Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:45:53.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RE-THINKING DESIGN REPRESENTATIONS IN DESIGN EDUCATION: AN INTERVIEW STUDY WITH PROFESSIONAL DESIGNERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Siw Eriksson ,
Pontus Wallgren  and
MariAnne Karlsson
Siw Eriksson*
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
Pontus Wallgren
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
MariAnne Karlsson
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
*
Eriksson, Siw, Monica Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, esiw@chalmers.se

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Design representations are important tools for designers in the design process. To help designers choose the appropriate representation, taxonomies have been proposed based on type, degree of fidelity, and when to use them. However, Design representations may also play an important role in designers' communication with users and enabling users as co-designers. Therefore, new taxonomies, focusing on design representations’ potential mediating roles in collaborative design processes with users, have been developed. The purpose of this interview study, with twelve designers within Swedish industry, was thus to investigate how designers use design representations in communication with users in the design process. The study indicates that the designers mainly interacted with users in order for them to answer specific design questions or to evaluate design solutions. If design representations’ value for facilitating communication and collaboration with users should be emphasized, we need to shift from teaching mainly taxonomies related to fidelity levels or when to use them in the design process, and rather educate future designers about design representations inherent potential to mediate and enhance the dialogue with users.

Keywords

Design representationCollaborative designDesign educationUser centred designRepresentation TaxonomiesTax
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3095 - 3104
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bailey, D.E., Leonardi, P.M. and Barley, S.R. (2012), “The Lure of the Virtual”, Organization Science, 23(5), pp.1485–1504. available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, A. and Grimheden, M. (2011), “The importance of prototyping for education in product innovation engineering”, in ICORD 11: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Research into Design Engineering, Bangalore, India, 10.-12.01. 2011.Google Scholar
Berglund, A. and Leifer, L. (2013), “Why we prototype! An international comparison of the linkage between embedded knowledge and objective learning”, Engineering Education, 8(1), pp.2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilda, Z. and Demirkan, H. (2003), “An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media”, Design Studies, 24(1), pp. 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, E. (2001), Event-Driven Product Development: Collaboration and Learning, Diss., Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
Brandt, E. (2007), “How Tangible Mock-Ups Support Design Collaboration”, Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), pp. 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buskermolen, D.O. and Terken, J. (2012) “The use of design representations for design communication: insights from practice”, In DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 1535–1544.Google Scholar
Buur, J. and Bødker, S. (2000), “From usability lab to design collaboratorium reframing usability practice”, In Boyarski, D. and Kellogg, W. A., eds., Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, New York, U.S., ACM, 297–307, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/347642.347768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, R.E. (2005), Involving users in the design process: the role of product representations in co-designing, Diss., Loughborough University.Google Scholar
Do, E.Y.-L., Gross, M.D., Neiman, B. and Zimring, C. (2000), “Intentions in and relations among design drawings”, Design Studies, 21(5), pp. 483–503, available: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00020-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorta, T., Safin, S., Boudhraâ, S. and Marchand, E.B. (2019), “Co-Designing in social VR. Process awareness and suitable representations to empower user participation”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11004.Google Scholar
Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2008), “The qualitative content analysis process”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), pp.107–115, available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelbrektsson, P. (2004), Enabling the user: exploring methodological effects on user requirements elicitation, Diss., Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
Eriksson, S. (2014), The Mediating Role of Product Representations; A Study with Three-Dimensional Textiles in Early Phases of Innovation, Licentiate, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
Eriksson, S., Wallgren, P., Sandsjö, L. and Karlsson, M. (2021) “Genuine co-design: an activity theory analysis involving emergency nurses in an interdisciplinary new product development project of a novel medical device”, International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 8(4), pp. 331–369, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijhfe.2021.10041817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V. (1995), Sketches of thought, MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1991) “The dialectics of sketching”, Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2014), “Modeling the Role of Sketching in Design Idea Generation” in Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L. T. M., eds., An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations, London: Springer London, pp. 433–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, R., Whitney, D. and Zeltzer, D. (1997) “Prototyping and design for assembly analysis using multimodal virtual environments”, Computer-Aided Design, 29(8), pp. 585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houde, S. and Hill, C. (1997) “What do Prototypes Prototype?” in Helander, M., Landauer, P. and Prabhu, P., eds., Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction 2nd ed., Elsevies Science, Amsterdam, pp. 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, M. (1996), User Requirements elicitation A framework for the study of the relation between user and artefact, Diss., Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
Kuutti, K, Tuikka, T, Kerttula, M, Pulli, P, Salmela, M & Lehtonen, J. (1997), “Communication and cooperation in a virtual design space”, In Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, PICMET'97, Portland, Oregon, United States, 23/07/97.Google Scholar
Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E. and Tenenberg, J. (2008), “The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 15(2), pp. 1–27, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1375761.1375762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldaña, J. (2014), Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 3. ed., Sage Publication, US.Google Scholar
Pei, E. and Self, J.A. (2022), Product Design and the Role of Representation: Foundations for Design Thinking in Practice, CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pei, E.C., Ian. Evans, Mark (2011), “A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers”, The Design Journal, 14(1), pp. 64–91, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175630610X12877385838803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrakis, K., Hird, A. and Wodehouse, A. (2019), “The concept of purposeful prototyping: Towards a new kind of taxonomic classification”, in International Conference on Engineering Design, Cambridge University Press, 1643–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Reid, T.N., MacDonald, E.F. and Du, P. (2013), “Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment”, Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(9), pp. 091008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, J., Seibel, K. and Rüttinger, B. (2010), “The influence of user expertise and prototype fidelity in usability tests”, Applied Ergonomics, 41(1), pp. 130–140, available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.06.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schön, D.A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, cop. New York, US.Google Scholar
Sheard, L., Marsh, C., Mills, T., Peacock, R., Langley, J., Partridge, R., Gwilt, I. and Lawton, R. (2019), “Using patient experience data to develop a patient experience toolkit to improve hospital care: a mixed-methods study”, Health Services and Delivery Research, 7(36).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleeswijk-Visser, F., Stappers, P.J., van der Lugt, R. and Sanders, E.B.N. (2005), “Contextmapping: experiences from practice”, CoDesign, 1(2), 119–149, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710880500135987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soderman, M. (2005), “Virtual reality in product evaluations with potential customers: An exploratory study comparing virtual reality with conventional product representations”, Journal of Engineering Design, 16(3), 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stompff, G. and Smulders, F. (2014), “The right fidelity: Designedly representations that enhance multidisciplinary product development”, in Proceedings of the 19th DMI: Academic design management conference, pp. 828–847, Citeseer.Google Scholar
Stompff, G. and Smulders, F. (2015), “The Right Fidelity: Representations That Speed Up Innovation Processes”, Design Management Journal, 10(1), pp. 14–26, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiainen, T., Ellman, A. and Kaapu, T. (2014), “Virtual prototypes reveal more development ideas: comparison between customers evaluation of virtual and physical prototypes”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 9(3), pp. 169–180, available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2014.934573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, D.G. (2002), The mechanical design process 3. ed., McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2012), Product design and development, 5 ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, US.Google Scholar
Visser, W. (2006), The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing 1 ed., Boca Raton, CRC Press, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M., Takayama, L. and Landay, J.A. (2002), “High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes”, In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 661–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar