Upload
ashleyadamsreed
View
203
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Corresponding author:
Catherine [email protected].
uk
scovering: how do student
Seeing and didesigners reinterpret sketches and digitalmarks during graphic design ideation?Catherine Stones and Tom Cassidy, School of Design,
University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
This paper discusses and examines the impact that design tools have on
reinterpretation during graphic design ideation activity. It discusses the vital role
that reinterpretation plays in the design process and reviews existing empirical
studies concerning reinterpretation. It also discusses broadly the differences in
ambiguity levels of conventional paper-based sketches and digital tools. The
paper presents results of an experiment designed to capture and compare
instances of reinterpretation by student designers. The results suggest that, while
students are capable of reinterpreting the digital marks as other forms, they are
less successful at turning those new digital forms into new ideas. It would appear
that whilst not causing reinterpretation, paper-based sketches, more than digital
tools, can support the vital process of reinterpretation that generates new ideas.
� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: creativity, design process, design tools, drawing, graphic design
It is vital that we equip students with the ability to make well-informed
decisions about tool choice and tool use during design ideation. As well
as teaching production skills using tools (for example, how to draw
more accurately, or to use software more efficiently), could we also teach stu-
dents how to use tools to facilitate the generation, not just the execution, of
ideas? A fundamental question that this paper raises is e to what extent do ex-
ternalisation methods and use of particular tools impact upon the ideation
stage of design?
Broadly the purpose of this paper is to discuss:
1. Why reinterpretation is an important part of ideation activity.
2. To what extent tool use may impact upon the process of reinterpretation
for student designers.
1 What is a tool?Tools are used to externalise ideas and mental images. A tool may be defined
as ‘a moving entity whose use is initiated and actively guided by a human be-
ing, for whom it acts as an extension toward a specific purpose’ (McCullough,
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 31 (2010) 439e460
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.05.003 439� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
440
1998, p. 68). The specific purpose of the tools in this study, is the design of an
artefact, as the hand is physically extended by an ability to make external
marks, be those on paper or on screen.
This paper examines two broad ‘tools’ e use of pencil and paper (resulting in
a sketch) and the digital design tool (design software running on a computer sys-
tem). The term ‘sketch’ refers to the result of a rough, preliminary mark-making
activity. Sketching, according toMcKim (1972, p. 123) is performed quickly and
has a freshness which is not always evident in a polished, drawn-up version of the
design. It is also concerned with broad features rather than details.
The digital design tool refers to any computer-based graphics software in
which selection and manipulation of pre-defined shapes or freehand lines
can occur. Preliminary digital designing is the focus of this paper, which,
like sketching, is a phrase used here to describe rough and possibly playful de-
signing, early on in the design process. The particular features of a specific soft-
ware package is less interesting to us at this stage than the two key methods of
digital design working e freehand digital drawing (self-generated marks) and
shape selection and generation (ready-made marks).
Particular tools make, by application of default settings, particular types of
marks with certain visual characteristics. Bermudez andKing (2000, p. 41) refer
to their view that ‘rather than being neutral, transparent and timeless, media
and processes are intentional, substantial and timely’. Media provide a context
or an environment within which we consider our design discipline. Putting this
in a designer’s terms, the software or pencil may ‘frame’ our view of our actions.
The impact of the form and shape of the marks made on design thinking is one
area to examine. Implicit in this however, is the examination of how the marks
are made, and the impact of that process of making on the process of thinking.
There is evidence to suggest that, for instance, the word processor impacts on
certain processes whenwriting. Haas (1990, p. 166) comparedwriting using pen
and paper with writing on a word processor and found that planning was much
more extensive when using pen and paper. Kellogg and Mueller (1993, p. 41)
also suggested that rather than improving cognitive performance the word pro-
cessor encouraged the adoption of a poorer writing style. It seems reasonable
to suggest that design software could play an even larger part in the way we de-
sign e not only in the restructuring of design activity and focus but also, given
the importance of visual information for the designer, the way we generate
ideas. This paper focuses on examining the impact that tools may have on
one particular process, the process of reinterpretation.
2 What is reinterpretation?A complex, bi-directional cognitive process occurs as the designer sketches.
Schon (1995, p. 76) famously described the act of sketching as a conversation
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
How do student designe
which takes place between the architect and the drawn marks. Similarly
Laseau (1989, p. 7) stated that ‘the process of graphic thinking can be seen
as a conversation with ourselves in which we communicate with sketches’.
Whilst both quotes are from the field of architecture this design dialogue exists
across design disciplines (Maeda, 2000; Vermaas, 1997). The sketch is not nec-
essarily a full representation of ‘the mind’s eye on paper’, but instead repre-
sents an on-going process of selection, reflection and change. Fish and
Scrivener (1990, p. 122) discussed how drawing in particular involves both ma-
nipulation of mental imagery and perception of external elements in partner-
ship. The perception of a sketch may help generate a mental image that, in
turn, may produce more sketches which may, again, generate another mental
image, and so on and so forth. This, put simply, is the process of ‘reinterpre-
tation’. Reinterpretation is important since it is a valuable source of new, un-
expected ideas, which generally could be described as an outcome of a lateral
thinking process (De Bono, 1970). To have several ideas in the early stages of
a design is useful since it enables the designer to have a rich set of solutions to
choose from, enables the client to be shown more solutions and it can also con-
firm the strength of one particular solution by comparing it to many other at-
tempts. Reinterpretation then, is an act that would be highly beneficial for
student designers to harness. It cannot be claimed that reinterpretation in itself
leads to better quality design outcomes, but it is a valuable means of generat-
ing alternatives upon which evaluation can then take place.
Goldschmidt (1994, p. 164) described a principle in which ‘one reads off the
sketch more information than was invested in its making’. She argued that,
when the drawer begins, they often only have a vague notion of what they
will draw and only after drawing activity commences and proceeds, do
new graphic relationships become apparent. This is not necessarily a given
however e the drawer must be attentive to the new potential relationships.
In a related study Verstijnen, Van Leeuwen, Goldschmidt, Hamel, and
Hennessey (1998, p. 178) examined the processes by which discovery occurs
when designers use only mental imagery and when they externalise ideas us-
ing sketching. They identified two processes by which discoveries take place
during the combination of figures e combining and restructuring. The latter
process is very much related to reinterpretation and requires a shift in per-
ception which, Verstijnen et al. (1998, p. 197) argued requires externalisation
(as it is too difficult to perform through mental imagery alone) and also re-
quires a certain level of drawing expertise. When comparing the performance
of novice and expert designers they concluded that only the expert designers
could use their proficient sketching skills to facilitate restructuring.
Goldschmidt (2003, p. 81) also acknowledged that skill is required. This rai-
ses the question, which this paper hopes to address, of whether and how stu-
dent graphic designers can readily reinterpret marks without having had
tuition specifically dealing with reinterpretation.
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 441
442
2.1 Ambiguity, reinterpretation and toolsReinterpretation is seen as a valuable process and is linked to the quality of
ambiguity. Ambiguity can be defined as ‘interpretable in two or more distinct
ways’ or as ‘vague or imprecise’ (Stacey & Eckert, 2003, p. 153). Draft designs
rendered in pen or pencil sketches have this element of ambiguity. Rough, un-
tidy sketching allows the designer to work quickly, suspending judgement on
polished features. Rough sketches also act as visual reminder of areas still to be
resolved, and, most importantly for this study, may help trigger the formation
of new ideas (Fish & Scrivener, 1990, p. 120; Goel, 1995, p. 193; Goldschmidt,
1991, p. 131).
Many default digital marks have a finished appearance, such as a rendered
typeface or a shape selected from a menu. Due to this certainty in appearance
the digital mark, when used in the early stages of design could, as Lawson
pointed out, prove destructive and restrictive, unless it is deliberately sub-
verted (Lawson, 1997, p. 298). Black’s (1990, p. 288) work on examining the
impact of medium on decision making of student graphic designers is small
in scale but nonetheless important as early research into the differences be-
tween digital and paper-based graphic designing. Her findings suggest that stu-
dents judged their work using a different set of criteria when designing with the
computer and that a finished appearance forms part of that judgement, as if
the students were mistaking a high level of finish with design proficiency.
Though Black’s study is old, the essential characteristics of graphic design soft-
ware have not fundamentally changed e for instance, shapes are still selected
from menus and bezier curves are manipulated. Students however have be-
come more digitally proficient, and the computer ubiquitous, and thus up-
dated studies of this kind are still required if we are to understand how to
adjust teaching methods accordingly.
A digital mark can be ambiguous in appearance i.e. drawn with the free-
hand tool, or is thin or light coloured. A pixellated line, for instance, shares
qualities both of a smudged and a wobbly line. The degree of ambiguity can
also be dependent on the choice of digital tool. Software such as Corel’s
Painter feature an array of ‘softer’ tools in the tool palette enabling the
user to overlay soft lines and textures on top of each other, allowing the cre-
ation of the alternative contours and missing contour lines that Fish and
Scrivener (1990, p. 120) class as ambiguous qualities of sketching. In Adobe
Photoshop a brush tool was used to replicate qualities of sketching, shown
in Figure 1.
Jonson’s (2005) work showed that ‘aha’ moments by students were possible
when using the computer though did not examine the exact processes that af-
fected these moments of insight, for instance whether the type of digital mark
aided this process or whether reinterpretation played a part in the creative
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
Figure 1 Digital marks with
ambiguous characteristics
How do student designe
moment. Clearly digital design has much potential in terms of creative output
(Sass & Oxman, 2006, p. 327) e see for instance the digitally playful work of
graphic designer April Greiman or John Maeda, or the products and build-
ings designed by Ron Arad (in which his digital sketchpad enables ambiguous
digital sketching to occur even after detailed specification have been made,
subverting the conventional order of drafting) or architectural structures by
Zaha Hadid in which new organic forms become possible due in part to hy-
brid working methods adopted. Digital designing allows the designer to move
beyond what he or she can draw and this, coupled with new materials in the
fields of architecture and product design make innovative work possible, ex-
panding the notion of ambiguity away from the quality of a line to the poten-
tially boundless possibilities of machine-generated imagery. What we have,
particularly relevant in this study regarding graphic design, in the work of
Greiman is the establishment of a digital aesthetic where surface and form
is pushed into a new realm by the freedom the digital tool affords. How
can we encourage students to adopt hybrid or innovative practises when
they are still learning to use industry-standard tools? We first need to under-
stand their current approaches to designing digitally in order to teach it
effectively.
If some digital lines appear fixed in appearance using default settings, in
some sense, the fluidity of their capability to be transformed can counter
this rigidity. In the work of graphic designer, April Greiman, for instance,
this playfulness of digital forms is evident and fluidity of manipulation
leads to new ideas. Oxman (2008) calls for a new conceptual model for
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 443
444
considering design thinking in a digital age, discussing whether we still
need to consider ‘reflection-in-action’ as an appropriate model. Oxman
(2008, p. 101) reflects that the exploration and manipulation of graphical
symbols has become less relevant in the field of digital design but is this
reflected in student graphic designers’ working methods and in the indus-
try-standard tools they use?
There clearly is a method for making ambiguous digital marks but is it the gen-
eral chosen method used by student designers? Stones and Cassidy (2007)
found that students working digitally were much more likely to use ready-
made, unambiguous shapes than construct them using freehand tools. The
study however used typefaces for its particular task and thus we might imagine
that it just would be more likely that students would select a typeface than self-
construct a letter form. This paper also seeks to examine whether there is
a preference for students when working with more open shapes which are
not readily part of a selectable menu of ready-made forms.
2.2 Reinterpretation and tools e previous empirical studiesThere appears to be a tension in the fundamental visual qualities of marks the
tool can make e while the rough sketch celebrates ambiguity, the computer’s
mark, by default settings, appears decisive. The views presented above suggest
that ambiguity is to be highly valued and thus there is a strong case for suggest-
ing that paper-based working can aid the reinterpretation of ambiguous marks
and thus the generation of ideas when used by the student in preliminary
stages.
Goel’s (1995, p. 193) experiment involved experienced designers using both
paper and pencil and a constrained version of Macdraw. The freehand tool
on Macdraw was disabled, and line lengths, angles and point locations
were limited to a grid structure. He deliberately chose a symbol system that
was unambiguously made up of marks of precision and certainty. This is
not however as student designers would necessarily use the computer and
so whilst useful, this study does not help capture the nuances or true charac-
teristics of digital design today. It does however provide useful knowledge of
how symbol systems do not appear to support reinterpretation very well. One
of his findings was that levels of ambiguity (number of reinterpretations) were
much higher in freehand sketching than in digital working. Goel (1995, p.
213) therefore concluded that sketching supported creativity in design more
effectively than constrained computer usage, particularly in terms of support-
ing reinterpretation.
Similarly, Won (2001, p. 321) conducted an experiment, though limited in
scale, that investigated the styles of designing an interior product on paper
and on computer. He was particularly interested in the initial concept genera-
tion stage of the design process. He analysed two designers’ working methods
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
How do student designe
and concluded that working on the computer supported a more frequent inter-
change between focus on detail and focus on the whole. He also claimed that
reinterpretation and ‘seeing’ occurs more frequently on computer than when
using traditional materials (Won, 2001, p. 324) (in stark contrast to the find-
ings of Goel, 1995, p. 213). This frequency of reinterpretation could be ac-
counted for by the speed of digital working e the ability to ‘move-see-move-
see’ that computers support so effectively. Won (2001, p. 324) also concluded
that more alternatives could be generated using conventional drawing than us-
ing the computer (in agreement with Goel, 1995, p. 213). Though lacking in
scale (the comparison involved just two subjects), the results suggested that
the computer may be useful in the process of reinterpretation through its abil-
ity to provide rapid transformations.
It appears that the sketch is a potent device for stimulating reinterpretation as
suggested by many practitioners and empirically shown by Goel (1995, p. 218).
What is interesting is the opportunity to update Goel’s (1995, p. 218) study us-
ing student subjects who are unrestricted in their use of the software. Is there
any evidence to suggest that reinterpretation takes place in the digital environ-
ment when freehand, and perhaps more ambiguous lines, are made? Are there
other factors at work which might impact upon a student’s ability to
reinterpret?
3 Methodology: capturing and examiningreinterpretationThe experiment attempted to capture what happens during early design think-
ing as certain tools are used by student designers. It was hoped that using
a broad brush experimental approach we could begin to capture, study and
identify certain types of design activity, including the activity of reinterpreta-
tion. In a laboratory-style condition, using student designers, does reinterpre-
tation take place, what processes lead to reinterpretation and are there visible
differences found in the way that sketching and digital designing support
reinterpretation?
3.1 Sample size and selection methodTen students were selected to take part in the experiment. Students who
achieved marks above 65% in an undergraduate design module and who
had high attendance levels were invited to participate. The sample method
was also used to maintain a certain pedagogical consistency amongst subjects,
particularly in terms of the formal graphic design tuition they had received and
the ways in which they had been taught software skills. For example, no sub-
jects had previously received any formal training regarding how to use soft-
ware or drawing to maximise creative potential and no subjects had been
formally taught about reinterpretation or other techniques connected with
particular tool use. No mature students or students who had previously
been in full-time industry employment were selected. This again, ensured
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 445
446
a certain consistency in the sample in terms of previous experience. We must,
of course, recognise that every student and designer is different, and absolute
parity is an impossible goal.
3.2 The design tasksTwo tasks were used and subjects were given 25 min to devise ideas. 25 min,
a relatively high-pressured time limit, was chosen for two reasons. Firstly,
given the time second and final year students had available, booking students
for just a 1 h session (25 min design time, 25 min protocol capture and 10 min
for explanations and questions) was found to be a practical means of acquiring
student volunteers. Secondly, and more importantly, 25 min was deemed
a long enough time to generate a number of preliminary ideas whilst putting
the subject under pressure to think instinctively and to not have time to refine,
as the emphasis of the experiment was on generating new ideas. While Goel
(1995) gave his expert subjects more time to complete their design session
they had more elements, both image, text and concept to produce. Conversely,
Prats, Lim, Jowers, Garner, and Chase (2009) gave their subjects tasks to com-
plete of 10 and 15 min duration. Studies of this kind are, of course, artificial by
their very nature and no set time limit will replicate the natural design process.
What is crucial here is that, for the objectives of the study and for parity, the
time limit was consistently used and prompted enough solutions to be studied.
Appropriate instructions encouraged subjects to externalise as many ideas as
possible during the time duration.
Since each subject was to take part in two design sessions (one week apart) two
tasks were required. Five subjects would perform Task 1 on paper and the
other five would perform Task 1 on computer. The following week the subjects
who first used paper would perform Task 2 on computer and vice versa for the
remaining subjects. This was so that data was collected for each student using
both media, allowing for analysis to occur across 3 axes e subject, task and
medium. The tasks used are shown below.
Task 1 e Marriage Guidance Counsellor
INSTRUCTIONS
You have 25 min to devise as many ideas as possible in response to this brief.
A Marriage Guidance Counsellor wants a graphic/image-based logo as part
of her new corporate ID. It should be only black, white and/or grey and
must successfully convey, literally or in abstract terms, the activity of a mar-
riage guidance counsellor. Its design should be sympathetic to the target au-
dience which ranges from 25 to 60. It should be simple enough to be
reproduced both small and large scale. It should also aim to be visually
pleasing.
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
How do student designe
Task 2 e Security Guard Firm
INSTRUCTIONS
You have 25 min to devise as many ideas as possible in response to this brief.
A Security Guard Firm wants a graphic/image-based logo as part of their new
corporate ID. It should be only black, white and/or grey and must successfully
convey, literally or in abstract terms, the activity of a security guard firm. Its
design should be sympathetic to the needs of owners of companies requiring
these services. It should be simple enough to be reproduced both small and
large scale. It should also aim to be visually pleasing.
Logo design was chosen as the task since many aspects of graphic design are
captured in the activity of designing a logo e idea generation, synthesis of
shape, handling space, establishing harmony and balance and attention to de-
tail, to name but a few. Like posters, the artifact that Goel (1995, p. 202) used
in his experiments, the logo is both syntactically potent (it should have an
overall clarity and distinctiveness of shape which makes it instantly recognis-
able) and semantically rich (within the shape should be a representation of the
organisation’s brand values, personality or function).
Some equality of task was sought. Both tasks involved symbolising a nameless
company. Both tasks involve themes which can be reasonably well represented
using existing knowledge. They both involve synthesis of elements (e.g. a coun-
sellor and a marriage or a guard and security) and demand the need to think
both literally and metaphorically about the subject in order to produce the
largest number of ideas.
Whilst not exhaustive this general prior knowledge would be sufficient for
a task of short time duration. We do have to acknowledge the artificiality of
this particular aspect of the design task. In reality a designer would spend
a large amount of time researching and discussing a subject to uncover all as-
pects of what a client does, who their audience is and what their brand values
are.
In addition, there are many variables which could affect a student designer’s
performance:
1. Existing tool fluency and expertise.
2. Existing subject knowledge.
3. Individual performance under pressure.
4. Previous experience of logo designing.
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 447
448
Since we are dealing with human subjects there is no such thing as a perfectly
equal starting point. The best we can hope for, in attempting to examine the
graphic design process of different subjects, is to identify some frequently
used strategies, and hopefully, successful strategies, which we can then work
towards stimulating in an educational setting.
3.3 Collection of protocolProtocol analysis (Cross et al., 1996, p. 2) was used to elicit design process
information. Retrospective protocol capture was used. One of the risks, of
course, with this method is that subjects may not be able to remember what
they were thinking and their design decisions (Gero & Tang, 2001, p. 287).
The researcher however proceeded on the basis that a significant stage in the
design would be remembered if subjects were prompted and visually reminded
up to 30 min after the event. In a similar style to that adopted by Suwa and
Tversky (1997, p. 387), in order to avoid selective recall, a video recording
of the design activity was played back to the subjects.
3.4 Experiment set upAll subjects were placed in the same environment for the experiment. A com-
puter was set-up with Adobe Photoshop CS1, Macromedia Flash 9 or Adobe
Illustrator CS1 ready loaded. Subjects were able to choose their preferred piece
of software or use several pieces of software during the session. This allowed
subjects to work more naturally and hopefully more confidently at the com-
puter. The three software packages were selected because either they had
been formally taught (Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia Flash) or were
widely used independently (Adobe Illustrator) and because they supported
graphic creation using bitmap or vector based methods of working.
Subjects were given the tasks shown above and were given time to read the
brief. They were also given the opportunity to ask questions about the brief.
Subjects only tended to ask one question which was to confirm that text was
not allowed to form part of the logo.
Subjects were made aware of the fact that all their design moves were being re-
corded. Two monitors were used during the experiment for those using the com-
puter. The first monitor was used by the subjects and the second ‘mirroring’
monitorwas placed away from the subject and its on-screen activitywas recorded.
Whenworking on paper, subjects were providedwith several blank sheets ofA4
paper, the first of which was fixed to the table. Pencils, sharpeners and rubbers
were available on the desk, in order tomaximise naturalismwhere possible. For
recording paper-based working a video camera was positioned, rostrum-style,
above the paper and this recorded all themarksmade.While subjectsmust have
been aware of the camera it did not obscure their view in any way.
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
How do student designe
Immediately after the design task the video tape was rewound and subjects
were asked to talk through the design activity as they watched themselves de-
signing on the video playback. Subjects could also look at the actual solutions
themselves. Subjects were prompted with two phrases e ‘what were you think-
ing then?’ and ‘where did that idea come from?’ to try to stimulate verbalisa-
tion if the subject fell silent at any point. There were no leading comments to
prompt verbalisation of particular processes and no suggestion given to the
subject that they were expected to see their marks as something else. Since
new ideas could come from a variety of sources e word association, a shape
in the environment or existing knowledge of the subject as well as from rein-
terpretation of marks, it is unlikely that by prompting subjects in such a generic
way, misleading data was attained.
Subjects’ protocols were examined and excerpts were logged in which subjects
saw something else in their marks.
Reinterpretation was identified in two ways:
When a new object (or recognisable shape) was seen in an existing solution.
When a new object (or recognisable shape) was seen in an existing solution
and also led to a new solution.
Both categories are important though we could argue that the latter was the
most potent since it directly aided creative thinking in a problem solving con-
text. The first category is still of note however, since having a new object trig-
gered in the mind may still be useful. Even a subject seeing something wholly
unrelated to the task and describing the association in a critical way e.g. ‘It
looks too much like a.’ was included as this still evidences seeing the uninten-
tional and remains a step in inviting chance into the ideation process. Note that
for coding purposes the second, most potent category is a subset of the first cat-
egory. If a subject reinterprets, it is first coded in the first category, then, if it
leads to a new solution, it is also coded as belonging to the second category.
Since retrospective, rather than concurrent protocol capture was used, it is
sometimes difficult to ascertain whether the reinterpretation took place during
the design task or afterwards, during the subsequent talking out loud record-
ing. Thus all reinterpretations were logged as being equal. A designer looking
through a sketchbook days after a sketch was made may see something new in
the mark and again, it is this ‘seeing’ that constitutes the really vital part of the
reinterpretation process.
Most solutions were coded as ‘new solutions’. Only syntactically identical or
solely refined solutions were not counted as new solutions. Synthesised solu-
tions were still classed as ‘new’ in this case, to acknowledge that, for instance,
certain aspects of a design can be shared, such as a shape, whilst the domi-
nant, semantic idea can be distinct or expanded. While a new solution may
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 449
Table 1 Reinterpretations during Task 1 on paper
Subject Number ofreinterpretations
Number of reinterpretationsproducing new solutions
Transcript excerpt in which reinterpretation is evident
Subject 1 2 1 1. ‘There again I’m thinking it could look a bit like
arm wrestling.’
2. ‘At this point I had a look at it, and noticed it formed
an M.’
Subject 2 1 1 1. ‘As I was thinking of this one flipped on its side I
thought it would look like a chain.’
Subject 3 4 1 1. ‘It was meant to be two people hugging but I
realised it looked more like a smiley face’
2. ‘It almost looked like it could be a child’s head’
3. ‘The next idea, 2 people’s hands forming an M came
from that, just from looking at that and I saw the shape.’
4. ‘But the way I drew it, it looks like a couple of big ears.’
Subject 4 0 0
Subject 5 0 0
Total 7 3
Table 2 Reinterpretations dur
Subject Numberreinterpreta
Subject 6 4
Subject 7 1
Subject 8 0
Subject 9 0
Subject 10 3
Total 8
450
be influenced by existing solutions, where the protocol clearly stated a new
shape being seen, such as a key being reinterpreted as two swords, this
was coded as a new solution, despite the presence of a shape that has already
been featured.
ing Task 1 on computer
oftions
Number ofreinterpretations producing
new solutions
Transcript excerpt in which perceptualreinterpretation is evident
0 1. ‘. it also looks like boxing gloves..’
2. ‘and then I thought it also looks a bit
like a swallow.’
3. ‘I thought that looks a bit like a tulip.’
4. ‘Looked like pacman so I undid that.’
0 1. ‘I drew 2 circles and then drew the road
again between the two..but when I did
that it looked like a santa hat’
0
0
0 1. ‘I was trying to think of different shapes
that fit together e bridging the gap.
But that looked like a slug.’
2. ‘It looks too much like a rainbow’
3. ‘I came up with a half circle that looked
like pacman, and I didn’t like that.’
0
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
Table 3 Reinterpretations during Task 2 on paper
Subject Number ofreinterpretations
Number ofreinterpretations producing
new solutions
Transcript excerpt in which perceptualreinterpretation is evident
Subject 6 4 3 1. ‘And thought I’d put thick lines in it. From this,
thought of a snake. From looking at that shape.the
one where you blow the basket e the shape of its
head and neck flare out’
2. ‘And I had a little thing on the top, almost like a
head shape that looks like a mummy as well.’
3. ‘So it was starting with the shape again. I had an
idea for it first. A bull’
4. ‘So I was just drawing like 3 things and then put
like a line in to suggest a door there but it just
looks like traffic lights’
Subject 7 2 1 1. ‘Originally I did it with the block at the bottom was
going to be legs, but it started to look like a football’
2. The body shape I got from that, the torso shape
made me think of body armour.security related
so I started to draw body armour’
Subject 8 1 0 1. ‘But then I thought it just looks like a jelly’
Subject 9 6 6 1. ‘I started to draw the badge and as I drew the badge
I could see I could turn it into a padlock. I saw that
and I was thinking of a shield. Actually that was a
shield first and then I saw a badge’
2. ‘And then I’m looking at that and I saw a “c”’
3. ‘I just looked at that for a while and I thought of
two keys being a sword’
4. ‘The shape from the sign (hexagonal) combined
with thinking “what would people try to protect?”,
gave me a jewel, diamond.’
5. ‘That looked a bit like a welcome mat.’
Subject 10 2 0 1. ‘I just combine the chains and the lock but it
looked a bit like a medallion’
2. ‘it looks more like a roman numeral’
Total 15 10
How do student designe
4 Results and discussionExcerpts from protocol transcripts and overall results are displayed in Tables
1e4. We can interpret the data in a number of ways, whilst acknowledging
that the sample size and the frequency of reinterpretation is relatively low.
4.1 Reinterpretation and frequencyThe frequency of reinterpretations was lower than expected, given Goel’s
(1995, p. 212) results, with 4/10 subjects not reinterpreting at all or not
more than once. Table 5 shows the relatively frequencies of reinterpretation
and also shows how most students found it even harder to reinterpret a shape
in order to then turn it into another solution.
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 451
Table 4 Reinterpretations during Task 2 on computer
Subject Number ofreinterpretations
Number of reinterpretationsproducing new solutions
Transcript excerpt in whichperceptual reinterpretation is evident
Subject 1 5 0 1. ‘Here I think that kind of represents looking and
also forming a barrier and also sort of looks like
handcuffs too, slightly.’
2. ‘Then I think it looks a bit like a tyre so I’m going
to add another one in the middle of it’
3. ‘I made a no entry sign, or it looks like the
underground so it’s little use’
4. ‘That looks like an Owl, which watches’
5. ‘Here I’m thinking it looks kind of like a jacket’
Subject 2 0 0Subject 3 0 0Subject 4 1 0 1. ‘Or I thought it looked a bit like an owl,
which again could be used’
Subject 5 0 0
Total 6 0
Table 5 Summary table: reint
Subject
Subject 1Subject 2Subject 3Subject 4Subject 5Subject 6Subject 7Subject 8Subject 9Subject 10
452
How may we account for this? Firstly, Goel’s study used expert practitioners.
We might therefore expect students to have less expertise in identifying
opportunities in this way, particularly as these students had not been specif-
ically taught about reinterpretation. Suwa and Tversky (1997, p. 395) con-
cluded that expert architects and student architects used sketches in
different ways, with professional architects attending in greater depth to
the marks they made, and the time they spent reading those marks. Here
too, not all students may be adept at knowing how to ‘read’ marks and
thus use of an externalisation, be it on paper or on screen, does not guaran-
tee that reinterpretation will take place. The student has to be aware that this
process is possible, and to actively look at each mark for new possibilities.
The data shows that reinterpretation is not a given, and whilst some students
practiced it, others did not.
erpretation by subject and task
Total number ofreinterpretations
Total number of reinterpretationsproducing new solutions
7 11 14 11 00 08 33 11 06 65 0
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
Figure 2 Examples of reinterpretation by Subject 9 working on paper
How do student designe
Subject 9 clearly used reinterpretation to his advantage, creating 6 solutions
based on 6 reinterpretations. 5 of these are shown in Figure 2. Here ‘trigger
solutions’ and the reinterpreted solutions are presented in the order that
they occurred (though other non-reinterpreted solutions were made in between
which have been excluded). A closer analysis of Figure 2 also demonstrates
how reinterpretation works not only via interaction with another image but
in tandom with new words in the mind or new themes. Reinterpretation is
not only a visual/associative process in which the designer hopes to see new
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 453
454
ideas from an existing shape, but it can also result from a new direction of ver-
bal thought, together with this active looking. This is evident in Box 4 in
Figure 2. According to the student designer the diamond shape did not purely
stem from looking at an existing shape but first required a new concept to work
with e.g. ‘an object to protect’. After a restructuring or a narrowing of the
brief, a useful reinterpretation could occur e a hexagonal sign is transformed
into a diamond.
Figure 2 is also useful for suggesting how reinterpretation may be informed or
influenced by a chain of solutions (not just a singular solution as may be sug-
gested by the presentation method here of two solutions per box). As the de-
signer scans the surface of the paper she or he is aware of surrounding shapes
and concepts and it is likely that these can influence the reinterpretation. For
example, the shield idea in box 3 also may be influenced by the shield shape in
box 1. The use of keys in box 3 may also be connected in meaning (rather than
visual cues) with a padlock, which both in turn visually help influence the key
hole in box 5.
These examples suggest that in terms of cognition, reinterpretation is a rich
process that informs and can be informed by more logical approaches (a nar-
rowing of the brief) and a broad attentiveness to all shapes and themes ex-
plored during the ideation process. It is therefore of little surprise that it is
not practised by all students, given its potential complexity in a chain of other
cognitive processes. The key question that this paper then poses to the design
education community is e how can we teach reinterpretation and improve its
use? It was clearly of great use to subject 9 in this study but few other subjects
were able to use it to this effect.
4.2 Reinterpretation and taskSince we could also class reinterpretation activity as a ‘lateral’ transformation
(whereby a new idea is stimulated without logical thinking or refinement), we
might say that reinterpretation is also not only related to skill but is also re-
lated to chance and the task at hand. For instance, it is by chance that an ob-
ject (e.g. figure of Shakespeare, to use an example from Goel, 1995, p. 211)
may share some visual properties with another object that may prove useful
for that specific task (e.g. a light bulb). Using an example from the data pre-
sented here, it is by chance that a subject was able to see a shield shape in a pad-
lock AND for the shield to be relevant to that particular problem. This can
account for the different occurrences of reinterpretations on paper for each
task e it might be the case that there are fewer visually-related shapes con-
nected to the theme of marriage than there are for the theme of security.
What we learn here is that reinterpretation, being lateral rather than logical,
is unpredictable and this again, can account for the various degrees by which
it was adopted. Whilst Subject 9 was able to see 6 new solutions in existing
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
Table 7 Summary table showi
Non p
Task 1Task 2
Total
Table 6 Summary table showing the number of reinterpretations by tool
Number of reinterpretationson paper
Number of reinterpretationson computer
Task 1 7 8Task 2 15 6
Total 22 14
How do student designe
marks he might not have done so had the task been different. This is what
makes reinterpretation an elusive process to study and teach.
4.3 Reinterpretation and tool useLooking at Tables 6 and 7 we are able to see a difference in the number of re-
interpretations that occur when paper or computers are being used. We must
show caution again when interpreting these tables firstly due to the subject
sample number and secondly due to the fact that subject 9 alone accounts
for over half of the reinterpretations on paper producing related solutions
for Task 2. Given due caution however, there are two related points we can
make e that students did see new shapes in digital solutions but, importantly,
did not follow them through into new solutions.
What is markedly different to Goel’s (1995, p. 212) results is that reinterpreta-
tion did take place at the computer during both tasks (14 instances were re-
corded in total) according to the protocol but not evidenced in the creation
of any new solutions. We cannot therefore claim that a digital mark could
not be seen as something else. Sometimes they clearly can. However, it appears
that many instances of the digital reinterpretations were accompanied by
judgemental words in the protocol collected e.g. ‘So I undid that’, ‘But it
looked’, ‘but when I did it looked’ and ‘it looked too much like’ and did not
lead to new ideas. If we examine the total number of ‘judgemental’ phrases (in-
dicated on the protocol excerpts above by underlined words) we can see that
50% of computer-based reinterpretations were discussed in this way in com-
parison to 23% of the paper-based reinterpretations.
The terminology of the transcript reveals perhaps that these subjects were
more vocally judgemental about the fact that their digital forms did not
ng the number of reinterpretations producing related solutions by tool
umber of reinterpretationsaper producing new solutions
Number of reinterpretations on computerproducing new solutions
3 010 0
13 0
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 455
Figure 3 Examples of digital
solutions by Subject 2
456
actually look like the object intended. Rather than seeing new opportunities,
marks are being compared against the accuracy of a mental image and this ap-
peared, in the sample used, to be more prevalent when working digitally than
when working on paper. This is not related to issues of looking polished (as is
suggested in Black’s study, 1990, p. 291) but is rather a question of accuracy.
Until the form closely resembles the object they are trying to portray the sub-
jects are perhaps not able to see ‘through’ the object to see what other solutions
may be suggested or triggered through its form.We suggest that the sketch was
expected to be rough and purely indicative of form whereas students appeared
to have higher expectations when looking at their digital work and judged
them more harshly. One possible way of addressing this is encouraging stu-
dents to work only with freehand tools in the early stages of digital design,
to acknowledge that accurate form is not necessarily part of the ideation
process.
We can also consider the degree to which the subjects used ready-made
shapes to neatly render their ideas as this would also support the notion
that both accuracy and polish were being sought above speed. Figure 3
shows examples from one subject’s set of solutions which are all classed as
ready-made. Table 8 outlines the ratio of self-generated to ready-made
marks (where self-generated here refers to freehand digital drawing and
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
Table 8 Proportion of self-generated solutions to all solutions made
Subject Number of self-generatedshapes/total number of solutions
Subject 1 0/12Subject 2 0/9Subject 3 0/8Subject 4 1/8Subject 5 2/8Subject 6 1/6Subject 7 19/19Subject 8 0/6Subject 9 0/6Subject 10 5/15
How do student designe
ready-mades refers to use of precise digital drawing or shape tools). Where
a solution was more than 50% constructed from freehand drawing and
where the overall dominant shape was freehand drawn, the overall shape
was classed as self-generated.
As can be clearly seen, the solutions inspected here demonstrated a strong user
preference for using precise digital tools and ready-made objects instead of us-
ing freehand digital tools. 9/10 subjects produced more solutions in polished
form with half the subjects working exclusively with ready-made form.
What we can conclude from this is that, for the majority of subjects here,
the desire to use polished form overrode the fluency requirements of the brief.
Clearly subject 7 and subject 10 stand out as being students who used ‘fuzzier’
digital marks but did they reinterpret these marks? While they reinterpreted 4
solutions between them, none of these reinterpretations led to other new
solutions.
5 ConclusionThe data then appears to support Goel’s (1995, p. 212) claim that reinterpre-
tation that leads to the creation of new solutions is more supported in paper-
based working than digital working. This occurred despite updating the study
with more digital freedom and despite using student designers. Reinterpreta-
tion did not occur consistently e not every subject reinterpreted their marks
on paper and this may be factor of the task itself and the individual subject.
We cannot claim then that paper-based working itself initiates reinterpreta-
tion. Like all aspects of design there are many variables involved. What the
data suggests however is that paper marks appeared to provide richer oppor-
tunities for reinterpretation that stimulated new ideas. The data also perhaps
suggest that student designers can see other forms in their digital marks but
that they are fewer in number and are essentially more critical of what resem-
blance is found than when using paper. More research is required to establish
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 457
458
whether dissatisfaction with resemblance possibly prevents any further reinter-
pretation leading to new ideas. Novice users of a computer system perhaps
could find reinterpretation difficult to perform without first learning to sus-
pend judgement or learning more software or drawing skills.
We do have to acknowledge the limitations of a sample size of ten employed in
this study. However, there are a number of useful and significantly cited pub-
lished papers in which the authors have adopted limited sample size, required
realistically of many experiments in which protocols are recorded and used
and where outputs are inspected (2 subjects in Kavakli & Gero, 2001,
p. 347; 3 subjects in Bilda & Gero, 2005, p. 160 and 12 subjects in Goel,
1995, p. 196). A low sample size can still prove useful where the protocol
and design activity is rich, providing large numbers of design episodes suitable
for statistical analysis but we must always acknowledge the fact that since dif-
ferent designers have different approaches and abilities it is unrealistic to as-
sume that the sample chosen is representative of all designers. Whilst the
results indicate some broad features of design cognition activity performed
by student designers it would be useful to extend this sample both in terms
of size and pedagogical background e for instance, comparing results against
more data in which students who have been taught to use digital tools for
rough working.
This study provides informed discussion into the strengths and weaknesses
of using paper and digital tools for ideation, making explicit what can be
classed as good practise. By attempting to identify how industry-standard
tools are used by student designers e the strategies and their outcome e
this study hopes to aid educators in their approach to teaching tool use.
This paper provides a much needed empirical approach to studying the
graphic design process and provides educators with some objective evidence,
to present to colleagues and students about the effects of ready-made shapes
on reinterpretation. This paper also presents a challenge e how can we best
teach the use of software designed primarily for efficiency and polished re-
sults in the ideation stage? Teaching software fluency (knowledge of soft-
ware functions) is not the same as teaching how to design with software.
Odling-Smee (2002, p. 15) made the claim that ‘staff invariably spend
more time teaching digital programs as an easier alternative to teaching
new ways of thinking, while students e apparently mesmerised by the mag-
ical powers of computers e are losing the ability to improvise’. This is
a grand claim, though Odling-Smee’s experience as an educator gives it
some validation. It is doubtful the claim is true in all cases but nevertheless
it does point to an attitude in which tool use and design thinking are consid-
ered separately. This study has shown that the tool choice can have an im-
pact on design thinking and thus makes a case for the two areas becoming
more strongly pedagogically linked at module level.
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010
How do student designe
ReferencesBermudez, J., & King, K. (2000). Media interaction and design process: establish-
ing a knowledge base. Automation in Construction, 9, 37e56.Bilda, Z., & Gero, J. (2005). Do we need CAD during conceptual design. In
B. Martens, & A. Brown (Eds.), Computer aided architectural design futures
2005 (pp. 155e164) Springer.Black, A. (1990). Visible planning on paper and on screen: the impact of working
medium on decision-making by novice graphic designers. Behaviour & Infor-
mation Technology, 9, 283e296.Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing design activity.
Chichester, NY, US: Wiley.De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. NY, US: Harper &
Row.Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the minds eye: sketching and visual
cognition. Leonardo, 23, 117e126.Gero, J., & Tang, H. H. (2001). The differences between retrospective and concur-
rent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process.Design Studies, 22, 283e295.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. US: MIT.Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal,
4, 122e143.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture.Design Studies, 15, 158e174.
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self generated sketches. Design Issues,19, 72e88.
Haas, C. (1990). Composing in technological contexts. Written Communication, 7,512e547.
Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design
Studies, 26, 613e624.Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. (2001). Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design
Studies, 22, 347e364.
Kellogg, R. T., & Mueller, S. (1993). Performance amplification and process re-structuring in computer-based writing. International Journal of Man-MachineStudies, 39, 33e49.
Laseau, P. (1989). Graphic thinking for architects and designers. NY, US: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford,
UK: Architectural Press.
Maeda, J. (2000). Maeda@Media. UK: Thames and Hudson.McCullough, M. (1998). Abstracting craft: The practised digital hand. UK: MIT
Press.
McKim, R. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking. US: Wadsworth/StanfordUniversity.
Odling-Smee, A. (2002). The new handmade graphics: Beyond digital design. UK:
Rotovision.Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory,
knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29, 99e120.Prats, M., Lim, S., Jowers, L., Garner, S. W., & Chase, S. (2009). Transforming
shape in design: observations from studies of sketching. Design Studies, 30,503e520.
Sass, L., & Oxman, R. (2006). Materializing design: implicatins of rapid prototyp-
ing indigital design. Design Studies, 27, 325e355.
rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 459
460
Schon, D. A. (1995). The reflective practitioner. Aldershot, UK: Arena.Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer-Supported Cooper-
ative Work, 12, 153e183.Stones, C. M., & Cassidy, T. (2007). Comparing synthesis strategies of novice
graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools. Design Studies,28, 59e72.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their
design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385e403.Vermaas, C. (1997). Sketching: conversations with the brain. In S. Heller, &
M. Finamore (Eds.), Design culture: An anthology of writing from the AIGA
journal of graphic design (pp. 174e175) AIGA.Verstijnen, I. M., Van Leeuwen, C., Goldschmidt, G., Hamel, R., &
Hennessey, J. M. (1998). Creative discovery in imagery and perception: com-
bining is relatively easy, restructuring takes a sketch. Acta Psychologica, 99,177e200.
Won, P. H. (2001). The comparison between visual thinking using computer andconventional media in the concept generation stages of design. Automation in
Construction, 10, 319e325.
Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010