Thomas T. Hewett

Creativity Support Tools: Report From a U.S. National Science Foundation Sponsored Workshop

Creativity support tools is a research topic with high risk but potentially very high payoff. The goal is to develop improved software and user interfaces that empower users to be not only more productive but also more innovative. Potential users include software and other engineers, diverse scientists, product and graphic designers, architects, educators, students, and many others. Enhanced interfaces could enable more effective searching of intellectual resources, improved collaboration among teams, and more rapid discovery processes. These advanced interfaces should also provide potent support in hypothesis formation, speedier evaluation of alternatives, improved understanding through visualization, and better dissemination of results. For creative endeavors that require composition of novel artifacts (e.g., computer programs, scientific papers, engineering diagrams, symphonies, artwork), enhanced interfaces could facilitate exploration of alternatives, prevent unproductive choices, and enable easy backtracking. This U.S. National Science Foundation sponsored workshop brought together 25 research leaders and graduate students to share experiences, identify opportunities, and formulate research challenges. Two key outcomes emerged: (a) encouragement to evaluate creativity support tools through multidimensional in-depth longitudinal case studies and (b) formulation of 12 principles for design of creativity support tools.

Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity

This paper addresses the problem of creating a human-centered computer-based support environment to facilitate innovation and creative work. It focuses on key factors to be considered in the design and development of any such user support environment regardless of the specific domain for which it may be implemented. The paper reviews psychological literature on how creativity, insight and innovation occur and how they can be fostered in working environments. Based on this discussion the paper then describes a generic set of user or functional requirements intended to apply or any domain-specific computer-based working environment for support of creative activities. The paper proposes the conceptual model of a Virtual Workbench as a way of capturing some of these requirements and as a way of organizing thinking about the design of creative problem solving environments (CPSEs) in general. Finally, the paper proposes one possible translation of the Virtual Workbench and some of the functional requirements into a view of a generic model for CPSEs by describing three component sets of functions that would be a subset of those needed in almost any domain-specific CPSE.

A Computer Intermediary for Interactive Database Searching. II. Evaluation.

This is the second of two articles describing the development, testing, and evaluation of the Individualized Instruction for Data Access System (IIDA). The system was tested in an industrial setting and it was demonstrated that (1) end users of scientific and technical literature could learn to do their own bibliographic searches through computer‐assisted instruction as well as they learned through a comparable period of conventional instruction, and (2) end users were as satisfied with the results of their own searchings as with the result of searches performed for them, for the types of searches tested.

On designing for usability: an application of four key principles

In a recent paper, Gould and Lewis (1983a) argued for the importance of four key principles in computer system design. These principles are: early focus on users, interactive design, empirical measurement, and iterative design. Gould and Lewis also express their belief that these principles are essential to successful design and refer to an example of their use (Gould and Lewis, 1983b). It is the purpose of this paper to report another example of how these principles played a major role and proved their worth in the design of a successful system.

Teaching students to model neural circuits and neural networks using an electronic spreadsheet simulator

An electronic spreadsheet simulator can be used to enable students to conduct simulated microelectrode recording experiments. In addition, it can be used both to let students explore the operation of models of hypothetical neural networks and to let them design and develop their own neural models.

When every student has a computer: A new perspective on courseware and its development

In this paper, I describe some of the institutional and curricular implications of 100% student access to personal computing. I then explore the new perspective which these conditions create on the availability of courseware, on the process of courseware development, and on future directions in courseware development.

The Use of Thinking-out-loud and Protocol Analysis in Development of a Process Model of Interactive Database Searching

A variation of the “thinking-out-loud” and protocol analysis method of studying problem solving behavior was used to observe the interactive searching of experienced bibliographic dababase searchers. To control for the effects of different search problems, three different search requests were structured to represent major generic kinds of search problems. Analysis of pre-search protocols, on-line search transcripts, and post-search debriefings of nine searchers, three of whom were randomly assigned to each type of search request, revealed that, while there were differences in searcher behavior as a function of type of search problem, there were important similarities in searcher behavior. These similarities made it possible to develop a general characterization of the process of database searching. This process model was subsequently used to structure tutorial exercises used in training beginning searchers. These tutorial exercises were embedded in an on-line search assistance program. Evaluation studies conducted both on the training exercises and on the search assistance system as a whole supported the idea that the search process model developed through “thinking-out-loud” and protocol analysis was a reasonable representation of the search process and was useful in training searchers.

Tools and methodology for user interface development

5. Suggested topics and areas of researc h The information generated from a workshop affects th e direction of subsequent research on the topic. One of th e goals of this workshop was to suggest specific areas of use r interface and UIMS research that should be addressed b y industry and academia. In general, the predominant areas of research are th e development of tools that provide support for th e development/evaluation of user interfaces, the developmen t of higher-level languages for the definition an d implementation of user interfaces and the development o f formal taxonomies/categorizations of UIMS. Nine specifi c research topics are as follows : 1) Determine how artificial intelligence and knowledge engineering can support the definitions of th e conceptual model of the users problem or system bein g developed. In the development of a system such as a user interface, research should define a method, tool or environment to enable a knowledge engineer to presen t the end user with a description or conceptual model o f the system. Modeling is particularly important in th e development of a user interface. 2) Define and develop data structures that will provid e adequate support and effective interfaces for use r interface software tools. 3) Develop user interface design tools that can acquire an d use higher-level knowledge about user interfac e concepts for particular application domains. Thi s higher-level knowledge includes the objects, actions an d relationships in specific problem domains. Design tool s should allow the definition and reuse of primitives i n specific application domains, thus enabling user interface designers to begin defining user interfaces i n terms of abstract objects instead of lower-leve l programming language concepts. 4) Determine the characteristics of good user interfac e designs and how these characteristics can be quantifie d and measured. Tools should then be developed that will encourage user interface designers to define goo d user interfaces by making easy those decisions that result in good user interfaces and making difficult thos e decisions that result in bad user interfaces. 5) Develop prototyping tools that will facilitate feedbac k from the end users of the interface. The feedback resulting from the end users interaction with th e prototype can be used to further refine the requirement s of the user interface. 6) Develop a formal taxonomy or categorization of UIM S functionality with respect to …

Toward a Human Centered Scientific Problem Solving Environment

This paper reviews human computer interaction considerations useful in developing scientific problem solving environments. First we argue for the importance of understanding user goals and task-oriented needs and then draw a distinction between interface and interaction design, arguing that both levels must be addressed in human centered design. Next we discuss the role of analogical thinking in the development of scientific knowledge and consider implications of analogical thinking for the design of problem solving environments. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for characteristics of an ideal problem solving environment.

Individual and/versus social creativity (panel session)

INTRODUCTION The creative act is often thought of as an individual, even lonely, one: the inspiration in the bath, the artist isolated in the garret. The research student has to demonstrate that they found new knowledge and that it was “all their own work”. But how often are these individual acts a realistic model of the creative process? Even if inspiration does come in the bath, how many conversations had taken place before that moment? How much time has the “lonely” artist spent in cafes arguing with other artists about their work? If individual research is so important why do we advise a good student to join a successful research department?