Options and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis

Design Space Analysis is an approach to representing design rationale. It uses a semiformal notation, called QOC (Questions, Options, and Criteria), to represent the design space around an artifact. The main constituents of QOC are Questions identifying key design issues, Options providing possible answers to the Questions, and Criteria for assessing and comparing the Options. Design Space Analysis also takes account of justifications for the design (and possible alternative designs) that reflect considerations such as consistency, models and analogies, and relevant data and theory. A Design Space Analysis does not produce a record of the design process but is instead a coproduct of design and has to be constructed alongside the artifact itself. Our work is motivated by the notion that a Design Space Analysis will repay the investment in its creation by supporting both the original process of design and subsequent work on redesign and reuse by (a) providing an explicit representation to aid reasoning about the design and about the consequences of changes to it and (b) serving as a vehicle for communication, for example, among members of the design team or among the original designers and later maintainers of a system. Our work to date emphasises the nature of the QOC representation over processes for creating it, so these claims serve as goals rather than objectives we have achieved. This article describes the elements of Design Space Analysis and illustrates them by reference to analyses of existing designs and to studies of the concepts and arguments used by designers during design discussions.

[1]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Human-computer interaction scenarios as a design representation , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[2]  Randall H. Trigg,et al.  Notecards in a nutshell , 1986, CHI '87.

[3]  Brigham Bell,et al.  Problem-Centered Design for Expressiveness and Facility in a Graphical Programming System , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Jeff A. Johnson,et al.  Styles in document editing systems , 1988, Computer.

[5]  P C Wason,et al.  Reasoning about a Rule , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Jintae Lee,et al.  What's in design rationale? , 1991 .

[7]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys, for text selection on a CRT , 1987 .

[8]  O. Holsti,et al.  Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis , 1972 .

[9]  Allan MacLean,et al.  What rationale is there in design? , 1990, INTERACT.

[10]  John R. Hayes,et al.  The Complete Problem Solver , 1981 .

[11]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  The Command Language Grammar: A Representation for the User Interface of Interactive Computer Systems , 1981, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[12]  D. Schoen Educating the reflective practitioner , 1987 .

[13]  Thomas E. Cheatham,et al.  Software Technology in the 1990's: Using a New Paradigm , 1983, Computer.

[14]  Michael L. Begeman,et al.  gIBIS: A tool for all reasons , 1989, JASIS.

[15]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  A rational design process: How and why to fake it , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[16]  Catherine C. Marshall,et al.  Guided tours and on-line presentations: how authors make existing hypertext intelligible for readers , 1989, Hypertext.

[17]  Raymond McCall,et al.  Making argumentation serve design , 1991 .

[18]  J. Howard Botterill The Design Rationale of the System/38 User Interface , 1982, IBM Syst. J..

[19]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  User‐centered design of collaboration technology , 1991 .

[20]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[21]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  User-tailorable systems: pressing the issues with buttons , 1990, CHI '90.

[22]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Why CSCW Applications Fail: Problems in the Design and Evaluation of Organization of Organizational Interfaces. , 1988 .

[23]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluationof organizational interfaces , 1988, CSCW '88.

[24]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Design rationale: the argument behind the artifact , 1989, CHI '89.

[25]  P. Barnard,et al.  Design practice and interface usability: Evidence from interviews with designers , 1983, CHI '83.

[26]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  Triggers and barriers to customizing software , 1991, CHI.

[27]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey , 1987, Computer.

[28]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Reaching through analogy: a Design Rationale perspective on roles of analogy , 1991, CHI.

[29]  Christopher Alexander Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[30]  William M. Newman The Representation of User Interface Style , 1988, BCS HCI.

[31]  P. Fitts The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[32]  Vinod Goel,et al.  Motivating the Notion of Generic Design within Information-Processing Theory: The Design Problem Space , 1989, AI Mag..

[33]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Making argumentation serve design , 1991 .

[34]  Jeff Conklin Design rationale and maintainability , 1989, [1989] Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Volume II: Software Track.

[35]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[36]  E. Jeffrey Conklin,et al.  A process-oriented approach to design rationale , 1991 .

[37]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Task-Action Grammars: A Model of the Mental Representation of Task Languages , 1986, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[38]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .