I really like your interpretation of "constraint-based" design as
a system that can produce a combination to fit
some constraints with qualitative reasoning. The human interaction is intended
to relax or modify constraints, letting the system producing different
projects.
This is quite different from the usual interpretation of "constraint-based"
systems. Constraints are usually imposed on the user rather than the system,
i.e. within a given context, only vertical lines are permitted.
I much prefer Piergiuliano Bossi's idea of constraints as something imposed
on the system as it attempts to fil/fulfill some design goal.
Have you looked at "shape grammar" systems? Generally speaking, they are
not interactive. But, they do generate design alternatives from basic
rules given some intitial constraints. Just exactly how this "guidance"
of the system would work does not seem to be very clear. There are lots
of models for it, ie. from learning(example-counterexample).
What do you propose?
- Ray Lauzzana
a system that can produce a combination to fit
some constraints with qualitative reasoning. The human interaction is intended
to relax or modify constraints, letting the system producing different
projects.
This is quite different from the usual interpretation of "constraint-based"
systems. Constraints are usually imposed on the user rather than the system,
i.e. within a given context, only vertical lines are permitted.
I much prefer Piergiuliano Bossi's idea of constraints as something imposed
on the system as it attempts to fil/fulfill some design goal.
Have you looked at "shape grammar" systems? Generally speaking, they are
not interactive. But, they do generate design alternatives from basic
rules given some intitial constraints. Just exactly how this "guidance"
of the system would work does not seem to be very clear. There are lots
of models for it, ie. from learning(example-counterexample).
What do you propose?
- Ray Lauzzana