontrivial place in cognition. He also maintains that while on occasion our thoughts do conform to the current computational theory of mind, they often are—indeed must be-vague, fluid, ambiguous, and amorphous. He argues that if cognitive science takes the classical computational story seriously, it must deny or ignore these processes, or at least relegate them to the realm of the nonmetal (Goel, 1995). In addition, some research on the functions of sketching in architecture (e.g. Herbert 1993; Lawson 2004; Robbins 1994) remind us that though digital media is used for making and editing mechanical working sketching and for producing renderings and animations for clients, sketching is still the medium of choice for creative design and design development. Despite software that helps designers produce cleaner and more precisely drafted sketchings, few designers feel computer tools actually help in developing designs. It may be that CAD software is too structured for conceptual design thinking, which uses freehand sketching as its primary mode of development. sketching-thinking with pencil-remains is an essential design skill (Do, 1995). Due to the essential of sketching, many researches have been done to improve computational design system for sketching and sketching. For instances, Wellner(1993) provide a system called DigitalDesk(Figure 2.3.2.a) to enhance sketching and sketching behavior. The Electronic Cocktail Napkin(Figure 2.3.2.b) developed by Gross(1996) is am experimental computer-based environment for sketching and diagramming in conceptual stage of design. Lim (2003) made an experiment comparing differences and similarities between the digital media, the Electronic Cocktail Napkin, and traditional freehand-sketching. He had a conclusion that there are few differences between the two interfaces and using computer environment could make the sketching strokes transform into the concrete digital three-dimensional images. Thus, digital use this media that could gain more visual feedbacks that includes not only ambiguous sketching lines, but also specific three-dimensional images.
Figure2.3.2.b the Electronic Cocktail Napkin working screen
Apart from attention to how we simulate the freehand sketching in the digital media, broadening the potential of the digital media is the important issue. Architecture that is always very attentive to the technological innovations remains for the meantime conservative in its whole, and seems to be influenced more in its form by new construction technologies and materials. Their use produces transparencies, disappearances, apparitions and new space dialectics: interior-outsides, skin-structure, etc (Porada, 1999). A number of applications have shown that graphics CAD systems can be operated by lay users to make an effective contribution to architecture. An important advantage of the computation design systems is that they can provide users with access to tutorial, engineering and cost-evaluation procedures. This information may help users to create design alternatives with realistic cost and performance attributes (Aish, 1986). Due to these advantages of digital tool, some scholars believe that the drafted sketching process could be replaced by only digital media. R. Hanna and T. Barber (2001) proves that using digital media as the only design tool can be addressed. When experimenters were asked to use digital tools only, they modified their design approach. Instead of using the conventional approach of sketching concept formulation, experimenters shifted to new approach—a approach of the digital media—of thinking concept formulation. Further empirical research is needed to assess the impact of this shift on the quality of design solutions. Figure2.3.2.c is show an attempt by the experimenter to use digital media as a tool to enhance the creation process of design composition. The experimenter has created a ‘penetrating' design composition by breaking the rigidity of the linear grid with a diagonal, non-orthogonal mass.
2.3.3 Three Dimensional Representation
The three-dimensional application is one of the manifestations of the computer media in digital design. Although the sketching conventions are economical to use, the problem with a two-dimensional symbolic system is that perceptual ambiguity may occur when multiple two-dimensional views are used to communicate more complex three-dimensional objects. It is acknowledged that three-dimensional graphics, such as perspective views, can be used as an effective output system, but it is difficult to see how users can directly generate or manipulate three-dimensional geometry via such computer-generated views (Aish, 1986). The three-dimensional model is on an equal level as a structural model, physical model, materialization model, and so forth. It also possesses some special characteristics differ from other design media. For example, making architecture become more three dimensional in design exploration and in representation is one of the most important characteristics of the 3D modeling. This transition to three dimensions makes the processes of visual design thinking more related to digital media (Abdelhameed, 2004). Designers can simulate designs by using many different angles and scales, when they are no longer restricted by the two-dimensional grid.
In addition, Sorte (1975) demonstrated that different two-dimensional and three dimensional graphic, photographic and modelling techniques used to represent typical buildings may not evoke the same responses from subjects as did the buildings in reality. In particular, he found that plan sketchings were an unsatisfactory presentation method, while simple three-dimensional models were more effective. One of the factors which, it is suggested, contributes to the success of physical modelling presentation methods is the facility which such a modelling system provides for the user to acquire an unambiguous perception of the size and shape of exterior forms and interior spaces by allowing the user to vary his eye and viewpoints. The user also moves around (and possibly through) the model and is, therefore, able to achieve compatibility between visual and positional cues which will also occur in the perception of the real building. Three-dimensional modelling systems provide a design environment which is more realistic and therefore is likely to evoke responses which are more similar to the responses to real buildings (Aish, 1986).
Not only realistic, three dimensional applications possess some other special characters that other kinds of media do not have. Henri Achten and Gijs Joosen(2004) defined several distinct characteristics of the three-dimensional model of digital design process including:
During the traditional design process, the designer usually produces a lot of sketches and models, which involve many resketching, tracing, and modeling; however, the three-dimensional model has a potentially longer life-span which does not require continuous reconstruction.
2. Continuous pliability
The technique of three-dimensional modeling allows for a gradual development and refinement of a shape without the need to delete an old shape and create a new one. It becomes easier to consider the shape as a preliminary one which is under constant revision, rather than as a fixed shape.
3. Localized focus
The level of detail can be adjusted in the places under consideration by means of refinement of the underlying NURBS-equation. This implies that design change occur locally while the rest of the model updates the changes that are made.
4. Postponed decision
Combined with the characteristics of localize focus, designing becomes a constant process of gradually refining parts of the design; at the same time, the three-dimensional model has to be translated to a built-able solution. Such transformation usually leads to a loss of versatility. It means that the decision of to “collapse” a surface has be postponed and also showed that three-dimensional model has to seen as temporary.
Chapter 3: Experiment
In order to achieve the objectives, there are three parts consisted in this research. Firstly, the experiments are involved two phases. In the phase one, subjects are asked to generate concepts with conventional media, such as pens or pencils, which the subjects used habitually. When the subjects finish their design assignment, they are asked a brief interview which includes describing their design process and answering some specific questions about their sketches for the minor data of analysis. In the phase two, the author would like to understand the same thing as the first experiment in a computer-aided way. The unsuitable subjects were eliminated from the phase one of the experiment and the suitable ones proceed the phase two of experiment which also contains the same kind of design assignment. Finally, the author chooses three subjects from five subjects.
After these experiments, the second part of the method is the analysis of the results from the fore experiments. The major analytical source is the visual data from experiments, and the minor data is form the verbal data which are the design processes describing by subjects and the questions that subjects been asked after the experiments. Then, the author uses a coding scheme to analyze the major visual data and minor verbal data. In addition, one pilot experiment would be gone on to confirm the structure of experiments is feasible and reasonable. The final part of the research is analyzing the data and addressing three phenomena of analogical thinking in design.
Fig 3.1a Structure of Experiment
3.1. The experimental clarification
In this section, the author describes the details about how to design the experiment and how to conduct the experiment. They are involved the subjects choosing, two phases of experiment, the design topic of experiment, design tools, the recorded methods and the limitation of the experiment.
3.1.1. Choosing Subjects
The object of research tries to understand analogical thinking process in design domain and explore how designers transfer of concepts from one field to another. Accomplishing the process should possess abilities which are abundant creativities and expertise in architecture design. Therefore, the author selects sex expert designers who have more than five years of design-based education. All of them are proficient at conventional media and computer simultaneously. They use one or more computer applications frequently when they generate their designs.
However, every designer has different design method and thinking. Even though these subjects have professional design experience, it does not mean that all of them could design with analogical thinking. The short warm-up experiment could not prove effectively that the chosen subjects are suitable for designing with analogical thinking. In order to make sure that the experimental results are worth discussing, six subjects participate in the phase one of experiment and then the author measure the experimental results based on the following basic analogy theories (Novick,1988; Genter, 1983; Holyak and Thagard,1996; Goldschmidt; 1995). If any subject’s design does not achieve any one of the two theories, he or she is unable to go on the next phase.
1. Analogical thinking is a process form source to target.
2. The positive use of analogical transfer is that the features shared by the source and target are structural. In contrast, when the source and target analogy shares only objects attributes transfer, it is often negative transfer.
Finally, three of these subjects cannot accomplish the objects. One subject indicates that he could not think with analogical transfer to design. Experimental results of two other subjects show only objects attributes in their design.
3.1.2. Two phases of experiment
When the researchers discuss the analogical transfer, most of them mention the relationship between analogy and sketching. The author tries to comprehend the analogy in design domain deeply and understand the analogical thinking process in different media. However, every subject has different design thinking and method. The only way to judge the comparison between analogical thinking using conventional media and computer fairly is that let the subjects participate in two experiments using different media. Thus, the experiment has two phases. The phase one is a design assignment using conventional media and the phase two is
the other design assignment using computer with similar topic. Two phases have an interval of one month.
3.1.3. Brief interview
After every phase of design assignment, a brief interview would help the author understand the design process accurately. The analogical thinking is too complicated process to understand only by visual data. When the subjects remain memory, they are requested to describe the design process, and then some specific questions are asked by the authors. The brief interview is about fifteen to twenty minutes.
3.1.4. Experimental topic
Every analogical thinking process involves source and target (Genter, 1983; Holyak and ThaGard,1996; Goldschmidt; 1995). Thinking in terms of analogy involves the transfer of prior knowledge from a familiar situation (named the source), to a situation that should be elucidated (named the target) (Gentner 1983; Novick 1988). The identification and retrieval of a similarity between potential relations in the target, and known relations in the source enables to understand the new situation on the basis of a familiar situation.In design domain, the source means that something inspires the design idea and the target signifies the design purpose. This experiment is the short time design assignment and subjects must finish their conceptual design within restricted time. Also, the source and target are not the main research goal in the study. In order to achieving the experimental purpose in limited time, the design ideas and the design purpose are bounded by particular resource and one topic.
The sources of analogy are various, such as structural, mechanical, plant, animal, society, etc, but the organic analogy is one of the most widely discussed issue in design domain (Couceiro, 2005; Do and Cross, 1995; Gero, 2006). Therefore, the author selects two organisms that the subjects maybe know but not really familiar with, and offer them the reference materials to them to build their knowledge background.
In addition, the design purposes cannot choose traditional topics that are too easy to design, but complex topics also are not a good selection to quick designs. Therefore, novel topics have simple function that it is easy to handle and has much space to be developed. Finally, the author decide the first design topic in the phase one is “a roadside stall design which inspired by the concept of the jellyfish.” The second design topic on the phase two is “transient living space which inspired by the concept of the sponge.”
3.1.5. Building background knowledge
In order to avoid the surface analogy (Gentner, 1983), the author offers a material to build the subject’s background knowledge before the beginning of every design assignment. The material containing text and graphics have explicit introduction about two design sources “jellyfish” and “sponge”. All kinds of knowledge about the sources are listed to improve efficiency of obtaining information from the material. Subjects have ten minutes to read the material before generating their design. When they start developing their design, they still can skim the material at any time they need.
3.1.6. Experimental tools
The subjects are requested to use their habitual tools in the two phases of experiment that make them generate their concept as usual. In phase one, the author asks the subjects to prepare the conventional tools that they use habitually. In the phase two, it also does not limit what kinds of applications the subjects use. The author arranges for all applications that the subjects need, such as 3Ds max, Maya, Sketch up and FormZ. Besides, the author prepares the AMD Turion 64 Mobile notebook with 15.4 inch monitor, keyboard and mouse.
3.1.7. Experimental time and recorded methods
Because the subjects generate their conceptual design in recorded circumstance, the experimental time could not be too long. Subjects generating conceptual design in experiment phase one is about forty minuets. The pilot experiment shows that when designer generating their design with computer is more time consuming than conventional media, so the design assignment in the phase two is about one hour. If subjects think the time is not enough to complete their design concept, ten minutes could be prolonged. In addition, the whole processes are recorded by video. For the unease of getting visual data, the author takes a photo with digital camera per minute.
3.1.8. Limitation
Analogy has the various types, different levels, and diverse resources, but this study is only aimed at organic analogy as the experimental topic. Because the author focuses on the analogical thinking process, much variability would disturb the objectives of the research. Therefore, the author has to choose one kinds of analogical transfer that must be the limitation of this study. On the other hand, it is difficult to find expert designers who proficient at conventional media and computer simultaneously, but too few experimental data are unconvincing. Ultimately, the author chooses experimental result of five subjects to be the analytical data of the study.
3.2. Experimental scheme
This section discusses two parts of the research including hypothesis, two phases of the experimental design assignments.
3.2.1. The phase one: design with the conventional media
The Phase one of the experiment is about the process that designers generate their design by analogical thinking while they use conventional media in the concept generation stage. The objective in the phase is to comprehend the process analogical thinking accurately and regard this results in this phases as the foundation of studying the analogical thinking in digital media.
1. Subject: six architectural designers who have perfect ability of generating concepts, using conventional media and proficient at one or more digital media. They all have been educated with more than 5 years of architectural design.
2. Topic: the new type of roadside stalls which inspired by the concept of the jellyfish. The topic has simple functions that it is easy to handle and has much space to be designed. 3. Tools: the conventional tools that the subjects use to generate conceptual design, such as papers and pens.
4. Process: subjects were asked to generate one or more conceptual design.
5. Time: The sum is about one hour. Before the subject start to generate, the author described the demand of experiment to the subjects and also let them to read the related materials and think for ten minutes. Then, the subjects could generate their design for forty minutes. If they think the forty minutes are not enough to complete their design concept, ten minutes could be prolonged. After the concept generation part, the author would ask the subjects to describe their design process and answer some questions about twenty minutes.
time. And the author used digital camera to catch some visual images.
7. Interview: After the experiment, the subjects are some specific questions about their design for the minor data of analysis. This process would be recorded by the voice recording and the video.
After one phase of the experiment of, the author has known the analogical thinking process of designer while using conventional media generating concepts. After the experiment in the traditional way, the experiment in computer-aided way in the same degree is that the author mainly discuss. Therefore, there comes the phase two of the experiment.
3.2.2. The phase two: design with the digital media
This phase is about the analogical process that designers generate their conceptual design while using computer media. The objective is to know if the analogical thinking of generating concepts could be happened in the computer-aided aspect.
1. Subject: three architectural designers proceed the experiment two because three unsuitable subjects are eliminated (the reasons are shown the next passage).
2. Topic: transient living space which inspired by the concept of the sponge. The topic has simple functions that it is easy to handle and has much space to be designed.
3. Tools: Hardware (AMD Turion 64 Mobile notebook, 15.4 inch monitor, keyboard and mouse), Software (computer applications that the subjects use habitually to design, such as 3Ds Max, Maya and Sketch Up, etc.)
4. Process: the same as the phase one.
5. Time: the sum is about one hour and twenty minutes. The time of subjects generating their design extends to one hour. Other parts are the same as the phase one.
6. Recording Process: the same as the phase one. 7. Interview: the same as the phase one.
3.3. The summary of the experimental process
The passage is a discussion about the experimental process and results. The recording data (visual data) is the main source and the brief interview (verbal data) is the minor data. The author uses the two kinds of data to describe the design processes of three subjects. The key point of this passage focuses on subjects’ analogical thinking process, not the design results.
In addition, because every subject carries out two phases of experiment results, three subjects have six experimental results and processes. Therefore, this section is divided into two parts included phase one and phase two. Before describing the experimental processes, there is a brief description of the background of the three subjects. The full detailed data, such the whole recording data or texts of brief interview, are given in Appendix.
Subjects A
Architectural design-based education: six years Experiment of computer aided design: five years Choice of conventional media: pen and ink Choice of computer application: 3Ds Max
(Currently he uses computer as main design tool and conventional media as supporting tool.)
Subjects B
Architectural design-based education: seven years Experiment of computer aided design: five years Choice of conventional media: pencil
Choice of computer application: 3Ds Max
(Now he uses computer as only design tool, but sometimes he use freehand sketching to stimulate design ideas.)
Subjects C
Architectural design-based education: six years Experiment of computer aided design: two years Choice of conventional media: pen and ink Choice of computer application: Sketch Up
3.3.1. The results of experiment phase one: using conventional media
Subject A
Subject A spends fifty minutes to complete phase one of experiment. At the beginning, he reads the source material and searches some keywords relating to space, such as flocking together, illuminated, transparent, water jet and moving in reverse direction, and so on. Then he begins to select some interesting images and learns the forms. He tries to find some special forms or structures from the jellyfish; therefore, he firstly draws jellyfish, and then responds to the design topic” roadside stall.”
Fig 3.3.1.a Subject A’s design result
The process of imitating and sketching the form of jellyfish takes about 23 minutes. Firstly, he sketches simple patterns of jellyfish (Fig 3.3.1.b (a)). Later, he draws the umbrella structure of traditional stalls, or is the style of traditional roadside stalls (Fig 3.3.1.b (b)). Finally, he tries to connect sources and target. He puts the simple sketches of jellyfish and the sketches of roadside stalls together (Fig 3.3.1.b (c)), and thinks how to build a relationship between them. He draws, thinks, ponders, and sometimes goes back to read the source material. In the process, he finds new keywords or new meaning and writes them down, such as clusters symbolizing combination, eight meridional canals, water signifying transparency, and so on.
Fig 3.3.1.b (a) Imitating the form of jellyfish
(b) sketching the umbrella structure of traditional stalls
“When I generate my design, I could not always draw and draw. Sometimes I need to stop sketching and thinks which sketch has the potential to develop. There is a transitional period from simple imitation to design. Moreover, the previous sketching also help me to has a flash of inspiration for my design.”
Then, Subject A chooses jellyfish tentacles and jellyfish’s character “flocking together” to sketch, and tries to use the two key points to stimulate his thought. When he draws one sketch (Fig 3.3.1.b (c)), he makes sure that this one is his conceptual diagram. Then he draws a simple elevation to show the concept of his design (Fig 3.3.1.b (c)). Finally, he uses another paper to draw details, functions, or structures about his design.
Fig 3.3.1.c (a) conceptual diaram
(b) Elevation of final conceptual design
“I think that the first step of analogical thinking oriented design should be search, and then draw something which you see in the source material. The intuitive process can make designer quickly understand its structure, and it is helpful to the later exploration and development. In fact, the form would be transformed. At the beginning, the first sketch is really like a jellyfish, but designer may find some important points in the first sketch, and applies them to the next sketch or transfers them to other new thing. The process of sketching many diagrams could be accumulated a power to provoke designer’s creativities.”
As far as the analogical ideas are concerned, Subject A searches some key words at same time, but every diagram are discussed only one key words. After sketching many diagrams, he starts to consider how to integrate these ideas. The definite transfers of analogical ideas would be presented in final conceptual design. For example, at the beginning, he catches the some key words, such as cluster, light, water jet and moving in reverse direction, tentacles , and so further. The final design represents the large or small group of stalls, LED light source, the line-shaped skeleton framing, and so on.
Subject B
Subject B takes 45 minutes to complete phase one. Like Subject A, he spends almost time on the mapping stage and he decides his final conceptual design at 33 minutes. At the beginning, subject B reads source material and write some keywords quickly, including zooplankton meaning can morphing, flocking together symbolizing combination, containing water meaning inflated. In addition, because he thinks intuitively that the jellyfish is a “round” animal, so the basic form of his every sketch is round.
Fig 3.3.1.d Subject B’s design result
He begins to think how to integrate these ideas and how to make them become part of a design. He draws umbrella structure of traditional stalls, and parallel relationships of roadside stalls (Fig 3.3.1.e). Then he starts to think how combine the source “jellyfish” and the design target” roadside stall” together.
“When I think about how to connect jellyfish with roadside stalls, I draw a basic form of roadside stalls to understand what its characters are. Then I look at the previous diagrams describing jellyfish, go back to draw the form of stalls, and look at the jellyfish diagrams again. The process makes me know how to combine them together. For example, I find that stalls have the character of horizontal arrangement, so I try to draw many circles to see whether these circles are arranged to has some direction(Fig 3.3.1.e Right), but I feel it is very difficult.”
Fig 3.3.1.e (Left) Umbrella structure
(Middle) parallel relationships of roadside stalls (Right) arrange some circles
