Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:43:13.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sketching across design domains: Roles and formalities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2012

Claudia Eckert ,
Alan Blackwell ,
Martin Stacey ,
Christopher Earl  and
Luke Church
Claudia Eckert
Affiliation:
Design Group, DDEM, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Alan Blackwell
Affiliation:
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Martin Stacey
Affiliation:
Faculty of Technology, De Montfort University, Leicester, United Kingdom
Christopher Earl
Affiliation:
Design Group, DDEM, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Luke Church
Affiliation:
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To complement studies on design sketching within particular phases of design processes in specific design domains, this paper analyzes descriptions of design processes given by designers from a wide variety of fields. This research forms part of a wider project on comparisons across design domains and draws attention to the many types and properties of sketches in different contexts. Further, it focuses on the multiple roles that sketching can take in idea generation, as well as in reasoning and communicating design ideas. In particular this paper examines how the different types and roles of sketches can be more or less formal and how this can lead to misunderstandings.

Keywords

Design DomainsDesign ProcessesSketching
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 26 , Issue 3: Sketching and Pen-Based Design Interaction , August 2012 , pp. 245 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps [Sémiologie graphique: les diagrammes, les réseaux, les cartes] (Berg, W.J., Trans). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Black, A. (1990). Visible planning on paper and on screen: the impact of working medium on decision-making by novice graphic designers. Behaviour and Information Technology 9(4), 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A.F. (2011). Visual representation. In Encyclopedia of Human–Computer Interaction. Accessed February 1, 2011, at http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/visual_representation.htmlGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A.F., Church, L., Plimmer, B., & Gray, D. (2008). Formality in sketches and visual representation: Some informal reflections. In Sketch Tools for Diagramming (Plimmer, B., & Hammond, T., Eds.), workshop at VL/HCC 2008, pp. 11–18.Google Scholar
Blackwell, A.F., Eckert, C.M., Bucciarelli, L.L., & Earl, C.F. (2009). Witnesses to design: a phenomenology of comparative design. Design Issues 25(1), 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A.F., & Green, T.R.G. (2003). Notational systems—the cognitive dimensions of notations framework. In HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science (Carroll, J.M., Ed.), pp. 103–134. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A.F., Hewson, R.L., & Green, T.R.G. (2003). Product design to support user abstractions. In Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (Hollnagel, E., Ed.), pp. 525–545. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bly, S.A. (1988). A use of drawing surfaces in different collaborative settings. Proc. CSCW'88, pp. 250–256. Portland, OR: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boujut, J.-F., & Blanco, E. (2003). Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresciani, S., Blackwell, A.F., & Eppler, M. (2008). A collaborative dimensions framework: understanding the mediating role of conceptual visualizations in collaborative knowledge work. Proc. 41st Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences (HICCS 08), pp. 180–189. New York: IEEE Computer Society Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carlile, P.R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13, 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, L.E., & Blackwell, A.F. (2011, March). Computation, visualisation and critical reflection. Proc. Visualisation in the Age of Computerisation, pp. 33 and 46. Available at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/publications/ChurchBlackwell.pdfGoogle Scholar
DeLahunta, S., McGregor, W., & Blackwell, A.F. (2004). Transactables. Performance Research 9(2), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Do, E.Y.-L. (2002). Drawing marks, acts and reacts: towards a computational sketching interface for architectural design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downie, M. (2008). Field—a new environment for making digital art. Computers in Entertainment 6(4), Article 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M. (2001). The communication bottleneck in knitwear design: analysis and computing solutions. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 10(1), 29–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., Blackwell, A.D., Bucciarelli, L.L., & Earl, C.F. (2010). Shared conversations across design. Design Issues 26(3), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C.M., & Stacey, M.K. (2000). Sources of inspiration: a language of design. Design Studies 21(5), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, Y. (2002). The language of graphics. A framework for the analysis of syntax and meaning in maps, charts and diagrams. PhD Thesis. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ferguson, E.S. (1992). Engineering and the Mind's Eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Finke, R.A. (1990). Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal 4, 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design Studies 15, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1996). The designer as a team of one. In Analysing Design Activity (Cross, N.G., Christiaans, H.H.C.M., & Dorst, K., Eds.), pp. 65–91. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design Issues 19(1), 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, T. R. G. (1989) Cognitive dimensions of notations. In People and Computers V (Sutcliffe, A., & Macaulay, L., Eds.), pp. 443–460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, T.R.G., & Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ approach. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 7, 131–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible databases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16, 448–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, K. (1999). On Line and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hendry, D.G. (2004). Communication functions and the adaptation of design representations in interdisciplinary teams. Proc. 5th Conf. Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 123–132. Cambridge, MA: ACM.Google Scholar
Hisarciklilar, O., & Boujut, J.-F. (2009). An annotation model to reduce ambiguity in design communication. Research in Engineering Design 20, 171–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, F. (1999). Advantages and limitations of formal expression. Foundations of Science 4, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollands, K., Wing, A., & Daffertshofer, A. (2004). Principal components in contemporary dance movements. Proc. Society for Neuroscience Conf., pp. 23–27, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Herold, J., & Stahovich, T.F. (2011). Using speech to identify gesture pen strokes in collaborative, multimodal device descriptions. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 25, 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A.N. (1983). What does it mean to be a high imager? In Imagery, Memory and Cognition: Essays in Honor of Allan Paivio (Yuille, J.C., Ed.), pp. 39–63. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ko, A.J., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Blackwell, A.F., Burnett, M., Erwig, M., Lawrence, J., Lieberman, H., Myers, B., Rosson, M.-B., Rothermel, G., Scaffidi, C., Shaw, M., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2011). The state of the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys 43(3), Article 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, T. (2002). Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: some philosophical issues. Design Studies 23(3), 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadzean, J., Cross, N.G., & Johnson, J.H. (1999). Notation and cognition in conceptual sketching. Proc. VR'99, Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macomber, B., & Yang, M.C. (2011). The role of sketch finish and style in user responses to early stage design concepts. Proc. 2011 ASME Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2011-48714. Washington, DC: ASME.Google Scholar
Minneman, S.L. (1991). The social construction of a technical reality: empirical studies of group engineering design practice. PhD Thesis. Stanford University, Department of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Morand, D.A. (1995). The role of behavioral formality and informality in the enactment of bureaucratic versus organic organizations. Academy of Management Review 20, 831–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, I., & Lee, J. (1994). Conversations with graphics: implications for the design of natural language/graphics interfaces. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 40, 509–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olofsson, E., & Sjölén, K. (2005). Design Sketching. Sundsvall, Sweden: Keeos Design Books.Google Scholar
Pache, M., Römer, A., Lindemann, U., & Hacker, W. (2001). Re-interpretation of conceptual design sketches in mechanical engineering. Proc. 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2001-21711. Washington, DC: ASME.Google Scholar
Pei, E., Campbell, I.R., & Evans, M.A. (2010). Development of a tool for building shared representations among industrial designers and engineering designers. CoDesign 6, 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pei, E., Campbell, I.R., & Evans, M.A. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. Design Journal 14, 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prats, M., Earl, C.F, Garner, S., & Jowers, I. (2006). Shape exploration of designs in a style: towards generation of product designs, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, A.T., & Gero, J.S. (1998). Drawings and the design process. Design Studies 19, 389–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reymen, I.M.M.J. (2001). Improving design processes through structured reflection: a domain-independent approach. PhD Thesis. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their function in designing. Design Studies 13, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, M., Sachse, P., & Römer, A. (2003). Support value of sketching in the design process. Research in Engineering Design 14, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Song, S., & Agogino, A.M. (2004). Insights on designers' sketching activities in product design teams. Proc. 2004 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conf., Paper No. DETC2004-57474. Washington, DC: ASME.Google Scholar
Stacey, M.K., & Eckert, C.M. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12, 153–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, M.K., Eckert, C.M., & McFadzean, J. (1999). Sketch interpretation in design communication. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Engineering Design, Vol. 2, pp. 923–928. Lafayette, CO: WDK.Google Scholar
Star, S.L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals on Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, J.C. (1989). Listing, drawing and gesturing in design: a study of the use of shared workspaces by design teams, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Report SSL-89-3. PhD Thesis. Stanford University, Department of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Tang, J.C. (1991). Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 34, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, J.C., & Leifer, L. (1988). A framework for understanding the workspace activity of design teams. Proc. CSCW'88, pp. 226–232. Portland, OR: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, D.G., Wood, S., & Craig, D. (1990). The importance of drawing in the mechanical design process. Computers & Graphics 14, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies 26, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Henderson, A.M., & Parsons, T., Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, M.C. (2009). Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 20, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, M.C., & Cham, J.G. (2007). An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early stage engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design 129, 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar