Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:51:08.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A FRAMING OF DESIGN AS PATHWAYS BETWEEN PHYSICAL, VIRTUAL AND COGNITIVE MODELS

Part of: Design Theory and Research Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

D. E. Jones ,
C. Snider  and
B. Hicks
D. E. Jones*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
C. Snider
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
B. Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, United Kingdom
*
*[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.

During engineering design, designers employ three types of model: physical, virtual and cognitive. The role and contribution of each is documented in literature albeit fragmented in nature. Consequentially, a gap in understanding exists in terms of how these models and the transitions between them impact the designer and design process. This paper begins to address this through a characterisation of each model class and an appraisal of the transitional pathways including their alignment to seminal design frameworks.

Keywords

early design phaseprototypingdesign models
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 41 - 50
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

Berg, L.P. and Vance, J.M. (2017), “Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: a survey”, Virtual Reality, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brereton, M. and McGarry, B. (2000), An observational study of how objects support engineering design thinking and communication: implications for the design of tangible media, pp. 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecil, J. and Kanchanapiboon, A. (2007), “Virtual engineering approaches in product and process design”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 31 No. 9-10, pp. 846–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutts, E.R., Wodehouse, A. and Robertson, J. (2019), A comparison of contemporary prototyping methods.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickins, A. et al. (2018), “Design of a multi-sensor in-situ inspection system for additive manufacturing”, Proc. ASPE/Euspen Advancing Precision in Additive Manufacturing, pp. 242–248.Google Scholar
Ferguson, E.S. (1992), Engineering and the Mind's Eye, MIT press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, E.S. (1993), “How engineers lose touch”, Invention & Technology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 16–24.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. (1990), “Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design”, AI Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 26.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U. (2004), “The situated function–behavior–structure framework”, Design Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giunta, L. et al. (2019), “Investigating the Impact of Spatial Augmented Reality on Communication between Design Session Participants-A Pilot Study”.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2004), “Design representation: Private process, public image”, In Design representation. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudswaard, M., Hicks, B. and Nassehi, A. (2018), “Democratising the design of 3D printed functional components through a hybrid virtual-physical design methodology”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 78, pp. 394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, T. et al. (2002), Creating principal 3D curves with digital tape drawing, pp. 121–128.10.1145/503376.503398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, L., Earl, C. and Eckert, C. (2015), “Exploratory making: Shape, structure and motion”, Design Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2003), “A new approach of innovative Design: an introduction to CK theory”, DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hattab, A. and Taubin, G. (2015), 3D modeling by scanning physical modifications, pp. 25–32.10.1109/SIBGRAPI.2015.8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houde, S. and Hill, C. (1997), “What do prototypes prototype?”, In Handbook of human-computer interaction.Google Scholar
Jang, J. and Schunn, C.D. (2012), “Physical design tools support and hinder innovative engineering design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 4, p. 41001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansson, D.G., Condoor, S.S. and Brock, H.R. (1993), “Cognition in design: Viewing the hidden side of the design process”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 257–271.10.1068/b200257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D.E. et al. (2015), “A Strategy for Artefact-Based Information Navigation in Large Engineering Organisations”, DS 80-10 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), 27-30 July 2015.Google Scholar
Jones, D.E. et al. (2019), “Early Stage Digital Twins for Early Stage Engineering Design”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1.Google Scholar
Jones, M.D. et al. (2018), PHUI-kit: Interface Layout and Fabrication on Curved 3D Printed Objects. p. 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, A. et al. (2008), ViewCube: a 3D orientation indicator and controller, pp. 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtenbach, G. et al. (1997), The design of a GUI paradigm based on tablets, two-hands, and transparency, pp. 35–42.10.1145/258549.258574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavecchia, F., Guerra, M.G. and Galantucci, L.M. (2018), “Performance verification of a photogrammetric scanning system for micro-parts using a three-dimensional artifact: adjustment and calibration”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 96 No. 9-12, pp. 4267–4279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAlpine, H., Cash, P. and Hicks, B. (2017), “The role of logbooks as mediators of engineering design work”, Design Studies, Vol. 48, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, J. et al. (2010), Exploring the design space of multiscale 3D orientation. pp. 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menold, J., Jablokow, K. and Simpson, T. (2017), “Prototype for X (PFX): A holistic framework for structuring prototyping methods to support engineering design”, Design Studies, Vol. 50, No. 70–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H. and Moon, H.-C. (2013), “Design evaluation of information appliances using augmented reality-based tangible interaction”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 854–868.10.1016/j.compind.2013.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. and Preece, J. (2011), Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons Chichester.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1992), “Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, K., Aish, R. and Gourtovaia, M. (2005), “Towards integrated performance-driven generative design tools”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 253–264.10.1016/j.autcon.2004.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims-Waterhouse, D. et al. (2017), “Experimental comparison of photogrammetry for additive manufactured parts with and without laser speckle projection”, Optical Measurement Systems for Industrial Inspection X, 10329, 103290W.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinert, M. and Leifer, L.J. (2012), “Finding One's Way”: Re-Discovering a Hunter-Gatherer Model based on Wayfaring”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, p. 251.Google Scholar
Subrahmanian, E. et al. (2003), “Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering design”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work.10.1023/A:1023976111188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanacken, L., Grossman, T. and Coninx, K. (2009), “Multimodal selection techniques for dense and occluded 3D virtual environments”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinden, J.C. et al. (2003), Development of a flexible augmented prototyping system.Google Scholar
Volkov, S. and Vance, J.M. (2001), “Effectiveness of haptic sensation for the evaluation of virtual prototypes”, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendrich, R.E. (2010), “Raw shaping form finding: Tacit tangible CAD”, Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 505–531.10.3722/cadaps.2010.505-531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendrich, R.E. (2018), “Multiple Modalities, Sensoriums, Experiences in Blended Spaces with Toolness and Tools for Conceptual Design Engineering”, ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessely, M., Tsandilas, T. and Mackay, W.E. (2018), Shape-Aware Material: Interactive Fabrication with ShapeMe. pp. 127–139.10.1145/3242587.3242619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorriassatine, F. et al. (2003), “A survey of virtual prototyping techniques for mechanical product development”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 217 No. 4, pp. 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar