An activity theory focused case study of graphic designers’ tool-mediated activities during the conceptual design phase

Abstract Similar to other design disciplines, graphic design employs a range of symbolic and material resources through the conceptual design phase. Personal, social and technological resources are used as tools to interpret a design brief and work towards a solution. This study investigates the problem-solving process of graphic design practice within an activity theory framework, focusing on data collected using ethnographic methods concerning tool-mediated activities and strategies undertaken by three mid-weight freelance graphic designers. Employing a theory that explicitly acknowledges and diagrams the interplay between subjects, tools and tasks offers new insight into the design decision-making process, particularly the significance of tool mediation for the realization of tasks during design work.

[1]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Activity Theory: Basic Concepts and Applications , 1995, EWHCI.

[2]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Activity theory and individual and social transformation. , 1999 .

[3]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[4]  Elizabeth Resnick,et al.  Design for Communication: Conceptual Graphic Design Basics , 2003 .

[5]  Gunnar Swanson.  Graphic Design Education as a Liberal Art: Design and Knowledge in the University and the "Real World" , 1994 .

[6]  David F. Redmiles,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Activity Theory and the Practice of Design , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[7]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes , 2006 .

[8]  Steven Heller,et al.  Design Literacy: Understanding Graphic Design , 1997 .

[9]  N. Cross.  Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science , 2001, Design Issues.

[10]  Philip B. Meggs.  Type & Image: The Language of Graphic Design , 1989 .

[11]  Gavin Melles,et al.  Graphic designers' activities during the conceptual design phase of client-initiated projects , 2009 .

[12]  Harm J. G. Zwaga,et al.  Visual Information For Everyday Use : Design And Research Perspectives , 1999 .

[13]  Kristina Lauche,et al.  Collaboration Among Designers: Analysing an Activity for System Development , 2005, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[14]  Bryan Lawson,et al.  How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified , 1990 .

[15]  B. Nardi.  Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction , 1995 .

[16]  R. Stake.  Qualitative Case Studies. , 2005 .

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

[18]  B. Nardi.  Studying context: a comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition , 1995 .

[19]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[20]  Linda S. Lotto.  Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods , 1986 .

[22]  Hubert L. Dreyfus,et al.  Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer , 1987, IEEE Expert.

[23]  Matt Soar.  THE FIRST THINGS FIRST MANIFESTO AND THE POLITICS OF CULTURE JAMMING: TOWARDS A CULTURAL ECONOMY OF GRAPHIC DESIGN AND ADVERTISING , 2002 .

[24]  Dominique Vinck,et al.  Everyday Engineering. An ethnography of Design and Innovation , 2003 .

[25]  Jorge Frascara,et al.  Communication Design: Principles, Methods, and Practice , 2004 .

[26]  Allen Hurlburt.  The design concept , 1981 .

[27]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice , 2003 .

[28]  Jorge Frascara,et al.  Graphic Design: Fine Art or Social Science? , 1988 .

[29]  Russell Bestley,et al.  Visual Research: An Introduction to Research Methodologies in Graphic Design , 2004 .

[30]  Marlin M. Cluts.  The evolution of artifacts in cooperative work: constructing meaning through activity , 2003, GROUP.

[31]  Mark W. Newman,et al.  Sitemaps, storyboards, and specifications: a sketch of Web site design practice , 2000, DIS '00.

[32]  Ellen Tove Christiansen,et al.  Tamed by a rose: computers as tools in human activity , 1995 .

[33]  Keith M. Owens,et al.  Creating Responsible Designers: Recognizing and Responding to Professional Immunity Claims , 2006 .

[34]  Cheri Logan.  Circles of Practice: Educational and Professional Graphic Design. , 2006 .

[35]  K. Kuutti.  Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[36]  Theo Boersema,et al.  Cooperation between graphic designers and applied behavioural researchers , 1998 .

[37]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Play, learning, and instruction , 1999 .

[38]  Phil Turner,et al.  From description to requirements: an activity theoretic perspective , 1999, GROUP.

[39]  W. R. Howard.  Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design , 2007 .

[40]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Observations of teamwork and social processes in design , 1995 .

[41]  Tuomo Tuikka,et al.  Remote concept design from an activity theory perspective , 2002, CSCW '02.