制作还是绘制?调查草图和原型之间的沟通权衡

IF 1.8 Q3 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING Design Science Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.1017/dsj.2023.31
Sandeep Krishnakumar, Cynthia Letting, Erin Johnson, Nicolas F. Soria Zurita, Jessica Menold
{"title":"制作还是绘制?调查草图和原型之间的沟通权衡","authors":"Sandeep Krishnakumar, Cynthia Letting, Erin Johnson, Nicolas F. Soria Zurita, Jessica Menold","doi":"10.1017/dsj.2023.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Design representations play a crucial role in facilitating communication between individuals in design. Sketches and physical prototypes are frequently used to communicate design concepts in early-stage design. However, we lack an understanding of the communicative benefits each representation provides and how these benefits relate to the effort and resources required to create each representation. A mixed-methods study was conducted with 44 participants to identify whether sketches and physical prototypes led to different levels of cognitive load perceived by a communicator and listener and the characteristics that shape their cognitive load during communication. Results showed that listeners perceived higher levels of mental and physical demands when understanding ideas as low-fidelity physical prototypes, as compared to sketches. No significant differences were found in the cognitive load levels of communicators between the two conditions. Qualitative analyses of post-task semi-structured interviews identified five themes relating to verbal explanations and visual representations that shape designers’ cognitive load when understanding and communicating ideas through design representations. Results indicate that designers should be aware of the specific objectives they seek to accomplish when selecting the design representation used to communicate. This work contributes to the knowledge base needed for designers to use design representations more effectively as tools for communication.","PeriodicalId":54146,"journal":{"name":"Design Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Make it or draw it? Investigating the communicative trade-offs between sketches and prototypes\",\"authors\":\"Sandeep Krishnakumar, Cynthia Letting, Erin Johnson, Nicolas F. Soria Zurita, Jessica Menold\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/dsj.2023.31\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Design representations play a crucial role in facilitating communication between individuals in design. Sketches and physical prototypes are frequently used to communicate design concepts in early-stage design. However, we lack an understanding of the communicative benefits each representation provides and how these benefits relate to the effort and resources required to create each representation. A mixed-methods study was conducted with 44 participants to identify whether sketches and physical prototypes led to different levels of cognitive load perceived by a communicator and listener and the characteristics that shape their cognitive load during communication. Results showed that listeners perceived higher levels of mental and physical demands when understanding ideas as low-fidelity physical prototypes, as compared to sketches. No significant differences were found in the cognitive load levels of communicators between the two conditions. Qualitative analyses of post-task semi-structured interviews identified five themes relating to verbal explanations and visual representations that shape designers’ cognitive load when understanding and communicating ideas through design representations. Results indicate that designers should be aware of the specific objectives they seek to accomplish when selecting the design representation used to communicate. This work contributes to the knowledge base needed for designers to use design representations more effectively as tools for communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Design Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Design Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2023.31\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2023.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要设计表示在促进设计个体之间的交流方面起着至关重要的作用。在早期设计阶段,草图和实物原型经常用于传达设计概念。然而,我们缺乏对每种表示提供的交流利益的理解,以及这些利益与创建每种表示所需的努力和资源之间的关系。研究人员对44名参与者进行了一项混合方法的研究,以确定草图和实物原型是否会导致沟通者和倾听者感知到不同程度的认知负荷,以及在沟通过程中形成认知负荷的特征。结果表明,与草图相比,当听众将想法理解为低保真度的物理原型时,他们会感受到更高水平的精神和身体需求。交际者的认知负荷水平在两种情况下无显著差异。任务后半结构化访谈的定性分析确定了五个与口头解释和视觉表征相关的主题,这些主题在通过设计表征理解和交流想法时塑造了设计师的认知负荷。结果表明,设计师在选择用于沟通的设计表现形式时,应该意识到他们寻求实现的具体目标。这项工作有助于设计师更有效地使用设计表示作为沟通工具所需的知识库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Make it or draw it? Investigating the communicative trade-offs between sketches and prototypes
Abstract Design representations play a crucial role in facilitating communication between individuals in design. Sketches and physical prototypes are frequently used to communicate design concepts in early-stage design. However, we lack an understanding of the communicative benefits each representation provides and how these benefits relate to the effort and resources required to create each representation. A mixed-methods study was conducted with 44 participants to identify whether sketches and physical prototypes led to different levels of cognitive load perceived by a communicator and listener and the characteristics that shape their cognitive load during communication. Results showed that listeners perceived higher levels of mental and physical demands when understanding ideas as low-fidelity physical prototypes, as compared to sketches. No significant differences were found in the cognitive load levels of communicators between the two conditions. Qualitative analyses of post-task semi-structured interviews identified five themes relating to verbal explanations and visual representations that shape designers’ cognitive load when understanding and communicating ideas through design representations. Results indicate that designers should be aware of the specific objectives they seek to accomplish when selecting the design representation used to communicate. This work contributes to the knowledge base needed for designers to use design representations more effectively as tools for communication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Design Science
Design Science ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Design issues concerning circular economy assessment methods at the product level: a comparative analysis through a case study of a mobile tiny house Research through co-design Ilmenau’s contributions to Design Science Exploring the impact of design tool usage on design for additive manufacturing processes and outcomes Interesting and impressive: exploring design factors for product graphics interchange format to enhance engagement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1