 |
 |
Hi David, the part that I would hope that you would really appreciate is that the agent analysis has this rather interesting effect of including the element of ‘embodiment’ in that it represents the fact that we have evolved to have eyes in the front of our heads. My thesis in the Ikea paper is that the specific from of unintelligibility constructed in the Ikea showroom is of a lack of correlation between the one form of analysis and the other (an allocentric isotropic [same in all directions] VGA integration, and an egocentric anisotropic [forward facing] EVAS) I suggest that this form of dissonance between a long evolved, embodied and a more abstract form is what some people find so psychologically disruptive in Ikea. I suggest that this is all part of a marketing strategy designed specifically to switch power from the customer to the shop owner and that this is part of a power exchange contract in which the consenting customer is in turn rewarded. I include the two analyses and the observations, all from Farah Kazim’s Master’s thesis, as a reminder: VGA integration: Agent trails: Farah Kazim’s observations of shoppers in the store: > On 9 Dec 2016, at 18:15, David Seamon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > All, > > I appreciate this discussion of agent-based vs. integration results, though ultimately wouldn't one conclude that the original integration measures of space syntax are more accurate in predicting actual movements than the agent-based versions? > > I remember watching the agent-based simulation of agents' movements through the village of Gassin and was puzzled as to how they "clung" to the "rim" of the pathways' deformed wheel and made much less use of the pathways that were highly integrated in the integration explication. From what I remember, there was much more agreement in the Tate Gallery study where there seemed to be a good amount of commonality among agents' movements, integration, and actual visitor movement (as recorded by observers following patrons). > > I've always been puzzled as to why the move, among space syntax researchers, to an interest in agent simulation? I'm not aware of any writings that make the link conceptually as to how agent-based work is an integral part of space-syntax theory, since space syntax offers a "global" picture grounded in spatial configuration, whereas agent-based models generate a "piecemeal" picture grounded in the limited "abilities" of the "agents." > > I expect there are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches, and I'm wondering if anyone has laid them out (as well as a history of how agent-based models arose in space syntax). > > Interesting messages on this matter. Thanks, Farida, for asking the original question. > > David Seamon