The situational nature of the selection of drawing tool in the design process*

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Master of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art & Architecture, Bu-Ali-Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Facuty of Art & Architectire, Bu-Ali-Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.

Abstract

The development of computer use in the field of conceptual design has brought doubts and at the same time concerns regarding the maintaining of the significantrole of hand drawings in the design process. In other words, advances in computer-aided design over time have influenced the attitudes and working methods of contemprory designers in addressing problems. According to some designers of the current generation,  computers can now assume the traditional role of hand drawings in the design process. This view contrasts with that  of expert designers who assert that hand drawings still retain a special place in the design process. The aim of this research is to address the question of which of the two tools, manual or digital, is more suitable for problem solving in the early stages of design. By reviewing past studies and analyzing texts using content analysis tables, we sought to provide a comparative assessment of the ability of each tool to enhance the cognitive levels of the design process. The results of our work indicate that computer tools, including modeling programs and parametric design, despite their recent advancements in supporting the initial stages of design, do not perform as effectively  hand drawings in terms of conceptualization and ease of discovery. This phenomenoncan be attributed to the superior capacity  of hand drawings (sketch) in ambiguity as well as the designer's focus on the level of knowledge rather than the level of object production rules or algorithms when utilizing  them. However, Computer drawing tools are capable of providing more accurate visualization than hand drawings, which can be advantageous in more structured problems.
This significant finding suggests that the  ability of a tool to improve cognitive levels in the conceptual process is not solely dependent on the tool itself, but it is also influenced by a network of constraints (variables) such as the type of problem, the degree of determination and simplicity of the problem, the interactivity of the tool, time constraints, Interpretation (team or individual design), designer's skill, designer's expertise and numerous other factors. These variables were derived from previous studies. In fact, there are variables related to  design context that play a crucial role in the development of the design process. A change in any of these constraints can affect the outcomes of the design process. Such a framework criticizes previous studies that have primarily  focused onthe influence of the "instrumental ability" variable. Based on this, a model of the impact of intervening variables on the design situation and its relationship with the levels of knowledge was proposed. This hypothesis posits that the selection of drawing tools in the design process is an intelligent and situational decision and it is not feasible  to prescribe a universal and absolute guideline for the selection of tools applicable to all situations and processes. This hypothesis can informthe direction of future research design studies, emphasizing that] the impact of limitations should be considered in subsequent empirical investigations

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

١. علی پور، ل. (١٤٠٠). جایگاه رایانه در ایده آفرینی طراحی. صفه، ٣٢(٢)، ٥٧-٧٠.‎
٢. شریف، حمیدرضا، و عبداله پوررفیعی، نگین. (١٤٠١). نقش نرم افزارهای دست نگاری رایانه ای (CAS) در مرحله ایده پردازی فرایند طراحی. صفه، ٣٢(٩٨ )، ١٩-٣٠.
3. Bernal, M., Haymaker, J. R., & Eastman, C. (2015). On the role of computational support for designers in action. Design Studies, 41, 163-182. DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2015.08.001
4. Bilda, Z., & Demirkan, H. (2003). An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Design studies, 24(1), 27-50.
5. Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design studies, 20(1), 25-39.
6. Dorst, K. (2004). On the problem of design problems-problem solving and design expertise. Journal of design research, 4(2), 185-196.
7. Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design issues, 22(3), 4-17.‏ 8. Dawoud, H. M., Al-Samarraie, H., & Zaqout, F. (2015). The role of flow experience and CAD tools in facilitating creative behaviours for architecture design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 541-561. DOI:10.1007/s10798-014-9294-8
9. Ekströmer, P., & Wever, R. (2019). “Ah, I see what you didn’t mean” exploring Computer Aided Design tools for design ideation. The Design Journal, 22(sup1), 1883-1897.‏ DOI:10.1080/14606925.2019.1595031
10. Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Manual sketching: Why is it still relevant?. The active image: architecture and engineering in the age of modeling, 77-97. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_4
11. Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity research journal, 4(2), 123-143. DOI:10.1080/10400419109534381
12. Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Modeling the role of sketching in design idea generation. In An anthology of theories and models of design, Springer, London, 433-450. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_21
13. Goldschmidt, G. (2008). Visualization-Sketching is alive and well in this digital age. In Design Processes, IOS Press, 28-43.
14. Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design issues, 19(1), 72-88. 15. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design studies,
15(2), 158-174.
16. Goldschmidt, Gabriela. "Visual displays for design: Imagery, analogy and databases of visual images." Visual databases in architecture 1 (1995): 53-74.
17. Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2001). Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design studies, 22(4), 347-364. 18. Gero, J. S. (1996). Computers and creative design. The global design studio, National University of Singapore, 1-15.‏ 19
. Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2014). The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design. In An anthology of theories and models of design: philosophy, approaches and empirical explorations, London: Springer London, 263-283. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_13
20. Gero, J. S., & Sudweeks, F. (Eds.). (2012). Artificial Intelligence in Design’96. Springer Science & Business Media.‏ 21. Gero, J. S. (1998). Towards a model of designing which includes its situatedness. Universal Design Theory, Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 47-56.
22. Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2000, June). Towards a situated function-behaviour-structure framework as the basis of a theory of designing. In Workshop on Development and Application of Design Theories in AI in Design Research, Artificial Intelligence in Design’00, Worcester, MA, pp. gk, 1-5.
23. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think. Routledge.
24. Lawson, B. (2012). What designers know. Routledge.
25. Lorusso, M., Colombo, G., & Rossoni, M. (2020). Conceptual Modeling in Product Design within Virtual Reality Environments: Interaction and Geometry Representation. In CAD'20 Proceeding (pp. 162-166). DOI:10.14733/cadaps.2021.383-398
26. Martens, B., & Brown, A. (Eds.). (2005). Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2005: Proceedings of the 11th International CAAD Futures Conference Held at the Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, on June 20-22, 2005. Springer Science & Business Media. DOI:10.1007/1-4020-3698-1
27. Pena, M. L. C., Carballal, A., Rodríguez-Fernández, N., Santos, I., & Romero, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence applied to conceptual design. A review of its use in architecture. Automation in Construction, 124, 103550. DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103550
28. Peterson, M. A., Kihlstrom, J. F., Rose, P. M., & Glisky, M. L. (1992). Mental images can be ambiguous: Reconstruals and reference-frame reversals. Memory & Cognition, 20(2), 107-123.
29. Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1998). Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design studies, 19(4), 389-430.
30. Robertson, B. F., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-aided design, 41(3), 136-146. DOI:10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.007
31. Rahimian, F. P., & Ibrahim, R. (2011). Impacts of VR 3D sketching on novice designers’ spatial cognition in collaborative conceptual architectural design. Design Studies, 32(3), 255-291.‏ 32
. Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design studies, 13(2), 135-156.
33. Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: important vehicles for a design process. Design studies, 21(6), 539-567.
34. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1996, April). What architects see in their sketches: Implications for design tools. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 191-192.
35. Tang, H. H., Lee, Y. Y., & Gero, J. S. (2011). Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: A protocol study using the function–behaviour–structure coding scheme. Design Studies, 32(1), 1-29.26.
36. Tang, H. H., & Gero, J. S. (2001). Sketches as affordances of meanings in the design process, 1-12
37. Tversky, B. (1999). What does drawing reveal about thinking. In Visual and spatial reasoning in design. University of Sydney, 1-8.
38. Yu, R., Gu, N., Ostwald, M., & Gero, J. S. (2015). Empirical support for problem–solution coevolution in a parametric design environment. AI EDAM, 29(1), 33-44.‏ DOI:10.1017/S0890060414000316
39. Won, P. H. (2001). The comparison between visual thinking using computer and conventional media in the concept generation stages of design. Automation in construction, 10(3), 319-325. DOI:10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00048-0
40. Yamamoto, Y., & Nakakoji, K. (2005). Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4-5), 513-535.
41. Alipour, Leyla. (2021). The Role of Computer in Design Ideation. Soffeh, 32(2), 57-70. 10.52547/SOFEH.32.2.57. [IN PERSIAN]
42. Sharif, Hamid Reza, & Rafiei, Negin Abdolahpoor. (2022). The Role of Computer Aided Sketching Software (CAS) in Ideation Stages of Design. Soffeh, 32(98), 19-30. 10.52547/SOFEH.32.3.19. [IN PERSIAN]
Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning
Volume 28, Issue 4
December 2022
Pages 71-82

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics