Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/25796Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | CONINX, Karin | - |
| dc.contributor.advisor | LUYTEN, Kris | - |
| dc.contributor.advisor | HAESEN, Mieke | - |
| dc.contributor.author | GUTIERREZ LOPEZ, Marisela | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-03-20T10:20:22Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2018-03-20T10:20:22Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/25796 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | In this PhD, I investigate the collaborative practices and digital tools used by design teams following a user-centered approach to create interactive systems. More specifically, I focus on how designers document design rationale and communicate it to team members of different disciplines. Previous research has shown that including a variety of actors and discourses into design activities stimulates creativity and innovation. Nevertheless, miscommunications frequently occur due to dissimilar priorities, vocabularies, and preferences. Consequently, designers must find ways to communicate the rationale of design solutions – what the solution is about and why it is appropriate in a given context. While several tools have been proposed to document design rationale, they remain largely under adopted, since they tend to constrain and structure design thinking. This research responds to these challenges by investigating the collaborative practices of designers and proposing tools to document design rationale around design artefacts in a way that fits current work practices. In particular, I present three core contributions. First, I uncover issues related to collaboration faced by designers, which are situated in multidisciplinary communication, information sharing, and documentation of design processes and outcomes. These issues expose design directions for tools to support the collaborative practices of design teams in a manner that respects their processes and working styles. Second, I present two tools that provide a low threshold approach to document design rationale and decisions. These tools activate team communication and enable creative design by providing a shared workspace to facilitate visual communication based on artefacts. Third, I demonstrate that our approach to design documentation allows rationales to emerge organically together with artefacts, and enables design teams to generate ideas in collaboration. Furthermore, the tools aid design teams to reflect on previous work and possible courses of action, which promote awareness and allow them to track design rationale and decisions over time. | - |
| dc.description.sponsorship | European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement n° 610725 – COllaborative CrEative design PlaTform (COnCEPT). | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject.other | design process; collaboration; artefacts; design rationale; digital tools | - |
| dc.title | Techniques and Artefacts for Documenting Design Rationale Among Multidisciplinary Design Teams | - |
| dc.type | Theses and Dissertations | - |
| local.format.pages | 242 | - |
| local.bibliographicCitation.jcat | T1 | - |
| dc.relation.references | Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. doi:10.1177/146879410100100307 Austin, S., Steele, J., Macmillan, S., Kirby, P., & Spence, R. (2001). Mapping the conceptual design activity of interdisciplinary teams. Design Studies, 22(3), 211–232. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00026-0 Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Dalsgaard, P., Gross, S., & Halskov, K. (2016). Documenting the research through design process. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’16 (pp. 96– 107). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2901790.2901859 Bødker, S. (2000). Scenarios in user-centred design - setting the stage for reflection and action. Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 61–75. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00024-2 Bowers, J. (2012). The logic of annotated portfolios: Communicating the value of “research through design.” In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Conference - DIS ’12 (pp. 68–77). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2317956.2317968 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637 Burge, J. E. (2008). Design rationale: Researching under uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22(4), 311–324. doi:10.1017/S0890060408000218 Burge, J. E., & Brown, D. C. (1998). Design rationale types and tools. AI in Design Group, Computer Science Department, WP1. Retrieved from http://web.cs.wpi.edu/Research/aidg/DR-Rpt98.html Burge, J. E., & Brown, D. C. (2000). Reasoning with desing rationale. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Design ’00 (pp. 611–629). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4154-3 Carroll, J. M., Neale, D. C., Isenhour, P. L., Rosson, M. B., & McCrickard, D. S. (2003). Notification and awareness: synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 58(5), 605–632. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00024-7 Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: APA Books. Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth designing. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction changing roles - NordiCHI ’06 (pp. 165–174). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1182475.1182493 Cockton, G. (2013a). A load of cobbler’s children: Beyond the model designing processor. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’13 (pp. 2139–2148). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2468356.2468733 Cockton, G. (2013b). Design isn’t a shape and it hasn’t got a centre: Thinking BIG about post-centric interaction design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia, Interaction, Design and Innovation - MIDI ’13 (Article 2, 16 pages). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2500342.2500344 Cockton, G. (2014). A Critical , Creative UX Community : CLUF. Journal of Usability Studies, 10(1), 1–16. Retrieved from http://uxpajournal.org/a-criticalcreative-ux-community-cluf/ Colusso, L., Bennett, C. L., Hsieh, G., & Munson, S. A. (2017). Translational resources: Reducing the gap between academic research and HCI practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’17 (pp. 957–968). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3064663.3064667 Conklin, E. J., & Burgess Yakemovic, K. C. (1991). A process-oriented approach to design rationale. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3), 357–391. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_6 Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0 Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, W. Newstatter, & McCracken M (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (pp. 79–103). Oxford, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-X D’Astous, P., Détienne, F., Visser, W., & Robillard, P. N. (2004). Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: A study of software technical review meetings. Design Studies, 25(6), 625–655. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2003.12.002 Dalsgaard, P., & Halskov, K. (2012). Reflective design documentation. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Conference - DIS ’12 (pp. 428–437). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2317956.2318020 Dalsgaard, P., Halskov, K., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., & Lucero, A. (2016). Documenting design research processes. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’16 Companion (pp. 73–76). ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2908805.2913022 Dalsgaard, P., Halskov, K., & Basballe, D. A. (2014). Emergent boundary objects and boundary zones in collaborative design research projects. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’14 (pp. 745–754). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2598510.2600878 Dalsgaard, P., Halskov, K., & Nielsen, R. (2008). Maps for design reflection. Artifact, 2(3), 176–189. doi:10.1080/17493460802526412 Dalsgaard, P., Inie, N., & Hansen, N. B. (2017). How can computers support, enrich, and transform collaborative creativity? In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition - C&C ’17 (pp. 554– 560). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3059454.3059483 Damodaran, L. (1996). User involvement in the systems design process - a practical guide for users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 15(6), 363– 377. doi:10.1080/014492996120049 Dekel, U. (2005). Supporting distributed software design meetings: what can we learn from co-located meetings? In Proceedings of the 2005 Workshop on Human and Social Factors of Software Engineering - HSSE ’05 (Vol. 30, pp. 1–7). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1082983.1083109 Détienne, F. (2006). Collaborative design: Managing task interdependies and multiple perspectives. Interacting with Computers, 18(1), 1–20. doi:10.1016 /j.intcom.2005.05.001 DiMicco, J. M., & Bender, W. (2004). Second messenger: Increasing the visibility of minority viewpoints with a face-to-face collaboration tool. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent User Interface - IUI ’04 (pp. 232–234). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/964442.964489 Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., & Beale, R. (2004). Human-Computer Interaction (3rd ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited. Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17. doi:10.1162/desi.2006.22.3.4 Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. doi:10.1016/s0142- 694x(01)00009-6 Dorta, T., Pérez, E., & Lesage, A. (2008). The ideation gap: Hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Design Studies, 29(2), 121–141. doi:10.1016/J.DESTUD.2007.12.004 Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’92 (pp. 107–114). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/143457.143468 Dourish, P., & Bly, S. (1992). Portholes: Supporting awareness in a distributed group. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’92 (pp. 541–547). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/142750.142982 Dow, S. P., Fortuna, J., Schwartz, D., Altringer, B., Schwartz, D., & Klemmer, S. (2011). Prototyping dynamics: Sharing multiple designs improves exploration, group rapport, and results. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’11 (pp. 2807– 2816). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979359 Eckert, C., Maier, A., & McMahon, C. (2005). Communication in Design. In J. Clarkson & C. Eckert (Eds.), Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice (pp. 232–261). London, England: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-061-0_10 Eckert, C., & Stacey, M. (2000). Sources of inspiration: A language of design. Design Studies, 21(5), 523–538. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00022-3 Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4 Egyed, A. (2001). A scenario-driven approach to traceability. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, 2001 - ICSE 2001 (pp. 123–132). IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2001.919087 Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J., & Rein, G. L. (1991, January). Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 39–58. doi:10.1145/99977.99987 Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202– 210. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500131 Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’03 (pp. 225–232). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/642651.642652 Fisher, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4–5), 428–512. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.014 Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Friess, E. (2008). Defending design decisions with usability evidence: a case study. In CHI ’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’08 (pp. 2009–2016). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1358628.1358631 Garnik, I., Sikorski, M., & Cockton, G. (2014). Creative sprints: An unplanned broad agile evaluation and redesign process. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational - NordiCHI ’14 (pp. 1125–1130). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2639189.2670290 Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012, July). Annotated portfolios. Interactions, 19(4), 40–49. doi:10.1145/2212877.2212889 Gaver, W. (2011). Making spaces: How design workbooks work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’11 (pp. 1551–1560). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979169 Göransson, B., Gulliksen, J., & Boivie, I. (2003). The usability design process - Integrating user-centered systems design in the software development process. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 8(2), 111–131. doi:10.1002/spip.174 Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985, March). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 300–311. doi:10.1145/3166.3170 Gray, C. M. (2016). “It’s more of a mindset than a method” UX practitioners’ conception of design methods. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’16 (pp. 4044–4055). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858410 Gray, C. M., Stolterman, E., & Siegel, M. A. (2014). Reprioritizing the relationship between HCI research and practice: Bubble-up and trickle-down effects. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems - DIS ’14 (pp. 725–734). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598595 Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(2), 305–344. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI0502&3_6 Gutierrez Lopez, M., Haesen, M., Luyten, K., & Coninx, K. (2015a). Helaba: A system to highlight design rationale in collaborative design processes. In Y. Luo (Ed.), Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering - CDVE 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9320 (pp. 175–184). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24132-6_21 Gutierrez Lopez, M., Haesen, M., Luyten, K., & Coninx, K. (2015b). Study and analysis of collaborative design practices. In R. Valkenburg, C. Dekkers, & J. Sluijs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Participatory Innovation Conference 2015 - PIN-C 2015 (pp. 176–183). Gutierrez Lopez, M., Luyten, K., Vanacken, D., & Coninx, K. (2017). Untangling design meetings: Artefacts as input and output of design activities. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2017 - ECCE 2017 (pp. 176–183). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3121283.3121311 Gutierrez Lopez, M., Rovelo, G., Haesen, M., Luyten, K., & Coninx, K. (2017). Capturing design decision rationale with decision cards. In R. Bernhaupt, G. Dalvi, A. Joshi, D. K. Balkrishan, J. O’Neill, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human- Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10513 (pp. 463–482). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67744-6_29 Gutierrez Lopez, M., Rovelo, G., Haesen, M., Luyten, K., & Coninx, K. (2018). Rethinking traceability: A prototype to record and revisit the evolution of design artefacts. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork - GROUP ’18 (pp. 196–208). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/3148330.3148334 Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (1999). The effects of workspace awareness support on the usability of real-time distributed groupware. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 6(3), 243–281. doi:10.1145/329693.329696 Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3), 411–446. doi:10.1023/A:1021271517844 Halskov, K., & Dalsgård, P. (2006). Inspiration card workshops. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’06 (pp. 2–11). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142409 Haug, A. (2015). Emergence Patterns for Client Design Requirements. Design Studies, 39, 48–69. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.05.001 Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Baalsrud Hauge, J. M., & Thoben, K.-D. (2011). Supporting the ideation processes by a collaborative online based toolset. International Journal of Technology Management, 55(3/4), 218–225. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2011.041948 Höök, K., & Löwgren, J. (2012). Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19(3), Article 23, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/2362364.2362371 Horner, J., & Atwood, M. E. (2006). Design rationale: the rationale and the barriers. In A. Mørch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig, G. Ghosh, & D. Svanaes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles - NordiCHI ’06 (pp. 341–350). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1182475.1182511 Huybrechts, L., Dreessen, K., & Schepers, S. (2012). Mapping design practices: On risk, hybridity and participation. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases - Volume 2 (PDC ’12) (pp. 29–32). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2348144.2348155 Inie, N., & Dalsgaard, P. (2017). How interaction designers use tools to capture, manage, and collaborate on ideas. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’17 (pp. 2668–2675). doi:10.1145/3027063.3053210 International Organization for Standardization. (2010). Ergonomics of humansystem interaction -- Human-centred design for interactive systems (ISO 9241-210:2010). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/52075.html Jensenius, A. R. (2012). Disciplinarities: intra, cross, multi, inter, trans. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from http://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disciplinarities-2/ Ju, W., Ionescu, A., Neeley, L., & Winograd, T. (2004). Where the wild things work: Capturing shared physical design workspaces. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’04 (pp. 533–541). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1031607.1031696 Jung, H., & Stolterman, E. (2012). Digital form and materiality: Propositions for a new approach to interaction design research. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design - NordiCHI ’12 (pp. 645–654). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2399016.2399115 Karsenty, L. (1996). An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’96 (pp. 150–156). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/238386.238462 Klemmer, S. R., Thomsen, M., Phelps-Goodman, E., Lee, R., & Landay, J. A. (2002). Where do web sites come from?: Capturing and interacting with design history. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’02 (pp. 1–8). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/503376.503378 Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/01449290301782 Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. W. J. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems (No. Working Paper 131). Berkeley, CA. Lacaze, X., & Palanque, P. (2007). DREAM & TEAM: A tool and a notation supporting exploration of options and traceability of choices for safety critical interactive systems. In C. Baranauskas, P. Palanque, J. Abascal, & S. D. J. Barbosa (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4663 (pp. 525–540). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_48 Lazar, J., Feng, J. H., & Hochheiser, H. (2010). Research methods in humancomputer interaction. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Lee, C. P. (2005). Between chaos and routine: Boundary negotiating artifacts in collaboration. In H. Gellersen, K. Schmidt, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, & W. Mackay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on European Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - ECSCW ’05 (pp. 387–406). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4023-7_20 Lee, J. (1989). Decision Representation Language (DRL) and its support environment (No. Working Paper 325). Cambrige, MA. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/41499 Lee, J. (1990). SIBYL: A tool for managing group design rationale. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’90 (pp. 79–92). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/99332.99344 Lee, J. (1997). Design rationale systems: Understanding the issues. IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 12(3), 78–85. doi:10.1109/64.592267 Lindley, S., Cao, X., Helmes, J., Morris, R., & Meek, S. (2013). Towards a tool for design ideation: Insights from use of SketchStorm. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference - BCS-HCI ’13 (10 pages). Swinton: British Computer Society. Löwgren, J. (2013, January). Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge. Interactions, 20(1), 30–34. doi:10.1145 /2405716.2405725 Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambrige, MA: MIT Press. Lucero, A., Lashina, T., Diederiks, E., & Mattelmäki, T. (2007). How probes inform and influence the design process. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces - DPPI ’07 (pp. 377–391). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1314161.1314195 MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3), 201–250. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_2 Maher, M. Lou, Poon, J., & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalising design exploration as co-evolution. In J. S. Gero & F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Advances in Formal Design Methods for CAD. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 3–30). Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34925-1_1 Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2005, March). The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 105–109. doi:10.1145/1047671.1047677 Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Matta, N., Ribière, M., Corby, O., Lewkowicz, M., & Zacklad, M. (2001). Project memory in design. In R. Roy (Ed.), Industrial Knowledge Management (pp. 147–162). London, England: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0351-6_10 Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design Probes. University of Art and Design Helsinki. Retrieved from https://shop.aalto.fi/p/50-design-probes/ McCall, R., Bennett, P. R., D’Oronzio, P. S., Ostwald, J. L., Shipman III, F. M., & Wallace, N. F. (1990). PHIDIAS: Integrating CAD graphics into dynamic hypertext. In N. Streitz, A. Rizk, & J. André (Eds.), Hypertext : Concepts, System and Applications, Proceedings of the European Conference on Hypertext - ECHT’90 (pp. 152–165). Cambrige, England: Cambridge University Press. Meagher, M., Bielaczyc, K., & Huang, J. (2005). OpenD: Supporting parallel development of digital designs. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Designing for User eXperience - DUX ’05 (Article No. 25). New York, NY: AIGA: American Institute of Graphic Arts. Mentis, H. M., Bach, P. M., Hoffman, B., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2009). Development of decision rationale in complex group decision making. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’09 (pp. 1341–1350). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518904 Mohan, K., & Ramesh, B. (2007). Traceability-based knowledge integration in group decision and negotiation activities. Decision Support Systems, 43(3), 968–989. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.026 Moran, T. P., & Carroll, J. M. (1996). Overview of design rationale. In T. P. Moran & J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Muller, M. J. (1991). PICTIVE—an exploration in participatory design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’91 (pp. 225–231). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/108844.108896 Neale, D. C., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2004). Evaluating computersupported cooperative work. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’04 (pp. 112–121). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1031607.1031626 Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Design Issues, 30(1), 78–96. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00250 Norton, M. I., DiMicco, J. M., Caneel, R., & Ariely, D. (2004). AntiGroupWare and Second Messenger. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 83–88. doi:10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047586.77595.87 Oehlberg, L., Simm, K., Jones, J., Agogino, A., & Hartmann, B. (2012). Showing is sharing: building shared understanding in human-centered design teams with Dazzle. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems Conference - DIS ’12 (pp. 669–678). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2317956.2318057 Olson, G., Olson, J., Carter, M., & Storrosten, M. (1992). Small group design meetings: An analysis of collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 7(4), 347–374. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0704_1 Oxford Dictionaries. (2017). Traceable. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/traceable Oxford Dictionaries. (2018). Backing. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/backing Ozkaya, I., & Akin, Ö. (2007). Tool support for computer-aided requirement traceability in architectural design: The case of DesignTrack. Automation in Construction, 16(5), 674–684. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2006.11.006 Pavković, N., Štorga, M., Bojčetić, N., & Marjanović, D. (2013). Facilitating design communication through engineering information traceability. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(2), 105–119. doi:10.1017/S0890060413000012 Pierce, J. (2014). On the presentation and production of design research artifacts in HCI. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’14 (pp. 735–744). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598525 Pierce, J., Sengers, P., Hirsch, T., Jenkins, T., Gaver, W., & DiSalvo, C. (2015). Expanding and refining design and criticality in HCI. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’15 (pp. 2083–2092). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702438 Pinelle, D., & Gutwin, C. (2000). A review of groupware evaluations. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises - WETICE ’00 (pp. 86–91). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2009). Infrastructuring : Towards an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), Article 1. Retrieved from http://aisel .aisnet.org/jais/vol10/iss5/1 Piya, C., -, V., Chandrasegaran, S., Elmqvist, N., & Ramani, K. (2017). Co- 3Deator: A team-first collaborative 3D design ideation tool. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’17 (pp. 6581–6592). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145 /3025453.3025825 Potts, C., & Bruns, G. (1988). Recording the reasons for design decisions. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 418–427). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. doi:10.1109/ICSE.1988.93722 Reeves, B., & Shipman, F. (1992). Supporting communication between designers with artifact-centered evolving information spaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’92 (pp. 394–401). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/143457.143556 Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology (pp. 135–144). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 87–143. doi:10.1002/aris.1440380103 Rogers, Y., Preece, J., & Sharp, H. (2011). Interaction design: Beyond humancomputer interaction (3rd ed.). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign - International Journal of CoCreation in Desing and the Arts, 10(1), 5–14. doi:10.1080/15710882 .2014.888183 Schmidt, K. (2014). The concept of “practice”: What’s the point? In C. Rossitto, L. Ciolfi, D. Martin, & B. Conein (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems - COOP ’14 (pp. 427– 444). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06498-7_26 Schoffelen, J., & Huybrechts, L. (2013). Sharing is caring. Sharing and documenting complex participatory projects to enable generative participation. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 18(1), 9–22. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3), 131–147. doi:10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G Selic, B. (2009). Agile documentation, anyone? IEEE Software, 26(6), 11–12. doi:10.1109/MS.2009.167 Sengers, P., & Gaver, B. (2006). Staying open to interpretation: Engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’06 (pp. 99–108). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142422 Shah, J. J., Jeon, D. K., Urban, S. D., Bliznakov, P., & Rogers, M. (1996). Database infrastructure for supporting engineering design histories. Computer-Aided Design, 28(5), 347–360. doi:10.1016/0010-4485(95)00054-2 Sharmin, M., & Bailey, B. P. (2011). Making sense of communication associated with artifacts during early design activity. In P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N. Nunes, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6946 (pp. 181– 198). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23774-4_17 Sharmin, M., Bailey, B. P., Coats, C., & Hamilton, K. (2009). Understanding knowledge management practices for early design activity and its implications for reuse. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’09 (pp. 2367–2376). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1518701.1519064 Shipman, F. M., & McCall, R. J. (1997). Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: Supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 11(2), 141–154. doi:10.1017/S089006040000192X Shum, S. J. B., & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(4), 603–652. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1994.1029 Shum, S. J. B., Selvin, A. M., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C. B., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In A. H. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrík, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale Management in Software Engineering (pp. 111–132). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30998-7_5 Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambrige MA: MIT Press. Sleeswijk Visser, F., Van Der Lugt, R., & Stappers, P. J. (2007). Sharing user experiences in the product innovation process: Participatory design needs participatory communication. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 35–45. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00414.x Sonnenwald, D. H. (1995). Contested collaboration: A descriptive model of intergroup communication in information system design. Information Processing and Management, 31(6), 859–877. doi:10.1016/0306-4573 (95)00002-X Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(2), 153–183. doi:10.1023/A :1023924110279 Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. doi:10.1177/0162243910377624 Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1–14. doi:10.1016/0362- 3319(91)90040-B Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2 Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55–65. Retrieved from http://jodesign.org.tw/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/240/148 Stolterman, E., & Pierce, J. (2012). Design tools in practice: studying the designer-tool relationship in interaction design. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference - DIS ’12 (pp. 25–28). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2317956.2317961 Sutcliffe, A. G., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). Designing claims for reuse in interactive systems design. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 50(3), 213–241. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0245 Swan, L., Tanase, D., & Taylor, A. S. (2010). Design’s processional character. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’10 (pp. 65–74). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1858171.1858186 Tang, A., Jin, Y., & Han, J. (2007). A rationale-based architecture model for design traceability and reasoning. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 918– 934. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.08.040 Tang, A., Liang, P., Clerc, V., & van Vliet, H. (2011). Traceability in the coevolution of architectural requirements and design. In P. Avgeriou, J. Grundy, J. Hall, P. Lago, & I. Mistrík (Eds.), Relating Software Requirements and Architectures (pp. 35–60). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21001-3_4 Visser, W. (2009). Design: One, but in different forms. Design Studies, 30(3), 187–223. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.004 Vyas, D., Heylen, D., Nijholt, A., & van der Veer, G. (2009). Collaborative practices that support creativity in design. In I. Wagner, H. Tellioğlu, E. Balka, C. Simone, & L. Ciolfi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - ECSCW ’09 (pp. 151–170). London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-854-4_9 Wahid, S., Branham, S. M., Cairco, L., McCrickard, D. S., & Harrison, S. (2009). Picking up artifacts: Storyboarding as a gateway to reuse. In T. Gross, J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P. Palanque, R. Oliveira Prates, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5727 (pp. 528–541). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03658-3_57 Wahid, S., Branham, S. M., McCrickard, D. S., & Harrison, S. (2010). Investigating the relationship between imagery and rationale in design. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’10 (pp. 75–84). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1858171.1858187 Walz, D. B., Elam, J. J., & Curtis, B. (1993, October). Inside a software design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration. Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 63–77. doi:10.1145/163430.163447 Wang, L., Shen, W., Xie, H., Neelamkavil, J., & Pardasani, A. (2002). Collaborative conceptual design—state of the art and future trends. Computer-Aided Design, 34(13), 981–996. doi:10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00157-9 Warfel, T. Z. (2009). Prototyping : A practitioner’s guide. Brooklyn, New York: Rosenfeld Media. Warr, A., & O’Neill, E. (2005). Understanding design as a social creative process. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Creativity & Cognition - C&C ’05 (pp. 118–127). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1056224.1056242 Wheeldon, J., & Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: Concept maps, mind maps and data collection in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 68–83. doi:10.1177/160940690900800307 Wolf, T. V., Rode, J. A., Sussman, J., & Kellogg, W. A. (2006). Dispelling “design” as the black art of CHI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’06 (pp. 521–530). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124853 Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E., & Cockton, G. (2011). Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: A proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(10), 940–970. doi:10.1080/10447318.2011.555314 Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In R. Grinter, T. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries, & G. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’07 (pp. 493– 502). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240704 Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of research through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems - DIS ’10 (pp. 310–319). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1858171.1858228 | - |
| local.type.refereed | Non-Refereed | - |
| local.type.specified | Phd thesis | - |
| item.fullcitation | GUTIERREZ LOPEZ, Marisela (2018) Techniques and Artefacts for Documenting Design Rationale Among Multidisciplinary Design Teams. | - |
| item.accessRights | Open Access | - |
| item.contributor | GUTIERREZ LOPEZ, Marisela | - |
| item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
| Appears in Collections: | PhD theses Research publications | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GutierrezLopezMarisela_Dissertation2018.pdf | 2.92 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.