Including functional usability features in a Model-Driven Development Method

The Software Engineering (SE) community has historically focused on working with models to represent functionality and persistence, pushing interaction modelling into the background, which has been covered by the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) community. Recently, adequately modelling interaction, and specifically usability, is being considered as a key factor for success in user acceptance, making the integration of the SE and HCI communities more necessary. If we focus on the Model-Driven Development (MDD) paradigm, we notice that there is a lack of proposals to deal with usability features from the very first steps of software development process. In general, usability features are manually implemented once the code has been generated from models. This contradicts the MDD paradigm, which claims that all the analysts? effort must be focused on building models, and the code generation is relegated to model to code transformations. Moreover, usability features related to functionality may involve important changes in the system architecture if they are not considered from the early steps. We state that these usability features related to functionality can be represented abstractly in a conceptual model, and their implementation can be carried out automatically.

Urbanism and dictatorship: perspectives of the field of urban studies

In 1933 public letter to Wilhelm Furtwängler, Joseph Goebbels synthesized the official understanding of the link between politics, art and society in the early steps of the Third Reich. By assuming the ethos of art, politics acquired a plastic agency to mold its objects —population and the state— as a unified entity in the form of a ‘national-popular community’ (Volksgemeinschaft); in turn, by infusing art with a political valence, it became part of a wider governmental apparatus that reshaped aesthetic discourses and practices. Similar remarks could be made about the ordering of cities and territories in this period. Dictatorial imaginations mobilized urbanism —including urban theory, urban design and planning— as a fundamental tool for social organization. Under their aegis the production of space became a moment in a wider production of society. Many authors suggest that this political-spatial nexus is intrinsic to modernity itself, beyond dictatorial regimes. In this light, I propose to use dictatorial urbanisms as an analytical opportunity to delve into some concealed features of modern urban design and planning. This chapter explores some of these aspects from a theoretical standpoint, focusing on the development of dictatorial planning mentalities and spatial rationalities and drawing links to other historical episodes in order to inscribe the former in a broader genealogy of urbanism. Needless to say, I don’t suggest that we use dictatorships as mere templates to understand modern productions of space. Instead, these cases provide a crude version of some fundamental drives in the operationalization of urbanism as an instrument of social regulation, showing how far the modern imagination of sociospatial orderings can go. Dictatorial urbanisms constituted a set of experiences where many dreams and aspirations of modern planning went to die. But not, as the conventional account would have it, because the former were the antithesis of the latter, but rather because they worked as the excess of a particular orientation of modern spatial governmentalities — namely, their focus on calculation, social engineering and disciplinary spatialities, and their attempt to subsume a wide range of everyday practices under institutional structuration by means of spatial mediations. In my opinion the interest of dictatorial urbanisms lies in their role as key regulatory episodes in a longer history of our urban present. They stand as a threshold between the advent of planning in the late 19th and early 20th century, and its final consolidation as a crucial state instrument after World War II. We need, therefore, to pay attention to these experiences vis-à-vis the alleged ‘normal’ development of the field in contemporary democratic countries in order to develop a full comprehension thereof.

Bridge windshield design to avoid aeroelastic phenomena

Since in 1940 the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was destroyed by the wind, aeroelastic instabilities have been recognized as one of the most challenging aspects of bridge design. They can produce long-term fatigue failure through vortex induced vibrations, or sudden collapse through self-excited flutter. These vibrations may also cause discomfort for the users and temporary closure of the bridge. Wind tunnel studies are a very helpful tool to understand these phenomena. By means of them, the critical wind speed at which vortex induced vibration and flutter appear can be precisely determined and the design of the bridge can be reconsidered in the early steps of the process. In this paper, an optimum design of the bridge section is sought. One of the most relevant parameters that influence the stability of a certain deck is the porosity of the barriers. Section model tests have been carried out to find whether an optimum value of the porosity of the barrier exists. This value or range of values must present neither vortex induced vibration nor flutter.

Gestión intelectual de las prácticas comunicativas en arquitectura : S, M, L, XL, el gran evento = The intellectual management of communication practices in architecture : S, M, L, XL, the big event

La tesis doctoral se centra en la posibilidad de entender que la práctica de arquitectura puede encontrar en las prácticas comunicativas un apoyo instrumental, que sobrepasa cualquier simplificación clásica del uso de los medios como una mera aplicación superficial, post-producida o sencillamente promocional. A partir de esta premisa se exponen casos del último cuarto del siglo XX y se detecta que amenazas como el riesgo de la banalización, la posible saturación de la imagen pública o la previsible asociación incorrecta con otros individuos en presentaciones grupales o por temáticas, han podido influir en un crecimiento notable de la adquisición de control, por parte de los arquitectos, en sus oportunidades mediáticas. Esto es, como si la arquitectura hubiera empezado a superar y optimizar algo inevitable, que las fórmulas expositivas y las publicaciones, o más bien del exponer(se) y publicar(se), son herramientas disponibles para activar algún tipo de gestión intelectual de la comunicación e información circulante sobre si misma. Esta práctica de “autoedición” se analiza en un periodo concreto de la trayectoria de OMA -Office for Metropolitan Architecture-, estudio considerado pionero en el uso eficiente, oportunista y personalizado de los medios. Así, la segunda parte de la tesis se ocupa del análisis de su conocida monografía S,M,L,XL (1995), un volumen que contó con gran participación por parte de sus protagonistas durante la edición, y de cuyo proceso de producción apenas se había investigado. Esta publicación señaló un punto de inflexión en su género alterando todo formato y restricciones anteriores, y se ha convertido en un volumen emblemático para la disciplina que ninguna réplica posterior ha podido superar. Aquí se presenta a su vez como el desencadenante de la construcción de un “gran evento” que concluye en la transformación de la identidad de OMA en 10 años, paradójicamente entre el nacimiento de la Fundación Groszstadt y el arranque de la actividad de AMO, dos entidades paralelas clave anexas a OMA. Este planteamiento deviene de cómo la investigación desvela que S,M,L,XL es una pieza más, central pero no independiente, dentro de una suma de acciones e individuos, así como otras publicaciones, exposiciones, eventos y también artículos ensayados y proyectos, en particular Bigness, Generic City, Euralille y los concursos de 1989. Son significativos aspectos como la apertura a una autoría múltiple, encabezada por Rem Koolhaas y el diseñador gráfico Bruce Mau, acompañados en los agradecimientos de la editora Jennifer Sigler y cerca de una centena de nombres, cuyas aportaciones no necesariamente se basan en la construcción de fragmentos del libro. La supresión de ciertos límites permite superar también las tareas inicialmente relevantes en la edición de una publicación. Un objetivo general de la tesis es también la reflexión sobre relaciones anteriormente cuestionadas, como la establecida entre la arquitectura y los mercados o la economía. Tomando como punto de partida la idea de “design intelligence” sugerida por Michael Speaks (2001), se extrae de sus argumentos que lo esencial es el hallazgo de la singularidad o inteligencia propia de cada estudio de arquitectura o diseño. Asimismo se explora si en la construcción de ese tipo de fórmulas magistrales se alojaban también combinaciones de interés y productivas entre asuntos como la eficiencia y la creatividad, o la organización y las ideas. En esta dinámica de relaciones bidireccionales, y en ese presente de exceso de información, se fundamenta la propuesta de una equivalencia más evidenciada entre la “socialización” del trabajo del arquitecto, al compartirlo públicamente e introducir nuevas conversaciones, y la relación inversa a partir del trabajo sobre la “socialización” misma. Como si la consciencia sobre el uso de los medios pudiera ser efectivamente instrumental, y contribuir al desarrollo de la práctica de arquitectura, desde una perspectiva idealmente comprometida e intelectual. ABSTRACT The dissertation argues the possibility to understand that the practice of architecture can find an instrumental support in the practices of communication, overcoming any classical simplification of the use of media, generally reduced to superficial treatments or promotional efforts. Thus some cases of the last decades of the 20th century are presented. Some threats detected, such as the risk of triviality, the saturation of the public image or the foreseeable wrong association among individuals when they are introduced as part of thematic groups, might have encouraged a noticeable increase of command taken by architects when there is chance to intervene in a media environment. In other words, it can be argued that architecture has started to overcome and optimize the inevitable, the fact that exhibition formulas and publications, or simply the practice of (self)exhibition or (self)publication, are tools at our disposal for the activation of any kind of intellectual management of communication and circulating information about itself. This practice of “self-edition” is analyzed in a specific timeframe of OMA’s trajectory, an office that is considered as a ground-breaking actor in the efficient and opportunistic use of media. Then the second part of the thesis dissects their monograph S,M,L,XL (1995), a volume in which its main characters were deeply involved in terms of edition and design, a process barely analyzed up to now. This publication marked a turning point in its own genre, disrupting old formats and traditional restrictions. It became such an emblematic volume for the discipline that none of the following attempts of replica has ever been able to improve this precedent. Here, the book is also presented as the element that triggers the construction of a “big event” that concludes in the transformation of OMA identity in 10 years. Paradoxically, between the birth of the Groszstadt Foundation and the early steps of AMO, both two entities parallel and connected to OMA. This positions emerge from how the research unveils that S,M,L,XL is one more piece, a key one but not an unrelated element, within a sum of actions and individuals, as well as other publications, exhibitions, articles and projects, in particular Bigness, Generic City, Euralille and the competitions of 1989. Among the remarkable innovations of the monograph, there is an outstanding openness to a regime of multiple authorship, headed by Rem Koolhaas and the graphic designer Bruce Mau, who share the acknowledgements page with the editor, Jennifer Sigler, and almost 100 people, not necessarily responsible for specific fragments of the book. In this respect, the dissolution of certain limits made possible that the expected tasks in the edition of a publication could be trespassed. A general goal of the thesis is also to open a debate on typically questioned relations, particularly between architecture and markets or economy. Using the idea of “design intelligence”, outlined by Michael Speaks in 2001, the thesis pulls out its essence, basically the interest in detecting the singularity, or particular intelligence of every office of architecture and design. Then it explores if in the construction of this kind of ingenious formulas one could find interesting and useful combinations among issues like efficiency and creativity, or organization and ideas. This dynamic of bidirectional relations, rescued urgently at this present moment of excess of information, is based on the proposal for a more evident equivalence between the “socialization” of the work in architecture, anytime it is shared in public, and the opposite concept, the work on the proper act of “socialization” itself. As if a new awareness of the capacities of the use of media could turn it into an instrumental force, capable of contributing to the development of the practice of architecture, from an ideally committed and intelectual perspective.