Evaluating the Effect of Co-Creative Systems on Design Ideation

Evaluating co-creative systems is an open research question in computational co-creativity research. This paper addresses a lack of studies about evaluating the effect of co-creative systems on ideation, a creative process during which designers generate new ideas. This paper describes an approach to measuring ideation as a basis for evaluating co-creative systems in design. Particularly, we are interested in how the contribution of an AI partner in a creative design task influences design ideation in a co-creative system. In order to evaluate a co-creative design system, we present an approach for measuring ideation that has two components: an aggregate analysis and a temporal analysis. With the metrics, we hope to contribute to a critical and constructive discussion on evaluating the impact of AI contributions in other co-creative systems.

[1]  Pegah Karimi,et al.  Evaluating Creativity in Computational Co-Creative Systems , 2018, ICCC.

[2]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Semantically Far Inspirations Considered Harmful?: Accounting for Cognitive States in Collaborative Ideation , 2017, Creativity & Cognition.

[3]  Pedro Lucas,et al.  Stay Awhile and Listen to 3Buddy, a Co-creative Level Design Support Tool , 2017, ICCC.

[4]  Brian Magerko,et al.  Drawing Apprentice: An Enactive Co-Creative Agent for Artistic Collaboration , 2015, Creativity & Cognition.

[5]  Celine Latulipe,et al.  Quantifying the Creativity Support of Digital Tools through the Creativity Support Index , 2014, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact..

[6]  Antonios Liapis,et al.  Mixed-initiative co-creativity , 2014, FDG.

[7]  Akshay Gupta,et al.  Viewpoints AI , 2013, AIIDE.

[8]  Brian Magerko,et al.  Viewpoints AI: Procedurally Representing and Reasoning about Gestures , 2013, DiGRA Conference.

[9]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  Design Heuristics in Engineering Concept Generation , 2012 .

[10]  Guy Hoffman,et al.  Gesture-based human-robot Jazz improvisation , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[11]  J. Gero.  Generalizing Design Cognition Research , 2010 .

[12]  Tomás Dorta.  Design Flow and Ideation , 2008, International Journal of Architectural Computing.

[13]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  On the Measurement of Ideation Quality , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Willemien Visser,et al.  The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing , 2006 .

[15]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Towards an ‘ideal’ approach for concept generation , 2003 .

[16]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[17]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function - Behaviour - Structure Framework , 2002, AID.

[18]  Dennis R. Brophy.  Comparing the Attributes, Activities, and Performance of Divergent, Convergent, and Combination Thinkers , 2001 .

[19]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[20]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes , 1999 .

[21]  Vinod Goel,et al.  The Structure of Design Problem Spaces , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design , 1990, AI Mag..

[23]  Ömer Akin,et al.  Necessary conditions for design expertise and creativity , 1990 .