設計師概念構思過程中搜尋檢索行為之研究__臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	設計師概念構思過程中搜尋檢索行為之研究
作者：	鄭霈絨
作者(外文)：	Pei-jung Cheng
校院名稱：	國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱：	設計學研究所博士班
指導教授：	嚴貞
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2010
主題關鍵詞：	平面設計；概念構思；搜尋檢索行為；設計行為；Ideation Process；Graphic Design；Design Behavior；Searching-retrieving Behavior
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:33

本研究主要的目的為探究設計師的搜尋檢索行為在概念構思過程中所扮演的角色為何。並根據主要目的，將研究架構分為以下四項具體目標：1) 描述概念構思過程中設計師的搜尋檢索行為；2) 探究設計師搜尋檢索行為與其他行為間的互動與連結關係；3) 調查搜尋檢索行為的特性與搜尋內容；以及4) 探究電腦化的檢索行為對於概念構思的影響。
本研究為達到具體目標，發展了三個研究階段。第一階段是為了從概念構思之整體的行為中來檢視設計師的搜尋檢索行為，而以觀察法進行六位平面設計師的實務製作觀察；第二階段則是採用十位平面設計師的結構式訪談與四位平面設計師的概念構思流程觀察，來了解設計師搜尋檢索行為的特性，並進一步研究設計師參考之資源內容與構想轉換間的連結關係；在第三階段則是觀察五位平面設計師的實務製作構思過程，以探究電腦化的關鍵字檢索行為是否改變平面設計師之概念構思形式。接著並進行一位平面設計師的個案研究，用以了解此行為對設計師構思聯想機制的影響。
主要的研究結果為： 1. 在設計師的概念構思過程中，“搜尋檢索(S-R)”是衍生構思時相當重要且必要的行為；2. 在搜尋檢索行為中包含“為記錄構想而搜尋 (S-R for WI)”與“為發展草圖而搜尋 (S-R for CNS)”兩大階段；3.“電腦化檢索行為 (RI)” 使設計師的概念構思模式轉變為一個“思考—看—動 (Thinking-Seeing-Moving)”的架構；及4. 本研究所發展出的“行為編碼原則 (Behavioral Coding Scheme)”在平面設計師行為的歸類標準已經過驗證，並能進一步的運用在未來的相關研究上。
本研究對未來相關研究之建議為：1. 根據創意過程的觀點，平面設計與其他相關設計領域的概念構思過程是相似的。因此，本研究為平面設計領域提出了可行性的研究方向，未來並可與其他相關設計領域之設計師構思行為作更進一步的比較與探討；2. 依據個案研究所提出的四個聯想模式為一初探性的結果，未來需對此結果進行更多受測者及更深入的研究調查與驗證；及3. 由於本研究的行為編碼過程耗費大量人力與時間，因此，在受測者方面有所限制。未來將在相關研究中逐步的增加受測者人數，以重複檢視本研究所得到的結論。

以文找文

The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of designers’ searching- retrieving behavior (S-R) in ideation process. According to the main purpose, four specific targets in this study have to be further explored which are: 1) making the descriptions of designers’ S-R behavior; 2) exploring the interactive and connective relationship between designers’ S-R and other behaviors; 3) investigating the characters and the content within designers’ S-R; and 4) exploring the influence of designers’ computerized retrieving behavior (RI) have on their ideation process.
There are three stages were developed in this study. Firstly, six graphic design practitioners’ observations were conducted for investigating their searching-retrieving behavior throughout the ideation process. Secondly, ten graphic design practitioners’ structured interviews and four graphic design practitioners’ observations were undertaken to understand the characters of designers’ searching-retrieving behavior. Then investigate the linkage relationship between the visual stimuli designers were referring to and the transforming ideas within their ideation processes. The thirdly, five practicing graphic designers’ observations and a case study were carried out for realizing whether the designers’ situated ideation patterns have changed cause of the computerized retrieving behavior in the digital environment and exploring what kind of influences have on the designers’ associative mechanism.
The major findings of this study are: 1) designers’ ‘searching-retrieving’ behavior for generating ideas within the ideation absolutely is necessary and significant; 2) two main S-R stages were proposed, which is the ‘S-R for WI’ stage and the ‘S-R for CNS’ stage, and the designers’ conditions in the two different stages were interpreted as well; 3) a ‘thinking-seeing-moving’ structure is proposed in this study to describe designers’ ideation pattern in the digital environment based on the discussion of the keyword-base retrieving information behavior (RI); and 4) the behavioral coding scheme developed in this study has been utilized to analyze graphic designers’ behaviors in several related studies can be truthfully utilized to analyze designers’ behaviors.
Recommendations for related research are: 1) according to the view of creative process, the graphic designers’ ideation process is similar to the ideation process of other design area. Thus, the study provides a possible direction to the research area of graphic design for further comparing with other areas in the future; 2) the four types of associative modes during the designer’s ideation process have found in case study part and need more related studies and participants for further investigating in the future; and 3) the number of the participants in this study is limited whether in the observations or in the case studies. Thus, the future studies will gradually increase the number of the participants for iteratively examining the proposed conclusions.

以文找文

1.Ahmed, S. (2005). Encouraging reuse of design knowledge: a method to index knowledge. Design Studies, 26(6), 565-592.
2.Akin, ?? (1984). An Exploration of design process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Development in design methodologies (pp. 189-208). New York: Wiley.
3.Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder: Colorado: Westview Press.
4.Anderson, R. E., & Helstrup, T. (1993). Visual discovery in mind and on paper. Memory and Cognition, 21(3), 283-293.
5.Athavankar, U. (1996). Mental imagery as a design tool. Cybernetics and Systems, 28(1), 25-42.
6.Athavankar, U., & Mukherjee, A. (2003). Blindfolded classroom: getting design students to use mental imagery. In U. Lindemann (Ed.), Human behaviour in design Springer Verlag (pp. 111-120). Berlin.
7.Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1996). Teaching engineering design: can reading a textbook make a difference? Research in Engineering Design, 7, 240-250.
8.Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: an experimental and social study, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
9.Bilda, Z., & Demirkan, H. (2003). An insight on designers'' sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Design Studies, 24(1), 27-49.
10.Broadbent, D. E. (1984). The Maltese Cross: a new simplistic model for memory. The behavioral & brain sciences, 7, 55-94.
11.Broadbent, G. (1979). The development of design methods a review. Design Methods and Theories, 13(1), 41-45.
12.Cardella, M. E., J., A. C., & Adams, R. S. (2006). Mapping between design activities and external representations for engineering student designers. Design Studies, 27(1), 5-24.
13.Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153-175.
14.Cheng, P. J., & Yen, J. (2008). Study on searching-retrieving behaviour in designers'' ideation process. Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, 55(3), 91-98.
15.Cheng, P. J., Yen, J., & You, M. (2008). Designers'' behavioural flow in ideation process, Poster Publication of the Third International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, Atlanta, USA.
16.Christiaans, H. (1992). Creativity in design: the role of domain knowledge in designing. Utrecht: Lemma.
17.Cole, C., & Kuhlthau, C. C. (2000). Information and information seeking of novice versus expert lawyers: how experts add value, NRIBR 1, pp 103-115.
18.Cross, N. (1989). Engineering design methods. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
19.Cross, N. (1997). Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example. Design Studies, 18(4), 427-455.
20.Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25-39.
21.Do, E. Y.-L. (2005). Design Sketches and Sketch Design Tools. In M. D. Gross, L. Candy & Edmonds, E. (Eds.), KBS - Knowledge Based Systems, 18, 383-405. Elsevier Publisher.
22.Do, E. Y.-L., & Gross, M. D. (1997). Inferring Design Intention from Sketches -- an investigation of freehand drawing conventions in design, in: Y.-t. Liu, J.Y. Tsou, J.-H. Hou (Eds.), CAADRIA’97--Proceedings of the Second Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, Hu''s, Taipei.
23.Dorner, D. (1999). Approaching design thinking research. Design Studies. 20(5), 407-415.
24.Dorst, C. H. (1997). Describing design: a comparison of paradigms. Technical University Delft, the Netherlands.
25.Dorst, C. H., & Cross, N. G. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
26.Dorst, K. (2006). Design Problems and Design Paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4-17.
27.Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
28.Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261-274.
29.Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without Representation: Merleau-Ponty'' S Critique of Mental Representation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(4), 367-383.
30.Durling, D. (1997) Interactive learning in design - humans 1, computers 0. Outline 2 February 1997, (www.adh.bton.ac.uk/ctiad/Outline2/features/durling.html).
31.Edwards, B. (1979). Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: A Course in Enhancing Creativity and Artistic Confidence, J.P. Tarcher, Los Angles.
32.Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition-theory, research and applications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
33.Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26-36.
34.Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated Function-Behaviour-Structure framework. Design Studies, 25(4), 373-391.
35.Gero, J. S., Tham, K. W., & Lee, H. S. (1992). Behaviour: A link between function and structure in design. In D. C. Brown, M. B. Waldron & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Intelligent Computer Aided Design (pp. 193-225). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
36.Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123-143.
37.Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 159-174.
38.Goldschmidt, G. (1998). Creative architectural design: reference versus precedence. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 15(3), 258-270.
39.Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies, 27(5), 549-569.
40.Guilford, J.P. (1957). A revised structure of intellect studies of aptitudes of high-level personnel. California: University of Southern California.
41.Hatchuel, A. (2002). Towards Design Theory and Expandable Rationality: The Unfinished Program of Herbert Simon. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(3-4), 260-273.
42.Herbert, D. (1993). Architectural and study drawings. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
43.Howard, T. J., Culley, S.J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160-180.
44.Jenmu, W. (1992). Integrated case-based reasoning for structural design. Stanford University.
45.Jin, Y., & Chusilp, P. (2006). Study of mental iteration in different design situations. Design Studies, 27(1), 25-55.
46.Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613-624.
47.Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2001). Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design Studies, 22(4), 347-364.
48.Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive in design: an experimental examination. Design Studies, 23(1), 25-40.
49.Kokotovich, V., & Purcell, T. (2000). Mental synthesis and creativity in design: an experimental examination. Design Studies, 21(5), 437-449.
50.Lang, S., Dickinson, J., & Buchal, R. (2001). An overview of cognitive factors in distributed design. Presented at the Sixth International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, London, Ont., Canada (12-14 July 2001).
51.Lawson, B. R. (2001). The context of mind Designing in context. Delft: DUP science.
52.Lawson, B. R. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443-457.
53.Lawson, B. R., & Loke, S. M. (1997). Computers, words and pictures. Design Studies, 18(2), 171-183.
54.Logie, R. H. (1989). Characteristics of visual short-term memory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1(4), 275-284.
55.Mackinder, M. & Marvin, H. (1982). Design Decision Making in Architectural Practice, Research Paper 19, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York.
56.Maher, M. L., Balachandran, B., & Zhang, D. M. (1995). Case-Based Reasoning in Design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57.Malaga, R. S. (2000). The effect of stimulus modes and associative distance in individual creativity support systems. Design Support Systems, 29, 125-141.
58.McCoy, M. J., & Evans, G. W. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3-4), 409-426.
59.McGown, A., Green, G., & Rodgers, P. (1998). Visible ideas: information patterns of conceptual sketch activity. Design Studies, 19(4), 431-453.
60.Menezes, A., & Lawson, B. R. (2006). How designers perceive sketches. Design Studies, 27(5), 571-585.
61.Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2002). How designers transform keywords into visual images. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 118-125.
62.Noguchi, H. (1998). How do constraints facilitate designer’s thinking? Proceedings of 4th International Round Table Conference on Computational Models of Creative Design, 265-275.
63.Ozkaya, I., & Akin, ?? (2006). Requirement-driven design: assistance for information traceability in design computing. Design Studies, 27(3), 381-398.
64.Pearson, D. G., Logie, R. H., & Gilhooly, K. J. (1999). Verbal representation and spatial manipulation during mental synthesis. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(3), 295-314.
65.Pena, W. (1987). Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer (3rd ed.). Washington, D. C.: AIA Press.
66.Petre, M., Sharp, H., & Johnson, J.H. (2006). Complexity through combination: an account of knitwear design. Design studies, 27(2), 183-222.
67.Powell, J. A. (1987). Is architectural design a trivial pursuit? Design Studies, 8(4), 187-206.
68.Rhodes, P. (1998). Abundance of information: how do designers use information? In J.S. Smith, & E.W.L. Norman, (Eds), IDATER 98 conference proceedings. Loughborough: Loughborough University.
69.Sch?圢, D. A. (1983). The reﬂective practitioner. London: Temple-Smith.
70.Sch?圢, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their function in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135-156.
71.Segers, N. M. (2004). Computational representations of words and associations in architectural design-development of a system supporting creative design. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
72.Segers, N. M., de Vries, B., & Achten, H. H. (2005). Do word graphs stimulate design? Design Studies, 26(6), 625-647.
73.Simon, H. A. (1969). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
74.Simon, H. A. (1973). The Structure of Ill-structured Problem. Artificial Intelligence, 4(2), 181-201.
75.Smith, G. J., & Gero, J. S. (2005). What does an artificial design agent mean by being ''situated''? Design Studies, 26(5), 535-561.
76.Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1996). What Architects See in Their Sketches: Implications for Design Tools, in Proceedings of CHI ‘96, 191–192.
77.Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385-403.
78.Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Constructive perception in design. In J. S. Gero & M. L. Maher (Eds.), Computational and cognitive models of creative design V (pp. 227-239). Sydney: University of Sydney.
79.Suwa, M., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, T. (1998). The roles of sketches in early conceptual design processes. Paper presented at the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
80.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.
81.Tversky, B. (1999). What does drawing reveal about thinking. In J. S. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design (pp. 93-101). Sydney: University of Sydney.
82.Verstijnem, I. M., Hennessey, J., Leeuwen, C., Hamel, R., & Goldschmidt, G. (1998). Sketching and creative discovery. Design Studies, 19(4), 519-546.
83.Verstijnen, I.M. (1997). Sketches of Creative Discovery – A Psychological Inquiry into the Role of Imagery and Sketching in Creative Discovery. Ph.D. Thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
84.Ware, C. (2004). Information Visualization: Perception for Design (2nd ed.). San Francisco, California: Morgan Kaufmann.
85.Yen, J., & Cheng, P. (2009). Roles of Referring-Sketching Action for the Design Ideation. Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, 56(1), to appear.
86.Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behavior research. Monterey, California: Brooks-Cole Publishing Company.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	探究設計師概念構思過程中的搜尋行為特性

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫