Externalisation in design: impact of different tools on designers' activities and on the assessment of final design

This study contributes to a better understanding of how the use of different tools influences both the design process and the way that final designs are assessed. Unlike previous research comparing computer aided design (CAD) and freehand sketching, we compared CAD and manual modelling. CAD systems and manual modelling both tend to be used after the early design stage, which is mainly involves sketching. Our study would therefore be useful for determining which of the two is more appropriate, depending on the designer's priorities and the intended purpose of the object being developed. Our study was conducted in two phases. First the activities of 20 designers were recorded in two different experimental conditions: 1) using a CAD system 2) using manual modelling. Secondly, 20 other participants (judges) were asked to assess the end results of these activities. According to the experimental condition, we observed differences in both the design activities and the assessments of the final designs. More specifically, items designed using a CAD system were scored higher on aesthetics, originality and marketing. However, no difference was observed for the functionality criterion. Use of a CAD system would appear to be most appropriate for highlighting aesthetic and marketing features, but manual modelling remains a suitable tool for designing functional objects.

[1]  Tom Cassidy,et al.  Comparing synthesis strategies of novice graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools , 2007 .

[2]  Hiroo Iwata,et al.  Haptic interfaces , 2002 .

[3]  Hilary Johnson,et al.  Supporting creative and reflective processes , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  Nathalie Bonnardel,et al.  Towards supporting evocation processes in creative design: A cognitive approach , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[5]  Andreas Sonderegger,et al.  The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: effects on user performance and perceived usability. , 2010, Applied ergonomics.

[6]  John C. Thomas,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Design. , 1980 .

[7]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. , 1987 .

[8]  Hong Z. Tan,et al.  Perceptual user interfaces: haptic interfaces , 2000, CACM.

[9]  John S. Gero,et al.  Context, situations, and design agents , 2009, Knowl. Based Syst..

[10]  Todd Lubart,et al.  How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and commentary on the Special Issue , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[11]  Nathalie Bonnardel,et al.  The Impact of Technology on Creativity in Design: An Enhancement? , 2010 .

[12]  N. Bonnardel,et al.  Activités de conception et créativité : de l'analyse des facteurs cognitifs à l'assistance aux activités de conception créatives , 2009 .

[13]  Yasuhiro Yamamoto,et al.  Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information design , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  A. Damasio Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. avon books , 1994 .

[15]  R. Sternberg RETRACTED ARTICLE: The Nature of Creativity , 2006 .

[16]  D. Norman Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[17]  R. Hamel,et al.  Sketching and creative discovery , 1998 .

[18]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Planning , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  John S. Gero,et al.  The Situated Function — Behaviour — Structure Framework , 2004 .

[20]  Malcolm McCullough,et al.  Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand , 1996 .

[21]  Ellen Yi-Luen Do,et al.  Ambiguous intentions: a paper-like interface for creative design , 1996, UIST '96.