Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:08:18.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CO-DESIGN COGNITIVE PROCESS: IMPACTS OF A SPATIAL AUGMENTED REALITY PLATFORM

Part of: Design Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

M. Poulin ,
C. Masclet  and
J.-F. Boujut
M. Poulin*
Affiliation:
Grenoble INP, France
C. Masclet
Affiliation:
Grenoble INP, France
J.-F. Boujut
Affiliation:
Grenoble INP, France
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The study of design cognitive activity began in the 70s under the influence of psychology and ergonomics. Since then, the design process has undergone many changes with the advent of technology. This paper will notably present you to one of them: the Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR). The study conducted with this technology will focus on multimodal analysis in co-design meetings were we have compared two co-design sessions. We notice that the design activity is unchanged by the introduction of such a technology but could encourage interactions from clients who are usually less invested.

Keywords

co-designspatial augmented realitydesign activitiesdesign cognition
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1047 - 1056
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bekker, M.M., Olson, J.S. and Olson, G.M. (1995), “Analysis of gestures in face-to-face design teams provides guidance for how to use groupware in design”, In DIS ’95 Proceedings of the 1st conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, & techniques, ACM, New York, US, pp. 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, C. et al. (2008), “TRENDS: A content-based information retrieval system for designers”, Proceedins of the 3rd International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, Atlanta, USA.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1986), “Understanding design: the lessons of design methodology”, Design Methods and Theories, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 409–438.Google Scholar
Darses, F. et al. (2001), “COMET: A method for analysing collective design processes”, Rapport de recherché n° 4258, INRIA, Rocquencourt, France. Also accessible at http://hal.inria.fr/inria-00072330/en/Google Scholar
Détienne, F., Visser, W. and Tabary, R. (2006), “Articulation des dimensions graphico-gestuelle et verbale dans l'analyse de la conception collaborative”, Psychologie de l'interaction, L'Harmattan, 2006, Langage et cognition : Contraintes pragmatiques, pp. 283–307.Google Scholar
Eastman, C.M. (1969), “Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: a case study from design”, In Proceedings of IJCAI 69, pp. 669–690.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K.E. and Simon, H.A. (1980), “Verbal reports as data”, Psychological Review, Vol. 873, pp. 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eris, O., Martelaro, N. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2014), A comparative analysis of multimodal communication during Design Sketching in co-located and distributed environments, Design Studies, In Press, pp. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.04.002Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Maher, M.L. (1997), A framework for research in design computing, in Martens, B., Linzer, H. and Voigt, A. eds, ECCADE’97.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and McNeill, T. (1998), “An approach to the analysis of design protocols”, Design Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 21–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V. and Pirolli, P. (1992), “The structure of Design Problem Spaces”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 16, pp. 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greeno, J.G. (1978), “Natures of problem-solving abilities”, Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 5, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 239–270.Google Scholar
Huysentruyt, J., Lespinet-Najib, V. and Chen, D. (2012), “A model of cognitive activities in design”, 9th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Lhote, F., Chazelet, Ph., and Dulmet, M. (1998), “Elargissement de principes de la cybernétique vers l'ingénierie de la production”, INCOM’98, Nancy, June 23-25, 1998.Google Scholar
Lockner, D. and Bonnardel, N. (2014), “Emotion and Interface Design: How web design may elicit positive user affect?”, In proceedings of the 5th International Conference on KEER’2014, Kaisei Engineering & Emotion Research, Linköping University, Sweden (2014).Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992), Hand and Mind: What gestures reveal about thought, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972), Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
Kong, A.P.-H. et al. (2015), “A coding system with independent annotations of gesture forms and functions during verbal communication: Development of a database of speech and gesture (DoSaGE)”, Journal of nonverbal behavior, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitman, W. (1964), “Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems”, In: Shelley, M.W. and Bryan, G.L. (Eds), Human judgment and optimality, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Raskar, R., Welch, G. and Fuchs, H. (1998), “Spatially augmented reality”, In: Proceeding of the First IEEE Workshop on Augmented Reality, Vol. 1998 No. November 1, San Francisco, CA, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2008), “Depicting by gesture”, Gesture, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.3.02strCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stempfle, J. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2002), “Thinking in design teams – an analysis of team communication”, Design studies, Vol. 23, pp. 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, J. (1991), “Findings from observational studies of collaborative work”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 143–160. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002073739190039ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, W. (1992), “Design Organisation: There is more to expert knowledge than is dreamed of in the planner philosophy”, Rapport de Recherche n°1765, INRIA, October 1992.Google Scholar
Visser, W. (2009), “Form and function of gestures in an architectural design meeting”, In: McDonnell, J. and Lloyd, P. (Eds.), About Designing: Analysing Design Meetings, Taylor & Francis, London, UK, pp. 269–284.Google Scholar