Structure in idea sketching behaviour

CoBlocks: An Improved Voxel-Based Design Tool by Object Structuring of Voxel Models

“…Analyzing the recorded sequences of strokes and segmented them into "drawing acts", they observed that each act appears to be a meaningful and complete component rather than an arbitrary fragment of entities. Kavakli et al [16] likewise show that sketching activity is largely oriented to the geometrical semantics of the imagined or recalled item. In this study, they observed how the participants draw a chair.…”

“…Instead of requiring users to "select and group", the formation of objects can be achieved more simply by exploiting the part-by-part drawing behaviours found in the studies done by Kavakli [16] and Scrivener and Clark [15]; that is, designers tend to draw a meaningful part (or object) completely before starting to draw another part. If the part-by-part drawing behaviour found in sketching is also dominant in the voxel modelling activities, this may provide a basis for voxel-based design systems to which will allow the definition of consecutively created voxels as an object rather than the "selection and grouping" of the voxels individually.This allows users to manipulate the defined, meaningful objects directly instead of low-level individual voxels.…”

Development of a tool for building shared representations among industrial designers and engineering designers

“…In comparing the differences between representations favoured by the 2 disciplines, Veveris (1994) observed that engineering designers used models associated with engineering principles, functional mechanisms, production issues; whereas industrial designers applied representations related to appearance and usability. Despite the various attempts to classify representations by other authors (Tjalve et al 1979;Ullman, 1988;Tovey, 1989;Evans, 1992;Ferguson, 1992;Goldschmidt, 1992;Veveris, 1994;Kavakli et al, 1998; 7 Cross, 1999;Do et al, 2000;Otto and Wood, 2001;Cain, 2005 Although ambiguous representations possess benefits, their ill-defined nature makes it difficult for engineering designers to comprehend and recognise how they work in relation to a product's technical parameters (Saddler, 2001). It may be difficult for a viewer other than the originator to understand the embodied meaning, context or scale (McGown, et al, 1998).…”

“…In comparing the differences between representations favoured by the 2 disciplines, Veveris (1994) observed that engineering designers used models associated with engineering principles, functional mechanisms, production issues; whereas industrial designers applied representations related to appearance and usability. Despite the various attempts to classify representations by other authors (Tjalve et al 1979;Ullman, 1988;Tovey, 1989;Evans, 1992;Ferguson, 1992;Goldschmidt, 1992;Veveris, 1994;Kavakli et al, 1998;Cross, 1999;Do et al, 2000;Otto and Wood, 2001;Cain, 2005 (Rodriguez 1992, Ehrlenspiel and Dylla 1993, Fish 1996. They enable seeing things in a different way that in turn produces new designs and allows flexibility in terms of design attributes.…”

Investigating the Feasibility of Digitally Created Industrial Design Sketchbooks

“…O'Neill (2011) and Unwin (2009) discuss how sketchbooks are not simply an externalisation of memory or a repository of ideas and information, but crucially provide a 'playful' open space that prompts reflection and affords the reconfiguration of ideas. The consecutive pages of a sketchbook are a very powerful resource for narrating the progression of design stages: they provide a tangible trail of design thinking, design management, and communication of ideas (O'Neill, 2011;Baskinger, 2008;Warburton, 2001;Kavakli et al, 1998). Maintaining a 'good' sketchbook is therefore regarded as an important professional activity (Winjen and van den Hoven, 2011).…”