Choosing by Advantages: Evaluating and choosing iterations

Depending on the context iterations and ideas can be more or less appropriate. This means that most ideas are positive or advantageous when designed. However this depends on a number of things. This process takes iterations and instead of optimizing one area, it seeks to bring out a well-rounded design.

Think of the criteria: list the criteria that is needed both by the prompt and by the desires of the designer. We ought to choose our iterations by advantages. This means that iterations are selected for the positive attributes they have to the design, rather than eliminating ones that have negative result, things are simply more positive. That they are implemented or combined ideas that can be selected as a whole or can be combined to see if the advantages of each can be increased together.

This process allows the designer to revisit or review iterations by combining positive attributes or characteristics and make a fundamentally new iteration for review in the design process. The iterations are reviewed as the sum of their parts not as individual characteristics isolated from the iteration. Individual characteristics are reviewed and selected based on the site and other contexts so that they are based in reference rather than individual performance. This must be grounded in relevant and useful or purposeful facts and reference on the basis of relative degrees of positiveness, rather than one being a negative to others.

The reference of relevant characteristics or factors in design makes sure that large abstractions are not inherently selected over more pragmatic solutions.

This is why it is important to include not only the individual designer, but also other designers and then the client or other interested parties as they can explain and provide insight into the importance or positive nature of possible attributes or selected characteristics.

In summary this method is to remove the assumption that certain methods, characteristics or criteria are not inherently superior, but that each has positive attributes based on the context of the design intentions and the individual iteration.



The process of evaluation is based in creating the designed response. Depending on what sort of ideas you have and what site and context or climate you have, certain designs are more appropriate. this is what makes a designed response more compelling than a distanced and uninformed design. Since it would be nearly impossible to determine what to evaluate by, here is an example:

pen and the pencil:

pen: ink, permanent line and dark color

pencil: graphite, non-permanent line and , grey color

Depending on the needs of the situation, a positive attribute might be less helpful later. Permanent ink might be a problem if I need to erase, but I might enjoy to permanent nature of the ink in how it helps me design. Pens do not work in space without some kind of pressurization. pencils can be used in space, however the graphite can cause fires in high oxygen environments. The colors of lines vary by type of ink and graphite type, so it is up to preference and need.

The situation or context helps to determine the better course of design each time. using the same design for every situation can cause issues. Now that the evaluation criteria are chosen, now iterations can be reduced or combined to meet our ideas, context and necessity for the designed response.

These three things have a certain hierarchy that can help to choose useful or appropriate iterations. The ideal is the first layer. does the idea or the design meet the considerations as you and the prompt or project were defined?

If iterations meet the ideas or concepts you have chosen as the
designer: these ideas begin to be refined or removed based on the context and conditions of the site. This does not mean looking for negatives, but rather discovering what works, or what can be changed to perform or respond better.

This is where choosing by advantages becomes useful in understanding what is positive in each, as depending on the context a iteration may be more or less appropriate at a time.

If after context of the site multiple iterations exist, the necessity of the designs can be reviewed. Basically, it might be meeting standards or requirements, but is the project going beyond the minimum and is it aesthetically pleasing?

While there is a hierarchy or order of considering each iterations, it is the balance of all of these that allow an iteration to be chosen for further refinement and review. Implementation is not mindlessly producing drawings or other representations. the ideas are still being reviewed and refined. Topics of the project are building on each other during the whole process, while still looking for how an idea can begin to take form.

While drawing is critical to the representation and design process, they need the third dimension, thus modeling. These models ask a question of the project and are not made to simply present conditions. These models look at connections and volume of space to gain greater understanding of a design. This process uses the interaction of drawing and modeling and how each informed the other to begin to find areas for improvement.

Over time, these different models and drawings become more refined as each are informed by the other when looking at a single iteration. After re-considering the design individually, peer review and client review are sued to define and refine the designed response and representations. From these critiques, once a project is complete or it is time to present, models and representations are made of the refined and implemented iteration.

In the end it is a iterative, circular process: we consider the iteration phase again after gathering more information from building models. This allows for the refinement of ideas and the development of our designs.