the sketch book problem' readings

To sketch or not to sketch? That is thequestion

Zafer Bilda, John S. Gero and Terry Purcell, Key Centre of Design

Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

In this paper we question whether sketching is essential for conceptual

designing. In order to test this hypothesis, we conducted think-aloud

experiments with expert architects. They were engaged in two separate

design processes: where they were not allowed sketch and where they were

allowed to sketch. The comparison of design activities in these two

conditions was based on a protocol analysis. The results show that there is

no significant difference between sketching and not sketching based on

three assessments: design outcome, cognitive activity and idea links. This

case study shows that sketching is not an essential activity for expert

architects in the early phases of conceptual designing.

� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: sketching, protocol analysis, conceptual design, architectural

design

Conceptual designing is the phase where designers start develop-

ing ideas, come up with a proposed scheme, possibly develop it

to another scheme, and then possibly move to another one. De-

signers progress by changing the direction of their designs. Sketching and

conceptual designing are two inseparable acts formost architects (Schon,

1983; Akin, 1986; Lawson, 1990) possibly because sketches are the tools

they learn to use to progress their designs. So sketching is a learned pro-

cess during design education where architects learn to think with draw-

ings, develop their ideas and solve complex problems with them. They

practice using sketches until they become experts. Initially, an architec-

tural planmight comprisemeaningless symbols to a novice designer, until

s/he takes on the intended meaning through learning the conventions as-

sociated with them. Then sketches become aids for the progression of

a design solution and play an essential part in knowledge acquisition

and representation. The ability to read or produce sketches appears to

be the only way to develop expertise in architecture.

Design researchers have studied why sketches have been an efficient me-

dium for conceptual designing. One of the earliest finding is that

Corresponding author:

Zafer Bilda

[email protected]

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 27 (2006) 587e613

doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.02.002 587� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

mailto:[email protected]


http:\\www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

588

sketches store design solutions and seem to be essential for recognizing

conflicts and possibilities (Akin, 1978). One of the most influential views

is that sketching is a dialogue between the designer and what the draw-

ings suggest (Goldschmidt, 1991; Schon andWiggins, 1992). Some stud-

ies proposed that ambiguity is one of the key factors (Goel, 1995)

because it allows the seeing of new possibilities in the representations,

in other words re-interpretations (Fish and Scrivener, 1990; Schon

and Wiggins, 1992; Suwa et al., 2000). Sketches also seem to be essential

for revising and refining ideas, generating concepts and facilitating

problem solving (Do et al., 2000). The importance of external represen-

tations has been emphasized in other problem solving domains (Larkin

and Simon, 1987; Hegarty, 1992; Bauer and Johnson-Laird, 1993) for

facilitating cognitive mechanisms.

What would be the outcome if a designer develops ideas and design so-

lutions without the support of sketching? It might be difficult to evaluate

or discard design alternatives without seeing them on paper. This brings

the question whether the outcome would be precise or realistic when

a designer works only with mental images of a design. Would the essen-

tial dialogue between the designer and drawings be blocked when an ar-

chitect does not have access to sketching? Perhaps not being able to

sketch prevents designing. However, within the area of architectural de-

sign, there is anecdotal literature about designing with the use of imag-

ery. In parallel with discussions of creativity in other areas (Weisberg,

1993), examples are often quoted of major architects, such as Frank

Lloyd Wright, who could conceive of, and develop a design, entirely us-

ing imagery with an external representation of the design only being pro-

duced at the end of the process (Toker, 2003). Anecdotal views of

architectural design sometimes put considerable emphasis on the role

of imagery.

1 Related workMost empirical studies of design problem solving have been based on an

examination of design protocols emphasizing the verbal content some-

times with an analysis of the drawings as well (Schon, 1983; Akin, 1986;

Cross, Christiaans and Dorst, 1996). Suwa et al. (1998, 1999, 2000)

have studied an expert architect’s design protocol focusing on the con-

tent of actions in four different categories to explore the underlying cog-

nitive mechanisms of designers. They concluded that sketches are used

as a design medium to set out the designer’s thoughts on the fly, rather

than only as drawings that could be used to construct a building. Sketch

cognition studies suggested interplay of mental imagery with sketching

(Fish and Scrivener, 1990; Goldschmidt, 1991; Kavakli and Gero, 2002),

Design Studies Vol 27 No. 5 September 2006

Sket

however, the issue of how design is carried out using mental imagery

alone has not been adequately studied.

Athavankar (1997) conducted an experiment where an industrial de-

signer was required to design a product in his imagery (with an eye

mask on), so that he had no access to sketching and the visual feedback

it provides. The study claimed that the designer was able to evolve the

shape of the object, manipulate it, evaluate alternative modifications,

and add details and color. Expert designers may be able to use imagery

alone in the conceptual design phase, before externalizing their design

thoughts. A similar study to Athavankar’s has been conducted at Syd-

ney University with the think-aloud method where an architect wears

a blindfold and commences designing using his/her imagery. S/he is al-

lowed to externalize only when the design is mentally finalized. The

analysis of the design protocols aimed at modelling how imagery alone

was used during designing. The model shows that common imagistic ac-

tions are linked together to create and maintain an internal design rep-

resentation (Bilda and Purcell, 2003).

A background review of the design literature shows a common agree-

ment that sketching is essential for conceptual designing. When a de-

signer does not have access to sketching, the hypothesis is that the

early conceptual phase of designing would be very different as would

be the outcome. Our objective is to test whether there is a difference.

This paper achieves this objective by presenting the results of a protocol

study involving three expert architects, and showing the differences be-

tween their sketching and non-sketching behaviors.

2 MethodThe three architects who participated in the study (two females and one

male) have each been practicing for more than 10 years. Architects A1

and A2 have been awarded prizes for their designs in Australia; they

have been running their own offices and also teaching part-time at the

University of Sydney. Architect A3 is a senior designer in a well-known

architectural firm and has been teaching part-time at the University of

Technology, Sydney. We had preliminary meetings with nine potential

architect participants where we asked whether they thought they would

be capable of using their imagery alone to come up with a design solu-

tion. Four out of the nine architects were hesitant about participating in

a blindfolded exercise. Out of the other architects, we selected three

based on their statements that they could easily think aloud when

they are designing.

ching and conceptual designing 589

2.1 Design of the experimentsThe three architect participants are first engaged in a design process

where they are not allowed to sketch. This phase is called the experiment

condition where they receive design brief 01. The design brief 01 (Ap-

pendix) requires designing a house for two artists: a painter and a dancer.

The house is to have two studios, an observatory, a sculpture garden and

living, eating, sleeping areas. After at least a month after the experiment

condition, the three architects are engaged in a design process where

they are allowed to sketch. This phase is the control condition where

they receive design brief 02 (Appendix). Design brief 02 requires design-

ing a house on the same site as design brief 01, this time for a couple with

five children aged from 3 to 17, that would accommodate children and

parent sleeping areas, family space, study, guest house, eating and out-

door playing spaces.

The set-up of the study for both experiment and control conditions in-

cludes a digital video recorder with a built-in or lapel microphone, di-

rected to the designer. In the experiment condition, we used a similar

approach to that taken by Athavankar (1997); we had the designers en-

gage in the design process while wearing a blindfold, Figure 1(a). The

experimental procedure for the first condition was:

1. The experimenter reads the instructions to the participant explain-

ing that s/he is required to engage in a design activity but that s/he

does it while wearing a blindfold and that the blindfolded session

will last for 45 min.

2. The experimenter explains what the think-aloud method is and

asks the participant to do a short think-aloud exercise. The exper-

imenter provides feedback about the participant’s thinking aloud.

Figure 1 (a) Blindfolded ses-

sion, (b) sketching session

590 Design Studies Vol 27 No. 5 September 2006

Ske

3. The participant is given the written design brief 01, shown the site

layout, and a collage of the photographs of the site and surround-

ing neighborhood. S/he is allowed to examine them and ask

questions.

4. The participant is asked to read the brief and then recite it without

reference to the written document. This process was repeated until

they could recite the brief without mistakes. The aim of this proce-

dure was to ensure that they would have similar access to the brief

as an architect who could consult a written brief during the design

process.

5. The participant is instructed that s/he is required to come up with

an initial sketch design to show the clients with the following crite-

ria: the design should fit the given dimensions of the site, accommo-

date the space requirements and allow an effective use based on the

clients’ requirements.

6. The participant is instructed that s/he can put on the blindfold and

start thinking aloud and is free to ask about specific aspects of the

design brief when s/he requires.

7. Five minutes before the end of the session, the participant is re-

minded that this is the amount of time remaining.

8. At the end of the session, the participant is asked to take off the

blindfold, and is required to sketch quickly what s/he held in

her/his mind’s eye. The participant is asked to represent the design

by drawing it as rapidly as possible and without any changes being

permitted.

9. The participant is allowed to elaborate the sketch (this involves

rendering and addition of details which were mentioned during

the think-aloud session) only after externalizing the layout as in

his/her mind’s eye.

10. The participant is interviewed after s/he finalized the drawing

process.

Sketching sessions have been conducted with the same architects at least

1 month after the blindfolded sessions, Figure 1(b). Similarly, the three

architects were asked to memorize the design brief and were given the

training session on the think-aloud method. In this control condition,

the participants received the written design brief 02 and they were shown

the same site layout and the site photographs. To start the design pro-

cess each participant was given the site plan and tracing paper to pro-

ceed with a series of sketches. They were asked to number each sheet

of tracing paper sequentially every time they start to use a new sheet.

Then the participant is asked to commence sketching directly. Five

tching and conceptual designing 591

minutes before the end of the session, s/he is reminded that this is the

amount of time remaining. Table 1 shows a summary of the consider-

ations for the experiment and the control conditions.

2.2 Protocol analysis

2.2.1 Segmentation of protocolsThe audio files of the concurrent verbalizations were transcribed, and

then segmented. The protocol was segmented using the same approach

as for segmenting sketching protocols, i.e. by inspecting designer’s inten-

tions (Suwa and Tversky, 1997; Suwa et al., 1998). In the segmentation

of sketch protocols, not only verbalizations but video recordings of the

sketching activity supported decisions to flag the start and end of a seg-

ment. The drawing actions were inspected for cues to find the changes in

intentions. In the blindfolded condition, information was extracted

from the description of the current image or scene the architect currently

talked about. When the architect’s attention shifted to a different part or

aspect of the current image, this became the cue for change of intention.

Keeping track of the changes in the descriptions of images/scenes sup-

ported our decisions to flag the start and end of a segment. Table 2

shows an excerpt from a segmented BF protocol.

2.2.2 Imagery and sketching coding schemesRecent research on sketching studies proposes that design thinking

progresses at physical, perceptual, functional and conceptual levels in

parallel (Suwa et al., 1998). These action categories involve physical

actions, which refer to drawing and looking; perceptual actions, which

refer to interpretation of visual information; functional actions, which

refer to attaching meanings to things; and conceptual actions, which

refer to the planning of the actions and initiating actions for design

decisions.

Table 1 Summary of methods

Experiment condition Control condition

Activity Blindfolded designing, onlyexternalizing at the endof the session.

Sketching

Design brief Design a residential house for apainter and a dancer

Design a residentialhouse for a familywith five children

Method of data collection Time-stamped video recording Time-stamped videorecording

Reporting method Think-aloud Think-aloudCoding scheme Imagery coding scheme Sketch coding scheme


The imagery coding scheme borrowed action categories from sketching

coding scheme. It consists of six action categories:

Visuo-spatial actions (VS),

Perceptual actions,

Functional actions,

Conceptual actions,

Evaluative actions and

Recall actions.

Visuo-spatial actions (VS) are based on Kosslyn’s (1980) image opera-

tions: image generation, image inspection, image scanning, and trans-

formation. We extended the types of image generation and added

a spatial action that refers to the spatial component in our understand-

ing of mental imagery. Details of the VS actions are explained in Bilda

and Gero (2004).

The sketching coding scheme consists of five of the action categories in

common with the imagery coding scheme plus drawing actions which is

Table 2 Example segmentation of a BF protocol

Time Seg no Segment content

0:08:05 29 (08.05) IM: OK. I’m just trying to think, Rosie’s Dance Studio is a sort of arectangle, roughly 2 by 1. So I suppose I’d plumb for that. 5 by 10 means you’dget a good run up.

0:08:18 30 (08.18) So that means that then on the street side we’ve got the dancer’s studiowhich, if we go for either the L-shape or the courtyard arrangement, is going tohave. (08.31) one side facing west, up to the street, which is less than perfectparticularly with the 900 mm setback where you can’t really arrange for muchplanting. (08.46) On the eastern side.obviously you’re going to have itpartially built over.

0:08:54 31 (08.54) We’ve got a 25 m length along there, 6 m has been taken up with garage,1 m with setback. So that immediately makes, 7 from 25.so we’ve got umm 18left less the other 1 m setback, so that’s 17 left. (09.15) So 10.we can probablyconfigure that, that dancer’s studio to have some northerly aspect in it. If itsperhaps twisted around to the.to the north more.

0:09:27 32 (09.27) Although I’m just thinking now what sort of light ideally would you havefor a, a dancer’s studio, and I’m thinking I suppose that, that, it would beadvantageous to have some sunlight in there. I’m just thinking of the arrangementof bars and mirrors and so on that you need in a room like that..

0:09:50 33 (09.50) The ones that I’ve seen in the past that have been really beautiful have beenthe ones that have had an even light through them. On one side, on the long side,and then having mirrors and bars and so on, on the other side.

0:10:03 34 (10.03) So, it might even be advantageous with that dancer’s studio to put it not longaxis onto the street but short axis onto the street and arrange to have some southlight, or north light even, with mirrors along that south side.

Sketching and conceptual designing 593

specific to the sketching activity. The majority of the drawing actions in

Suwa et al. (1998) coding scheme are used in coding the protocols of the

sketching condition in the current study. In this study our focus of anal-

ysis is not on the VS or drawing actions, but on action categories which

are common to both conditions. We selectively borrowed actions from

perceptual, functional, and conceptual action categories in the Suwa

et al. (1998) coding scheme. The selected codes, Table 3, are the ones

found to be highly correlated with drawing actions during the sketching

activity of experts (Kavakli and Gero, 2001).

An evaluative action category has been formed during our explorations

with the blindfolded and sketching design protocols. These actions refer

to information at the conceptual level. During the designers’ dialogue

within the segments, we observed smaller scale idea evaluation or ques-

tioning cycles. In this dialogue, some designers question ideas or emerg-

ing design issues (Ged) rather than evaluating them. They might

generate a tentative functional solution (Gfs) in that evaluation cycle.

The evaluation could be based on a function that is previously

Table 3 Perceptual, functional, conceptual, evaluative, recall actions

Perceptual actionsPfn Attend to the visual feature (geometry/shape/size/material/color/

thickness, etc) of a design elementPof Attend to an old visual featurePrn Create, or attend to a new relationPor Mention, or revisit a relation

Functional actionsFn Associate a design image/boundary/part with a new functionFrei Re-interpretation of a functionFnp Conceiving of a new meaningFo Mention, or revisit a functionFmt Attend to metric information about the design boundary/part

(numeric)

Conceptual actions (goals)G1 Goals to set up a new functionG2 Goals to set up a concept/formG4 Repeated goals from previous segments

Evaluative actionsGdf Make judgments about the outcomes of a functionGfs Generate a functional solution/resolve a conflictGed Question/mention emerging design issues/conflictsGap Make judgments about formGapa Make judgments about the aesthetics, mention preferences

Recall ActionsRpc Retrieve knowledge about previous casesRbf Retrieve the design brief/requirements


introduced, i.e. evaluating by making judgments about the possible out-

comes of the function (Gdf). The evaluation could be based on the form

of the design entity, i.e. evaluating by making judgments about form

(Gap). Aesthetical preferences of the designer could be involved in

that evaluation cycle as well (Gapa).

The recall action category includes two memory recall actions. Retriev-

ing knowledge about previous cases (Rpc) is related to episodic memory,

where the designer remembered his/her previous cases of designing pro-

cess, a previous layout, the connected problems/issues and the functional

solutions. This past case knowledge wasmostly related to expertise in the

area. Recalling the design brief (Rbf) helped the designer to remember/

rehearse the requirements and restructure the design problem.

2.2.3 CodingIn this study, imagery processes were hypothesized to be similar to per-

ceptual processes, thus the basic assumption was that all percepts are in-

ternal, whereas in sketching they are dependent on externalization, and

in blindfolded condition they are dependent on the internal representa-

tion. How do we access the content of the internal representation? The

imagery protocols demonstrated detailed descriptions of images, scenes

and the concerns about the design that it was possible to extract the re-

lationships between design elements as well as the visual features. The

analyst could keep track of the verbal descriptions of the imagery con-

tent and confirm them with the elements in the sketch produced at the

end. Figure 2 shows one coded segment from a blindfolded protocol.

The procedure of coding the protocols involved segmenting the tran-

scripts with respect to the time code in videos. Each segment was time

stamped and coded with the related coding scheme. The complete au-

dio/video protocol for each session was coded twice by the same coder

with a 1 month period between the two codings. Then the codes were ar-

bitrated into a final coding.

2.3 LinkographyLinkography is a system that is developed to notate the moves in a pro-

tocol and the links between them (in a chronological order) to under-

stand structural patterns in design reasoning (Goldschmidt, 1997).

Through coding the links, it is possible to represent the design activ-

ity/thinking in terms of sequence of acts/ideas. In order to establish

a link between the ideas they have to be dependent on each other. Link-

ography is a network of the links between segments/moves. Gold-

schmidt’s (1997) notion of the move is equivalent to the notion of


a segment mentioned in this study. The links are established on the basis

of understanding the content of each segment and connecting related

one or more segments to each other. The linkography method estab-

lishes connections between a given move and previous moves. These

links are called backlinks, because they go back in time. There are the

links that a move connects to subsequent moves. These links are that

move’s forelinks, because they go forward in time.

The technique involves parsing the protocol into design moves and look-

ing at the design process in terms of relationships created by the links

between those moves. In this study we used the same segmentation inter-

vals that were done for protocol analysis purposes. Thus, the number of

segments remained the same. We used a technique to reliably link the

ideas which are at a further distance along the timeline of the design pro-

cess. This involved a word search in order to detect the words used more

frequently where the analyser ended up with a list of frequently repeated

words. Then another search was performed to obtain a list of the seg-

ments which included a frequently used word. The next stage was

Figure 2 Excerpt from proto-

col coding


browsing through the selected segments, to confirm that the word was

used in the appropriate context. The related segments were then

connected. This procedure helped us to connect the ideas, which were

distant from each other and which might have been missed in a sequen-

tial analysis. In the second run, the analyst started from the first segment

and sequentially connected the ideas/without reference to the first run of

linking ideas. The analyser relied on the verbalizations only while

linking the ideas in the blindfolded designing protocols. During linking

the ideas of sketching protocols, verbalizations as well as video footage

for each segment were visited.

2.4 Assessment of the design outcomeThe resulting sketches by the three architects were double-blind judged

by three judges who have each been practicing and teaching architectural

design for more than 15 years. The judges were provided with the two

versions of the design briefs, the collage of photos of the site, as well

as the site layout. After inspecting the design brief materials, they in-

spected the photocopies of the sketches produced in both phases of the

study. The judges were provided with one sketch layout for each session

which is the final sketch produced in each condition. Additionally, sec-

tion drawings were included if there were any produced during the re-

lated session. The sketches did not have any indication of which

condition they belonged to (either sketching or blindfolded) and the

judges were unaware that half of the designs had been produced by

blindfolded designers. The criteria for the assessment of sketches were

as follows where each item was graded out of 10:

How innovative? As inventing a new prototype

How creative the sketched design is? Defined as seeing opportunities

for a design solution that is not the ‘norm’.

How well the sketched design satisfies the design brief? In terms of de-

sign solution meeting the client requirements.

Practicality

Flexibility

3 Results

3.1 Protocol codingThe reliability of the coding process was measured by calculating the

agreement percentages between the different runs of coding, which are

first and second coding, first coding and arbitrated coding and second

coding and arbitrated coding. Table 4 shows the agreement percentages

between these different coding phases.


The average length of the time interval for each segment ranges from

19 s to 25.5 s, Table 5. The average time length for a segment in BF con-

dition is 21.4 s, while it is 22.4 s in SK condition. Standard deviations of

time intervals of the three sessions average 13 s for both SK and BF con-

ditions. Variances in time intervals of the BF conditions are close to that

of the SK conditions (average variance 178 s in BF, 175 s in SK). Neg-

ative value of Kurtosis values in all participants’ sessions shows that the

time interval of each segment fluctuated significantly compared to a nor-

mal distribution. The average Kurtosis values in BF versus SK condi-

tions are also similar (�1.19 and �1.21) which means that the degrees

of change in time intervals (fluctuation) were similar.

The segments had average of 8.5 (std dev¼ 4) concurrent actions in BF

sessions and average of 8.0 (std dev¼ 3.3) concurrent actions in sketch-

ing sessions.

3.2 Differences in occurrence percentages of actioncategoriesTable 6 shows the occurrence percentages of each action category as

a percentage of the sum of the number action in common action

Table 4 Coding consistency between different coding phases

Agreement percentages between

1st and 2nd

coding (%)1st coding andarbitrated coding (%)

2nd coding andarbitrated coding (%)

BF_01 75.2 91.5 89.8BF_02 78.6 90.3 85.1BF_03 67.5 78.4 87.3SK_01 76.7 86.2 91.6SK_02 83.2 92.3 90.8SK_03 73.6 81.3 88.9

BF¼Blindfolded session, SK¼ Sketch session.

Table 5 Segment time intervals

BF_01 BF_02 BF_03 SK_01 SK_02 SK_03

Number of segments 166 154 170 145 184 143Total time elapsed 0:41:35 0:53:18 0:43:08 0:44:27 0:49:54 0:42:44Mean 0:19:12 0:25:49 0:20:05 0:21:49 0:24:42 0:21:20Std. deviation 0:11:38 0:15:41 0:12:25 0:12:54 0:14:35 0:12:07Variance 135:25 246:17 154:12 166:29 213:03 146:53Kurtosis �1.15 �1.25 �1.18 �1.24 �1.26 �1.14

BF¼Blindfolded session, SK¼ Sketch session.


categories (excluding drawing actions for sketching and visuo-spatial

actions for the blindfolded condition). Comparing BF and SK condi-

tions for each architect, one important difference is that each recalled

more information in his/her BF condition. The occurrence percentages

of the other action categories do not demonstrate large differences be-

tween the architects’ SK and BF conditions. Some action category per-

centages are relatively higher and these are shaded in Table 6. For

example, A1 had relatively more conceptual actions (goals) under

the SK condition. A2 had relatively more evaluative actions in

under the SK condition, and A3 had relatively more perceptual actions

under the SK condition. Thus, the three architects seemed to use their

cognitive resources differently. The reason for these differences might

be individual differences on, memory capacity, spatial ability, different

cognitive styles or designing strategies. The occurrence percentages of

the other action categories are similar under the BF and SK conditions

of the three architects except for the categories mentioned.

Table 6 also shows the three architects’ average occurrence percentages

of the action categories in BF and SK conditions. The average values of

occurrence percentages are not significantly different in perceptual,

functional, conceptual and evaluative action categories. In the next sec-

tion, we tested if the differences between frequencies of cognitive actions

were statistically significant for each action category.

3.3 Differences in occurrence frequencies of cognitiveactionsWe tabulated the occurrence frequencies of cognitive actions in each cat-

egory for each architect, under BF versus SK conditions. For example,

in Table 7, each participant demonstrates four different perceptual ac-

tions under each condition, thus the perceptual category has 24 data

Table 6 Occurrence percentages of action categories

Perceptual Functional Conceptual Evaluative Recall Totalnumber

BF_01 27.2 39.6 8.9 13.6 10.6 1366

SK_01 30.8 37.7 14.1 12.4 4.9 1307

BF_02 26.1 40.7 10.7 14.0 8.5 1417

SK_02 25.7 40.5 9.6 20.6 3.6 1414

BF_03 23.6 44.0 9.3 17.0 6.2 1359

SK_03 31.2 43.5 8.3 14.7 2.3 1064

SKAverage

29.2 40.6 10.7 15.9 3.6

BFAverage

25.6 41.4 9.6 14.9 8.4


points for variance testing. We tested if these occurrence frequencies

were significantly different. Two-way ANOVA (with replication) was

used to find the statistical significance between SK and BF conditions

as well as between the participants. The ANOVA results for perceptual

actions category are shown in Table 8. There is no significant frequency

difference between the BF and SK conditions (F critical¼ 4.41,

P¼ 0.54) nor between the participants (F critical¼ 3.55, P¼ 0.74).

ANOVA tests were applied in the same way to test the significance of the

differences in occurrence frequencies of all actions in the remaining ac-

tion categories, Table 8. The ANOVA tests on the other common action

categories were based on, 36 data points in functional and evaluative

categories, 18 data points in conceptual category, 12 data points in recall

category.

The results were similar to the ones in the previous section, such that oc-

currence frequencies of perceptual, functional, conceptual and evalua-

tive actions were not significantly different, but recall actions were.

Table 7 Occurrence frequency table

Perceptual actions

A1 A2 A3 Codes

BF 132 91 99 Prn77 86 58 Pfn38 43 38 Pof58 95 69 Por

SK 135 78 90 Prn48 48 51 Pfn22 46 36 Pof70 103 56 Por

Table 8 ANOVA test results

Categories Between BF and SKconditions

Between participants

P-value F critical P-value F critical

Perceptual actions 0.54 4.41 0.74 3.55Functional actions 0.48 4.17 0.93 3.32Conceptual actions 0.76 4.75 0.81 3.89Evaluative actions 0.55 4.17 0.42 3.32Recall actions 0.001 5.98 0.008 5.14


This result verified our previous observation that occurrences of recall

actions were significantly higher in BF conditions.

3.4 Links between the ideasFigure 3 shows the linkography representation for A1’s BF, Figure 3(a)

and SK, Figure 3(b) sessions.

Table 9 shows a link index for each participant’s design session in the

two conditions (where the index is calculated by dividing the total num-

ber of links by the total number of segments). Link index is a nominal

value referring to the overall intensity of the links in a design session.

The link index numbers are different for each participant over BF versus

SK conditions, Table 9 shows that link index number was higher for A1

in sketching condition (1.19, 1.41), higher for A2 in blindfolded condi-

tion (1.68, 1.48) and link index number was close for A3 (1.20, 1.28)

in both conditions. The average number of the link index in BF versus

SK conditions was very close (1.38 versus 1.36). Participants devoted

similar amount of time in both conditions for developing and revisiting

Figure 3 Linkography for A1

(a) blindfolded session,

(b) sketching session


the concepts through their design process. The reasons for the individual

differences will be further investigated.

3.5 Comparison of sketchesThe three architects were able to satisfy the space and client require-

ments in both experiment and control conditions, Figures 4, 5 and 6. Ta-

ble 10 shows the results of the assessment of the sketches by the three

judges. The grades in Table 10 are the average grades of the three judges’

assessments. The fourth column (Av) in each condition shows the three

architects’ average grade for each criterion.

Architect A1 produced similar layouts for the two design briefs in terms

of using the site and the relations between outdoor and indoor spaces

even though the briefs were different. Figure 4 shows A1’s sketches

for the SK, Figure 4(a) and the BF conditions, Figure 4(b). A1’s blind-

folded condition design outcome showed higher scores in terms of satis-

fying the design brief (7.7 versus 6.0) and practicality of the design

Table 9 Link indexes of the conditions

Total # of links Total # of segments Link index

BF A1 201 169 1.19A2 259 155 1.68A3 217 171 1.28

Average 226 1.38

SK A1 205 145 1.41A2 272 184 1.48A3 171 144 1.20

Average 216 1.36

BF¼Blindfolded session, SK¼ Sketch session.Link index: Total # of links/total number of segments.

Figure 4 Architect 01 sketches (a) sketching, (b) blindfolded


solution (7.7 versus 6.0). The assessment of creativity score was closer

for the two design outcomes (5.3 and 5.0).

Architect A2 produced different layouts for the two conditions in terms

of typology and the relationship of the building to the site. Figure 5

shows A2’s sketches for the SK session, Figure 5(a) and BF session,

Figure 5(b). A2’s BF design session outcome and sketching session out-

come had the same scores in terms of satisfying the design brief (6.3 and




6.3) and close scores for creativity assessment (6.0 and 5.7). The practi-

cality assessment of the blindfolded session outcome was higher than

that of the sketching session outcome (7.0 versus 5.7).

A3 produced quite different layouts for the two conditions in terms of

typology and the relationship of the building to the outdoor areas. Fig-

ure 6 shows A3’s sketches for the SK, Figure 6(a) and the BF,

Figure 6(b) sessions. A3’s blindfolded design session outcome had

higher scores in terms of satisfying the design brief (7.7 versus 6.3)

and practicality of the design solution (7.0 versus 5.3). However, the de-

sign outcome of the sketching session has a higher score (6.3 versus 7.3)

in creativity assessment (Table 10).

4 DiscussionThis case study has shown that there were no significant differences be-

tween sketching and blindfolded design activity in terms of design out-

come scores, total number of cognitive actions (except for recall activity)

and overall density of idea production. This result cannot be generalized

to all architects/designers or all phases of design activity due to the small

scale of the experiment. The design detailing/representation phases may

require intensive drawing and various types of externalizations for the

development and documentation of a building design.

Some might question the reason for using a blindfold during the exper-

iment. The condition could have been set-up to give architects visual ac-

cess to the site, design brief and layout, but still not allowing them to

draw. However, our aim was to restrict the visual/sensory modality

and to give them no visual feedback to ensure that designers relied on

their memory only. To be able to use their visual system might have dis-

tracted their attention or might have changed their whole approach to

designing. Being able to see the scaled site layout on paper, they could

have used their imagery differently, using their hand gestures to decide

Table 10 Grades for the design outcomes

Criteria Blindfolded Sketch

A1 A2 A3 Av A1 A2 A3 Av

How innovative 4.0 4.3 6.0 4.8 4.3 5.3 6.7 5.4How creative 5.3 6.0 6.3 5.9 5.0 5.7 7.3 6.0Satisfying design brief 7.7 6.3 7.7 7.2 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3Practical solution 7.7 7.0 7.0 7.2 6.0 5.7 5.3 5.7Flexibility of the design 6.0 6.3 7.3 6.5 5.3 6.3 6.7 6.1

Av 6.1 6.0 6.9 6.3 5.4 5.9 6.5 5.9


on proportions and metric relationships on the layout rather than rely-

ing on their memory. Then what we tested would have been perhaps an

‘enacted imagery’ (Purcell and Gero, 1998). By blindfolding the de-

signers we avoided another variable and focused on the question of

whether they could build an internal representation relying on their

long-term and working memory.

Another argument concerning the BF condition was about the working

memory load. Architects had to store and remember visual and senten-

tial information (the site dimensions, layout geometry, and the brief re-

quirements), which put a larger cognitive load on their working

memory. Despite the cognitive load, it was surprising how the architects

demonstrated higher numbers of cognitive actions in total, during the

BF conditions, Table 6.

In the design of the blindfolded experiment, there is a stage where the

participant was asked to rapidly draw what s/he held in his/her mind’s

eye. During this period, we assumed the architect worked things out

to fit the building layout to the proposed scheme and then faithfully

drew the layout without changes. However, one might argue that the

act of drawing, even if it is quick, will change the nature of the

scheme. If drawing is a tool of thinking, maybe it is not possible to

eliminate this use and further thinking that the scheme will go

through as it is being drawn. Our observations showed that in the

BF period the architects decided on size and metric relationships of

functional spaces, and during the quick sketching period they were

generally focused on externalizing what they have developed in their

minds. The quick sketching period was like explanation of these ideas

via drawing, which could also be referred to as a drafting process

rather than sketching to develop ideas. During this period participants

generally kept on talking and explaining whether what they imagined

was working on paper or not. Meanwhile the experimenter was able

to intervene and remind them that they are not allowed to make sig-

nificant changes to the layout. Thus, the quick sketching period was

semi-controlled by the experimenter. This might have reduced the

chances that architects used their sketches as a testing tool.

4.1 Participants’ commentsThe results of the protocol analysis and the participants’ comments after

the BF sessions were contradictory. The interviews with the participants

pointed out to a single conclusion that they would not be capable of de-

signing if they were not allowed to sketch. The common view was that if


they were to put their ideas on paper they would have seen the problem

quickly and that would actually divert their thinking to a different path.

All participants believe strongly that sketching is essential. Categorizing

the information we obtained from the interviews with our participant

expert architects we summarized what sketching does for them:

1. Sketching is a dialogue: ‘Drawing is for testing and evaluating the

ideas’, ‘you can’t stop the messages coming back from each line

you put down’.

2. Sketching helps for ‘seeing it (the design) as parts and seeing it as

a whole’. This view parallels the Gestaltist view which states: ‘the

whole emerges from and cannot exist without parts but depends on

the relationships between the parts’. So a sketch is greater than the

sum of the parts because it intimately depends on the relationships

within the parts. Sketching is really essential because the parts them-

selves cannot emerge properly neither can be held without sketching.

3. Re-representation is the key to solve a design problem was a common

view. Some quotes fromparticipant architects are as follows: ‘I’d draw

a solution on paper, and draw it again and again and again. And then

the standard process would be to pin them up. And so there’s the the-

atre of your imagination, as a series of not even ideas but how your

thoughts are developed through there’. ‘Half the process is just draw-

ing it, and drawing it, and drawing it and drawing it. And eventually

when you draw it, something sort of creeps out at you’.

4. Sketching captures the moment and stores it, quoting one partici-

pant: ‘Sketching realizes things, it does make real what your

thoughts are, it makes your thoughts concrete so that you can go

and test them. Drawing brings the ideas to life, actually synthesizes

all of your partial thoughts’.

5. Sketching is for externalizing a mental image, quoting one partici-

pant: ‘You have got a memory of some image and what you do is

visualize it out there’. ‘Then drawing is a practical tool for seeing.

The vision is in your mind and then you are putting it down and vi-

sualization happens on the page. But is not after you draw it either,

because it is the image what moves the pencil’.

6. Sketching is like a language, learn to use it, quoting one participant:

‘.to me it s like speech, as you think you speak. Thoughts are con-

structed on the way you speak. If you would think first and then

speak it will all come out differently. Thus it places a special empha-

sis apart from documenting your thought process’. ‘So it’s like a lan-

guage then you learn to talk and its essential that you do’.


During the BF condition, participants were frustrated at some stages of

the experiments, thus their feedback on the blindfolded exercise was not

positive. We classified the comments into two groups, one related to dif-

ficulty of synthesizing elements in imagery and the other one related to

image maintenance:

1. Synthesizing: Quoting A2, ‘The whole sketch brings together the bits

you imagined. And the drawing tells you whether you’re in a fantasy

land or not. that’s the role of drawing that actually synthesizes re-

membered parts in new ways.’

2. Image maintenance: Quoting A2, ‘I can’t hold in my head any visual

memory of what the precise geometry of these spaces’. ‘Can I find

a pencil somewhere?’ Umm, (35.03) ‘because all I’ve got in my

mind are these pathetic little lines that just keep dissolving and I

want something concrete’.

The participants’ comments and the way they see and interpret their ex-

perience when they were blindfolded were different from what the results

showed. All the comments supported the idea that sketching is essential

for conceptual designing. For the participant architects, sketching was

functional, conventional, and habitual but not the only way to efficiently

design. We have demonstrated in this paper that the architects produced

similar design outcomes, were engaged in similar rates of cognitive activ-

ity and similar rates of concept/idea development under both condi-

tions. On the other hand, the interview outcomes imply that

architects’ perception of the two conditions favored the use of sketching

during designing. Perhaps this makes the process of communicating our

findings more challenging to the wider community of architects.

4.2 Working memory limitationsResearch in visuo-spatial working memory (VSWM) has found evidence

that the capacity of working memory is limited when visual and spatial

tasks are done using imagery alone. Thus, the cognitive load should be

higher in a blindfolded exercise since image maintenance and synthesis

of images require more executive control resources (Baddeley et al.,

1998; Pearson et al., 1999; Vecchi and Cornoldi, 1999). Participants’

comments indicated difficulty in maintenance of images/geometries,

and the problem of not being able to store the partial solutions to access

them later during the design process. Thus, sketching makes design

thinking easier by ‘seeing it’ and ‘storing it’. In other words, sketching

puts much less load on the cognitive processes needed to design.


Bilda and Gero (2005) analyzed the cognitive activity differences of the

same three expert architects along the timeline of the design activity,

when they design in BF and SK conditions. It was observed that all par-

ticipants’ overall cognitive activity in the blindfolded condition dropped

below their activity in the sketching condition, approximately after

20 min during the timeline of the design sessions. This drop in perfor-

mance was explained by higher cognitive demands in blindfolded condi-

tions. Externalization is needed to off-load the visuo-spatial working

memory, and for the same reason drawings and diagrams play an impor-

tant role in designing.

In the BF conditions, the three architects demonstrated significantly

higher recall actions (which included recall of information about the

site and the brief, past cases and previous perceptual experiences).

This result is in accord with the view that mental imagery could be

used to access the information in long-term memory (Kosslyn, 1980,

1994). The long-termmemory (LTM) has higher capacity than the work-

ing memory, but the access to LTM information is slower compared to

access to short-term/working memory (Card et al., 1983). In another

stream of research, experts (chess players) were found to have a potential

to use their working memory in a different way where they manage to

rapidly access to LTM information and use that in their working mem-

ory (Simon and Chase, 1973; Ericsson and Kintsch, 1995; Saariluoma,

1998). This mechanism of long-term working memory (LTWM) is hy-

pothesized to be efficient in retrieval and use of dynamic cognitive

chunks in LTM. The significantly higher recall actions in BF conditions

could be explained by the possible use of LTWMby the expert architects.

4.3 Implications for expertise and design educationThis study suggests that sketching might not be the only way to conceptu-

ally design for expert architects. If designers are able to design blindfolded

and in their minds, then why do they prefer to sketch? The answer may be

that it is easier to sketch, in other words sketching puts much less load on

the cognitive processes needed to design. If the BF condition went on for

1e2 h the cognitive loadwould have been larger maybe ending upwith fa-

tigue and frustration of the participants. On the other hand, the results of

the case study implied that the use of imagery alone could be an efficient

tool for quick and focused idea development in the early conceptual phases

of designing. Another variation of the technique might be the use of exter-

nalization at some stages of major decisions, thus portions of design and

related concepts are recorded. This would release the working memory

load, allowing other tasks to be done effectively. These techniques might


be useful for experts in practice provided that the architects are trained to

use their imagery alone more frequently and efficiently.

This study showed that sketching might not be a necessary act for expert

designers under certain conditions during conceptual designing; how-

ever, we do not disregard the importance of sketching in learning how

to design. Design education requires an intensive learning process

through drawing, thus it is important to learn how to think with

sketches. While design students learn how to sketch they are also learn-

ing how to develop ideas, such as starting with one design proposal and

developing it into another one. Thus, students learn how to progress

their ideas through sketching. On the other hand experts could have

reached a state where they could progress a design via thinking only.

Consequently, when they are in a situation where they have to do it in

their imagery they might be using their experience of conceptually devel-

oping a design. This could be an important component of expertise, i.e.

the ability to simulate how the ideas are developed, and thus this may be

the key to our participants’ abilities in blindfolded designing. Similarly,

in cognitive psychology research, studies with expert chess players iden-

tified a skilled imagery (Simon and Chase, 1973), which shows evidence

of the use of imagery for longer periods and with higher cognitive loads.

An expert chess player can play more than 10 concurrent games while

blindfolded (Saariluoma, 1998). These studies showed that experts

with skilled imagery performance can maintain and transform associa-

tive connections between the elements in their imagery effectively over

an extended time period. Similarly, expert architects could have devel-

oped this skilled imagery through using and learning the architectural

language with the use of sketches. What the blindfolded exercise showed

was that they can do it in their minds provided they are experienced

enough. Another question from this argument is whether the novice de-

signers would be able to come up with a reasonable design solution at

the end of a BF session. Athavankar and Mukherjee (2003) showed

that novice designers can handle design problem solving when blind-

folded, however, the authors did not study systematic analysis of proto-

cols or comparison of the design outcomes. This remains as a question

for a future study.

5 ConclusionIn this paper we have demonstrated that externalizing a design may

not be the only way to design visually. Sketches and in general ex-

ternalizations are claimed to be central to designing; they represent

the development of designs, they have an interactive role and a cru-

cial effect in the mechanics of the design activity. However, based on


our results from these experiments, we propose that ‘externalizing’

may not be necessary for expert designers, in the early phases of

the conceptual designing, for

1. A satisfying and reasonable outcome

2. Pursuing cognitive activity needed for designing

3. Developing a coherent network of ideas/concepts

AcknowledgementsThis research was supported by an International Postgraduate Research

ScholarshipandaUniversityof Sydney InternationalPostgraduateAward,

facilities are provided by the Key Centre of Design Computing and Cogni-

tion. We are grateful to the architects who participated in this study.

ReferencesAkin, O (1978) How do architects design? in J C Latombe (ed) Artificial

intelligence and pattern recognition in computer aided design North Holland,Amsterdam pp 65e119Akin, O (1986) Psychology of architectural design Pion Ltd, London

Athavankar, U A (1997) Mental imagery, as a design tool Cybernetics andSystems Vol 28 pp 25e47Athavankar, U A and Mukherjee, A (2003) Blindfolded classroom gettingdesign students to use mental imagery in U Lindemann (ed) Human behav-

iour in design Springer pp 111e120Baddeley, A D, Emsile, H, Kolodny, J and Duncan, J (1998) Random gen-eration and executive control of working memory Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology Vol 51A pp 819e852Bauer, M I and Johnson-Laird, P N (1993) How diagrams can improve rea-soning Psychological Science Vol 4 pp 372e378

Bilda, Z and Gero, J S (2004) Analysis of a blindfolded architect’s designsession, in J S Gero, B Tversky and T Knight (eds) Visual and spatial reason-ing in design III. Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition University

of Sydney, Australia pp 121e136Bilda, Z and Gero, J S (2005) Does sketching off-load visuo-spatial work-ing memory? in J S Gero and N Bonnardel (eds) Studying designers 05. KeyCentre of Design Computing and Cognition University of Sydney, Australia

pp 145e159Bilda, Z and Purcell, A T (2003) Imagery in the architectural design process,in 9th European Workshop on Imagery and Cognition (EWIC 9), 24e27

April 2003, Pavia, Italy pp 63e64Card, S K, Moran, T P and Newell, A (1983) The psychology of humanecomputer interaction Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

Cross, N, Christiaans, H and Dorst, K (eds) (1996) Analyzing design activityJohn Wiley & Sons, New YorkDo, E Yi-L, Gross, M D, Neiman, B and Zimring, C (2000) Intentions in andrelations among design drawings Design Studies Vol 21 No 5 pp 483e503

Ericsson, K A and Kintsch, W (1995) Long term working memory Psycho-logical Review Vol 102 pp 221e245


Fish, J and Scrivener, S (1990) Amplifying the mind’s eye: sketching andvisual cognition Leonardo Vol 23 No 1 pp 117e126Goel, V (1995) Sketches of thought MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoldschmidt, G (1991) The dialectics of sketching Creativity Research

Journal Vol 4 No 2 pp 123e143Goldschmidt, G (1997) Capturing indeterminism: representation in thedesign problem space Design Studies Vol 18 No 4 pp 441e445

Hegarty, M (1992) Mental animation: inferring motion from static displaysof mechanical systems Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language,Memory and Cognition Vol 18 pp 1084e1102

Kavakli, M and Gero, J S (2001) Sketching as mental imagery processingDesign Studies Vol 22 No 4 pp 347e364Kavakli, M and Gero, J S (2002) The structure of concurrent cognitive ac-

tions: a case study on novice and expert designers Design Studies Vol 23 No1 pp 25e40Kosslyn,SM (1980) ImageandmindHarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MAKosslyn, S M (1994) Image and brain: the resolution of the imagery debate

MIT Press, Cambridge, MALarkin, J H and Simon, H A (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worthten thousand word Cognitive Science Vol 11 pp 65e100

Lawson, B (1990) How designers think? (2nd edn) Butterworth Architecture,LondonPearson, D G, Logie, R H and Gilhooly, K J (1999) Verbal representations

and spatial manipulations during mental synthesis European Journal ofCognitive Psychology Vol 11 No 3 pp 295e314Purcell, A T and Gero, J S (1998) Drawings and the design process Design

Studies Vol 19 pp 389e480Saariluoma, P (1998) Adversary problem solving and working memory, inR H Logie and K J Gilhooly (eds) Working memory and thinking PsychologyPress, Hove, East Sussex pp 115e138

Schon, D A (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think inaction Basic Books, New YorkSchon, D A and Wiggins, G (1992) Kinds of seeing and their functions in

designing Design Studies Vol 13 No 2 pp 135e156Simon, H A and Chase, W G (1973) Skill in chess American Scientist Vol lNo 4 pp 394e403

Suwa, M, Gero, J S and Purcell, T (1999) How an architect created designrequirements, in G Goldschmidt and W Porter (eds) Design thinking researchsymposium: design representation MIT, Cambridge pp 101e124Suwa, M, Gero, J S and Purcell, T (2000) Unexpected discoveries and s-in-

ventions of design requirements: important vehicles for a design processDesign Studies Vol 21 pp 539e567Suwa, M, Purcell, T and Gero, J S (1998) Macroscopic analysis of design

processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions DesignStudies Vol 19 No 4 pp 455e483Suwa, M and Tversky, B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in

their design sketches? A protocol analysis Design Studies Vol 18 No 4 pp385e403Toker, F (2003) Falling Water Rising: Frank Lloyd Wright, E.J. Kaufmann,

and America’s Most Extraordinary House Knopf, New York


Appendix

Design brief 01

Client: Your task is to design a house for a couple, whose ages are

29 and 34. The female is a dancer, and the male is a painter.

They are sensitive to colors and beauty, enjoy contact with

the natural environment. In order to make their dream house come

true, they have a budget of about $350 000.

Site: The site is located on the corner of the fully serviced home sites sur-

rounded by a large central open-space recreation reserve in Matraville,

one of Sydney’s south eastern newly desirable locations. It is a trapezium

in shape and slopes down to the edge of the recreation. The site has

a view of the flame trees in the recreation reserve and the whole reserve.

The site is 700 m2. The floor space ratio for this site is 0.65:1, so the max-

imum floor plan can be 455 m2.

House: The house is expected to be caressed by gentle sea breezes, and

screened by a stately grove of magnificent flame trees along the edge

of the estate. A sculpture garden is required for display of their art col-

lections. According to the Randwick Development Control Plan No. 4,

the height of a dwelling house should not exceed maximum of 9.5 m.

Your task is to give forms to and arrange the following spaces on the

site with the approximate sizes:

Living/dining area: 40 m2 Painter’s studio: 50 m2

Kitchen: 15 m2 Dancer’s studio: 50 m2

Bath: 10 m2 Observatory: 20 m2

Master bedroom: 30 m2 WC-shower: 9 m2

Bedroom: 20 m2 Parking space: 36 m2

Design brief 02Client: Your task is to design a house for a re-married couple, whose ages

are 42 (female) and 50 (male). The female is a part-time University lec-

turer, and the male is a Consultant and a Business Analyst. They’ve got

five children (three frompreviousmarriages, aged 17, 15 and 13; two chil-

dren of the current marriage, aged 7 and 5). They’ve got busy lifestyles

and they also enjoy contact with the natural environment. The female

works from home 2 days a week. The male invites colleagues from over-

seas every 2 months to their house for consulting purposes. There should

be a study or work space, possibly shared by husband and wife. She will


work from home, and he will need to use the space for meetings with col-

leagues. In order to make their functional, dream house come true, they

have a budget of about $450 000.

Site: The site is located on the corner of the fully serviced home sites sur-

rounded by a large central open-space recreation reserve in Matraville,

one of Sydney’s south eastern newly desirable locations. It is a trapezium

in shape and slopes down to the edge of the recreation. The site has

a view of the flame trees in the recreation reserve and the whole reserve.

The site is 700 m2. The floor space ratio for this site is 0.65:1, so the max-

imum floor plan can be 455 m2.

House: The house is expected to be caressed by gentle sea breezes, and

screened by a stately grove of magnificent flame trees along the edge

of the estate. A garden is required accommodating for children’s recre-

ational activities. According to the Randwick Development Control

Plan No. 4, the height of a dwelling house should not exceed maximum

of 9.5 m. Your task is to give forms to and arrange the following spaces

on the site with the approximate sizes:

Living/dining area: 40 m2 Study/workspace 15 m2

Kitchen: 15 m2 External play area FlexibleBathroom: 10 m2 WC-shower: 9 m2

Master bedroom: 20e25 m2 Parking space: 36 m2

Bedrooms arrangementfor 5 children:

70e120 m2 Family room/children’saccommodation

30 m2

Design discussionThe participants were interviewed after the blindfolded sessions, before

they do a sketching session. They were asked open-ended questions

which are listed below.

1. Can you describe how you went about the design process?

2. What role did talking play in the process?

3. How well developed do you think the design is?

4. If you were sketching in this session, do you think you would have

produced a more developed, less developed or design of about the

same level development?

5. How important is sketching in your design process?

6. What role did visual or other imagery play in this design process?


Design ideation: the conceptual sketchin the digital age

Ben Jonson, University of London, Goldsmiths College, Department

of Design, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK

The freehand sketch has traditionally been seen as the primary conceptual

tool in the early stages of the design process. But what is the impact of

digital technology on conceptual tools and sketching in particular?

A multiple case study compared how design students and design

practitioners used conceptual tools in everyday design situations. The

outcome showed that verbalisation, rather than freehand sketching was

the major conceptual tool for getting started. Moreover, the computer

emerged as an ideation tool across design domains.


Keywords: conceptual design, design process, design tools, drawing,

design ideation

Design ideation can be seen as a matter of generating,

developing and communicating ideas, where ‘idea’ is un-

derstood as a basic element of thought that can be either

visual, concrete or abstract. As such it is an essential part of the design

process, both in education and practice (Broadbent, in Fowles, 1979:15).

In this process, freehand sketching has traditionally been considered

a core conceptual tool (Schon, 1983; Garner, 1992; Goel, 1995; Suwa

and Tversky, 1997; Cross, 1999; Tversky, 1999; Plimmer and Apperley,

2002; Bilda and Demirkan, 2003). But despite the extensive literature on

the subject, the role of sketching may not have been sufficiently

examined or challenged in the digital age, including the view that

computer-aided design, CAD, is an inappropriate means for conceptu-

alisation (Lawson and Loke, 1997; Verstijnen et al., 1998; Purcell, 1998).

1 Case study

1.1 Participants and projectsTo illuminate uses of conceptual tools in education and professional

practice, five undergraduate design students and five design practi-

tioners in the domains of fashion (FA), architecture (AR), graphic

(GR), product (PR), and general design (DE) volunteered to take part in


B. Jonson

[email protected]



doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.03.001 613� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain



http://www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

614

a comparative case study. The students, who were in their second-year

(Y2), and the practitioners, who had been working between one and two

years since their graduation, were asked to record uses of conceptual

tools as they started on a new design project within their respective

domain (situated research). Each project, therefore, was part of everyday

designing and included in the case study for being accessible at the time

of the research.

The project briefs were: (1) to design a collection of six outfits containing

a particular print motif (fashion student); (2) to design a luggage range

incorporating printed canvas (fashion practitioner); (3) to design an

arrival building for visitors on a National Trust site (architecture

student); (4) to design a flagship fashion store in London’s Oxford street

(practising architect); (5) to design an interactive experience that

communicates a sense of space (graphic design student); (6) to design

an interactive web site for an international retail company introducing

a new brand (graphic designer); (7) to design further adaptation and use

of electrical plugs and plug sockets (product design student); (8) to

design a new retail concept for future record selling business (product

designer); (9) to find design solutions for urban cycling (general design

student); (10) to design an interactive artefact for an exhibition space

(general design practitioner).

1.2 Data collectionThe data gathering aimed at capturing uses of conceptual tools as they

actually happened in everyday design across a wide spectrum of design

domains. The focus on authentic design situations was important

because common experience suggests that ideation thrives under

opportunistic rather than organisational conditions. Therefore, and

unlike laboratory-like research, the participants would need the greatest

freedom possible in using their own tools and having unrestricted access

to information (Dwarakanath and Blessing, 1996), both in terms of type

of information and order of processing it (Plass et al., 1998).

Direct observation, including the think-aloud method, was one possible

way of gathering research material. Yet, this method has been criticised

for being weak at capturing non-verbal thought processes (Cross et al.,

1996), or for affecting the design process itself (Davies, 1995:103).

Similarly, participant observation (Robson, 1993:159) raised the issues

of confidentiality, reactivity and access and might therefore interfere

with the free flow of ideas, particularly as ideation realistically would be

situated not only in the studio, but in many ‘other places’. Moreover, the

observation that design concepts may not appear, ‘all at once’

Design Studies Vol 26 No. 6 November 2005

Design ideation: the co

(Goldschmidt, 1994:164), or that the designer cannot always trace the

steps of conceptualising (Davies and Talbot, 1987:21), underlined how

data collection was a critical research issue.

The research instrument, therefore, would have to be both reliable and

user-friendly, capable of capturing uses of conceptual tools not after the

conceptual events, but during the events. This approach suggested how

feedback might be received from participants if they themselves, rather

than the researcher, were to identify and record their use of conceptual

tools as they went along. Self-reporting, then, resulted in a research

instrument that was designed in two parts: the self-report and the

interview. In this, the self-report, as a kind of a diary, effectively became

a preliminary to interviewing (Burgess, 1981). Therefore, the two

protocols complemented each other and, moreover, helped check the

authenticity of the outcomes.

1.3 The self-reportThe notion of reflective practice (Schon, 1983) together with how

designers use sketchbooks, creative journals, diaries and similar devices

for keeping track of ideas, informed the designing of the self-report.

Thus, the self-report was laid out as a simple grid of numbered squares

on paper where each square represented half-a-day of ideation activity.

The number of squares was open-ended because the conceptualisation

period could not be pre-determined because it would necessarily vary in

length according to each individual project. The choice of an ideation

period of half-a-day was a pragmatic time management issue reflecting

how self-reporting in real design situations could not be a stopwatch

activity, as might be the case in a study under controlled conditions, but

rather an activity akin to ‘reflection-in-action’ (Schon, 1983). Moreover,

the usability of the self-report was tested in a pilot study prior to the case

study.

Each numbered square, therefore, represented a time- and event-based

coding unit for four categories of conceptual tools: sketching [S], words

[W], modelling [M], and computing [C] (Figure 1b). According to the

Guidelines, shown here partially for the purpose of this paper, the

participants simply encircled with a pen the symbol(s) for the tool(s)

used in each session of the conceptual phase (Figure 1a, b). Thus, any

kind of freehand line drawing, including annotation, was marked as

sketching [S]. Words [W] meant both spoken and written words,

including Internet searches. Any activity involving direct manipulation

of materials, say card, wood, or fabric, was denoted modelling [M]. Any

nceptual sketch in the digital age 615

Figure 1 (a) Guidelines: For

each session worked, circle

the tool(s) (S,W,M,C) you

used in that session. If other

than S, W, M, C, describe in

numbered footnote (1, etc.).

(b) An example of how the

self-report was filled in. It

shows the architect’s first

sheet of the self-report, or 36

sessions (of a total of 85

recorded sessions). N.B.

More data were recorded in

and extracted from the self-

report than presented in this

paper

616 Design Studies Vol 26 No. 6 November 2005


digital work, from CAD to hypermedia, was described as computing

[C].

The word ‘tool’ might invoke the mechanical, rather than the digital age.

Yet ‘tool’ was used for representing both action and thinking, as in

‘thinking tool’, and therefore the notion of conceptual tools covered

both physical and cognitive activities. However, the chosen tool

categories, which were tested in the pilot study, were not exclusive.

The self-report, therefore, provided additional space to record

conceptual tools other than [S], [W], [M], and [C] (Figure 1b). In the

event, however, none of the participants reported using any other tool.

But just ‘having ideas in one’s head’ did not constitute a tool option

because the term conceptual tool implied the need for ideas to be

externalised, or nobody else would know about them. Yet this was not to

dismiss ‘non-productive thoughts’, say, daydreaming, which, if extern-

alised, for instance as doodling, would be regarded as sketching [S].

1.4 The interviewThe participants’ thoughts on ideation after the events, or ‘reflection-on-

action’ (Schon, 1983), were important not only as a source of research

material, but also as a data check because self-reporting can be faulty,

particularly through forgetfulness. At the end of the conceptualising

period, therefore, individual interviews were conducted with the

participants. Each interview, which was audio-taped and transcribed,

included the following scripted questions: What conceptual tools did

you use? Where in the design process did you use them? Did you

experience any sudden insights (‘Aha!’), and if so, what conceptual tools

were then used? What were the strengths and weaknesses of the

respective conceptual tools? The interviews, however, went beyond the

scripted questions confirming how case study interviews ‘appear to be

guided conversations rather than structural queries’ (Yin, 2003:89).

1.5 Analytical approachThe research material, as recorded in the self-reports and the interviews,

was not treated as sample data, but rather as rich descriptions in which

the authority of the research was shared between the researcher and the

participants, as co-researchers. Therefore, protocol reliability and

validity was built on trustworthiness from a practical and pragmatic

perspective (Silverman, 2001). Moreover, using purposive sampling

(Denzin and Lincoln, 1994), the case study did not amount to a survey

and therefore any generalisation would be of an analytical rather than

statistical nature (Yin, 2003).


618

The length of the conceptualisation period varied greatly in the 10 cases

reflecting the unique character of each project as well as individual

approaches to ideation. Thus, the fashion student recorded 29

conceptual sessions; the fashion practitioner 7; the architecture student

17; the architect 85; the graphic design student 19; the graphic designer

45; the product design student 16; the product designer 10; the general

design student 23; and the general design practitioner 6. To enable

comparison between the distribution of conceptual tools according to

the four tool categories, and between students and practitioners, and

between domains, single tool usage was calculated case-by-case as

a fraction of all tools used in each project (tool distribution).

In this, the analysis was concerned with tool usage by designer status

(student or practitioner) and by design domain, not with the evaluation

of ideas per se. This was because at the time of the interview, the ideas

represented propositions, or work in progress, rather than final plans,

artefacts or systems. The focusing on ideation as process, rather than

outcome, therefore recognised the gap between the ideas and their

realisation, which can be considerable. Moreover, as ideation is

concerned with both thinking and feeling, assessment of ideas can be

biased because they evoke personal reactions to the idea itself (Lawson,

1990).

2 Findings

2.1 Most used single toolsTable 1 shows the most used single conceptual tool, as a fraction of 1.0

of all tools used, in each of the 10 cases. For instance, the most used

single tool by the second-year fashion student (Y2 FA) was modelling

[M], at the ratio 0.7 (for easy reading, any other tools, and whether used

or not are marked zero in the table. For a full set of figures, see Tables 2

and 3). Overall, then, what emerged was the range of ‘primary tools’

used by the participants with the exception of sketching [S], which was

not recorded as the most used single tool in any of the cases.

Table 1 Most used single tool (ratio of all tools used)

Y2 FA Pr FA Y2 AR Pr AR Y2 GR Pr GR Y2 PR Pr PR Y2DE

PrDE

Sketch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Word 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.4 0.5Model 0.7 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0Comp 0 0 0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.4 0


Design ideation: the c

The findings, therefore, challenged two dominant views in the literature.

First, that sketching [S] is the primary conceptual tool, and, second, that

computing [C] is unsuitable for conceptualisation.

2.2 Getting started: Square OneThe first ideation session in each case was particularly illuminating

(Square One in the self-report). Thus, Figure 2 shows what single or

mixed conceptual tool(s) the participants used, as recorded in the first

session of each project. That is, single use of sketching [S], words [W], or

computing [C] as well as the combination of sketching and words

[S C W], and computing and words [C C W], as proportions of all the

tools used in all the projects for getting started.

Again, the role of sketching was less prominent than that often assumed

in the literature. That is, sketching on its own [S] initiated the design

process in only one case, or 10 % of all the cases, whereas sketching in

combination with another tool [S C W] was used in two cases (20%). In

contrast, verbalisation on its own [W] was used in four cases (40%), and

with another tool [S C W] or [C C W], in four more cases. That is,

verbalisation, either on its own or together with another tool, was used

in a total of eight out of 10 cases (80%). One participant went straight to

the computer [C]. None began with the modelling tool [M].

2.3 Relative tool usageThe relative use of conceptual tools, as a decimal fraction of 1.0,

is shown in Table 2 (Y2 students) and in Table 3 (Practitioners).

For example, in Table 2, under Y2 AR, the ratio 0.1 means that the

Table 2 Y2 students relative tool usage

Y2 FA Y2 AR Y2 GR Y2 PR Y2 DE

Sketch 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2Word 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4Model 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0Comp 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4

Table 3 Practitioners relative tool usage

Pr FA Pr AR Pr GR Pr PR Pr DE

Sketch 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2Word 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5Model 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Comp 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3

onceptual sketch in the digital age 619

second-year architecture student used sketching [S] in about 10% of the

recorded sessions, whereas the corresponding figures for spoken and

written words [W] were 0.2, or around 20%. Or put differently, the

architecture student used words [W] roughly twice as often as sketching

[S] when conceptualising. The corresponding decimal figures for the

practising architect (Pr AR) were 0.2 and 0.3 (Table 3).

The findings highlighted how all the Y2 students and the practitioners,

except the product designer (Pr PR), used sketching [S] as a conceptual

tool. Significantly, however, in no case was sketching recorded as the

most used conceptual tool.

All the Y2 students, with the exception of the fashion student (Y2 FA),

and all the practitioners used words [W] in conceptualisation. Notice-

able was the relative strength of verbalisation as a conceptual tool

among the practitioners.

Three of the five Y2 students used the sketch modelling tool [M], which

was the single most used conceptual tool, whereas among the

practitioners only the architect (Pr AR) used it, which was the least

used tool.

All the Y2 students and all the practitioners recorded computing [C] as

a conceptual tool, and the practitioners relatively more so than the

students. The software used by the participants included painting

packages (bitmap), such as Adobe Photoshop�, as well as drawing

packages (vector), for example, Adobe Illustrator�, Macromedia

Director�, and Rhinoceros�.

2.4 ‘Aha!’ momentsThe participants were asked to capture any ‘sudden breakthroughs’, or

so-called ‘Aha!’ moments, and then record the corresponding conceptual

Getting started

S10%

W40%

C10%

S+W20%

C+W20%

Figure 2 Tools used for get-

ting started

620 Design Studies Vol 26 No. 6 November 2005

tool(s) (Figure 1b). Figure 3 shows that all participants except the

architecture student (Y2AR) recorded at least one ‘Aha!’ moment. Thus,

of a total of 13 suchmoments (aggregated from left-hand scale), a total of

15 conceptual tools were used (as coded), of which eight were words [W],

three were sketching [S], another three computing [C], and onemodelling

[M]. The graphic design practitioner (Pr GR) was alone experiencing

a ‘Aha!’ momentwhile engagedwithmore than one conceptual tool. And

only the fashion student (Y2 FA) and the general design student (Y2DE)

recorded more than one ‘Aha!’ moment (three each).

The findings show how over half of the ‘Aha!’ moments occurred in the

verbalisation mode [W]. Sketching and computing equally captured

three ‘Aha!’ moments, in contrast to one for modelling.

3 DiscussionThe study challenged the primacy of freehand sketching for conceptu-

alising (Table 1). Instead, verbalisation, on its own or in combination

with other conceptual tools, emerged as the prime mover for getting

started (Figure 2), and was the most used tool for externalising ‘Aha!’

moments (Figure 3). Moreover, the combination of tools suggests that

design ideation was an interaction, or a dialogue between visualisation

(non-verbal) and language (verbal), similar to what has been described

elsewhere as ‘the language of design’ (Schon, 1983), ‘the translation

problem’ (Tomes et al., 1998), or the ‘picture-word-cycle’ (Dorner,

1999).

The relative strength of verbalisation, however, made sense in that

words are the most common means of human communication, both in

face-to-face and computer-mediated environments, as experienced by

many designers in conceptualising designs (Lawson and Loke, 1997).

But words are fundamental not just to communication but to the

process of thought itself, although this observation may be overlooked

or underestimated, as the case study findings suggest. Furthermore,

verbalisation emphasised the social and collaborative aspects of

Tools used in 13 "Aha" moments

0

1

2

3

Y2 FA Pr FA Y2 AR Pr AR Y2 GR Pr GR Y2 PR Pr PR Y2 DE Pr DE

Comp

Model

Word

Sketch

Figure 3 Tools used for cap-

turing ‘Aha!’ moments

Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age 621

622

designing (Cross and Clayburn Cross, 1995). Interestingly, the fashion

student was the only case where verbalisation was not used as

a conceptual tool and explained by a preference for working solo, in

a non-verbal mode away from other people in the early stage of the

design process (Table 2).

Verbalevisual interaction, moreover, may reflect how all forms of

human expressions are ‘just the surface structure created by the deep

structure of the human language instinct’ (Nolte, 2001:106). Arguably,

then, representation of ideas is the surface structure of ideas whereas the

meaning of ideas is embedded in the deep structure of language.

Therefore, as deep structure, ‘sketching about for ideas’ suggests a sense-

making activity that is not tied to any particular conceptual tool.

In broadening the concept of sketching, then, CAD is not just a narrowly

defined technical drawing tool but a conceptual tool capable of

developing new ways of perceiving and conceiving design. That is,

CAD may foster new patterns, relationships, or aesthetics expanding,

rather than reducing designers’ creative options, as suggested by the

participants in their use of computing for conceptualising (Tables 2

and 3). Arguably, then, the view that CAD is inappropriate for

conceptualising seems to be based on a preconception of conceptual

tools as surface, rather than deep structures.

3.1 Computer-aided ideationWhat seems to complicate the discussion on CAD for ideation is that

commercial CAD systems tend to be driven by production needs

(efficiency and accuracy), rather than creativity, focusing on automating

routine tasks and on increasing drawing productivity, and therefore

reducing product development costs. Limiting CAD to changes or

improvements of existing products or systems, which constitute the bulk

of designing, may, however, overlook advances in digital technology in

which the computer can introduce new practices and promote different

ways of working towards experimentation and discovery (Coyne et al.,

2002). Moreover, designers who focus on innovation through analogue

tools alone might effectively censor CAD during conceptual and

schematic design phases (Gibson, 2000). Such narrow focusing also

highlights knowledge and skills of computing technologies. For

instance, a research study into design devices found that inexperience

with computing seemed to limit design possibilities (Coyne et al., 2002,

pp. 270e271). The lack of experience may also help explain why in the

case study most of the students used less computing relative to the

practitioners (Tables 2 and 3).



3.2 Why sketching?The strength of verbalisation in the ideation process, and the use of the

computer for conceptualising, did not, however, sideline the drawing

issue. That is, although sketching was not recorded as the primary

conceptual tool, all the participant students said that they would have

liked to do more sketching, which they considered a skill. In general, the

students felt they lacked opportunities for sketching in set projects, and

that studio teachers were not always seen as role models for sketching.

The practitioners considered sketching a skill too and backed the

teaching of drawing despite the fact that they themselves did relatively

little sketching in their everyday practice. The reasons given for this was

mainly commercial, for example, time and cost pressures, but also client

expectation of photo-realistic images at the ideation stage.

This suggests that the relatively small amount of traditional sketching

among the participants had more to do with constraints in the design

environment than any personal rejection of freehand drawing as such.

To illuminate uses of conceptual tools through self-reporting, therefore,

seemed worthwhile because the participants, by looking critically at

their own ideation process (reflection-on-action), gained greater

awareness of conceptual tools and therefore better understanding of

why sketching?

ReferencesBilda, Z and Demirkan, H (2003) An insight on designers’ sketchingactivities in traditional versus digital media Design Studies Vol 24 No 1

pp 27e49Burgess, R G (1981) Keeping a research diary Cambridge Journal ofEducation Vol 11 Part 1 pp 75e83

Coyne, R, Hoon, P and Wiszniewski, D (2002) Design devices: digitaldrawing and the pursuit of difference Design Studies Vol 23 No 3 pp263e286Cross, N (1999) Natural intelligence in design Design Studies Vol 20 No 1

pp 25e39Cross, N, Christiaans, H and Dorst, K (1996) Introduction: the Delftprotocols workshop,, in N Cross,H Christiaans and K Dorst (eds) Analysing

design activity, John Wiley, Chichester, UK pp 1e16Cross, N and Clayburn Cross, A (1995) Observations of teamwork andsocial processes in design Design Studies Vol 16 No 2 pp 143e170

Davies, S (1995) Effects of concurrent verbalisation on design problemsolving Design Studies Vol 16 No 1 pp 102e116Davies, R and Talbot, R J (1987) Experiencing ideas: identity, insight and

the imago Design Studies Vol 8 No 1 pp 17e25Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y (eds) (1994) Handbook of qualitative research,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA


624

Dorner, D (1999) Approaching design thinking research Design StudiesVol 20 No 5 pp 407e415Dwarakanath, S and Blessing, L (1996) Ingredients of the designprocess: a comparison between group and individual work,, in N Cross,

H Christiaans and K Dorst (eds) Analysing design activity, John Wiley,Chichester, UK pp 93e116Fowles, R A (1979) Design methods in UK Schools of Architecture Design

Studies Vol 1 No 1 pp 15e16Garner, S (1992) The undervalued role of drawing in design,, inD Thistlewood (ed) Drawing research and development, Longman, London

pp 98e109Gibson, K (2000) Divergent and convergent thinking with CAD Journal ofDesign Communication Vol 2

Goel, V (1995) Sketches of thought The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoldschmidt, G (1994) On visual design thinking: the vis kids ofarchitecture Design Studies Vol 15 No 2 pp 158e174Lawson, B (1990) How designers think: the design process demystified

(2nd edn) Butterworth Architecture, LondonLawson, B and Loke, S M (1997) Computers, words and pictures DesignStudies Vol 18 No 2 pp 171e183

Nolte, D (2001) Mind at light speed e a new kind of intelligence The FreePress, New York, NYPlass, J, Chuan, D, Mayer, R and Leutner, D (1998) Supporting visual and

verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia environmentJournal of Educational Psychology Vol 90 No 1 pp 25e36Plimmer, B and Apperley, M (2002) Computer-aided sketching to capture

preliminary design Paper at Third Australasian User Interfaces Conference,Melbourne, Australia, in J Grundy and P Calder (eds) Conferences inResearch and Practice in Information Technology Vol 7, AustralianComputer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia pp 9e12

Purcell, T (1998) Editorial. Special issue: sketching and drawing in designDesign Studies Vol 19 No 4 pp 385e387Robson, C (1993) Real world research Blackwell, Oxford

Schon, D (1983) The reflective practitioner Temple-Smith, LondonSilverman, D (2001) Interpreting qualitative data (2nd edn) Sage, LondonSuwa, M and Tversky, B (1997) What do architects and students perceive

in their design sketches? A protocol analysis Design Studies Vol 18 No 4pp 385e403Tomes, A, Oates, C and Armstrong, P (1998) Talking design: negotiatingthe verbalevisual translation Design Studies Vol 19 No 2 pp 127e142

Tversky, B (1999) What does drawing reveal about thinking,, in J S Gero

and B Tversky (eds) Visual and spatial reasoning in design, University ofSydney, Australia

Verstijnen, I M, Hennessey, J M, van Leeuwen, C , Hamel, R and

Goldschmidt, G (1998) Sketching and creative discovery Design StudiesVol 19 pp 519e546

Yin, R (2003) Case study research, design and methods Sage, ThousandOaks, CA



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.


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,



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


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


Figure 1 Digital marks with

ambiguous characteristics


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


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



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


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.



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.


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.



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


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


Table 3 Reinterpretations during Task 2 on paper


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


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.


Table 4 Reinterpretations during Task 2 on computer


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


Figure 2 Examples of reinterpretation by Subject 9 working on paper


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.



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.


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.


the sketch book problem' readings

Documents