No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
WHAT MOTIVATES AND DISCOURAGES DESIGNERS TO USE DIGITAL SKETCHING? COMPARING ITS USE TO EXTERNALISE IDEAS VERSUS COMMUNICATING WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2021
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.
Digital design tools have dominated engineering and design practice offering many advantages that ultimately improve efficiency in the design process. Digital sketching is one such example of these tools yet, its current use is primarily to present work to stakeholders (External Communication). It is relatively underused to externalise ideas (Externalisation) where sketching on paper is still favoured. This paper aims to understand the characteristics of digital sketching that motivate or discourage designers to use the tool. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 12 designers to gain insights on the tool's use in External Communication and Externalisation. Results highlight a trade-off between fidelity of visualisations and time and effort expended to achieve visualisations. The key difference between the use scenarios is the way in which this trade-off is connected to managing stakeholder involvement. While designers acknowledge advantages that digital sketching can offer in externalisation, it is viewed as requiring a level of detail to begin use. In conclusion we suggest segmenting roles of digital sketching in terms of the characteristics identified in this study would help to motivate use in Externalisation.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Aldoy, N. and Evans, M. (2011) ‘A review of digital industrial and product design methods in UK higher education’, The Design Journal, 14(3), 343–368, available: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2752/175630611x13046972590923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camba, J.D., Kimbrough, M. and Kwon, E. (2018) ‘Conceptual product design in digital and traditional sketching environments: a comparative exploratory study’, Journal of Design Research, 16(2), 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, P.Y., Hung, H.Y., Wu, C.F. and Te Liu, Y. (2017) ‘Effects of various sketching tools on visual thinking in idea development’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (1982) ‘Designerly ways of knowing’, Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227, available: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694x(82)90040-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, K. and Steur, R. (2008) Sketching: Drawing Techniques for Product Designers, Page One Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1991) ‘The dialectics of sketching’, Creativity research journal, 4(2), 123–143, available: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauff, C., Menold, J. and Wood, K.L. (2019) “Prototyping Canvas: Design Tool for Planning Purposeful Prototypes”, in Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Cambridge University Press, 1563–1572.Google Scholar
Lee, S. and Yan, J. (2016) ‘The impact of 3D CAD interfaces on user ideation: A comparative analysis using SketchUp and Silhouette Modeler’, Design Studies, 44, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macomber, B. and Yang, M. (2011) 'The role of sketch finish and style in user responses to early stage design concepts', in International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 567–576.Google 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, 50, 70–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pei, E., Campbell, I. and Evans, M. (2011) ‘A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers’, The Design Journal, 14(1), 64–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranscombe, C., Bissett-Johnson, K., Mathias, D., Eisenbart, B. and Hicks, B. (2020) ‘Designing with LEGO: exploring low fidelity visualization as a trigger for student behavior change toward idea fluency’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2), 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, T.N., MacDonald, E.F. and Du, P. (2013) ‘Impact of product design representation on customer judgment’, Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, B. and Radcliffe, D. (2009) ‘Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design’, Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D.A. and Wiggins, G. (1992) ‘Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing’, Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viswanathan, V., Atilola, O., Esposito, N. and Linsey, J. (2014) ‘A study on the role of physical models in the mitigation of design fixation’, Journal of Engineering Design, 25(1-3), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Ranscombe, C., Radcliffe, D. and Jackson, S. (2019) ‘Creation of a framework of design tool characteristics to support evaluation and selection of visualisation tools’, in 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), Delft, Netherlands.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access