The research concepts introduced by this paper indeed are important and are of interest to TOG readers of the special issue on user interface technology. However, this paper treats the problem of creating graphic design assistants too superficially for a computer graphics research audience. Yet on the other hand, it presents too many details of the implementation suitable for a reader unfamiliar with artificial intelligence techniques.

The most important omission is the framework supporting the ideas in this research. The paper wanders through several important concepts (design constraints, and the Analysis—Critique—Synthesis structure) without sufficiently revealing the underlying principles.

I believe that this is an important and early step in the introduction of graphic design knowledge. With only two design principles (significant difference in size or location) presented, the paper is unclear about how effective this work is in handling additional perceptual difficulties of color, typography, containment relationships, textures, and so on.

The graphic design literature is cited, but poorly integrated in the body of the paper, mainly cited as a pointer for the readers to search for their own accumulation of graphic design knowledge. I would prefer that the important contributions from the cited works be described.

Several works appear in the references but are not cited in the paper. The graphical style work by Beach and Stone relates to the variation of rendering attributes; Borning's work on constraints helps determine how constraints should be specified and satisfied; the work by Mackinlay (correct spelling) on ``Automatic design of graphical presentations'' and his criteria for assessing designs are extremely relevant to this paper; the visual design work by Roach et al. and Scholl are tantalizing in the references but not described in the paper.

Introduction, para 2: The ``views'' in this paragraph are Steamer views, rather than more general ones. The introductory sentence should clarify this.

Introduction, para 2: The last sentence refers to ``incremental refinement.'' Does this refer to the use of the Steamer Graphical Editor without Designer?

Overview, para 1: What is the definition of ``visual expertise''? Examples?

Overview, para 1, 3rd sentence: This sentence contains awkward comma punctuation and parallel structure in ``sets of constraints for establishing a context, or style, for critiquing a design.''

Domain-Dependent ..., para 1: The references to a large set of graphic design knowledge might be better introduced by annotating what kind of knowledge can be gained from each reference. The claim that ``Designer incorporates much of this knowledge'' is unsubstantiated by the remainder of the paper and by the lack of an enumeration of the knowledge gleaned from the list of references.

Domain-Dependent ..., para 2: The material on ``MSG flavor enhancer'' is not well motivated or connected to representing graphic design knowledge. What is missing is a motivating description of why it is hard to represent graphic design knowledge.

Relationships: What are the principles that guided the inclusion of graphic-relationships knowledge in Designer? What is presented is detail from an example.

Constraints, para 1: The example principle ``Significant Difference of Size'' is discussed in terms of both size and location. Later the paper clarifies that there are two significant difference principles.

Constraints, para 1-2: Only a small number of principles and standards are considered. Is it known if the research extends gracefully to a much larger set of constraints?

Constraints, para 1-2: The representation or specification of constraints is not described. Is it unimportant?

Design Context, para 2: Where did the concepts illustrated in Figure 10 come from? How are constraints related to the design context?

Analysis, para 1: Should ``elements instance variables'' use the possessive or is it ``the instance variables of the elements class''?

Analysis, para 2: The reference to ``beautifying diagrams'' does not identify what relevant work was accomplished in the cited research.

Critique, para 1: The detail of ``comments are Flavor objects'' and ``comments, displayed in the scrolling pane'' are nits, compared to the importance of relating the critque to the objects being critiqued. The paragraph should be reworded to present the most important concepts first, then, supporting detail can be introduced.

Critique, para 1: It is unclear, from either the written material or the accompanying figures, what the designer sees of the graphical design under development. For instance, does the designer work only with the screen images in Figures 10 or 11?

Critique, para 2: It is not obvious how the statement ``It is thus possible'' relates to the detail of critiquing presented in the previous paragraph. Does the possibility exist because of the critiquing technique or because one can specify independent styles?

Synthesis, para 2: At this point in the paper, it is unclear how the designs are modified to satisfy the constraints. Only two constraints, Significant Difference of Size, and Significant Difference of Location, are identified. How would more constraints be handled, such as choice of color, choice of typography, choice of containment?

Synthesis, para 3-4: The brief introduction of ATMS raises the question of who is the audience for this paper? Is the reader expected to have sufficient insight into ATMS to determine how such a system provides support for Designer. The proof of its necessity and effectiveness are missing.