I actually took a swing at this (genetic algorithms to do control panel layout) for my aborted dissertation. I chose control panel layout because it was a limited design domain: knobs, dials, and so forth, that couldn't particularly morph.
The problems I ran into were: 1. representing the design constraints 2. representing the candidate designs (each control had a type, size, location, and some other variables) 3. adding genes during the evolution 4. determining "goodness" For #4, I took a set of four heuristics from human factors: frequent controls/displays should be larger and in the middle, important controls should be larger and in the middle, controls should be ordered by sequence of use, and controls with adverse effects should be difficult to use (avoid accidental activation). Even when these heuristics were developed, they were known to be simple. I could have expanded into Fitts' law and several other evaluative rules, but what I had was plenty complex. (too complex: this was three dissertations not one) The problem with these approaches in "real time", using live products or usability testing, is the number of generations necessary. If you want to have some fun seeing what these algorithms can do to design, check out this genetic algorithm geek's response to "intelligent design", and see that evolution can design clocks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 On 1/2/08, Bruce Esrig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simulated annealing runs in a slightly different way. ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing ). You throw a bunch of > trial balloons in, and let them bounce around on the ceiling, so that they > bobble out of the local maxima and have a tendency to bounce up and into > higher and higher local maxima, hopefully including the global maximum. To > make sure that they don't bounce out of the global maximum, you gradually > decrease the bounciness of the balloons. > > There have been attempts to find good designs through genetic algorithms > based on simulated annealing. They all depend on being able to reward > better designs, and you also have to have some idea of how to write down a > specification for a design. > > What we're missing in the kind of design we want to do is the specification > language. What would you say in order to ensure that the right design > elements are being included? > > In the initial discovery phase, that's what we need to find out from the > users that we interview. What is the problem space in which we will be > doing design? What concepts matter? What concepts are implied? What are the > most significant relationships among the concepts, namely the ones that the > users will want to follow? (I've got this, I want that, so I'm going to use > this relationship to get there.) > -- Barbara Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-785-838-3003 ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
