COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND ILL-DEFINED PROBLEMS:
A CASE STUDY FROM DESIGN*
by
C h a r l e s M. Eastman
I n s t i t u t e of Physical Planning
Carnegie-Mellon University
Summary
In t h i s paper the i n f o r m a t i o n processing
theory of problem s o l v i n g is extended to include
i l l - d e f i n e d problems. A p r o t o c o l of problem
s o l v i n g in a r c h i t e c t u r a l design and its analysis
is presented. The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between
w e l l - and i l l - d e f i n e d problem s o l v i n g is shown to
be a s p e c i f i c a t i o n process s i m i l a r to i n f o r m a t i o n
r e t r i e v a l processes now studied in a r t i f i c i a l
intelligence.
A v a r i e t y of issues in t h i s
r e t r i e v a l process are examined. The search
process involved in the space planning aspect of
design is shown to correspond w e l l w i t h e x i s t i n g
formulations of search. The i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s
of r e t r i e v a l and search processes are examined.
Introduction
A l l problems can be said to consist of
t r a n s l a t i n g some e n t i t y ( A ) , i n t o some other
e n t i t y (B) , which is s p e c i f i e d in terms of goals
to be achieved (A -► B) . The major e f f o r t s of
problem s o l v i n g theory to date deal w i t h problems
where A, the i n i t i a l problem s t a t e ,
the
operators a v a i l a b l e t o a l t e r the problem s t a t e ,
and B, the goals to be achieved, are s p e c i f i e d ,
e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y or by some agreed upon formal
convention'.
Thus d e t a i l e d analyses have been
made of how people determine chess moves, how
they solve geometry, word algebra, and c r y p t a r i t h m e t i c problems, and how they solve l o g i c
proofs2.
While some are less w e l l - s p e c i f i e d
than others ( i n chess, the goals for e v a l u a t i n g
a s p e c i f i c move are open to i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r p r e ­
t a t i o n ) , a l l of the tasks thus f a r analyzed have
an o p e r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a t i o n . Such problems are
considered to be w e l l - d e f i n e d .
This paper describes e f f o r t s to extend the
i n f o r m a t i o n processing model of problem s o l v i n g
to those problems where p a r t of the problem
s p e c i f i c a t i o n is l a c k i n g . Of i n t e r e s t are those
tasks where a formal language f o r d e s c r i b i n g the
problem space, operators f o r moving through the
problem space, or the precise expression of an
acceptable goal s t a t e is not g i v e n .
In such
t a s k s , the problem solver must specify the missing
i n f o r m a t i o n before search of the problem space is
p o s s i b l e . Such problems can be c a l l e d i l l defined.
An example of i l l - d e f i n e d problems are the
space p l a n n i n g tasks found in e n g i n e e r i n g ,
a r c h i t e c t u r e , and urban d e s i g n . Space planning
can be defined as the s e l e c t i o n and arrangement
* T h i s w o r k was s u p p o r t e d by t h e Advanced R e s e a r c h
P r o j e c t s Agency o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e S e c r e t a r y
o f D e f e n s e ( F 4 4 6 0 - 6 7 - C - 0 0 5 8 ) and i s m o n i t o r e d
by the A i r Force O f f i c e of S c i e n t i f i c Research.
of elements in a two- or t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l space,
subject to a v a r i e t y of c o n s t r a i n t s and/or evalua­
tion functions.
Space p l a n n i n g p r o b l e m s l a c k a
w e l l - s p e c i f i e d language f o r t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
The g e n e r a t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e
problem solver f o r m a n i p u l a t i n g a design are not
known.
Most such p r o b l e m s a l s o l a c k a p r e c i s e
formulation of an acceptable goal s t a t e .
T h i s paper p r e s e n t s a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of
one example o f i l l - d e f i n e d p r o b l e m s o l v i n g .
The
p r o b l e m i s a space p l a n n i n g t a s k commonly f o u n d
i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , t h e s e l e c t i o n and a r r a n g e m e n t o f
elements in a room.
Evidence from t h i s a n a l y s i s
i s p r e s e n t e d w h i c h advances two h y p o t h e s e s :
(1)
t h e m a j o r d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w e l l - and i l l d e f i n e d p r o b l e m s i s t h e assumed a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a
s p e c i f i c a t i o n process f o r d e f i n i n g the problem
space and g o a l s o f a p r o b l e m .
Ill-defined
problems are s u b j e c t i v e l y s p e c i f i e d ; (2) i f the
s p e c i f i c a t i o n process i s the major d i s t i n c t i o n
b e t w e e n w e l l - and i l l - d e f i n e d p r o b l e m s , t h e n a
complementary h y p o t h e s i s would be t h a t the search
p r o c e s s e s used b y humans t o s o l v e b o t h t y p e s o f
problems would be s i m i l a r .
The m o t i v e s b e h i n d
these e f f o r t s i n c l u d e g a i n i n g a b e t t e r knowledge
o f t h o s e p r o c e s s e s w h i c h s o c i e t y has t r a d i t i o n a l l y
called "creative."
Such s t u d i e s may a l s o p r o v i d e
t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f a method f o r a u t o m a t i c a l l y
solving i l l - d e f i n e d problems.
Psychological
Foundations
The p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e m i s e s
of these studies
are s i m i l a r t o those i n v o l v e d i n the work o f
N e w e l l and S i m o n , E. B. H u n t , and many o t h e r s who
use i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g c o n c e p t s t o s t u d y
c o n c e p t f o r m a t i o n and p r o b l e m
solving3.
The
best d e s c r i p t i o n s o f these premises are found i n
M i l l e r , G a l e n t e r and P i b r a m ' s P l a n s and t h e
S t r u c t u r e o f Behavior o r i n Walter Reitman*s
C o g n i t i o n and T h o u g h t 4 .
The m o d e l p r o p o s e d i s a s f o l l o w s .
Thinking
is information processing.
The s o u r c e s o f
i n f o r m a t i o n may b e t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , t h e p h y s i o ­
l o g i c a l s t a t e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , o r h i s memory.
Memory i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s a l l o w i n g i n d e p e n d e n t
r e c a l l of past environmental or p h y s i o l o g i c a l
s t a t e s and r e c a l l o f p a s t I n t e r m e d i a t e p r o c e s s i n g .
C o g n i t i o n - - o r t h i n k i n g — i s the r e s u l t a n t of
s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n being brought together in a
unique c o m b i n a t o r i a l sequence.
In t h i s l i g h t , a
p r o b l e m s i t u a t i o n i s u n i q u e because a s p e c i f i c
response t o a set o f i n p u t s i s n o t d i r e c t l y
available.
At issue is the s e l e c t i o n of appro­
p r i a t e i n p u t s f r o m memory o r f r o m t h e e n v i r o n m e n t
and t h e s e a r c h f o r t h e i r p o s s i b l y u n i q u e c o m b i ­
n a t o r i a l sequence.
The p r o c e s s i n g t h a t c o g n i ­
t i o n and p r o b l e m s o l v i n g I n v o l v e s c a n b e modeled
as a s e r i e s of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s g e n e r a t i n g a
-669-
sequence of I n f o r m a t i o n s t a t e s . The t o t a l number
of s t a t e s generated by a p p l y i n g a l l permutations
of applicable information to a l l information
s t a t e s defines the t o t a l problem space. The means
used to s e q u e n t i a l l y generate i n f o r m a t i o n s t a t e s
so t h a t one is created t h a t s a t i s f i e s the problem
goals i s c a l l e d the search s t r a t e g y .
I n f o r m a t i o n processing, whether it be in man
or machine, can only be achieved when the r e l e ­
vant i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n a n appropriate processing
language. Processing languages provide the
operators necessary f o r combining i n f o r m a t i o n .
Well s p e c i f i e d processing languages include
computer programming languages, a l g e b r a , symbolic
l o g i c , and other c a l c u l i . The processing l a n ­
guage used in human c o g n i t i v e processes has not
been i d e n t i f i e d . Human problem s o l v i n g theory
has proceeded on the assumption t h a t the w e l l s p e c i f i e d processing languages l i s t e d above, since
they are used by man, are p a r t i a l subsets of the
formal language i n t e r n a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o h i m .
Problem s o l v i n g tasks have been analyzed in terms
of the problem spaces and operations a v a i l a b l e in
these languages.
In the p a s t , problem s o l v i n g
a n a l y s t s have l i m i t e d themselves to those tasks
where some w e l l - s p e c i f i e d formal r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
was a v a i l a b l e .
Problem s o l v i n g a n a l y s i s u s u a l l y takes the
form of s t u d y i n g how a problem s o l v e r t r e a t s a
s p e c i a l t a s k assigned him. Generally unreported
in the l i t e r a t u r e , yet a common occurence in most
a c t u a l experiments i s the problem s o l v e r ' s
d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding the t a s k e x a c t l y a s
it is conceived by the a n a l y s t . The problem
s o l v e r ' s i n i t i a l assumptions are d i f f e r e n t and
r e q u i r e c o r r e c t i o n before the experiment can
proceed.
This problem p o i n t s out the f a c t t h a t
problem s o l v i n g a n a l y s i s Involves the comparison
of two p a r a l l e l processes. From the e x p l i c i t
problem statement both problem s o l v e r and a n a l y s t
i d e n t i f y the goals to be achieved and elaborate
them as needed. Both e i t h e r assume or s e l e c t a
processing language t o work i n and w i t h i n i t
devise various s t r a t e g i e s f o r e x p l o r i n g the
problem space thus c r e a t e d . The analyst can
understand the problem s o l v e r ' s processes to the
degree t h a t he can f i n d correspondence between the
processes he has experienced and thus understands
and those of the s. F r u i t f u l a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e s
the a n a l y s t to ha"ve processed s i g n i f i c a n t
p o r t i o n s of the problem space so as to maximize
these correspondences. To f u r t h e r maximize such
correspondences, only problems t h a t allow the
a n a l y s t to make s t r o n g assumptions about the goals
and problem space used by the problem solver have
normally been used. Yet the d i f f i c u l t i e s of the
s in understanding the a n a l y s t ' s conception of the
task emphasizes the v a r i a b i l i t y in the processes
by which tasks can be s p e c i f i e d .
If the assumptions of p a r a l l e l processes and
the search f o r correspondences i s a p p l i e d t o the
s p e c i f i c a t i o n of problem goals and a processing
language, t h i s aspect of processing a l s o should be
amenable to a n a l y s i s .
It need not be
predetermined.
L i k e most s t u d i e s of human problem s o l v i n g ,
the method used in the s t u d i e s reported here
consisted of g i v i n g a Subject (S) a complex t a s k
-670-
\
and r e c o r d i n g h i s expressive behavior w h i l e
s o l v i n g the problem. D e t a i l e d records of
sketches and v e r b a l behavior were c a r e f u l l y
collected.
Other p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
behavior, such as f a c i a l expressions and l o o k i n g
at objects as a source of a u x i l i a r y i n p u t , were
also recorded. Together, t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n made
up a p r o t o c o l from which the i n t e r n a l processing
of the S, could be analyzed 5,
The Task
A t y p i c a l small scale space planning problem
is shown in Figure I.
It asks a Subject to
redesign an e x i s t i n g room so as to make it "more
luxurious 1 1 and " s p a c i o u s " and sets boundaries
f o r the s o l u t i o n i n terms o f c o s t . *
This p a r t i c u l a r t a s k i s i l l - d e f i n e d i n a t
l e a s t two ways. No e x i s t i n g formal language can
adequately represent space planning problems.
While the i n f o r m a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r such
problems is orthographic p r o j e c t i o n , the elements
of t h i s language, i t s syntax, and rules f o r
generation or manipulation are unknown. These
aspects of the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n are l e f t to the
problem s o l v e r t o i n t u i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y .
Another
i l l - d e f i n e d aspect of space planning problems in
design i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f problem g o a l s .
The problem in Figure I is t y p i c a l in t h a t no
s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n is provided as to what a
s a t i s f a c t o r y design should c o n s i s t o f .
G e n e r a l l y , design tasks have as t h e i r e x p l i c i t
goal the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of some p h y s i c a l e n t i t y
i n a form a l l o w i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n .
Left i m p l i c i t
are many c r i t e r i a the s p e c i f i c a t i o n must s a t i s f y .
I t i s assumed t h a t the engineer, a r c h i t e c t , o r
c i t y planner s o l v i n g the problem i s f a m i l i a r
enough w i t h it to know what s p e c i f i c elements are
to be included in the design and t h e i r f u n c t i o n .
From h i s background, he is expected to be able
to i d e n t i f y the goals which apply to various
s e l e c t i o n and arrangement p o s s i b i l i t i e s .
Many p r o t o c o l s have been c o l l e c t e d from t h i s
p a r t i c u l a r t a s k . Some were presented in an
earlier
report6.
A new p r o t o c o l gained from
t h i s task i s shown o n the l e f t side o f Figure I I
(which continues f o r several pages). The s
of the p r o t o c o l was a t w e n t y - s i x year o l d
i n d u s t r i a l designer, who was a t t e n d i n g graduate
s c h o o l . He had two years of p r o f e s s i o n a l
design experience. Approximations of the f i g u r e s
drawn by t h i s s w h i l e s o l v i n g the problem are
included i n the p r o t o c o l .
I t i s broken i n t o
s e c t i o n s , each of which corresponds to a p r o t o c o l
minute (PM).
* The p a r t i c u l a r task presented h e r e , the design
of a bathroom, was chosen because of i t s
general f a m i l i a r i t y to a wide d i v e r s i t y of
people both w i t h i n and outside of the design
professions.
I t s use here was not to gain
d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the s o l u t i o n t o
t h i s s p e c i f i c type of problem but to l e a r n more
about the method by which a human deals w i t h
common yet
problems.
E s s e n t i a l l y , the S presented here created an
a l t e r n a t i v e design f o r the bathroom by i d e n t i ­
f y i n g and s a t i s f y i n g goals from h i s own experience
as to what a good bathroom design should be.
Privacy, a n e a t l y ordered appearance, adequate
c i r c u l a t i o n and access, short plumbing l i n e s , and
low cost were the most evident concerns. While
g e n e r a l l y there was more emphasis on i d e n t i f y i n g
design goals e a r l y in the p r o t o c o l and on search
for an arrangement at the end, both processes
were h i g h l y i n t e r m i x e d .
In a l l , five alternative
bathroom designs were created and evaluated.
Only two were completely developed. Figure I I I
presents the general sequence of processing
described i n the p r o t o c o l .
A l l e x t e r n a l process­
ing took place in a p l a n drawing r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ,
except f o r a short sequence which u t i l i z e d a
v e r t i c a l s e c t i o n . The t o t a l processing time
was f o r t y - e i g h t minutes.
Task Analysis
I l l - d e f i n e d problems are w i t h o u t a predeter­
mined language or e x p l i c i t goals. The i n i t i a l
requirement f o r analyzing i l l - d e f i n e d problems i s
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these aspects of the problem
s o l v e r ' s processes. The general i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
of goals and processing languages turned out to
be s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d f o r the example p r o t o c o l and
was achieved by scanning it f o r the f o l l o w i n g
types of i n f o r m a t i o n :
1 . A l l p h y s i c a l elements t h a t were
considered or manipulated d u r i n g problem
s o l v i n g (what we c a l l Design Units
(DUs));
2. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was used to t e s t
or determine a design arrangement or
s e l e c t i o n of a DU, or any i n f o r m a t i o n
used to d e r i v e such i n f o r m a t i o n . This
i n f o r m a t i o n was assumed to i d e n t i f y the
problem g o a l s ; *
3. A l l operations t h a t produced new s o l u ­
t i o n s t a t e s . A s o l u t i o n s t a t e was
considered to consist of the c u r r e n t
arrangement of DUs and c u r r e n t informa­
t i o n about the problem. A change in
e i t h e r the arrangment or the i n f o r m a t i o n
a v a i l a b l e was considered a new s o l u t i o n
state.
The i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was i d e n t i f i e d is l i s t e d in
Figures IV and V. These l i s t i n g s give an i n t e r ­
p r e t a t i o n , i n v e r b a l form, o f a l l i n f o r m a t i o n
which evidence suggests was processed during the
problem s o l v i n g described in the p r o t o c o l . Much
of it was never v e r b a l i z e d , but was only s i l e n t l y
applied in some m a n i p u l a t i o n w i t h i n the problem.
Other i n f o r m a t i o n was mentioned but i t s use never
v e r i f i e d . This i n f o r m a t i o n has not been l i s t e d .
In our t e r m i n o l o g y , a c o n s t r a i n t is a f u n c t i o n
applied to a s o l u t i o n s t a t e and r e t u r n s a
boolean e v a l u a t i o n . An e v a l u a t i o n f u n c t i o n is a
f u n c t i o n whose value continuously v a r i e s w i t h
i t s s t a t e , A goal is the general name f o r both
e v a l u a t i o n f u n c t i o n s and c o n s t r a i n t s . A
c o n s i d e r a t i o n is i n f o r m a t i o n used to derive a
goal.
Corresponding to each s e c t i o n of the p r o t o c o l
and to i t s r i g h t is a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the
processing t h a t t r a n s p i r e d , coded in terms of the
i n f o r m a t i o n l i s t e d in Figures IV and V.
Our knowledge of design methods allows us to
c o r r e c t l y a n t i c i p a t e orthographic drawings as the
processing language used in searching for a
s a t i s f a c t o r y arrangement.
This i n t u i t i v e l y
defined language seemed to be a u t o m a t i c a l l y
assumed by the S. A l t e r n a t i v e formal d e s c r i p t i o n s
of the o p e r a t i o n s , element, and syntax of
orthographic p r o j e c t i o n have been developed and
presented elsewhere 7. They w i l l not be
elaborated here. The operations and language used
in the s e l e c t i o n of DUs and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of
goals was not orthographic p r o j e c t i o n , but took
q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t form.
Even though the p r o t o c o l did not present
search and problem s p e c i f i c a t i o n processes as
d i s j o i n t processes, the f o l l o w i n g discussion
i n i t i a l l y considers each s e p a r a t e l y . This
approach allows e x i s t i n g knowledge about each of
these processes to be brought to bear on the
protocol. Following i n d i v i d u a l consideration,
t h e i r i n t e r a c t i v e and confounding e f f e c t s are
considered.
Goal and Design Unit S p e c i f i c a t i o n
Given the p a r t i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a problem,
a problem solver has a v a i l a b l e at least two means
to complete i t . He may: (1) disambiguate the
given s p e c i f i c a t i o n and attempt to i d e n t i f y s u b t l e
o r i m p l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n i t , o r (2) r e i d e n t i f y the problem using h i s own perceptions of
the i n i t i a l s i t u a t i o n . Both approaches are used
in design. The f i r s t approach predominated in a
p r e v i o u s l y presented p r o t o c o l , gained from the
same task used h e r e 8 . The S. in the included
p r o t o c o l , in c o n t r a s t , chose to r e - i d e n t i f y the
problem.
In order to understand the processes by which
the S s p e c i f i e d DUs and goals f o r the problem, an
attempt has been made to i n t u i t i v e l y r e c o n s t r u c t
two p o r t i o n s of h i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n process. The
sequence in which i n f o r m a t i o n is expressed has
been i d e n t i f i e d so as to suggest what kinds of
processes may be generating i t .
In r e c o r d i n g the
sequences of processing, simple diagrams are used.
They should not be considered l i t e r a l models of
the i n t e r n a l data s t r u c t u r e s being accessed, but
may be serve to suggest some p r o p e r t i e s of those
structures.
In an e a r l y part of the p r o t o c o l , the S is
t o l d t h a t the design he is to generate should
respond to the needs of c h i l d r e n (see PM2). Soon
a f t e r w a r d s , he recognizes a need to store b a t h towels and c h i l d r e n ' s d i r t y c l o t h e s . He also
r e l a t e s d i r t y clothes to the l o c a t i o n where they
are cleaned - the washroom - and wonders about
the distance between it and the bathroom. He
suggests t h a t temporary storage f o r d i r t y c l o t h e s
might be needed. Much l a t e r (PM21), t h i s l i n e of
thought is picked up again and the r e c o g n i t i o n
made t h a t a c l o t h e s hamper would be a p o s i t i v e
component of the d e s i g n . This i n f o r m a t i o n is gen­
erated when the u t i l i z a t i o n of storage space is
being considered. The sequence of a s s o c i a t i o n s
-671-
made is presented in Figure V i a .
What seems to t r a n s p i r e here is a sequence
of t h i n k i n g ending w i t h the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a
p a r t i c u l a r Design U n i t r e l e v a n t to the problem.
Another example of an a s s o c i a t i o n process
is seen at the very end of the p r o t o c o l (PM47).
E a r l i e r , the s was t o l d t h a t the window was of
the operable v a r i e t y and t h a t i t contained
f r o s t e d g l a s s . The S in the c u r r e n t sequence is
c o n s i d e r i n g the d e t a i l design of the storage
cabinet located in f r o n t of the window. While
working o n the c a b i n e t , h e i d e n t i f i e s t h a t i t
may be d i f f i c u l t to close the drapes in the w i n ­
dow. This seems to have been achieved by recog­
n i z i n g the distance between the c l e a r f l o o r area
and the window. See Figure V I b .
In both these sequences, i n f o r m a t i o n from
the environment ( e . g . , from the Experimenter,
the o r i g i n a l d e s i g n , or from the problem s t a t e ­
ment) i s r e l a t e d t o o r i g i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n gen­
erated by the j>. No other source f o r t h i s new
information is possible.
I n both examples,
s e v e r a l pieces of i n f o r m a t i o n are generated and
r e l a t e d w i t h those t h a t are given before informa­
t i o n of s p e c i f i c relevance to the problem is gen­
e r a t e d . The f i r s t sequence i d e n t i f i e s a new DU;
the second i d e n t i f i e s a c o n s t r a i n t . The two
examples are the longest sequences of r e l a t e d
i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t produce design i n f o r m a t i o n .
Thus they are the most e x p l i c i t . Sequences of
u n i t a r y length are common (see PM5, PM11, PM15,
PM33).
The processes which produce such informa­
t i o n might best be considered and examined f o r
p o t e n t i a l modelling a s i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l
processes o p e r a t i n g on a large base a s s o c i a t i v e l y
stored memory. The given problem i n f o r m a t i o n
i s the i n i t i a l queries i n t o the system.
Some­
times a desired access is not i n i t i a l l y made;
only f u r t h e r i n p u t s a l l o w i s o l a t i o n o f r e l e v a n t
design i n f o r m a t i o n . Most f u r t h e r i n p u t s are
gained from cues i d e n t i f i e d w h i l e processing
o t h e r p a r t s of the problem. By mixing informa­
t i o n r e t r i e v a l w i t h arrangement processes, new
access queries can be i d e n t i f i e d and used to
reinformce those made w i t h the o r i g i n a l l y a v a i l ­
able i n f o r m a t i o n . These a d d i t i o n a l cues seem
to a l l o w accesses t h a t no single
inference
making c a p a b i l i t y could match.
Only a few i n s i g h t s are o f f e r e d as to the
d e t a i l s t r u c t u r e of t h i s system. Some evidence
suggests t h a t the major elements of the r e t r i e v a l
system are p h y s i c a l elements ( e . g . , DUs, people most g e n e r a l l y , nouns). These are the aspects
of the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t are expressed most o f t e n
and which seem to gain e l a b o r a t i o n from f u r t h e r
p r o c e s s i n g . The s t r u c t u r e between these nodes
cannot be i d e n t i f i e d from the p r o t o c o l d a t a .
Most reasonably, they would be verb and p r e p o s i ­
t i o n a l phrases. Such a s t r u c t u r e is supported by
recent work reported i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a ­
ture. 9
The DUs i d e n t i f i e d by the
took one type of
o r g a n i z a t i o n d u r i n g one phase of p r o c e s s i n g , o n l y
t o take another l a t e r on. These d i f f e r e n t d e f i ­
n i t i o n s were not d i s j o i n t , but r a t h e r o v e r l a p p i n g
in a s e t - t h e o r e t i c manner. For example, d u r i n g
major p o r t i o n s o f the p r o t o c o l the t o i l e t - t u b
-672-
was manipulated as a s i n g l e element. L a t e r ,
though, it was t r e a t e d as two separate elements.
At one p o i n t the bathtub was f u r t h e r decomposed
i n t o i t s components. Each element thus had the
p o s s i b i l i t y of being broken i n t o the elements of
which it was a s e t . The h i e r a r c h i c a l decomposi­
t i o n thus produced is shown in Figure V.
The purpose of composition or decomposition
of DUs is e s s e n t i a l l y one of search e f f i c i e n c y .
Decomposition widens the s o l u t i o n space by a l ­
lowing a g r e a t e r number of p r i m i t i v e DUs to gen­
e r a t e a g r e a t e r number of design a l t e r n a t i v e s .
This is u s e f u l when the c u r r e n t s o l u t i o n space
i s too r e s t r i c t i v e t o e a s i l y f i n d a s o l u t i o n .
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , composition narrows the search
space. Composition is e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to
sets of DUs which are r e l a t i v e l y n o n - I n t e r a c t i v e
w i t h others and can be arranged so as to s a t i s f y
the i n t e r a c t i v e goals or c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h i n the
s e t ] 0 The b a t h t u b - w a t e r c l o s e t combination in
the p r o t o c o l is an e x c e l l e n t example of the use
of composition. An i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l system
u s e f u l f o r design problem s o l v i n g would need the
c a p a b i l i t y of composing and decomposing DUs.
The issue p o s s i b l y r a i s e d here and elsewhere
as to whether i n f o r m a t i o n is stored d i s c r e t e l y in
the agglomerated concepts used in the given de­
s c r i p t i o n and p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s i s e a s i l y r e s o l v e d .
In a l l memories known, a t r a d e - o f f e x i s t s between
the a l t e r n a t i v e s o f e x p l i c i t l y s t o r i n g large
amounts of data and possessing a process t h a t
dynamically generates the i n f o r m a t i o n when it is
needed.
If t h i s t r a d e - o f f e x i s t s in a memory,
then the modelling of t h a t memory can r e f l e c t
this trade-off also.
It may be most expedient at
any l e v e l of model b u i l d i n g to assume t h a t i n ­
formation is e x p l i c i t l y s t o r e d . But a s i n g l e
node in a model at one l e v e l of o r g a n i z a t i o n may
represent a whole p a t t e r n of processing at another
l e v e l . The only requirement t h a t is l o g i c a l l y
imposed is t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n processing, at some
p o i n t , pass through the s t a t e defined as a d i s c r e t e
element in any model. The value of the p a r t i c u l a r
p o i n t s chosen is determined by the parsimony of
the d e s c r i p t i o n a l l o w e d .
The i m p l i c a t i o n s gained from the a n a l y s i s of
t h i s and other p r o t o c o l s is t h a t human performance
in r e t r i e v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from memory f o r a p p l i c a ­
t i o n t o i l l - d e f i n e d problems i s q u i t e l i m i t e d .
In space p l a n n i n g , a r e t r i e v a l r a t e of one piece
of a p p l i c a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n per minute was excep­
t i o n a l . The size of memory r e q u i r e d to i n t e l l i ­
g e n t l y solve a class of i l l - d e f i n e d problems is
only now becoming known. That size seems to be
smaller than expected. The eventual development
of automated problem solvers may a c t u a l l y b e n e f i t
from a memory even more l i m i t e d than the size
implied as necessary from human p r o t o c o l s . The
c o n t r o l l e d i n p u t of new i n f o r m a t i o n could d e l i m i t
the data base t o v e r i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n , e l i m i n a t ­
i n g much questionable d a t a . An i n i t i a l e x p l o r a ­
t i o n of an automated design r e t r i e v a l system has
been made by Moran. 11 More extensive models of
memories capable of the kinds of r e t r i e v a l s r e ­
quired here have been developed by Green et al
and Q u i l l l a n . 1 2 No model of memory developed
thus f a r can p e r f o r m , both in speed and d i v e r s i t y ,
in a manner s i m i l a r to t h a t described in the
p r o t o c o l . No model has yet been proposed that
takes advantage of a u x i l i a r y inputs gained from
i n t e r v e n i n g processing. The i n t e r a c t i o n of
search and r e t r i e v a l processes may o f f e r major
b e n e f i t s to large base a s s o c i a t i v e memories.
i a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s are exhaustively searched.
I n s t e a d , a l l protocols showed r e l i a n c e on a wide
v a r i e t y of h e u r i s t i c s . By a h e u r i s t i c is meant
a r e l a t i o n between some p a r t of the c u r r e n t problem state and some part of the d e s i r a b l e next
s t a t e . Most models of h e u r i s t i c s have framed
them as productions in a Markov system.14 The
production takes the p a t t e r n of
Search Processes in Design
When faced w i t h the problem of arranging
elements in a predefined space according to some
p a r t i a l l y s p e c i f i e d g o a l s , a l l designers thus
f a r tested have used a modus operandi f o r generating s o l u t i o n s that included as i t s main a c t i v i t y
the s e q u e n t i a l s e l e c t i o n of both a l o c a t i o n and a
p h y s i c a l element to be l o c a t e d . If the DU
could be located in the proposed l o c a t i o n and an
e v a l u a t i o n of the c u r r e n t t o t a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n was
s u c c e s s f u l , then a new element was added to the
design.
I f the e v a l u a t i o n f a i l e d , the c u r r e n t
element or another was manipulated. Such operat i o n s can be viewed as transformations in a problem s t a t e space according to the t r a d i t i o n a l
search paradigm. Examples of t h i s sequence are
evident in Figure I I I as sequences of intermixed
t e s t s and o p e r a t i o n s .
Space planning aspects of design' problems
seem to f a l l w i t h i n the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l paradigm
of h e u r i s t i c search according to the f o l l o w i n g
f o r m u l a t i o n . A apace planning problem can thus
be defined as a
a space,
a set of elements to locate in
t h a t space. (Some elements may
be defined as any member of a
set.),
a set of c o n s t r a i n t s d e l i m i t i n g
acceptable s o l u t i o n s and p o s s i b l y
e v a l u a t i o n f u n c t i o n s to be
achieved,
Each t r a n s f o r m a t i o n c o n s i s t s of a t r i p l e t
c o n s i s t i n g of the c u r r e n t design s t a t e , an e l e ment to be operated upon, and an o p e r a t o r . Each
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n is made in an environment defined
by a l l or a set of the goals to be achieved.
Thus
If the l e f t hand side of the c o n d i t i o n is met,
then the r i g h t hand side is applied to determine
or p a r t i a l l y determine the next t r a n s f o r m a t i o n to
be made. In the h e u r i s t i c s found in design problems, the l e f t hand side is commonly a single DU
or a c o n s t r a i n t , or p o s s i b l y a doublet made up of
both a c o n s t r a i n t and a Design U n i t . The r i g h t
hand side is commonly an o p e r a t o r , a Design U n i t ,
or b o t h . Examples of h e u r i s t i c s used in the accompanying p r o t o c o l are CI9, which looks f o r uses
of empty space, and C24, which i d e n t i f i e s space
f o r l o c a t i n g towel racks. CI9 has as i t s l e f t
hand component a t e s t which checks f o r the e x i s tence of a space bounded on three sides and adjacent to the major space in the room. When a
s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s that meets these c o n d i t i o n s , the
r i g h t hand side of the production searches f o r
any DU t h a t may make use of the i d e n t i f i e d space.
The l e f t hand c o n d i t i o n f o r C24 is the existence
of a bathtub or s i n k . The r i g h t hand side searches f o r empty v e r t i c a l w a l l space. Upon f i n d i n g
i t , a towel rack is l o c a t e d . It may be repeatedly
a p p l i e d . The value of h e u r i s t i c s is t h a t they
o r i e n t the range of possible f u t u r e s o l u t i o n
states in d i r e c t i o n s t h a t have been found empiri c a l l y to be f r u i t f u l .
A schematic flow chart of the process o u t l i n e d in the above f o r m u l a t i o n and described in
the p r o t o c o l is shown in Figure I X . This process
corresponds c l o s e l y w i t h other formulations of
h e u r i s t i c search.' 1 5 Heuristic search is not the
only search process used in space p l a n n i n g . Occ a s i o n a l l y , generate and t e s t and h i l l - c l i m b i n g
have been observed in p r o t o c o l s . But the main
process r e l i e d on in the i n t u i t i v e s o l v i n g of
space planning problems seems to be the one o u t l i n e d here. Great i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n
t h i s general paradigm e x i s t , in terms of the
h e u r i s t i c s used and in the d e f i n i t i o n of the
search space, as s p e c i f i e d by the composition and
decomposition of DUs.
The Confounding of S p e c i f i c a t i o n and Search
The problem is to locate the elements w i t h i n the
space in an arrangement t h a t s a t i s f i e s the cons t r a i n t s and optimizes the e v a l u a t i o n f u n c t i o n s .
Obviously needed is a process or method
t h a t s e l e c t s an a p p r o p r i a t e operation and an app r o p r i a t e DU on which to operate. Highly diverse
methods are p o s s i b l e . A l g o r i t h m i c methods include
l i s t s or stacks of Design Units or o p e r a t o r s .
More complex operations u s u a l l y include feedback
from the c u r r e n t or past states of the problem.
Processes t h a t include such feedback are c a l l e d
h e u r i s t i c s 13
The p r o t o c o l included h e r e , l i k e others
analyzed, show few examples where a l l combinator-
Throughout the p r o t o c o l , search and s p e c i f i c a t i o n operations were h i g h l y i n t e r m i x e d . No c l e a r
c y c l i n g or other separation of a c t i v i t i e s was
i d e n t i f i e d . The value of such i n t e r m i x i n g f o r
r e t r i e v a l processes has already been proposed.
But i n t e r m i x i n g is not w i t h o u t i t s c o s t s . Confounding o f r e t r i e v a l processes a l s o r e s u l t .
An e x c e p t i o n a l example of confounding is
shown in PM7. At t h i s p o i n t in processing the S
is at a p a r t i c u l a r solution state that w i l l be
achieved a g a i n . At t h i s s t a t e he asks f o r I n formation about the minimum distance between a
w a l l and the f r o n t of a s i n k . Looking in Graphic
-673-
Standards (an a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e f e r e n c e ) , he f i n d s
a wide v a r i e t y of other I n f o r m a t i o n .
This I n f o r ­
mation d i s t r a c t s him from h i s o r i g i n a l search and
h i s processing takes o f f I n another d i r e c t i o n .
Much l a t e r (PM37), the S has the same s o l u t i o n
s t a t e represented and asks the same question as
he d i d e a r l i e r . This time he gains the informa­
t i o n he d e s i r e s and generates a p a r t i c u l a r new
state.
In t h i s example, new i n f o r m a t i o n destroyed
a search sequence o r i g i n a l l y developed by the s.
It was only f o r t u i t o u s t h a t he was able to pick
up the same s o l u t i o n s t a t e l a t e r .
It seems t h a t
the c o n t r o l system m o n i t o r i n g search and r e t r i e v ­
al processes is f a l l i b l e - at l e a s t in some prob­
lem solvers - and t h a t t h i s i n t e r m i x i n g of p r o ­
cesses places demands on processing t h a t can lead
to e r r o r s . Other examples of confounding have
been observed, though they are r a r e . Designers
seem f a m i l i a r w i t h such aimless p r o c e s s i n g , hav­
i n g such names f o r it as " p l a y i n g w i t h the prob­
l e m " , "daydreaming", e t c . The i m p l i c a t i o n i s
t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t overhead costs accrue from e f ­
f e c t i v e l y mixing search w i t h s p e c i f i c a t i o n .
Bobrow, D a n i e l , "A question-answering system
f o r high school algebra word problems",
AFIPS Conference Proceedings. V o l . 26, F a l l
J o i n t Conference, Spartan Books, 1964;
Paige, J . J . and Simon, H . A . , " C o g n i t i v e
processes in s o l v i n g word algebra problems",
B, Kleinmuntz ( e d . ) Problem S o l v i n g : Research.
Method, and Theory. W i l e y , N, Y. 1966;
N e w e l l , A l l e n , "Studies i n problem s o l v i n g :
Subject 3 on the C r y p t - a r i t h m e t i c task
DONALD -I- GERALD « ROBERT", Carnegie I n s t i t u t e
of Technology, ARPA Report, 1966, DDC No.
658485.
N e w e l l , A. and Simon, H. A . , I!GPS, a program
t h a t simulates human t h o u g h t " , E. Feigenbaum
and J. Feldman, ( e d s . ) , Computers and Thought.
McGraw-Hill, N. Y . , 1963.
3.
Hovland, C a r l , "Computer s i m u l a t i o n of t h i n k ­
ing 1 1 , Amer. P s y c h . . I960, 15, pp. 687-693.
Conclusion
In t h i s s t u d y , i l l - d e f i n e d problems such as
those found in a r c h i t e c t u r a l space planning were
shown to be t r a c t a b l e in a n a l y s i s if they were
separated i n t o t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l and
search aspects. The task of o p e r a t i o n a l l y s p e c i ­
f y i n g a problem was proposed as the major d i s ­
t i n c t i o n between i l l - and w e l l - d e f i n e d problem
s o l v i n g . Some suggestions as to the s t r u c t u r e
and c a p a b i l i t i e s of an automated problem s p e c i ­
f i c a t i o n system have been made. Also presented
is a f o r m u l a t i o n of the search aspect of space
p l a n n i n g problems.
I t i s suggested t h a t the
search and s p e c i f i c a t i o n processes together can
completely d e p i c t a l a r g e number, i f not a l l ,
of those problems now classed as i l l - d e f i n e d .
By f u r t h e r d e l i n e a t i n g the s p e c i f i c a t i o n and
search processes of problem s o l v i n g , g r e a t e r
i n t e l l i g e n c e and c r e a t i v i t y may be allowed to
be b u i l t i n t o f u t u r e computer programs.
4.
2.
M i l l e r , G . , G a l e n t e r , E . , and Pibram, K.,
Plans and the S t r u c t u r e of Behavior. H o l t ,
N. Y . , I 9 6 0 .
Reitman, W a l t e r , C o g n i t i o n and Thought,
W i l e y , 1965.
5.
For a thorough d i s c u s s i o n of the methods of
p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s , see N e w e l l , A l l e n , "On
the A n a l y s i s of Human Problem Solving P r o t o ­
c o l s " , i n C a l c u l e t F o r m a l i s a t i o n dans les
Sciences de l'homme, G a r d i n , J. C. and J a n l i n ,
B. (eds.) Presses U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France,
1968.
6.
See: Eastman, C h a r l e s , "On the a n a l y s i s of
i n t u i t i v e design processes", Proceedings of
the F i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Design Methods Con­
f e r e n c e , held at M . I . T . , June 1968, M . I . T .
Press, 1969a ( i n p r e s s ) .
References
1•
Newell and Simon, 1963 o p . c i t . Hunt, E. B . ,
Concept L e a r n i n g : An I n f o r m a t i o n Processing
Problem. W i l e y , N. Y. 1962.
A taxonomy of i l l - d e f i n e d problems has been
o f f e r e d by Walter Reitman in ' ' • H e u r i s t i c
d e c i s i o n procedures, open c o n s t r a i n t s , and
the s t r u c t u r e o f i l l - d e f i n e d problems", i n
G. L. Bryan and M. S h e l l y ( e d s . ) Human Judg­
ments and O p t i m a l l t y . W i l e y , N. Y. 1964.
7.
Eastman, C h a r l e s , "Representations f o r space
p l a n n i n g " , I n t e r n a l Working Paper, Depart­
ment of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon
U n i v e r s i t y , January, 1969b.
8.
See: N e w e l l , A. and Simon, H. A . , "An example
of human chess p l a y in the l i g h t of chess
p l a y i n g programs", N. Wiener and J. P. Schade
( e d s . ) , Progress i n C y b e r n e t i c s , v o l . 2 ,
pp. 19-75, E l s e v i e r , Amsterdam, 1965;
Eastman, 1968, " E x p l o r a t i o n s in the c o g n i ­
t i v e processes of d e s i g n " , Dept. of Computer
Science, Carnegie-Melion U n i v e r s i t y ARPA
Report, Defense Documentation Report No.
AD 671158.
9.
See Eastman 1968, o p . c i t . pp. 52-55.
10. The changes in search space r e s u l t i n g from
composition or decomposition are the same
as those achieved by a lemma in a mathematics
p r o o f . See: Minsky, M a r v i n , "Steps towards
a r t i f i c i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e " , E. Feigenbaum and
G e l e m t e r , H., " R e a l i z a t i o n of a geometrytheorem p r o v i n g machine", E, Feigenbaum and
J. Feldman ( e d s . ) , Computers and Thought.
M c G r a w - H i l l , N. Y. 1963;
-674-
J. Feldman ( e d s . ) , Computers and Thought,
McGraw-Hill, N. Y., 1963.
1 1 . Moran, Thomas, "A model of a m u l t i - l i n g u a l
d e s i g n e r " , Proceedings of the F i r s t I n t e r n a ­
t i o n a l Design Methods Conference, held at
M . I . T . June 1968, M . I . T . Press 1969 ( i n p r e s s ) .
12. Green, Claude et a l , "Research on i n t e l l i g e n t
question-answering systems", Stanford Research
I n s t i t u t e Report, Defense Documentation Report
No. AD 656789, May 1967.
Q u i l l i a n , W. Ross, "Semantic memory", B o l t ,
Berenek, and Newman, Defense Documentation
Report No. AD 641671, October, 1966.
13. For a more thorough d e s c r i p t i o n of h e u r i s t i c s ,
see Minsky, 1963, o p . c i t . pp. 435-445.
14. N e w e l l , 1966, o p . c i t ; Ashby, Design f o r a
B r a i n . 2nd E d i t i o n , W i l e y , N. Y. I960.
15. N e w e l l , A l l e n , " H e u r i s t i c programming: i l l s t r u c t u r e d problems", J . Aronofsky ( e d . ) ,
Progress i n Operations Research. V o l . I l l ,
W i l e y , 1969 ( i n p r e s s ) .
-675-
EXPERIMENT NUMBER TOW
The accompanying plan and photograph represent
an e x i s t i n g bathroom plan f o r one model of
a home sold by Pearson Developers in C a l i f o r n i a .
This model of house has not sold w e l l . The sales
personnel have heard prospective buyers remark
on the poor design of the b a t h . Several comments
are remembered:
" t h a t sink wastes s p a c e " ; " I was
hoping to f i n d a more l u x u r i o u s b a t h " .
You are h i r e d
to remodel the e x i s t i n g baths and propose changes
f o r a l l f u t u r e ones, (these should be the same)
A round vanity makes the m o s t
off a square-shaped b a t h r o o m
The house is the cheapest model of a group of
It permits two lavatories in a m i n i m u m size countertop. A n d it also lets two people
use the sinks at the same time without
getting in each others' way. Extra shelves
are set between the lower cabinets
models s e l l i n g between 23,000 and 35,000. It is
two s t o r i e s w i t h a ranch s t y l e e x t e r i o r . The bath
is at the end of a h a l l s e r v i n g two bedrooms and
guests.
You are to come up w i t h a t o t a l design concept.
The developer is w i l l i n g to spend more f o r the
new design -- up to f i f t y c o l l a r s . For a l l other
q u e s t i o n s , Mr. bastman w i l l serve as c l i e n t . Me
w i l l answer other q u e s t i o n s .
FIGURE I
-676-
E x p e r i m e n t Two
S u b j e c t Number F o u r
PROTOCOL:
February,
E x p e r i m e n t e r ' s remarks in p a r e n t h e s e s .
PM1
( T h i s sheet here r e p r e s e n t s the d e s i g n p r o ­
ject.
It is self-explanatory.
For a l l ques­
t i o n s , I ' l l a c t a s the c l i e n t .
Here's scratch
p a p e r , some b l a n k , some w i t h p l a n s o n i t .
You
have a b o u t f o r t y m i n u t e s t o w o r k . ' )
I
w o u l d f i r s t o f a l l l i k e t o know i f y o u had
b r o u g h t i n o t h e r comments t h a n t h e f a c t t h a t
t h e s i n k w o u l d w a s t e space and t h e b a t h r o o m
was n o t l u x u r i o u s .
( ' T h e r e w a s n ' t enough
storage space.
The two s i n k s were a p p r e c i a t ­
ed.
These were c o m m e n t s . ' ) Y e t t h e y a l s o
made a comment t h a t t h e s i n k w a s t e s s p a c e .
PM2
( ' A l s o f r o m s a l e s most b u y e r s o f t h e s e
homes have young c h i l d r e n .
There is a n o t h e r
b a t h - - o f f the master b e d r o o m . ' )
I s the o t h e r
one a two s i n k a r r a n g e m e n t t o o ?
('The o t h e r is
s m a l l and has one s i n k . ' )
Was t h e r e any r e m a r k s
about p r i v a c y ?
Where does t h i s d o o r l e a d t o —
the h a l l or?
('Hall.
You c a n see i n t h e p l a n . ' )
PM3
The d e v e l o p e r ' s w i l l i n g t o spend more f o r
the e x i s t i n g d e s i g n , u p t o f i f t y d o l l a r s .
( W r i t e s down " 5 0 . 0 0 " . )
I think that this state­
ment a b o u t h o p i n g t o f i n d a more l u x u r i o u s b a t h . .
T h i s i s a p a r t i t i o n t h a t can b e r e m o v e d , I t a k e
it.
( R e f e r s t o t h e one a t t h e end o f t h e t u b . )
('Yes'.)
Can w e move t h e f i x t u r e a r o u n d ?
('Yes'.)
ANALYSIS:
Reads
("Sink
Given
Given
CI.
wastes
C4.
C3.
PM6
(Sketches f i g u r e A,
t i o n h e r e c a n come o u t .
t h i n g c a l l e d a " j o h n " by
c l o s e t ' ) r i g h t " W . C . " and
Figure
lightly.)
This p a r t i ­
Location...Is this
the t r a d e o r . . . ( ' w a t e r the t u b s .
We w i l l
Ha
-677-
space"
G i v e n C5.
("Other b a t h " never
R e t r i e v e s C13
<C13 - C14>
[CI]
Identifies
is
never
utilized.)
f r o m memory.
Reads C 2 .
DU12.
Removes DU12.
G i v e n C6.
PM4 We can change t h e c a b i n e t ? ( ' Y e s . ' ) L o o k Identifies
i n g a t t h i s and t h i n g s t h a t can b e d o n e , I t h i n k
s t o r a g e is i m p o r t a n t .
I d o n ' t see where t h e y c a n C4 ~ DU6
s t o r e t o o many b a t h t o w e l s .
B e i n g t h a t i t i s used
b y c h i l d r e n , a l a r g e s t o r a g e space f o r d i r t y
C5 ~ C 1 5
c l o t h e s is also necessary.
PM5
I d o n ' t know how it c o n n e c t s on to t h e washroom.
Perhaps f o r a t l e a s t temporary s t o r a g e
u n t i l the time the c l o t h e s are washed.
In the
p i c t u r e h e r e , t h e c a b i n e t does i n c l u d e some
storage.
This is a shower-bath arrangement.
From w h a t I C A N s e e 9 I ' l l l e a v e t h i s " l u x u r i o u s
b a t h " u n t i l the l a s t .
I ' l l t r y and w o r k w i t h
t h e s e cwo e l e m e n t s a s t h e y a r e p l a c e d ( e . g . ,
t u b and w a t e r c l o s e t ) .
What I c a n see i s t r y i n g
t o s l i m down t h i s a r e a ( e . g . , i n f r o n t o f w a t e r c l o s e t ) and add some s t o r a g e .
I'm l i m i t e d by the
window.
How h i g h i s t h e window?
( ' 3 ' x 4' w i n ­
dow, 6 ' - 8 " h e a d , s o i t ' s 3 ' - 8 " o f f the g r o u n d . ' )
1967
DU4.
utilized.)
m a i n t a i n t h e two s i n k s .
I t seems t h a t t h e y a r e
accepted.
They j u s t d o n ' t l i k e t h e a r r a n g e m e n t .
[C3]
PM7
I t l o o k s l i k e w e ' r e g o i n g t o have one more
e l e m e n t t o o u r a l r e a d y somewhat cramped s p a c e - - a [ C 4 ]
storage area.
D o I have t o t a l k w h i l e I ' m draw- [DU6]
ing?
( ' I f i t seems n a t u r a l , d o s o ' . ) You d o n ' t
have a human f a c t o r s book h e r e ?
('No.
You a r e
f r e e t o use G r a p h i c S t a n d a r d s ' . )
I'm interested
(Same q u e s t i o n t h a t is asked in PM36.)
i n s p a c e s b e t w e e n , s a y , s i n k and a w a l l .
('Those
are in Graphic Standards.)
PM8
Oh, okay.
L e t ' s see.
(Looks in Graphic
Standards.)
W e l l , t h e r e ' s the answer.
I ' l l just
use Number T h r e e h e r e .
Laugh.
So, a double s i n k
and I d o n ' t h a v e t h e . . . I w o u l d l i k e t o have how
wide these s i n k s a r e .
T h e y ' r e c o m p l e t e l y round?
(*The s i n k s a r e 1 9 " i n d i a m e t e r t o t h e s t a i n l e s s
Given C7.
steel trim/)
Nineteen inches, placed side by
L o c a t e s DU5.
s i d e w i t h space i n b e t w e e n m a k e s . . ( L o c a t e s f i r s t
[C18*location
s i n k as in Figure B.)
My f i r s t thoughts about the
sink
Identifies CI8,
of DU5.]
PM9
are t h a t i n s t e a d of b e i n g p l a c e d back to back
w i t h a double m i r r o r , they w i l l be placed side
Explains operation.
by side w i t h a f u l l length m i r r o r running in f r o n t ,
w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n o f w o r k space b e t w e e n t h e t w o ,
[C18]
w i t h t h e f u l l l e n g t h m i r r o r r u n n i n g a c r o s s t h e m . <C18 ~ DU8>
O r p e r h a p s y o u c o u l d use t h e s e two m i r r o r s w i t h
t h e d e t a i l b e t w e e n them removed t o k e e p t h e c o s t
down.
PM10
('The f i f t y d o l l a r s a d d i t i o n a l c o s t allowed
i s f i f t y d o l l a r s above a l l c o s t s f o r the c u r r e n t
design.
I t ' s not necessary t o b e concerned w i t h
remodeling t h i s one. We're concerned w i t h those
s t i l l to be b u i l t ' . )
Oh, good.
Well, i n i t i a l l y ,
I t h i n k I p r e f e r having the storage go beneath
the window, A low storage c a b i n e t .
Just by
l o o k i n g at the s p a c e - - i t would be a low s t o r ­
age c a b i n e t t h a t goes j u s t beneath the window
and f l u s h w i t h i t .
PM11
The w i n d o w l o o k s a w f u l l y h i g h i n t h e
photograph.
I t would be, according t o s t a n d ­
a r d s , probably about 18" d e e p . . . . ( A l t e r s sketch
as in Figure C.)
T h i s i s p r i m a r i l y a space
Figure
lIb
-678-
[C2]
C I 9 x DU4 " I p r e f e r
window".
storage
beneath
I d e n t i f i e s C20.
[ C 2 0 * l o c a t i o n o f DU4.]
I d e n t i f i e s C33.
C33 x
L o c a t e s DU4.
(design f a i l s . )
No room f o r DU5.
problem, as I see i t .
( A l t e r s sketch as in
Figure D.) I t ' s a matter of moving these
elements aroung to get the best l o c a t i o n . I do
l i k e the idea of t h i s type of arrangement where
the tub and the watercloset are back to back,
because then the shower.
FM12 I t h i n k i t ' s a good way of p u t t i n g the
shower p i p e s . The two sinks w i l l . . . L e t ' s see,
what is the distance f r o m . . . y o u said the window
was 3 ' - 4 " square ('No. 3' by 4 ' . ' ) Oh, four
f e e t wide. That leaves f i v e f e e t .
<PU1>
STARTS ALTERNATIVE TWO
<C2 ~ C21>
C21
x DU1.
" I L i k e t h i s . .arrangement.
I d e n t i f i e s C22, not CI2 f o r use in
front of bathtub.
Measures tub to f a r w a l l .
PM13 T h a t ' s three f o o t s i x across...Would the
window have to stay where it is?
(fNo.
It
could be moved.')...(Moves window, draws cab­
i n e t as in Figure E.)
I'm t r y i n g to t h i n k what
you'd do w i t h a window in a bathroom. You gen­
e r a l l y have it closed o f f most of the t i m e .
Measures window to w a l l .
C22*location of DU4.
C20*location of DU9.
PM14 Does t h i s window open? ('Yes. Code r e ­
q u i r e s i t - - o r a f a n . ' ) You could have a nonopening window and a f a n . . . b u t i t ' d be p r e t t y
s t u p i d to put in a window that d i d n ' t open.
(Adds to sketch as in Figure F.) There's enough
room. The door opens in or out?
Given C8 i d e n t i f i e s DU9.
<C19*location of DU4.>
Locates DU2.
PM15
('In.')
To the l e f t or r i g h t ?
('Left'.)
i d e n t i f i e s C23.
C13 ~ C 1 4 . >
Adds t o s k e t c h a s i n F i g u r e G .
Do they ever
have d o o r s t h a t a r e h i n g e d o n t h e r i g h t ? ( ' S u r e ' . ) C 1 4 and C 2 3 * l o c a t i o n o f D U 1 0 . ( ? )
I n homes? ( ' Y e s ' . )
On e i t h e r s i d e , then...(Then
as in F i g u r e H.)
C 3 3 * l o c a t i o n o f DU4 and DU5.
PM16
. . . . I ' m now t r y i n g t o v i s u a l l y l o c a t e t h e s e I d e n t i f i e s DU13. i d e n t i f i e s C 2 4 . >
elements.
D o t h e y have t o w e l r a c k s w i t h i n t h e
Identifies
C 2 5 . > [C24 and C25*
shower?
(No.')
Okey.
W e l l , t h e y d o now. How
l o c a t i o n of DU13.]
about the towels f o r t h i s sink?
Are they hang< C 2 4 * l o c a t i o n o f DU13.>
ing on t h i s wall?
(Ves.
On that blank w a l l .
T h e r e a r e two t o w e l r a c k s o n t h a t w a l l . 1 )
PM17 H e r e ' s w h a t m y i n i t i a l d e s i g n i s .
I may
have i t a l i t t l e o u t o f s c a l e . . . . H e r e ' s w h a t I
have—my i n i t i a l c o n c e p t .
I moved t h e t u b —
s w i t c h e d t h e t u b and the w a t e r c l o s e t a r o u n d .
EXPLAINS ALTERNATIVE TWO
PM18 I wanted the window moved over, j u s t
a b o u t — i f I gave 12 inches on t h a t side there
probably about 2 inches from the w a l l . My
reason f o r moving the window is that I'm p u t t i n g
t h i s storage area t h a t would s t a r t underneath
the window and t h i s would then be able to f l u s h
o f f w i t h the window.
It would create a more u n i ­
f i e d look to it and a l s o provide the space necessary between the tub and storage area.
[Locates DU9]
[C22 x]
PM19 The f a c t t h a t the faucets and s t u f f are up
here w i l l mean the tub w i l l be used in t h i s area
Retrieves C25 from memory.
[C25 x ]
Figure
lie
-679-
[
DU1]
[C20 x]
[C22 x]
primarily.
It w i l l very seldom be used down here,
The towel rack f o r the shower—there would be a
towel rack on the end of t h i s storage f o r t h i s
C24* l o c a t i o n of DU13.
s i n k . There could be a towel rack on the s t o r ­
age o r o n t h i s w a l l f o r i t would provide p l e n t y
o f clearance f o r t h i s door opening.
This i n i t i ­
al problem is t h a t you've got t h i s much wasted
I d e n t i f i e s C26. C26 x "This much
space as f a r as storage ( r e f e r r i n g to corner
storage a r e a ) . This box down here could be ad­
wasted space. 11
d i t i o n a l storage.
PM20 We're r u n n i n g — i f we're l i m i t e d to f i f t y
d o l l a r s a d d i t i o n a l , we might f i n d t h a t the a d d i ­
t i o n a l m a t e r i a l here and here w i l l take up t h a t
fifty dollars....
Okey, I would use here a f u l l m i r r o r t h a t would
run from t h i s area in f r o n t of the two s i n k s .
(Adds to sketch as in Figure I . )
I would not use
a medicine c a b i n e t . The storage underneath the
sinks could be used f o r t h i s , or the top of t h i s
storage a r e a .
(Draws arrows as in Figure I . )
This would a l l be the same h e i g h t , of course.
FM21 The whole t h i n g could be constructed as a
s i n g l e L - u n i t . This storage area would be u s e f u l
( e . g . , on the south w a l l ) . I d o n ' t know how neeessary it i s . For k i d s , they could g e n e r a l l y use
a l o t of storage a r e a , used f o r perhaps a swingout hamper, or something l i k e t h i s (adds hamper
as in Figure I ) . Right now I have a " s e t " on
t h i s combination of the tub and the w a t e r c l o s e t .
In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r design there would be a
"quote--unquote p l e a s i n g v i s t a when you look i n t o
the...outdoor n a t u r a l l y l i t aspect.
C2 x
[DU5]
No DU8.
[CI8 x]
C2 x DU6.
C34. C34 ~ DU6c.
I d e n t i f i e s C34.
[Locates DU6c.]
Locates DU6c.
[DU1]
CI4 x " p l e a s i n g v i s t a 1 '
FM22
I f i t ' s a t n i g h t i t s t i l l has the connota­
t i o n of being o r i e n t e d towards n a t u r e .
(Draws
arrow as in Figure J . ) This could be a r a t h e r
pleasing u n i t , e s t h e t i c a l l y .
I t could b e f a i r l y C14 x " f a i r l y c l e a n " .
c l e a n . This is why I f e e l the tub and the waterc l o s e t have to be located on t h i s side of the
w a l l , o r i n t h i s area.
I t w i l l . . . t h e tub w i l l
f i t going t h i s way.
PM23
I t ' s a five foot tub.
That would give me
STARTS ALTERNATIVE THREE
f
Figure
lId
e.
h.
f.
-680-
enough f o r a four inch w a l l ? ("Walls are 5.5
i n c h e s ' ) . That wouldn't give me an adequate w a l l .
How about moving the door? ( ' W i t h i n the confines
of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s — f i n e 1 . ) I was t h i n k i n g of
going to another p o s s i b i l i t y of p u t t i n g the tub
PM24 . , 1 t h i n k t h i s is an e f f i c i e n t way of p u t - GOES BACK TO ALTERNATIVE TWO
t i n g the plumbing i n t o i t .
I think t h a t . . d o n ' t D U 3 .
both o u t l e t s go to the same place?
( ' Y e s ' . ) C21
This could be an e f f i c i e n c y here. Would they
s t i l l take down tow l i n e s or would they connect
it?
( ' I n t h i s case they would connect i t . There's
plumbing downstairs below here. V a r i a t i o n s along
t h i s one w a l l adds no c o s t . ' )
PM25 If I put my sink over h e r e , then I have to 57. C21 x " a d d i t i o n a l amount of
put an a d d i t i o n a l amount of plumbing. But of
plumbing",
course i t ' s f a i r l y impossible to put the sink and
w a t e r c l o s e t and everything on one wall—unless you
have small people. Let me look at t h i s other one GOES ON TO ALTERNATIVE THREE
and see if I could move the door.
(Draws Figure Locates DU3.
GOES TO ORIGINAL SOLUTION
K.) I r e a l l y f e e l j u s t by looking at t h i s , the
C21 x o r i g i n a l s o l . " f a i r l y e f f i c i e n t " .
way they have the sink and the watercloset t o ­
gether is r e a l l y f a i r l y e f f i c i e n t — a good way of GOES TO ALTERNATIVE TWO
doing i t
PM26
....Now I'm t r y i n g to e l i m i n a t e that
corner o f the s h e l v i n g .
( I n Figure J.)
It can't
b e used f o r s t o r a g e v e r y r e a d i l y . I wonder i f
I ' m making t h e s e s h e l v e s w i d e e n o u g h . 1 9 i n c h e s .
That i n c l u d e s the faucets? (Usually a c o u n t e r Given C9.
t o p f o r a b a t h r o o m i s 2 2 " deep. 1 )
C 9 x a l l s o l u t i o n s , " n o t wide enough".
PM27
I h a v e n ' t been making them w i d e e n o u g h . . .
L e t ' s see, t w e n t y - t w o , o h , I imagine t h a t would
have t o b e a t w e n t y - t w o i n c h a r e a f o r t h e s i n k s ,
or v e r y c l o s e to i t . . . ( D r a w s F i g u r e L . )
A h , y e s , GOES TO ALTERNATIVE THREE
C 2 1 * l o c a t i o n o f DU2.
now I ' m t r y i n g t o f i n d a way t o p u t a l l t h i s
[ L o c a t e s DU9.]
p l u m b i n g a l o n g one s i d e .
PM28
I ' v e moved b o t h t h e d o o r and t h e window
[ L o c a t e s DU10.]
i n t h i s one.
Ha!
D i a b o l i c a l l y I'm going to
p u t a l a r g e f u l l - l e n g t h m i r r o r h e r e and t h e
w a t e r c l o s e t d i r e c t l y across from i t .
I imagine
Locates m i r r o r .
you w o u l d n ' t b e able t o s e l l t h i s place t h a t way.
O k e y , d r e s s i n g a r e a , t h i s c o u l d b e a l m o s t f l u s h e d C22 x .
off.
W e ' r e s t i l l m a i n t a i n i n g t h e same t y p e o f
tub, is that right?
PM29 F i v e f o o t - t w o i n c h t u b ? L e t ' s s e e .
plumbing could be run up through the w a l l s
necessary?
T h i s i s j u s t a shower c u r t a i n .
w e have t o p r o v i d e a w a l l f o r t h e p l u m b i n g
shower c u r t a i n .
PM30
Figure
I t ' s becoming i n e f f i c i e n t .
The
if
So
and
Moving i t t h i s
He
-681-
(Joke).
C21 x"becoming i n e f f i c i e n t '
w a y , i t ' s b e g i n n i n g t o l o o k l i k e m y own b a t h r o o m ,
which i s i n e f f i c i e n t . . . T h e tub i s a g a i n s t the
w a l l , t h e n t h e John i s n e x t , t h e n t h e s i n k .
This
i s what t h i s i s t u r n i n g out t o b e .
You c a n g e t
a l o t i n a c l o s e space b u t i t i s n ' t v e r y a t t r a c ­
tive.
I want t o m a i n t a i n a f a i r l y p l e a s a n t view
t h a t s t i l l says b a t h r o o m
PM31 b u t e l i m i n a t e s t h e more u n p l e a s a n t p a r t s o f
i t , such a s l o o k i n g a t the w a t e r c l o s e t , o r p e r ­
haps b a t h t u b .
Shower i s h e r e , t h e m a i n a r e a o f
the e n t r a n c e . . . ( L o o k s i n Graphic S t a n d a r d s . ) . . .
I need two f e e t f o u r i n c h e s m i n i m u m .
And f r o m
the s i n k .
I ' m l o o k i n g f o r t h e minimum a r e a o f a
work counter space.
CI4 x " e l i m i n a t e s
parts".
PM32
I guess t h e r e i s n ' t such i n f o r m a t i o n .
T h a t l e a v e s o n l y two f e e t s i x i n c h e s , s o t h a t
e l i m i n a t e s p u t t i n g the w a t e r c l o s e t i n there a t
all.
We could put it over here (on the oppo­
s i t e w a l l ) which I d o n ' t go along w i t h .
So
arrangement two w h i c h i s t r y i n g t o p u t t h e t u b
a l o n g t h i s w a l l , masking i t o f f t o g i v e a s o r t
o f h a l l e f f e c t , i s not e f f i c i e n t .
I t provides
a l o t o f space, b u t i f you put the w a t e r c l o s e t
i n t h e r e , i t w i l l cramp t h e w o r k space
Measures distance from d r y i n g area
to counter.
Size of w a t e r c l o s e t = CI Ox.
PM33
Could I ask a q u e s t i o n about t h i s " h o p ­
i n g t o f i n d a more l u x u r i o u s b a t h . "
Could
you f i l l m e i n o n t h a t a l i t t l e b i t b e t t e r ?
What was meant b y " a more l u x u r i o u s b a t h ? "
What w e r e t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s .
( ' T h e y have seen
a l l kind o f fancy t h i n g s .
Evidently this just
d i d n ' t meet t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s . ' ) . . I w o u l d
imagine t h a t a g l a s s enclosure would increase
the c o s t w e l l over the f i f t y d o l l a r s .
I was
t h i n k i n g o f , i n s t e a d o f u s i n g a shower c u r t a i n ,
of i n c o r p o r a t i n g a g l a s s e n c l o s u r e i n t o the
w a l l and e x t e n d i n g beyond j u s t a l i t t l e b i t .
PM34
( ' I t would c o s t about t h i r t y d o l l a r s . ' )
T h e r e ' s s o m e t h i n g a b o u t a p l a s t i c shower c u r ­
t a i n a s opposed t o a g l a s s e n c l o s u r e .
I think
y o u g e t more t h a n y o u r t h i r t y d o l l a r s i n J u s t
t h e l o o k s o f a more c o s t l i e r s o l u t i o n .
We're
Figure
Ilf
-682-
Retrieves
t h e more
unpleasant
CIO.
Locates DU2. C14 x " d o n ' t go along
with".
ABANDONS ALTERNATIVE THREE
[CI]
t a l k i n g about a twenty-three to t h i r t y - f i v e
t h o u s a n d d o l l a r home.
What's that o l d saying
t h a t your f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e i s g e n e r a l l y your
best one.
Is that a true dictum?
Well, we're
g o i n g t o a t t a c k t h i s t h i n g once m o r e .
PM35
As f a r as the a d d i t i o n a l f i f t y d o l l a r s ,
i t w o u l d n o t i n c l u d e moving t h e d o o r and window?
Right?
('Yes'.)
S o the f i f t y d o l l a r s i s p r i ­
m a r i l y i n the a d d i t i o n o f a c c e s s o r i e s , c a b i n e t r y
and s o f o r t h .
('Yes'.)
W e l l , l e t ' s see.
I'm
g o i n g t o t r y i t w i t h the e x i s t i n g John and t u b ,
a s t h e y a r e (Draws F i g u r e M , ) . . . . I l i k e t h e i d e a
o f b e i n g a b l e t o have n a t u r a l l i g h t o n a t l e a s t
part of y o u . . . .
PM36
(Adds t o f i g u r e a s i n F i g u r e N , t h e n 0 . )
. . . C a n w e assume t h a t , s a y , b e t w e e n t h e w a l l
and t h e s i n k t v o f e e t w o u l d b e enough o f a n a r e a
to stand in?
I d o n ' t see a n y t h i n g h e r e .
(Look­
i n g i n Graphic Standards.)
Here i t says t o i l e t
i s one f o o t s i x i n c h e s and two f e e t f o u r i n c h e s
b e t w e e n s i n k and t u b .
Reviews
all
solutions.
Determine boundary o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f
C2.
'"Would n o t a p p l y t o d o o r o r
window."
STARTS ALTERNATIVE FOUR
(Same as a l t e r n a t i v e one)
[C2.]
[ O r i g . s o l u t i o n ] DU1.
I d e n t i f i e s C28.
C 2 8 * l o c a t i o n o f DU4. C 7 * l o c a t i o n o f DU5.
C20 and C 4 * l o c a t i o n of DU6.
BEGINS ALTERNATIVE FIVE
i d e n t i f i e s C 2 9 . > C28 and C 2 9 * l o c a t i o n
o f DU4.
Reads C l l .
PM3 7
Then two f e e t f o u r i n c h e s between t u b and
wall.
B u t I d o n ' t see a n y t h i n g o f f t h e s i n k .
L i k e h e r e i s down t o one f o o t s i x i n c h e s .
There's
two-four.
I d o n ' t see a n y t h i n g t h a t has i t c l o s e u p a g a i n s t the w a l l .
W e l l , I ' l l o p e r a t e under the
a s s u m p t i o n t h a t o f two f e e t t o see w h a t i t ' d l o o k
I d e n t i f i e s C12.
like.
That i s , t o b u i l d s o r t o f a n i s l a n d .
L o c a t e s DU4 & DU5. C 3 3 * l o c a t i o n of DU6.
(Draws F i g u r e P t h e n Q . )
T h a t ' s cramping up
Locates DU1.
already.
C22 x " c r a m p i n g up a l r e a d y " .
PM38 G e t t i n g back to t h e same p r o b l e m we had
Explains alternative f i v e .
b e f o r e . . . . T h e r e ' s n o t enough r o o m .
What I ' v e
d o n e , , w h a t s t a r t e d m e a l o n g t h e s e l i n e s was i f
[C28]
t h e s i n k s a r e b y t h e window y o u c o u l d u t i l i z e
some o f t h e l i g h t .
Then I t h o u g h t , w h a t w o u l d
h a p p e n i f t h e m i r r o r s were a c t u a l l y f a c i n g t h e
[C29]
window?
So t h a t even if y o u had a head shadow
there with diffused l i g h t
PM39
it would be an a d d i t i o n a l source besides
your incandescent l i g h t or f l o u r e s c e n t s which
w o u l d b e mounted o v e r t h e s i n k .
But, we're
g e t t i n g b a c k t o t h e same p r o b l e m .
Evidently,to
have a f l o a t i n g u n i t o r one s t a n d i n g o u t i n t h e
m i d d l e l i k e t h i s , y o u need more space t o b e a b l e
to work around i t .
Because b y t h e t i m e I p u t
the t h i n g out t h e r e , I h a v e n ' t got the w i d t h .
I was g o i n g t o b a c k t h i s u p w i t h s t o r a g e .
I
t h i n k the f i r s t d e s i g n w i l l b e the best one.
I seem t o have a s e t f o r c e r t a i n p a r t s o f t h e
design.
Figure
Ilg
-683-
I d e n t i f i e s DU11,
REJECTS ALTERNATIVE FIVE
RETURNS TO ALTERNATIVE FOUR
PM40 I l i k e the bathtub and w a t e r e l o s e t in t h i s
p o s i t i o n . They're e f f i c i e n t l y r e l a t e d so as to
[C21]
take up l i t t l e space and have e f f i c i e n t plumbing
which can be in t h i s one w a l l . Though there may
be another arrangement which is b e t t e r , l i k e t h i s
one.
(Draws Figure R, then S.) For s t o r a g e , it Locates DU1 and DU4.
would be r e q u i r e d to have b u i l t - i n s in the cab­
i n e t s . They should be a l l we w i l l n e e d . . . . I
l i k e the window and door being close to the
wall.
I t looks l e s s a r b i t r a r y .
PM41 I t h i n k they could both be the minimum
normal s i z e . A g a i n , I would l i k e t o u t i l i z e
the v i e w .
(Makes s i t e l i n e s from door i n t o
bathroom.)
(Adds to sketch as in Figure S . ) . . .
I ' m w o r r i e d about t h a t wasted space here ( i n
corner of c a b i n e t s ) . We need as much u s e f u l
c a b i n e t space as p o s s i b l e .
(Draws Figure T . )
FM42 We have f o u r f e e t of cabinet along t h i s
w a l l , which i s s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r two c o u n t e r s . . .
I t h i n k t h i s is about the s o l u t i o n I would o f f e r ,
It has two sinks w i t h more counter space than
before.
I ' l l keep the w a t e r c l o s e t and tub l i k e
they were in the o r i g i n a l design—but put a
glass panel in above the t u b .
I want t h i s tub
here because it is out of the view from the
doorway.
PM43 I might extend t h i s w a l l around the
w a t e r c l o s e t to be f l u s h w i t h the "W.C." box
(Adds to sketch as in Figure T . ) . . . # I ' v e added
t h i s " L " cabinet w i t h a f u l l l e n g t h m i r r o r f i v e
f e e t l o n g . About a f o o t between sinks seems sat­
i s f a c t o r y w i t h storage beneath. There's no medi­
c i n e c a b i n e t . A l l t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g can g o i n
the one f o o t a r e a . Wait a minute!
PM44 Why no medicine cabinet?. 1 ! To have a cab­
i n e t i n t h i s design i t would have t o b e f i v e
f e e t long and much too expensive. I could have
a m i r r o r and a f l o a t i n g element below i t .
It
would extend o u t , say, about s i x inches
(Draws Figure U.) We c a n ' t have s i x inches
and only f o u r inches clearance to the f a u c e t s .
Figure
Ilh
-684-
The medicine cabinet must be about three inches—
which is about t h e i r normal depth anyway.
I've
l i v e d in places w i t h o u t a medicine cabinet
PM45 I ' l l consider p u t t i n g a r o t a r y t r a y in the
center of t h i s one f o o t area. Children won't
have need f o r g e t t i n g i n t o the cabinets every­
day. This storage area would stop at the w i n ­
dow edge. That gives us p l e n t y .
(writes
2'6" = 1 0 ) .
I t t o t a l s about ten cubic f e e t
t o t a l , not i n c l u d i n g the area under the s i n k .
PM46 It would be f o r towels and l i n e n , e t c .
There's a l s o semi-usable space f o r c h i l d r e n ' s
w i n t e r c l o t h i n g i n the corner s p a c e . . . L e t ' s see.
I guess s l i d i n g doors are more expensive than
the r e g u l a r k i n d .
But i f p o s s i b l e , I ' d l i k e t o
see s l i d i n g doors that go r i g h t i n t o the space.
At l e a s t one s h e l f would be c i r c u l a r , lazy susan
t y p e . . . ( A d d s s l i d i n g door and t r a y to Figure U,
as shown.) Going back to the c a b i n e t , I would
put towel racks at the end of both c a b i n e t s .
That would make them a c c e s s i b l e .
PM47 There might be a problem in c l o s i n g the
drapes. Usually in bathrooms, they are p u l l e d
closed w i t h o u t p u l l cords. But i f the window's
f r o s t e d g l a s s , drapes seem a more decorative
element.
I ' l l leave it the same as it now i s .
The p l a n seems spacious enough, and o f f e r s c l e a r
passage t o a l l the d i f f e r e n t f i x t u r e s .
PM48 The towels might go on the back of the
bath or maybe outside on t h i s w a l l . That would
be nice f o r guests, because you could show o f f
your best towels in a h i g h l y v i s i b l e place
I guess t h a t ' s i t .
48:50
Figure
IIi
-685-
GOES BACK TO FIGURE " T .
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND GOALS
The f o l l o w i n g a r e w r i t t e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e
i n s p e c i f y i n g and r e s o l v i n g t h e p r o b l e m .
I n f o r m a t i o n Given in
information utilized
the Problem S t a t e m e n t ;
C l . A more l u x u r i o u s b a t h was d e s i r e d .
C 2 . The r e d e s i g n s h o u l d n o t c o s t more t h a n f i f t y d o l l a r s g r e a t e r
than the e x i s t i n g d e s i g n .
I n f o r m a t i o n Given b y the Experimenter
C3.
C4.
C5.
C6.
C7.
C8.
C9.
(Client):
Two s i n k s a r e d e s i r e d .
More s t o r a g e i s d e s i r e d .
Most p o t e n t i a l b u y e r s have young c h i l d r e n .
B o u n d a r i e s o f t h e room s h o u l d n o t b e a l t e r e d .
S i n k s t a k e u p a b o u t t w e n t y i n c h e s o f c o u n t e r space a p i e c e .
The e x i s t i n g window opens and i s f r o s t e d .
Bathroom c o u n t e r s are n o r m a l l y t w e n t y - t w o i n c h e s deep.
Information Retrieved
f r o m O t h e r Documents:
CIO.
B a t h t u b s s h o u l d have a n a d j a c e n t d r y i n g space a t l e a s t t w e n t y e i g h t inches wide.
C l l . W a t e r c l o s e t s r e q u i r e two f e e t c l e a r space i n f r o n t f o r t h e i r u s e .
C12. Sinks r e q u i r e about t w e n t y - f o u r inches i n f r o n t f o r t h e i r use.
Information Recalled
CI3.
C14.
C15.
CI6.
Cl7.
C18.
C19.
C20.
C21.
C22.
C23.
C24.
C25.
C26.
C27.
C28.
C29.
C30.
C31.
C32.
C33.
C34.
Figure
f r o m Memory:
Bathrooms r e q u i r e p r i v a c y .
T o i l e t s and b a t h t u b s s h o u l d n o t b e d i r e c t l y exposed t o the d o o r .
C h i l d r e n r e q u i r e space f o r t h e i r d i r t y c l o t h e s .
D i r t y c l o t h e s a r e c l e a n e d i n a washroom.
L i g h t f r o m t h e window s h o u l d b e u n o b s t r u c t e d .
F r e e c o u n t e r space i s d e s i r a b l e .
Some use s h o u l d b e f o u n d f o r e v e r y p a r t i a l l y bounded s u b s p a c e .
E l e m e n t s l o o k w e l l a r r a n g e d I f t h e i r edges a l i g n .
D i s t a n c e s between plumbing f i x t u r e s should b e m i n i m i z e d .
C i r c u l a t i o n a r e a s must b e w i d e r t h a n e i g h t e e n i n c h e s .
D o o r s s h o u l d s w i n g open a g a i n s t a p a r t i t i o n .
T o w e l s s h o u l d b e l o c a t e d o n a n empty v e r t i c a l space n e a r t o
where t h e y w i l l b e u s e d , e . g . , s i n k and b a t h t u b .
T o w e l s s h o u l d b e hung i n a d r y s p a c e .
S t o r a g e space s h o u l d b e e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e .
Shower r o d s need w a l l s a t t h e i r ends f o r s u p p o r t .
S i n k a r e a s s h o u l d r e c e i v e some n a t u r a l l i g h t i n g .
L i g h t c a n b e bounced o f f a m i r r o r f o r added d i s t r i b u t i o n .
A r e a o v e r f a u c e t s must b e c l e a r f o r t h e i r u s e .
C u r t a i n s s h o u l d b e easy t o r e a c h f o r t h e i r o p e r a t i o n .
Some t o w e l s s h o u l d b e a b l e t o b e d i s p l a y e d .
Sinks should be so l o c a t e d t h a t a m i r r o r can be l o c a t e d b e h i n d them.
T o j u s t i f y s t o r a g e s p a c e , s p e c i f i c uses s h o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d .
IV.
-687-
DESIGN UNITS
Below are the p h y s i c a l elements which were selected and arranged d u r i n g
the problem s o l v i n g sequence. They are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y arranged accord­
i n g to the p h y s i c a l elements of which they are a p a r t .
PUT:
t o i l e t - bathtub combination
DU2: t o i l e t
DU3: bathtub
DU3a: bathtub w i t h c u r t a i n enclosure
DU3b: bathtub w i t h glass enclosure
DU4:
counter
DU5:
sinks ( i n c l u d i n g m i r r o r )
DU6: general storage
DU6a: storage w i t h s l i d i n g doors
DU6b: storage w i t h hinged doors
DU6c: c l o t h e s hamper
DU7: medicine cabinet
DU7a: located behind m i r r o r
DU7b: located below m i r r o r
DU7c:
located in the counter cabinet
as a r o t a r y t r a y
DU8: counter work area
window
door
light fixtures
partitions
DU13: towelracks
OPERATORS
The f o l l o w i n g operations were i d e n t i f i e d as processes described by the
p r o t o c o l . They are categorized according to what k i n d of data s t r u c t u r e
they operated upon.
Space Planning Operations:
l o c a t e a DU
remove a DU
A r i t h m e t i c Operations:
s : : = numerical comparison
or computation
T e s t s , a s Applied i n A l l Representations:
X : : = e v a l u a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s
* : : « guides g e n e r a t i o n of l o c a t i o n s
Figure V.
-688-
Semantic Operations:
a~b : : - a is associated w i t h b
aeb : : = a is a component of b
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n operations are
written out.
Context of Operations:
. . . . : : = operation externally
recorded
[
] : : = operation verbally
repeated
< > : : « i m p l i c i t operation