Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during...

Corresponding author:

Catherine [email protected].

uk

scovering: how do student
Seeing and didesigners reinterpret sketches and digitalmarks during graphic design ideation?
Catherine Stones and Tom Cassidy, School of Design,

University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

This paper discusses and examines the impact that design tools have on

reinterpretation during graphic design ideation activity. It discusses the vital role

that reinterpretation plays in the design process and reviews existing empirical

studies concerning reinterpretation. It also discusses broadly the differences in

ambiguity levels of conventional paper-based sketches and digital tools. The

paper presents results of an experiment designed to capture and compare

instances of reinterpretation by student designers. The results suggest that, while

students are capable of reinterpreting the digital marks as other forms, they are

less successful at turning those new digital forms into new ideas. It would appear

that whilst not causing reinterpretation, paper-based sketches, more than digital

tools, can support the vital process of reinterpretation that generates new ideas.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: creativity, design process, design tools, drawing, graphic design

It is vital that we equip students with the ability to make well-informed

decisions about tool choice and tool use during design ideation. As well

as teaching production skills using tools (for example, how to draw

more accurately, or to use software more efficiently), could we also teach stu-

dents how to use tools to facilitate the generation, not just the execution, of

ideas? A fundamental question that this paper raises is e to what extent do ex-

ternalisation methods and use of particular tools impact upon the ideation

stage of design?

Broadly the purpose of this paper is to discuss:

1. Why reinterpretation is an important part of ideation activity.

2. To what extent tool use may impact upon the process of reinterpretation

for student designers.

1 What is a tool?Tools are used to externalise ideas and mental images. A tool may be defined

as ‘a moving entity whose use is initiated and actively guided by a human be-

ing, for whom it acts as an extension toward a specific purpose’ (McCullough,

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 31 (2010) 439e460

doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.05.003 439� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud

440

1998, p. 68). The specific purpose of the tools in this study, is the design of an

artefact, as the hand is physically extended by an ability to make external

marks, be those on paper or on screen.

This paper examines two broad ‘tools’ e use of pencil and paper (resulting in

a sketch) and the digital design tool (design software running on a computer sys-

tem). The term ‘sketch’ refers to the result of a rough, preliminary mark-making

activity. Sketching, according toMcKim (1972, p. 123) is performed quickly and

has a freshness which is not always evident in a polished, drawn-up version of the

design. It is also concerned with broad features rather than details.

The digital design tool refers to any computer-based graphics software in

which selection and manipulation of pre-defined shapes or freehand lines

can occur. Preliminary digital designing is the focus of this paper, which,

like sketching, is a phrase used here to describe rough and possibly playful de-

signing, early on in the design process. The particular features of a specific soft-

ware package is less interesting to us at this stage than the two key methods of

digital design working e freehand digital drawing (self-generated marks) and

shape selection and generation (ready-made marks).

Particular tools make, by application of default settings, particular types of

marks with certain visual characteristics. Bermudez andKing (2000, p. 41) refer

to their view that ‘rather than being neutral, transparent and timeless, media

and processes are intentional, substantial and timely’. Media provide a context

or an environment within which we consider our design discipline. Putting this

in a designer’s terms, the software or pencil may ‘frame’ our view of our actions.

The impact of the form and shape of the marks made on design thinking is one

area to examine. Implicit in this however, is the examination of how the marks

are made, and the impact of that process of making on the process of thinking.

There is evidence to suggest that, for instance, the word processor impacts on

certain processes whenwriting. Haas (1990, p. 166) comparedwriting using pen

and paper with writing on a word processor and found that planning was much

more extensive when using pen and paper. Kellogg and Mueller (1993, p. 41)

also suggested that rather than improving cognitive performance the word pro-

cessor encouraged the adoption of a poorer writing style. It seems reasonable

to suggest that design software could play an even larger part in the way we de-

sign e not only in the restructuring of design activity and focus but also, given

the importance of visual information for the designer, the way we generate

ideas. This paper focuses on examining the impact that tools may have on

one particular process, the process of reinterpretation.

2 What is reinterpretation?A complex, bi-directional cognitive process occurs as the designer sketches.

Schon (1995, p. 76) famously described the act of sketching as a conversation

Design Studies Vol 31 No. 5 September 2010

How do student designe

which takes place between the architect and the drawn marks. Similarly

Laseau (1989, p. 7) stated that ‘the process of graphic thinking can be seen

as a conversation with ourselves in which we communicate with sketches’.

Whilst both quotes are from the field of architecture this design dialogue exists

across design disciplines (Maeda, 2000; Vermaas, 1997). The sketch is not nec-

essarily a full representation of ‘the mind’s eye on paper’, but instead repre-

sents an on-going process of selection, reflection and change. Fish and

Scrivener (1990, p. 122) discussed how drawing in particular involves both ma-

nipulation of mental imagery and perception of external elements in partner-

ship. The perception of a sketch may help generate a mental image that, in

turn, may produce more sketches which may, again, generate another mental

image, and so on and so forth. This, put simply, is the process of ‘reinterpre-

tation’. Reinterpretation is important since it is a valuable source of new, un-

expected ideas, which generally could be described as an outcome of a lateral

thinking process (De Bono, 1970). To have several ideas in the early stages of

a design is useful since it enables the designer to have a rich set of solutions to

choose from, enables the client to be shown more solutions and it can also con-

firm the strength of one particular solution by comparing it to many other at-

tempts. Reinterpretation then, is an act that would be highly beneficial for

student designers to harness. It cannot be claimed that reinterpretation in itself

leads to better quality design outcomes, but it is a valuable means of generat-

ing alternatives upon which evaluation can then take place.

Goldschmidt (1994, p. 164) described a principle in which ‘one reads off the

sketch more information than was invested in its making’. She argued that,

when the drawer begins, they often only have a vague notion of what they

will draw and only after drawing activity commences and proceeds, do

new graphic relationships become apparent. This is not necessarily a given

however e the drawer must be attentive to the new potential relationships.

In a related study Verstijnen, Van Leeuwen, Goldschmidt, Hamel, and

Hennessey (1998, p. 178) examined the processes by which discovery occurs

when designers use only mental imagery and when they externalise ideas us-

ing sketching. They identified two processes by which discoveries take place

during the combination of figures e combining and restructuring. The latter

process is very much related to reinterpretation and requires a shift in per-

ception which, Verstijnen et al. (1998, p. 197) argued requires externalisation

(as it is too difficult to perform through mental imagery alone) and also re-

quires a certain level of drawing expertise. When comparing the performance

of novice and expert designers they concluded that only the expert designers

could use their proficient sketching skills to facilitate restructuring.

Goldschmidt (2003, p. 81) also acknowledged that skill is required. This rai-

ses the question, which this paper hopes to address, of whether and how stu-

dent graphic designers can readily reinterpret marks without having had

tuition specifically dealing with reinterpretation.

rs reinterpret using sketches or digital tools 441

442

2.1 Ambiguity, reinterpretation and toolsReinterpretation is seen as a valuable process and is linked to the quality of

ambiguity. Ambiguity can be defined as ‘interpretable in two or more distinct

ways’ or as ‘vague or imprecise’ (Stacey & Eckert, 2003, p. 153). Draft designs

rendered in pen or pencil sketches have this element of ambiguity. Rough, un-

tidy sketching allows the designer to work quickly, suspending judgement on

polished features. Rough sketches also act as visual reminder of areas still to be

resolved, and, most importantly for this study, may help trigger the formation

of new ideas (Fish & Scrivener, 1990, p. 120; Goel, 1995, p. 193; Goldschmidt,

1991, p. 131).

Many default digital marks have a finished appearance, such as a rendered

typeface or a shape selected from a menu. Due to this certainty in appearance

the digital mark, when used in the early stages of design could, as Lawson

pointed out, prove destructive and restrictive, unless it is deliberately sub-

verted (Lawson, 1997, p. 298). Black’s (1990, p. 288) work on examining the

impact of medium on decision making of student graphic designers is small

in scale but nonetheless important as early research into the differences be-

tween digital and paper-based graphic designing. Her findings suggest that stu-

dents judged their work using a different set of criteria when designing with the

computer and that a finished appearance forms part of that judgement, as if

the students were mistaking a high level of finish with design proficiency.

Though Black’s study is old, the essential characteristics of graphic design soft-

ware have not fundamentally changed e for instance, shapes are still selected

from menus and bezier curves are manipulated. Students however have be-

come more digitally proficient, and the computer ubiquitous, and thus up-

dated studies of this kind are still required if we are to understand how to

adjust teaching methods accordingly.

A digital mark can be ambiguous in appearance i.e. drawn with the free-

hand tool, or is thin or light coloured. A pixellated line, for instance, shares

qualities both of a smudged and a wobbly line. The degree of ambiguity can

also be dependent on the choice of digital tool. Software such as Corel’s

Painter feature an array of ‘softer’ tools in the tool palette enabling the

user to overlay soft lines and textures on top of each other, allowing the cre-

ation of the alternative contours and missing contour lines that Fish and

Scrivener (1990, p. 120) class as ambiguous qualities of sketching. In Adobe

Photoshop a brush tool was used to replicate qualities of sketching, shown

in Figure 1.

Jonson’s (2005) work showed that ‘aha’ moments by students were possible

when using the computer though did not examine the exact processes that af-

fected these moments of insight, for instance whether the type of digital mark

aided this process or whether reinterpretation played a part in the creative


Figure 1 Digital marks with

ambiguous characteristics


moment. Clearly digital design has much potential in terms of creative output

(Sass & Oxman, 2006, p. 327) e see for instance the digitally playful work of

graphic designer April Greiman or John Maeda, or the products and build-

ings designed by Ron Arad (in which his digital sketchpad enables ambiguous

digital sketching to occur even after detailed specification have been made,

subverting the conventional order of drafting) or architectural structures by

Zaha Hadid in which new organic forms become possible due in part to hy-

brid working methods adopted. Digital designing allows the designer to move

beyond what he or she can draw and this, coupled with new materials in the

fields of architecture and product design make innovative work possible, ex-

panding the notion of ambiguity away from the quality of a line to the poten-

tially boundless possibilities of machine-generated imagery. What we have,

particularly relevant in this study regarding graphic design, in the work of

Greiman is the establishment of a digital aesthetic where surface and form

is pushed into a new realm by the freedom the digital tool affords. How

can we encourage students to adopt hybrid or innovative practises when

they are still learning to use industry-standard tools? We first need to under-

stand their current approaches to designing digitally in order to teach it

effectively.

If some digital lines appear fixed in appearance using default settings, in

some sense, the fluidity of their capability to be transformed can counter

this rigidity. In the work of graphic designer, April Greiman, for instance,

this playfulness of digital forms is evident and fluidity of manipulation

leads to new ideas. Oxman (2008) calls for a new conceptual model for


444

considering design thinking in a digital age, discussing whether we still

need to consider ‘reflection-in-action’ as an appropriate model. Oxman

(2008, p. 101) reflects that the exploration and manipulation of graphical

symbols has become less relevant in the field of digital design but is this

reflected in student graphic designers’ working methods and in the indus-

try-standard tools they use?

There clearly is a method for making ambiguous digital marks but is it the gen-

eral chosen method used by student designers? Stones and Cassidy (2007)

found that students working digitally were much more likely to use ready-

made, unambiguous shapes than construct them using freehand tools. The

study however used typefaces for its particular task and thus we might imagine

that it just would be more likely that students would select a typeface than self-

construct a letter form. This paper also seeks to examine whether there is

a preference for students when working with more open shapes which are

not readily part of a selectable menu of ready-made forms.

2.2 Reinterpretation and tools e previous empirical studiesThere appears to be a tension in the fundamental visual qualities of marks the

tool can make e while the rough sketch celebrates ambiguity, the computer’s

mark, by default settings, appears decisive. The views presented above suggest

that ambiguity is to be highly valued and thus there is a strong case for suggest-

ing that paper-based working can aid the reinterpretation of ambiguous marks

and thus the generation of ideas when used by the student in preliminary

stages.

Goel’s (1995, p. 193) experiment involved experienced designers using both

paper and pencil and a constrained version of Macdraw. The freehand tool

on Macdraw was disabled, and line lengths, angles and point locations

were limited to a grid structure. He deliberately chose a symbol system that

was unambiguously made up of marks of precision and certainty. This is

not however as student designers would necessarily use the computer and

so whilst useful, this study does not help capture the nuances or true charac-

teristics of digital design today. It does however provide useful knowledge of

how symbol systems do not appear to support reinterpretation very well. One

of his findings was that levels of ambiguity (number of reinterpretations) were

much higher in freehand sketching than in digital working. Goel (1995, p.

213) therefore concluded that sketching supported creativity in design more

effectively than constrained computer usage, particularly in terms of support-

ing reinterpretation.

Similarly, Won (2001, p. 321) conducted an experiment, though limited in

scale, that investigated the styles of designing an interior product on paper

and on computer. He was particularly interested in the initial concept genera-

tion stage of the design process. He analysed two designers’ working methods



and concluded that working on the computer supported a more frequent inter-

change between focus on detail and focus on the whole. He also claimed that

reinterpretation and ‘seeing’ occurs more frequently on computer than when

using traditional materials (Won, 2001, p. 324) (in stark contrast to the find-

ings of Goel, 1995, p. 213). This frequency of reinterpretation could be ac-

counted for by the speed of digital working e the ability to ‘move-see-move-

see’ that computers support so effectively. Won (2001, p. 324) also concluded

that more alternatives could be generated using conventional drawing than us-

ing the computer (in agreement with Goel, 1995, p. 213). Though lacking in

scale (the comparison involved just two subjects), the results suggested that

the computer may be useful in the process of reinterpretation through its abil-

ity to provide rapid transformations.

It appears that the sketch is a potent device for stimulating reinterpretation as

suggested by many practitioners and empirically shown by Goel (1995, p. 218).

What is interesting is the opportunity to update Goel’s (1995, p. 218) study us-

ing student subjects who are unrestricted in their use of the software. Is there

any evidence to suggest that reinterpretation takes place in the digital environ-

ment when freehand, and perhaps more ambiguous lines, are made? Are there

other factors at work which might impact upon a student’s ability to

reinterpret?

3 Methodology: capturing and examiningreinterpretationThe experiment attempted to capture what happens during early design think-

ing as certain tools are used by student designers. It was hoped that using

a broad brush experimental approach we could begin to capture, study and

identify certain types of design activity, including the activity of reinterpreta-

tion. In a laboratory-style condition, using student designers, does reinterpre-

tation take place, what processes lead to reinterpretation and are there visible

differences found in the way that sketching and digital designing support

reinterpretation?

3.1 Sample size and selection methodTen students were selected to take part in the experiment. Students who

achieved marks above 65% in an undergraduate design module and who

had high attendance levels were invited to participate. The sample method

was also used to maintain a certain pedagogical consistency amongst subjects,

particularly in terms of the formal graphic design tuition they had received and

the ways in which they had been taught software skills. For example, no sub-

jects had previously received any formal training regarding how to use soft-

ware or drawing to maximise creative potential and no subjects had been

formally taught about reinterpretation or other techniques connected with

particular tool use. No mature students or students who had previously

been in full-time industry employment were selected. This again, ensured


446

a certain consistency in the sample in terms of previous experience. We must,

of course, recognise that every student and designer is different, and absolute

parity is an impossible goal.

3.2 The design tasksTwo tasks were used and subjects were given 25 min to devise ideas. 25 min,

a relatively high-pressured time limit, was chosen for two reasons. Firstly,

given the time second and final year students had available, booking students

for just a 1 h session (25 min design time, 25 min protocol capture and 10 min

for explanations and questions) was found to be a practical means of acquiring

student volunteers. Secondly, and more importantly, 25 min was deemed

a long enough time to generate a number of preliminary ideas whilst putting

the subject under pressure to think instinctively and to not have time to refine,

as the emphasis of the experiment was on generating new ideas. While Goel

(1995) gave his expert subjects more time to complete their design session

they had more elements, both image, text and concept to produce. Conversely,

Prats, Lim, Jowers, Garner, and Chase (2009) gave their subjects tasks to com-

plete of 10 and 15 min duration. Studies of this kind are, of course, artificial by

their very nature and no set time limit will replicate the natural design process.

What is crucial here is that, for the objectives of the study and for parity, the

time limit was consistently used and prompted enough solutions to be studied.

Appropriate instructions encouraged subjects to externalise as many ideas as

possible during the time duration.

Since each subject was to take part in two design sessions (one week apart) two

tasks were required. Five subjects would perform Task 1 on paper and the

other five would perform Task 1 on computer. The following week the subjects

who first used paper would perform Task 2 on computer and vice versa for the

remaining subjects. This was so that data was collected for each student using

both media, allowing for analysis to occur across 3 axes e subject, task and

medium. The tasks used are shown below.

Task 1 e Marriage Guidance Counsellor

INSTRUCTIONS

You have 25 min to devise as many ideas as possible in response to this brief.

A Marriage Guidance Counsellor wants a graphic/image-based logo as part

of her new corporate ID. It should be only black, white and/or grey and

must successfully convey, literally or in abstract terms, the activity of a mar-

riage guidance counsellor. Its design should be sympathetic to the target au-

dience which ranges from 25 to 60. It should be simple enough to be

reproduced both small and large scale. It should also aim to be visually

pleasing.



Task 2 e Security Guard Firm

INSTRUCTIONS

You have 25 min to devise as many ideas as possible in response to this brief.

A Security Guard Firm wants a graphic/image-based logo as part of their new

corporate ID. It should be only black, white and/or grey and must successfully

convey, literally or in abstract terms, the activity of a security guard firm. Its

design should be sympathetic to the needs of owners of companies requiring

these services. It should be simple enough to be reproduced both small and

large scale. It should also aim to be visually pleasing.

Logo design was chosen as the task since many aspects of graphic design are

captured in the activity of designing a logo e idea generation, synthesis of

shape, handling space, establishing harmony and balance and attention to de-

tail, to name but a few. Like posters, the artifact that Goel (1995, p. 202) used

in his experiments, the logo is both syntactically potent (it should have an

overall clarity and distinctiveness of shape which makes it instantly recognis-

able) and semantically rich (within the shape should be a representation of the

organisation’s brand values, personality or function).

Some equality of task was sought. Both tasks involved symbolising a nameless

company. Both tasks involve themes which can be reasonably well represented

using existing knowledge. They both involve synthesis of elements (e.g. a coun-

sellor and a marriage or a guard and security) and demand the need to think

both literally and metaphorically about the subject in order to produce the

largest number of ideas.

Whilst not exhaustive this general prior knowledge would be sufficient for

a task of short time duration. We do have to acknowledge the artificiality of

this particular aspect of the design task. In reality a designer would spend

a large amount of time researching and discussing a subject to uncover all as-

pects of what a client does, who their audience is and what their brand values

are.

In addition, there are many variables which could affect a student designer’s

performance:

1. Existing tool fluency and expertise.

2. Existing subject knowledge.

3. Individual performance under pressure.

4. Previous experience of logo designing.


448

Since we are dealing with human subjects there is no such thing as a perfectly

equal starting point. The best we can hope for, in attempting to examine the

graphic design process of different subjects, is to identify some frequently

used strategies, and hopefully, successful strategies, which we can then work

towards stimulating in an educational setting.

3.3 Collection of protocolProtocol analysis (Cross et al., 1996, p. 2) was used to elicit design process

information. Retrospective protocol capture was used. One of the risks, of

course, with this method is that subjects may not be able to remember what

they were thinking and their design decisions (Gero & Tang, 2001, p. 287).

The researcher however proceeded on the basis that a significant stage in the

design would be remembered if subjects were prompted and visually reminded

up to 30 min after the event. In a similar style to that adopted by Suwa and

Tversky (1997, p. 387), in order to avoid selective recall, a video recording

of the design activity was played back to the subjects.

3.4 Experiment set upAll subjects were placed in the same environment for the experiment. A com-

puter was set-up with Adobe Photoshop CS1, Macromedia Flash 9 or Adobe

Illustrator CS1 ready loaded. Subjects were able to choose their preferred piece

of software or use several pieces of software during the session. This allowed

subjects to work more naturally and hopefully more confidently at the com-

puter. The three software packages were selected because either they had

been formally taught (Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia Flash) or were

widely used independently (Adobe Illustrator) and because they supported

graphic creation using bitmap or vector based methods of working.

Subjects were given the tasks shown above and were given time to read the

brief. They were also given the opportunity to ask questions about the brief.

Subjects only tended to ask one question which was to confirm that text was

not allowed to form part of the logo.

Subjects were made aware of the fact that all their design moves were being re-

corded. Two monitors were used during the experiment for those using the com-

puter. The first monitor was used by the subjects and the second ‘mirroring’

monitorwas placed away from the subject and its on-screen activitywas recorded.

Whenworking on paper, subjects were providedwith several blank sheets ofA4

paper, the first of which was fixed to the table. Pencils, sharpeners and rubbers

were available on the desk, in order tomaximise naturalismwhere possible. For

recording paper-based working a video camera was positioned, rostrum-style,

above the paper and this recorded all themarksmade.While subjectsmust have

been aware of the camera it did not obscure their view in any way.



Immediately after the design task the video tape was rewound and subjects

were asked to talk through the design activity as they watched themselves de-

signing on the video playback. Subjects could also look at the actual solutions

themselves. Subjects were prompted with two phrases e ‘what were you think-

ing then?’ and ‘where did that idea come from?’ to try to stimulate verbalisa-

tion if the subject fell silent at any point. There were no leading comments to

prompt verbalisation of particular processes and no suggestion given to the

subject that they were expected to see their marks as something else. Since

new ideas could come from a variety of sources e word association, a shape

in the environment or existing knowledge of the subject as well as from rein-

terpretation of marks, it is unlikely that by prompting subjects in such a generic

way, misleading data was attained.

Subjects’ protocols were examined and excerpts were logged in which subjects

saw something else in their marks.

Reinterpretation was identified in two ways:

When a new object (or recognisable shape) was seen in an existing solution.

When a new object (or recognisable shape) was seen in an existing solution

and also led to a new solution.

Both categories are important though we could argue that the latter was the

most potent since it directly aided creative thinking in a problem solving con-

text. The first category is still of note however, since having a new object trig-

gered in the mind may still be useful. Even a subject seeing something wholly

unrelated to the task and describing the association in a critical way e.g. ‘It

looks too much like a.’ was included as this still evidences seeing the uninten-

tional and remains a step in inviting chance into the ideation process. Note that

for coding purposes the second, most potent category is a subset of the first cat-

egory. If a subject reinterprets, it is first coded in the first category, then, if it

leads to a new solution, it is also coded as belonging to the second category.

Since retrospective, rather than concurrent protocol capture was used, it is

sometimes difficult to ascertain whether the reinterpretation took place during

the design task or afterwards, during the subsequent talking out loud record-

ing. Thus all reinterpretations were logged as being equal. A designer looking

through a sketchbook days after a sketch was made may see something new in

the mark and again, it is this ‘seeing’ that constitutes the really vital part of the

reinterpretation process.

Most solutions were coded as ‘new solutions’. Only syntactically identical or

solely refined solutions were not counted as new solutions. Synthesised solu-

tions were still classed as ‘new’ in this case, to acknowledge that, for instance,

certain aspects of a design can be shared, such as a shape, whilst the domi-

nant, semantic idea can be distinct or expanded. While a new solution may


Table 1 Reinterpretations during Task 1 on paper

Subject Number ofreinterpretations

Number of reinterpretationsproducing new solutions

Transcript excerpt in which reinterpretation is evident

Subject 1 2 1 1. ‘There again I’m thinking it could look a bit like

arm wrestling.’

2. ‘At this point I had a look at it, and noticed it formed

an M.’

Subject 2 1 1 1. ‘As I was thinking of this one flipped on its side I

thought it would look like a chain.’

Subject 3 4 1 1. ‘It was meant to be two people hugging but I

realised it looked more like a smiley face’

2. ‘It almost looked like it could be a child’s head’

3. ‘The next idea, 2 people’s hands forming an M came

from that, just from looking at that and I saw the shape.’

4. ‘But the way I drew it, it looks like a couple of big ears.’

Subject 4 0 0

Subject 5 0 0

Total 7 3

Table 2 Reinterpretations dur

Subject Numberreinterpreta

Subject 6 4

Subject 7 1

Subject 8 0

Subject 9 0

Subject 10 3

Total 8

450

be influenced by existing solutions, where the protocol clearly stated a new

shape being seen, such as a key being reinterpreted as two swords, this

was coded as a new solution, despite the presence of a shape that has already

been featured.

ing Task 1 on computer

oftions

Number ofreinterpretations producing

new solutions

Transcript excerpt in which perceptualreinterpretation is evident

0 1. ‘. it also looks like boxing gloves..’

2. ‘and then I thought it also looks a bit

like a swallow.’

3. ‘I thought that looks a bit like a tulip.’

4. ‘Looked like pacman so I undid that.’

0 1. ‘I drew 2 circles and then drew the road

again between the two..but when I did

that it looked like a santa hat’

0

0

0 1. ‘I was trying to think of different shapes

that fit together e bridging the gap.

But that looked like a slug.’

2. ‘It looks too much like a rainbow’

3. ‘I came up with a half circle that looked

like pacman, and I didn’t like that.’

0


Table 3 Reinterpretations during Task 2 on paper


Number ofreinterpretations producing

new solutions

Transcript excerpt in which perceptualreinterpretation is evident

Subject 6 4 3 1. ‘And thought I’d put thick lines in it. From this,

thought of a snake. From looking at that shape.the

one where you blow the basket e the shape of its

head and neck flare out’

2. ‘And I had a little thing on the top, almost like a

head shape that looks like a mummy as well.’

3. ‘So it was starting with the shape again. I had an

idea for it first. A bull’

4. ‘So I was just drawing like 3 things and then put

like a line in to suggest a door there but it just

looks like traffic lights’

Subject 7 2 1 1. ‘Originally I did it with the block at the bottom was

going to be legs, but it started to look like a football’

2. The body shape I got from that, the torso shape

made me think of body armour.security related

so I started to draw body armour’

Subject 8 1 0 1. ‘But then I thought it just looks like a jelly’

Subject 9 6 6 1. ‘I started to draw the badge and as I drew the badge

I could see I could turn it into a padlock. I saw that

and I was thinking of a shield. Actually that was a

shield first and then I saw a badge’

2. ‘And then I’m looking at that and I saw a “c”’

3. ‘I just looked at that for a while and I thought of

two keys being a sword’

4. ‘The shape from the sign (hexagonal) combined

with thinking “what would people try to protect?”,

gave me a jewel, diamond.’

5. ‘That looked a bit like a welcome mat.’

Subject 10 2 0 1. ‘I just combine the chains and the lock but it

looked a bit like a medallion’

2. ‘it looks more like a roman numeral’

Total 15 10


4 Results and discussionExcerpts from protocol transcripts and overall results are displayed in Tables

1e4. We can interpret the data in a number of ways, whilst acknowledging

that the sample size and the frequency of reinterpretation is relatively low.

4.1 Reinterpretation and frequencyThe frequency of reinterpretations was lower than expected, given Goel’s

(1995, p. 212) results, with 4/10 subjects not reinterpreting at all or not

more than once. Table 5 shows the relatively frequencies of reinterpretation

and also shows how most students found it even harder to reinterpret a shape

in order to then turn it into another solution.


Table 4 Reinterpretations during Task 2 on computer


Number of reinterpretationsproducing new solutions

Transcript excerpt in whichperceptual reinterpretation is evident

Subject 1 5 0 1. ‘Here I think that kind of represents looking and

also forming a barrier and also sort of looks like

handcuffs too, slightly.’

2. ‘Then I think it looks a bit like a tyre so I’m going

to add another one in the middle of it’

3. ‘I made a no entry sign, or it looks like the

underground so it’s little use’

4. ‘That looks like an Owl, which watches’

5. ‘Here I’m thinking it looks kind of like a jacket’

Subject 2 0 0Subject 3 0 0Subject 4 1 0 1. ‘Or I thought it looked a bit like an owl,

which again could be used’

Subject 5 0 0

Total 6 0

Table 5 Summary table: reint

Subject

Subject 1Subject 2Subject 3Subject 4Subject 5Subject 6Subject 7Subject 8Subject 9Subject 10

452

How may we account for this? Firstly, Goel’s study used expert practitioners.

We might therefore expect students to have less expertise in identifying

opportunities in this way, particularly as these students had not been specif-

ically taught about reinterpretation. Suwa and Tversky (1997, p. 395) con-

cluded that expert architects and student architects used sketches in

different ways, with professional architects attending in greater depth to

the marks they made, and the time they spent reading those marks. Here

too, not all students may be adept at knowing how to ‘read’ marks and

thus use of an externalisation, be it on paper or on screen, does not guaran-

tee that reinterpretation will take place. The student has to be aware that this

process is possible, and to actively look at each mark for new possibilities.

The data shows that reinterpretation is not a given, and whilst some students

practiced it, others did not.

erpretation by subject and task

Total number ofreinterpretations

Total number of reinterpretationsproducing new solutions

7 11 14 11 00 08 33 11 06 65 0


Figure 2 Examples of reinterpretation by Subject 9 working on paper


Subject 9 clearly used reinterpretation to his advantage, creating 6 solutions

based on 6 reinterpretations. 5 of these are shown in Figure 2. Here ‘trigger

solutions’ and the reinterpreted solutions are presented in the order that

they occurred (though other non-reinterpreted solutions were made in between

which have been excluded). A closer analysis of Figure 2 also demonstrates

how reinterpretation works not only via interaction with another image but

in tandom with new words in the mind or new themes. Reinterpretation is

not only a visual/associative process in which the designer hopes to see new


454

ideas from an existing shape, but it can also result from a new direction of ver-

bal thought, together with this active looking. This is evident in Box 4 in

Figure 2. According to the student designer the diamond shape did not purely

stem from looking at an existing shape but first required a new concept to work

with e.g. ‘an object to protect’. After a restructuring or a narrowing of the

brief, a useful reinterpretation could occur e a hexagonal sign is transformed

into a diamond.

Figure 2 is also useful for suggesting how reinterpretation may be informed or

influenced by a chain of solutions (not just a singular solution as may be sug-

gested by the presentation method here of two solutions per box). As the de-

signer scans the surface of the paper she or he is aware of surrounding shapes

and concepts and it is likely that these can influence the reinterpretation. For

example, the shield idea in box 3 also may be influenced by the shield shape in

box 1. The use of keys in box 3 may also be connected in meaning (rather than

visual cues) with a padlock, which both in turn visually help influence the key

hole in box 5.

These examples suggest that in terms of cognition, reinterpretation is a rich

process that informs and can be informed by more logical approaches (a nar-

rowing of the brief) and a broad attentiveness to all shapes and themes ex-

plored during the ideation process. It is therefore of little surprise that it is

not practised by all students, given its potential complexity in a chain of other

cognitive processes. The key question that this paper then poses to the design

education community is e how can we teach reinterpretation and improve its

use? It was clearly of great use to subject 9 in this study but few other subjects

were able to use it to this effect.

4.2 Reinterpretation and taskSince we could also class reinterpretation activity as a ‘lateral’ transformation

(whereby a new idea is stimulated without logical thinking or refinement), we

might say that reinterpretation is also not only related to skill but is also re-

lated to chance and the task at hand. For instance, it is by chance that an ob-

ject (e.g. figure of Shakespeare, to use an example from Goel, 1995, p. 211)

may share some visual properties with another object that may prove useful

for that specific task (e.g. a light bulb). Using an example from the data pre-

sented here, it is by chance that a subject was able to see a shield shape in a pad-

lock AND for the shield to be relevant to that particular problem. This can

account for the different occurrences of reinterpretations on paper for each

task e it might be the case that there are fewer visually-related shapes con-

nected to the theme of marriage than there are for the theme of security.

What we learn here is that reinterpretation, being lateral rather than logical,

is unpredictable and this again, can account for the various degrees by which

it was adopted. Whilst Subject 9 was able to see 6 new solutions in existing


Table 7 Summary table showi

Non p

Task 1Task 2

Total

Table 6 Summary table showing the number of reinterpretations by tool

Number of reinterpretationson paper

Number of reinterpretationson computer

Task 1 7 8Task 2 15 6

Total 22 14


marks he might not have done so had the task been different. This is what

makes reinterpretation an elusive process to study and teach.

4.3 Reinterpretation and tool useLooking at Tables 6 and 7 we are able to see a difference in the number of re-

interpretations that occur when paper or computers are being used. We must

show caution again when interpreting these tables firstly due to the subject

sample number and secondly due to the fact that subject 9 alone accounts

for over half of the reinterpretations on paper producing related solutions

for Task 2. Given due caution however, there are two related points we can

make e that students did see new shapes in digital solutions but, importantly,

did not follow them through into new solutions.

What is markedly different to Goel’s (1995, p. 212) results is that reinterpreta-

tion did take place at the computer during both tasks (14 instances were re-

corded in total) according to the protocol but not evidenced in the creation

of any new solutions. We cannot therefore claim that a digital mark could

not be seen as something else. Sometimes they clearly can. However, it appears

that many instances of the digital reinterpretations were accompanied by

judgemental words in the protocol collected e.g. ‘So I undid that’, ‘But it

looked’, ‘but when I did it looked’ and ‘it looked too much like’ and did not

lead to new ideas. If we examine the total number of ‘judgemental’ phrases (in-

dicated on the protocol excerpts above by underlined words) we can see that

50% of computer-based reinterpretations were discussed in this way in com-

parison to 23% of the paper-based reinterpretations.

The terminology of the transcript reveals perhaps that these subjects were

more vocally judgemental about the fact that their digital forms did not

ng the number of reinterpretations producing related solutions by tool

umber of reinterpretationsaper producing new solutions

Number of reinterpretations on computerproducing new solutions

3 010 0

13 0


Figure 3 Examples of digital

solutions by Subject 2

456

actually look like the object intended. Rather than seeing new opportunities,

marks are being compared against the accuracy of a mental image and this ap-

peared, in the sample used, to be more prevalent when working digitally than

when working on paper. This is not related to issues of looking polished (as is

suggested in Black’s study, 1990, p. 291) but is rather a question of accuracy.

Until the form closely resembles the object they are trying to portray the sub-

jects are perhaps not able to see ‘through’ the object to see what other solutions

may be suggested or triggered through its form.We suggest that the sketch was

expected to be rough and purely indicative of form whereas students appeared

to have higher expectations when looking at their digital work and judged

them more harshly. One possible way of addressing this is encouraging stu-

dents to work only with freehand tools in the early stages of digital design,

to acknowledge that accurate form is not necessarily part of the ideation

process.

We can also consider the degree to which the subjects used ready-made

shapes to neatly render their ideas as this would also support the notion

that both accuracy and polish were being sought above speed. Figure 3

shows examples from one subject’s set of solutions which are all classed as

ready-made. Table 8 outlines the ratio of self-generated to ready-made

marks (where self-generated here refers to freehand digital drawing and


Table 8 Proportion of self-generated solutions to all solutions made

Subject Number of self-generatedshapes/total number of solutions

Subject 1 0/12Subject 2 0/9Subject 3 0/8Subject 4 1/8Subject 5 2/8Subject 6 1/6Subject 7 19/19Subject 8 0/6Subject 9 0/6Subject 10 5/15


ready-mades refers to use of precise digital drawing or shape tools). Where

a solution was more than 50% constructed from freehand drawing and

where the overall dominant shape was freehand drawn, the overall shape

was classed as self-generated.

As can be clearly seen, the solutions inspected here demonstrated a strong user

preference for using precise digital tools and ready-made objects instead of us-

ing freehand digital tools. 9/10 subjects produced more solutions in polished

form with half the subjects working exclusively with ready-made form.

What we can conclude from this is that, for the majority of subjects here,

the desire to use polished form overrode the fluency requirements of the brief.

Clearly subject 7 and subject 10 stand out as being students who used ‘fuzzier’

digital marks but did they reinterpret these marks? While they reinterpreted 4

solutions between them, none of these reinterpretations led to other new

solutions.

5 ConclusionThe data then appears to support Goel’s (1995, p. 212) claim that reinterpre-

tation that leads to the creation of new solutions is more supported in paper-

based working than digital working. This occurred despite updating the study

with more digital freedom and despite using student designers. Reinterpreta-

tion did not occur consistently e not every subject reinterpreted their marks

on paper and this may be factor of the task itself and the individual subject.

We cannot claim then that paper-based working itself initiates reinterpreta-

tion. Like all aspects of design there are many variables involved. What the

data suggests however is that paper marks appeared to provide richer oppor-

tunities for reinterpretation that stimulated new ideas. The data also perhaps

suggest that student designers can see other forms in their digital marks but

that they are fewer in number and are essentially more critical of what resem-

blance is found than when using paper. More research is required to establish


458

whether dissatisfaction with resemblance possibly prevents any further reinter-

pretation leading to new ideas. Novice users of a computer system perhaps

could find reinterpretation difficult to perform without first learning to sus-

pend judgement or learning more software or drawing skills.

We do have to acknowledge the limitations of a sample size of ten employed in

this study. However, there are a number of useful and significantly cited pub-

lished papers in which the authors have adopted limited sample size, required

realistically of many experiments in which protocols are recorded and used

and where outputs are inspected (2 subjects in Kavakli & Gero, 2001,

p. 347; 3 subjects in Bilda & Gero, 2005, p. 160 and 12 subjects in Goel,

1995, p. 196). A low sample size can still prove useful where the protocol

and design activity is rich, providing large numbers of design episodes suitable

for statistical analysis but we must always acknowledge the fact that since dif-

ferent designers have different approaches and abilities it is unrealistic to as-

sume that the sample chosen is representative of all designers. Whilst the

results indicate some broad features of design cognition activity performed

by student designers it would be useful to extend this sample both in terms

of size and pedagogical background e for instance, comparing results against

more data in which students who have been taught to use digital tools for

rough working.

This study provides informed discussion into the strengths and weaknesses

of using paper and digital tools for ideation, making explicit what can be

classed as good practise. By attempting to identify how industry-standard

tools are used by student designers e the strategies and their outcome e

this study hopes to aid educators in their approach to teaching tool use.

This paper provides a much needed empirical approach to studying the

graphic design process and provides educators with some objective evidence,

to present to colleagues and students about the effects of ready-made shapes

on reinterpretation. This paper also presents a challenge e how can we best

teach the use of software designed primarily for efficiency and polished re-

sults in the ideation stage? Teaching software fluency (knowledge of soft-

ware functions) is not the same as teaching how to design with software.

Odling-Smee (2002, p. 15) made the claim that ‘staff invariably spend

more time teaching digital programs as an easier alternative to teaching

new ways of thinking, while students e apparently mesmerised by the mag-

ical powers of computers e are losing the ability to improvise’. This is

a grand claim, though Odling-Smee’s experience as an educator gives it

some validation. It is doubtful the claim is true in all cases but nevertheless

it does point to an attitude in which tool use and design thinking are consid-

ered separately. This study has shown that the tool choice can have an im-

pact on design thinking and thus makes a case for the two areas becoming

more strongly pedagogically linked at module level.



ReferencesBermudez, J., & King, K. (2000). Media interaction and design process: establish-

ing a knowledge base. Automation in Construction, 9, 37e56.Bilda, Z., & Gero, J. (2005). Do we need CAD during conceptual design. In

B. Martens, & A. Brown (Eds.), Computer aided architectural design futures

2005 (pp. 155e164) Springer.Black, A. (1990). Visible planning on paper and on screen: the impact of working

medium on decision-making by novice graphic designers. Behaviour & Infor-

mation Technology, 9, 283e296.Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing design activity.

Chichester, NY, US: Wiley.De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. NY, US: Harper &

Row.Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the minds eye: sketching and visual

cognition. Leonardo, 23, 117e126.Gero, J., & Tang, H. H. (2001). The differences between retrospective and concur-

rent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process.Design Studies, 22, 283e295.

Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. US: MIT.Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal,

4, 122e143.

Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture.Design Studies, 15, 158e174.

Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self generated sketches. Design Issues,19, 72e88.

Haas, C. (1990). Composing in technological contexts. Written Communication, 7,512e547.

Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design

Studies, 26, 613e624.Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. (2001). Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design

Studies, 22, 347e364.

Kellogg, R. T., & Mueller, S. (1993). Performance amplification and process re-structuring in computer-based writing. International Journal of Man-MachineStudies, 39, 33e49.

Laseau, P. (1989). Graphic thinking for architects and designers. NY, US: Van

Nostrand Reinhold.Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford,

UK: Architectural Press.

Maeda, J. (2000). Maeda@Media. UK: Thames and Hudson.McCullough, M. (1998). Abstracting craft: The practised digital hand. UK: MIT

Press.

McKim, R. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking. US: Wadsworth/StanfordUniversity.

Odling-Smee, A. (2002). The new handmade graphics: Beyond digital design. UK:

Rotovision.Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory,

knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29, 99e120.Prats, M., Lim, S., Jowers, L., Garner, S. W., & Chase, S. (2009). Transforming

shape in design: observations from studies of sketching. Design Studies, 30,503e520.

Sass, L., & Oxman, R. (2006). Materializing design: implicatins of rapid prototyp-

ing indigital design. Design Studies, 27, 325e355.


460

Schon, D. A. (1995). The reflective practitioner. Aldershot, UK: Arena.Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer-Supported Cooper-

ative Work, 12, 153e183.Stones, C. M., & Cassidy, T. (2007). Comparing synthesis strategies of novice

graphic designers using digital and traditional design tools. Design Studies,28, 59e72.

Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their

design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385e403.Vermaas, C. (1997). Sketching: conversations with the brain. In S. Heller, &

M. Finamore (Eds.), Design culture: An anthology of writing from the AIGA

journal of graphic design (pp. 174e175) AIGA.Verstijnen, I. M., Van Leeuwen, C., Goldschmidt, G., Hamel, R., &

Hennessey, J. M. (1998). Creative discovery in imagery and perception: com-

bining is relatively easy, restructuring takes a sketch. Acta Psychologica, 99,177e200.

Won, P. H. (2001). The comparison between visual thinking using computer andconventional media in the concept generation stages of design. Automation in

Construction, 10, 319e325.


Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during...

Documents

Transcript of Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during...