INTIR(W93

THE EVOLUTION OF AN INTERFACE CHOREOGRAPHERS

Tom W. Calvert, Armin Bruderlin, School Simon Fraser University, e-mail Sang Mah, Thecla Science B.C. Canada V5A 1S6 Schiphorst, Chris of Computing Burnaby, 604-291-4588 address: torn@ cs.sfu.ca

24-29 April1993
FOR
Welman

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the evolution of the interface to Life Forms, a compositional tool for the creation of dance choreography, and highlights some of the important lessons we have learned during a six year design and implementation period. The lessons learned can be grouped into two categories: 1) Process, and 2) Architecture of the Interface. Our goal in developing a tool for choreography has been to provide computer-based creative design support for the conception and development of dance. The evolution was driven by feedback from the choreographers and users who were members of the development team, combined with our knowledge of current thinking on design and composition. Although the interface evolved in a relatively unconstrained way, the resulting system has many of the features that theoretical discussion in human interface design has projected as necessary. The Life Forms interface has evolved incrementally with one major discontinuity where adoption of a new compositional primitive required a completely new version. The choreography and composition of a &nce is a complex synthesis task which has much in common with design. Thus, the lessons learned here are applicable to the development of interfaces to such applications as computer aided design. KEY WORDS: dance, complexity, 1. Composition, choreography, design, user interface, human animation.

compositional design task that requires a set of skills telated to creating, structuring, and forming. Building a computer interface that interacts with a choreographers design skill set requires an understanding of the mental model of the choreographers design process. As Herbert Simon noted, The ability to communicate across fields--the common ground--comes from the fact that all who use computers in complex ways are using computers to design or to participate in the process of design.[l3] This area of research relates to the observation and understanding of how our creative process operates when we interact with computer systems, and how computer interface designers can help provide a more intuitive, direct, and transparent relationship with the creative idea [7,9]. In dance, where the creative idea is a movement idea, the goal is to visualize and create body movement in an immediate and responsive way, so the computer tool must become a This paper summarizes the visual idea generator.. evolution of Life Forms, a computer based system to support composition and choreography, and discusses the lessons learned during the development (note that during the early stages of its development the Life Forms software was known as Compose). Many of the observations of the effectiveness of the interface came from users of the system: choreographers and dancers, as well as members of the design team. An example of a user who has had great impact on the evolution of the interface is Merce Cunningham who has been using the system for three years in New York City. Life Forms has been described in more detail at CHI90 [12] and elsewhere [4]. In the years before starting this project in 1986, we had acquired considerable experience in working with dancers and choreographers and in the development of computer based systems for editing and interpreting dance notation [5,6]. Although systems for editing and interpreting notation have an important role in recording dance, archival tools are not necessarily very useful as tools for composition. In order to address the goal of supporting the compositional process we began the development a completely new system which would directly assist the Merce working choreographer in creating movement. Cunningham noted when he began working with Life Forms, The thing that interested me most, from the very start was not the memory -- it wasnt simply notation --

INTRODUCTION

Like design, the composition and choreography of dance is a complex synthesis task. The design process contains elements that are recognized as common to all creative activity. Dance is the most technically complex form of human movement that exists in our culture, so development of a computer tool to assist in the creation of dance poses several research challenges. Choreography is a
Permission granted direct title that to copy that without fee all or part are not made copyright and appear, of this material ia for provided commercial of the copying specific ACM the copies or distributed notice notice

edventage,

the ACM

and the is given a fee

publication To copy

and its date otherwise,

is by permission permission.

of the Association or to republish,

for Computing requires

Machinery. and/or @I1993

0.8979J-~75.5/93/0~04/OJ

15...$1

.5(3

115

24-29 April1993
but the fact

lNTfRtH1
KA Times May the broad spatial outlines and then go back to develop the detailed movements, while others will begin with some specific movement material, then develop phrases, and then sections. Structurally, a choreographer will always need to move between the design of the overall dance and the design of the more detailed levels of section, phrase, and particular movement or gesture. The computer based system is designed to assist, not to Dance itself is still a kinesthetic replace this process. experience and cannot be replaced by technology. But the computer based system can provide an extension, a visual idea generator that supports the iterative and interactive nature of the choreographic process. And like video, the tool also provides a record of compositional process while it has the advantage of storing movement in three dimensional space and allowing editing and modification to occur. \

that I could make new things

15 1991]. The design and development was carried out by an interdisciplinary team made up of users such as choreographers, as well as systems architects and implementers. The process of designing the interface has been highly iterative - beginning from a very simple concept many, many alternatives have been suggested and evaluated while only a few have been implemented. At times the introduction of a new concept or approach has required a discontinuous design shift to occur in the otherwise incremental process. Lije Forms, which has been licensed to Kinetic Effects Inc. (Seattle, WA.), was initially developed on Silicon Graphics Iris workstations and this remains the platform for our research. However, to provide a version which would be more accessible to working dancers and choreographers we have also developed a version for the Apple Macintosh (this is now available from Macromexiia).

3.

EVOLUTION

OF

THE

INTERFACE

2.

DANCE COMPOSITION AND CHOREOGRAPHY

3.1.

Concept

Typically, in composing a new dance, a choreographer starts from a particular stimulus. The stimulus can be as varied as a specitlc physical movement, a musical phrase, a visual image, or a state of mind. Even in the case of movement or an idea without particular contex~ what may be called pure dance, the choreographer frequently develops thematic material through an exploratory structuring technique. Or the choreographer may develop the initial movement idea through some event or comment in the environment. If there is a specific context, such as a particular exploration of space, a striking dream image, or a piece of music or dramatic plot, the choreographer may draw out or illustrate spatial possibilities, may simply think or muse about a striking image to make further connections, or may listen to the music or observe the story and absorb its sense, its dynamic qualities, its tempos or in the case of expressive dance its statement of From all of these stimuli the emotional flow [2]. choreographer explores or develops the generative idea, either intuitively or constructively using chance or deterministic structuring procedures, or interprets music, image, feeling or narrative, creating or finding movement that seems to successfully mirror its essence. In the studio the choreographer works with the dancers to build the piece. The dancers may improvise with the choreographers initial compositional material to provide movement. Some choreographers may work with notes, sketches, and floor plans, and some will record work in progress with a video camera to act as an objective eye, and a memory aid. This is an iterative and interactive process and proceeds over a period of weeks or months until the dance is complete. Some choreographers begin first with

The first iteration of the system was conceived as a planning tool which would allow the choreographer to block out how individual dancers would move. Thus, some token for each dancer would be placed on a movable stage and when the configuration was acceptable, the configuration would be saved. The choreographer would then reconfigure the dancers for the next important scene. This would in turn be saved and the process would continue until the piece was complete. This is similar to the storyboard used by film directors and animators to help in planning a scene or action sequence. By flipping through these keyframe configurations, a crude animation could be produced for the composer to review. From this early concept, the systems development has progressed through two main evolutionary stages. In the first, the tokens which served as the basic building block for a composition were static body shapes, or stances. In the second stage, the basic building block became an entire movement sequence. A description of the system at these stages has been given in some detail elsewhere [12, 4]. A synopsis is be provided here to summarize the system and highlight recent features before considering the lessons learned during the development process.

3.2.

Composition

Based

on

Stances

In the fwst useful version of the system, key scenes are constructed by placing figures in particular stances on a stylized stage at a specific point in time, The stage itself can be tilted and turned to view the scene from any vantage

116

INTERCHI93

24-29 April1993

Figure 1: a) Old Stance-based Body Editor.

Figure 1: b) New Sequence Editor.

point. The stances are selected from a collection of menus (see right side of Figure la), each of which display a number of different body shapes to choose from. A typical menu, for example, might consist of ballet shapes, or perhaps different lying positions. Once several keyframe configurations have been entered, the scene can be played back. During playback the system performs simple interpolation of position, orientation and body shape for each figure, to give the composer a quick approximation of how the scene might appear in a live performance. The Body Editor allows the choreographer to create new body shapes and add them to the menus, or to edit existing shapes. In a separate window a simplified three dimensional representation of the human body is presented for editing. A limb segment can be selected and its position interactively adjusted with a hemispherical slider conceptually similar to a virtual trackball [8]. When a posture has been fully defiied in this manner, the shape can be transferred to one of the stance menus. In this way the user can refine and extend the palette of shapes available.
1:52 1 I 21!3[41S [C.l,lol o

A third window, the Timeline, provides a summary of the body stances for each figure as they develop over time, similar to the notion of a musical score (Figure 2). The Timeline provides information about the temporal development of the composition which is lacking in the previous windows, showing both the relative timing of the key stances assigned to a figure, as well as the temporal relationship between different figures. Simple editing operations provide a mechanism by which movement over time can be copied, cut and pasted in a manner familiar to anybody who has used a word processor. This simple stance-based system has proved to be a viable tool for choreography and human figure animation, and is the model implemented in the Macintosh version of the program. 3.3.

Composition

Based

on Sequences

FIm-

xx al

As the users gained experience with the earlier system, they came to realize that a better building block for a dance composition was a movement sequence rather than a simple stance. To meet this need, a major redevelopment was necessary. Menus of stances were replaced by menus of movement sequences, which could be as short as a single stance or as long as many hundreds of keyframes. As before, composition in space involves making a selection from a menu and placing it on the stage. However, rather than dragging and orienting a single stance, now the user works with a complete movement sequence as a primitive. Although the stage view still displays only a single shape to represent a sequence, a line indicating the path traveled by the figure during the sequence is also displayed. Multiple sequences can be strung together for a single figure, just as multiple stances were before. the creation and editing of sequences, most of the functionality of the earlier version was combined to form a new Sequence Editor (Figtue lb), which replaced the Body Editor. In this window a single figure can be
To facilitate

Figure 2: The stance-based Macintosh

timeline

window.

117

24-29 April1993
manipulated into a series of keyframe stances, which may then be played back as an animation. A timeline strip below the figure offers the same editing capabilities as the original Timeline window (see Figure lb centre display strip). In addition the timing of portions of the sequence can be adjusted by stretching or shrinking ranges on the timeline. A major enhancement has been the addition of direct manipulation of the figure with inverse kinenuuics [14], allowing the user to drag a chain of body parts around rather than adjusting each part individually (Figure 3). Sequences may also be imported from external sources and added to menus. Another major addition is the provision of procedural movement which is generated by algorithms rather than frame by frame specification of the choreographer. An example is the generation of customized waiks[3].

lNTfRtHr9
A recent addition to the system is the ability to add digitized sound to the composition. The choreography can be synchronized with the soundtmck during playback. This description which runs on workstations. reflects the current state of the system the Silicon Graphics family of IRIS

4.

LESSONS LEARNED

The Evolution of the Life Forms interface came about through many iterations. Each incremental development phase was accompanied and even initiated by new understanding, based on observations and experience with using the interface, Often these lessons prompted new ideas that resonated strongly enough within the design team to affect the conception, design and implementation of the interface. These lessons can be loosely grouped into two categories. Process refers to the design process and choreographic process in terms of b it was experienced and affected by the interface, Architecture of the Interface refers to experiences and observations dealing more directly with W technical interface design issues became focal points of our work.

4.1.
Figure 3: kinematics Selecting and dragging the arm using inverse - the cursor is on the hand.

Process 1: An interdisciplinary
Team is Necessary

Observation
Development

With detailed timing within a sequence being adjusted in the Sequence Editor, the main TimeIine becomes simpler (Figure 4). The sequences assigned to each dancer are simply shown as boxes which can only be edited (cut, copy However, in this mode the or paste) as a unit. choreographer can very quickly build up complex movement for each dancer by assembling sequences. Users found it helpful if the Timeli~e is displayed on top of a stage view so that the multiple dancers can be animated at the same time that the inter-relationships in time are being reviewed.

An interdisciplinary development team involving users, systems architects and implementers is essential. In this case the users were choreographers, most of whom had no technical background, and particular attention was given to maintaining the level of their involvement in the design process. Users who are members of the team often become involved in the technical developments and lose their Thus some limited turnover in team detachment. membership can be helpful. Observation 2: The

Roie of Users

Involvement of users who are part of the development team, although very useful, is no substitute for external users who can bring a perhaps technologically naive yet creatively insightful point of view to the process. At ail stages the system under development must be tested by appropriate (i.e. naive and expert) users. There is a special role for a Mentor User - someone who is a true leader in the field and who can pioneer innovation. In our case New York choreographer, Merce Cunningham recipient of the MacArthur fellowship amongst many other choreographic honors and awards has served as a Mentor User for three years. Cunningham has spent almost 50 years challenging assumptions and traditional notions of what dance is and how it can be made, and continues to do

Figure 4: The new Timeline

in sequence-based system.

118

INT{R(W93
so in his use of Life Forms. Cunningham balances the computers precise representation with the realities of human physicaiity, I look at some things and say, well thats impossible for a dancer to do. But if I look long enough I could think of a way it could be done. Not exactly as its done on the screen, but it could prompt my eye to see something Ive never thought of before. [Merce Cunningham, quoted in the LA Times, May 15, 1991] Observation Observation 5: Impact Choreographers Work of

24-29 April1993
such as SGIS Inventor [11], also promises time horn idea to realization. to decrease the

Life

Forms

on the Way

Are

3: Sometimes

Discontinuities Necessary

in

Development

As experience

was gained with the original stance-based system and as hardware capability increased, it became obvious that a higher level building block for dance composition was necessary. The implementation of a sequence as the design building block (rather than a stance) enabled choreographers to develop design chunks. This allowed composition to occur on more than one conceptual level. A sequence can be created, manipulated, varied and placed with other sequences at a rate that enables the visual response to provide a meaningful creative feedback loop. Major design re-implementation was required to meet this need, and correspondingly a major break in the development process was necessary. Merce Cunningham noted in response to this development in Life Forms: What was like photographs is now like film, and what started out as work with positions has developed into work with phrases. .. Its remarkable, they keep adding things to it ... it will enlarge it [dance]. The system now has multiple possibilities. Sometimes a new concept requires a major reimplementation of a system. Discontinuities of this type should be minimized, but from time to time are necessary, especially when they provide a major conceptual breakthrough to occur.

Often, choreographers who learned to use the system reported that it had changed the way they thowzht about choreography and how they went about composing. This is interesting, but indicates the difficulty in objectively evaluating a tool, which changes the users conception of the task. At the same time it illustrates that the ideas and work of ail members of the development team have a direct effect on one another, and that artists are willing to risk, to experiment and to ask questions about new ways of working. Cunningham, always willing to expand his experience of looking at and creating movement, has said, The common thread in all these dances [made with Life Forms] is that they are ail different. Thats what interests me. I am not interested in the idea of repeating something. Whats exciting is when I come across an idea that Im unfamiliar with, or when I have a question for myself, .... if its something that interests you deeply, you will find a way. [Anchorage Daily News Feb. 23 1992] Among comments from other choreographers who used Lfe I was able Forms to create movement were the following: to work more directly with internal imagery. It freed me from my own personal movement bias. I was able to have dancers on the screen take on movements that I wouldnt have dreamed of attempting on my own; or, I was much more likely to use movement outside my comfort range and vocabulary and venture into the realm of the unknown.; and, Working with the system inspired me in new ways simply because of the visual nature of working with it., and I found my choreographic process with Life Forms to be more intuitive, more out of body, not hampered by my own limitations or concerns for dancers well-being, nor even concerned with the outcome necessarily. [York University Choreographic Workshop, Summer 19921 Much of the creative process reflected in the previous responses relate to the visual nature of the interface, and the creative process that is evoked by working with choreography in a visual way. Choreography is also very often a kinesthetic experience and it is well known that different choreographers have preferred methods of working. One choreographer in particular found that, I discovered how little I rely on visual awareness in the studio, that I tend to work with a kinesthetic awareness of the body, and of movement coming from within the body. I initially found it quite difficult to make the transition from recognizing the computer image on the screen and seeing it on the body in the studio These comments reflect both the multiplicity of methods in which choreographers conceive and create dance, and also an unexpected willingness to work with what exists, even when it maybe different from what has been leaned before.

Observation 4: Time implementation

from

Conception

to

Design is an iterative process, and for this project, at least the process of designing the way the program functions and how that functionality is presented to the user has been no exception. The existing system is a result of many iterations, based largely on comments and suggestions from the users within the development team. Unfortunately the realities of software development mean that the turnaround time from idea to implementation is often measured in weeks (or more). In our experience, this not only inhibits the whole design process, but also may tend to make developers resistant to good suggestions that make prior work obsolete. A strict adherence to standard modular coding practices has been beneficial, limiting the scope of source code changes required to support new features. Aiso the adoption of a GUI toolkit and interactive interface designer has been a great help for rapid prototyping and modifications to the interface. The emergence of more comprehensive toolkits for interactive 3D applications,

119

24-29 April1993
Again, perhaps Cunningham says it best when he stated, My point in working with Life Forms is not to complain about what it cant do, but to look and see what it can do. L~e Forms can enlarge possibilities and help the way that people look at dance. &A Daily News, May 9 1991] detail and higher level actions, made as easy as possible.

INFRM93
so these changes must be

Observation

8: Access

to

Explicit

Knowledge

4.2.

Architecture

of

the

Interface: Complexity with

Observation 6: Reduce Alternate Views

Task

Early in the development process it was realized that the original concept of letting the choreographer do all development on the Stage (as in a real studio) was limiting. The only way to review how the piece developed in time was to play it through as an animation and although the animation is useful, just as in reviewing a musical composition, it is often possible to obtain insights from the score which are not obvious in a performance. Thus, it was decided to add a display which set out a representation of the piece as it develops in time. Another simple addition to the original system was a window in which the body stance of individual dancers could be built up, edited and customized. After considerable experimentation we developed a Body Editor similar to that shown in Figure la) which was later extended to the Sequence Editor shown in Figure lb). These observations indicate that task complexity can be reduced by providing alternative ways to view the development of the piece. This is consistent with other experience in complex problem solving [13].

It is obvious that those involved in creative synthesis tasks do not start from scratch. They bring to each new composition the history of their own previous work, as well as that of others. They also have a background in the standard concepts of their field. The menus in our system are visual archives for these types of knowledge. Browsing is supported by allowing the user to click on a menu item to reveal a flip-book animation of the stored sequence. In this class of tasks, the most powerful access to knowledge is through the memory of the artist. But this should be supplemented where possible with readily accessible files of previous work and with procedural generators.

Observation Movement

9: Procedural Sequences

Generation

of

Observation Specification

7: Separating High Level from Detailed Choreography

While the sequence-based system empowers the user, the movement sequences still have to be generated somehow; building up sequences frame by frame in the Sequence Editor is extremely tedious. A more powerful approach involves finding a procedural method to generate a whole class of movements such as locomotion. Bruderlin [3] has developed a procedural approach to walking - this can generate a wide variety of walks which can be used in building sequences. The interface shown in Figure 5 allows the user to customize the walk by changing parameters (e.g.. velocity, bounciness, torso sway) to characterize the person being animated - an older person, a child, a tired person, etc.

When the originrd stance-based system was replaced by a sequence-based system, the power of the user to create dances was greatly increased. This change allowed the user to work with a higher level primitive. Of course, it was still necessary to create these sequences on a frame by frame basis, unless a procedural method was used. As noted, when a body editor was added to the original system, it made it possible to separate the detailed choreography of individual figures from the more general choreography of multiple interacting figures. In the same way, when the Sequence Editor was added to the sequence based version of the system, it made it possible to edit the timing of the moves of an individual figure separately from the more general timing in the Timeline of the sequences assigned to all dancers. These observations confirm that the process is hierarchical and that the composer is empowered by separating detail from higher level actions. However, we have observed that users frequently switch back and forth between low level

Figure 5: module.

Interface

for

real-time,

procedural

walking

The knowledge of movement available through a procedural generator greatly increases the power of the user providing the procedures can be customized. This tool can replace a part of the choreographic process by automatically generating a feasible movement pattern. But it need not take

120

lNTkRcHr93
anything away from the creative choreographer, since the sequence generated can be modified for specific situations. Observation

24-29 April1993
kinematic chain. This is intuitively attractive and users like the facility, but our experiences have shown that it maybe difficult to accurately duplicate spxific body stances. Users like direct manipulation, the best results. but it does not always give

as Useful

10: Simple Abstract Models as more Realistic Models

may be

As shown in Figure 6, a variety of body models have been used - they include a simple stick figure, an outline figure, a figure defined by contours and a shaded solid figure. In early implementations the simplest figures were used because they could be drawn most quickly. With faster processors it has become possible to use more complex and realistic figures. However, users often find that the simplest figures are effective for their needs - research in psychology has shown that we can perceive human movement quite accurately from only a few points on the body [10]. The shaded figures certainly add realism - but it is not clear whether users prefer this to an abstraction. Also, users are more likely to be critical of imperfections in more realistic figures while they accept abstractions for what they are. Body models which are simple abstractions are often quite acceptable and may be preferred over more realistic shaded models.

5.

DISCUSSION

AND

CONCLUSIONS

The composition and choreography of dance is a complex synthesis and design task. Many computer based tools have been developed to assist designers but very few of these systems give users sufficient freedom to experiment and be creative. Our goal in developing a tool for choreography was to use the computer to provide creative design support during the process of conceiving of and developing a dance. Design evolution was often initiated by feedback from the choreographers and users who were members of the design team, combined with our knowledge of current thinking of design and composition [1, 13]. We started with a very simple concept (blocking figures on a stage) and over a six year period have evolved a very sophisticated system.

Figure 6: Four different body contour and fleshed out figures.

models:

stick,

outline,

Observation

11:

Users

Prafer

Direct

Interaction

In the original Body Editor, the user had the choice of adjusting limb orientation either by directly manipulating it on the screen with the mouse or by using linear or spherical potentiometers on the screen. Direct manipulation was generally preferred, but sometimes it was difficult to see just how the 3-d body was being moved on the 2-d display. Inverse kinematics allows the user to move the endpoints of limbs without first adjusting other segments in the

The principal conclusion that can be drawn is that this model for the development process has been successful and that a very useful system has evolved. The system evolved incrementally with one major discontinuity where adoption of a new compositional primitive required a completely new version. Another conclusion is that although the interface evolution was driven in a relatively unconstrained way by the choreographers in the design team, the resulting system has many of the features that theoretical discussion has projected as necessary [12,13]. Specitlcally

121

24-29 April1993
3.

lNTfRtH1
Bruderlin, A. and Calvert, T.W. Goal-Directed, Dynamic Animation of Human Walking. Computer pp. Graphics (SIGGRAPH 89), vol. 23, (1989), 233-242, Calvert, T.W., Welman, C., Gaudet, S., Schiphorst, T. and Lee,C. Composition of Multiple Figure Sequences for Dance and Animation. The Visual Computer, vol. 7, 1991, pp. 114-121. Calvert, T.W. Towards a Language for Human Movement. Computers and the Humanities, 20:2, (1986), pp. 35-43. Calvert, T.W., Chapman, J,, and Patla, A. Aspects of the Kinematic Simulation of Human Movement. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 2, (November 1982), pp. 41-50. Card, S., Moran, T., and Newell, A. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Asscc., Hillsdale, N.J., 1983. Chen, M., Mountford, J. and Sellen, A. A Study in Interactive 3D Rotation Using 2D Control Devices. Computer Graphics 22,4, 1988, pp. 121-129. Hartson, H. R., and Hix, D. Human-Computer Interface Development: Concepts and Systems. ACM Computing Surveys 21, 1, (1989), pp. 5-92. Johansson, G. Perception 201-211, 1973.
and Psychology, 14, pp.

The process is hierarchical and tools should suppcmt high level (more conceptual) and low level (more detailed) spec~lcation.
q

. The complexity of the task can be minimized by making alternate views available (e.g. Stage, Sequence Editor, Timeline). The composer is empowered by access to knowledge. In general, the internal knowledge of the user can be supplemented with (a) explicit knowledge in the form of stances, sequences, etc stored in libraries and displayed in menus; (b) procedural knowledge where algorithms have been developed to capture the essence of common movements (procedural walking is discussed above} and (c) declarative lmowledge, where rules and constraints are stored in a knowledge base and are available to an expert system for resolution of complex interactions, The current interface provides access to explicit and procedural knowledge and users have found this to be valuable. Methods to incorporate declarative knowledge still have to be developed. Other observations are that users prefer direct interaction in specifying body stances although they may sacrifice specificity of exact joint location in space. Users prefer interactivity to accuracy. Users also prefer abstractions in objects such as body models over realism when realism affects real-time display. One of the more startling observations we have made in relation to working with choreographers is that not only has the interface evolved in response to user feedback, but that choreographers method of creating has evolved or enlarged as a result of working with a computer-based creative tool. Our conclusion is that the design process is symbiotic, and that both the design of the interface and the design of the task for which the interface is created effect one another deeply.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8,

9.

10.

11.

Strauss, P., and Carey, R. An Object-Oriented 3D Graphics Toolkit. Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH 92), 26,2, (July 1992), pp. 341-349. Schiphorst, T., Calvert, T., Lee, C., Welman, C. and Gaudet, S, Tools for Interaction with the Creative Process of Composition, Proc. CHI90, (Seattle, April 1990), pp. 167-174. Simon, H.A. The Sciences of the Artificial. Press, Cambridge, MA., 1969. MIT

12.

6. 1.

REFERENCES
Akin,
Pattern

O.

How Do Architects
in Computer

Design?,
Aided

In Al and
Design, ed.

13.

Recognition

Latombe, 2,

IFIP, North-Holland,

1978, pp. 65-103. 14.

Brightman P. Making dances with algorithms: Towards a theory of choreography, based on the use of computer programs and Laban concepts. M.A. Thesis, Columbia University, 1984.

Welman, C. Inverse Kinematics Through Differential Manipulation. In Proceedings of the Western Computer Graphics Symposium , (1992), pp. 123-128.

122