SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating Design Representations for Creativity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Creativity and Rationale

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS,volume 20))

  • 1576 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter argues that the influence of design rationale on creativity is best achieved by concurrent use of scenarios, prototypes and models. A framework of cognitive affordances is introduced to discuss the merits and limitations of each representation. The chapter concludes by discussing how different representations might complement each other in creative scenario-based design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, I. (2002). Initial industrial experience of misuse cases in trade-off analysis. In Proceedings of RE-02 IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering (pp. 61–70). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K. (1999). Extreme programming explained: Embracing change. New York: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchers, J. (2001). A pattern approach to interaction design. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham Shum, S. (1996). Analyzing the usability of a design rationale notation. In T. P. Moran & J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design rationale: Concepts, techniques and use (pp. 185–215). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, W. (2007). Sketching user experiences: Getting the design right and the right design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Scenario-based design: Envisioning work and technology in system development. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: Scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M. (2002). Making use is more than a matter of task analysis. Interacting with Computers, 14, 619–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task-artifact framework: How to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10, 181–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1996). Develo** the Blacksburg Electronic Village. Communications of the ACM, 39, 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Understanding language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, A. (2001). Writing effective use cases. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 64, 303–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2002). Creative cognition in design: Processes of exceptional designers. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on creativity and cognition (pp. 14–19). New York: ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Djajadiningrat, J. P., Gaver, W. W., & Frens, J. W. (2000). Interaction relabelling and extreme characters: Methods for exploring aesthetic interactions. In D. Boyarski & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Conference proceedings: DIS2000 designing interactive systems: Processes, practices methods and techniques (pp. 66–71). New York: ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, J., & Long, J. L. (1998). A conception of the cognitive engineering design problem. Ergonomics, 41, 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DSDM Consortium. (1995). DSDM consortium: Dynamic systems development method. Farnham: Tesseract Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eason, K. D., Harker, S. D. P., & Olphert, C. W. (1996). Representing socio-technical systems options in the development of new forms of work organisation. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 399–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. (1996). Seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding: Constructing, capturing and evolving knowledge in domain-oriented design environments. In A. G. Sutcliffe, D. Benyon, & F. Van Assche (Eds.), Domain knowledge for interactive system design; Proceedings: TC8/WG8.2 conference on domain knowledge in interactive system design (pp. 1–16). London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W. W., Beaver, J., & Benford, S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. In V. Bellotti, T. Erickson, G. Cockton, & P. Korhonen (Eds.), CHI 2003 conference proceedings: Conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 233–240). New York: ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L. (1996). Task scripts, use cases and scenarios in object oriented analysis. Object-Oriented Systems, 3, 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, J. A. (1988). Disjunction in natural categories. Memory and Cognition, 16, 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P., & Overgaard, G. (1992). Object-oriented software engineering: A use-case driven approach. Reading: Addison Wesley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Wason, P. C. (1983). Thinking: Readings in cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaindl, H. (1995). An integration of scenarios with their purposes in task modelling. In G. M. Olson & S. Schuon (Eds.), Designing interactive systems: DIS 95 conference (pp. 227–235). New York: ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karsenty, L. (1996). An empirical evaluation of design rationale documents. In Proceedings of CHI’96 conference: Human factors in computing systems (pp. 150–156). New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuutti, K. (1995). Workprocess: Scenarios as a preliminary vocabulary. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Scenario based design (pp. 19–36). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyng, M. (1995). Creating contexts for design. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Scenario based design (pp. 85–108). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, A., & McKerlie, D. (1995). Design space analysis and user-representations (Technical Report EPC-1995-102). Cambridge, UK: Xerox Research Centre Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. P. (1991). Questions, options and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 201–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moggridge, B. (2006). Designing interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, A. G., & Wright, P. (1993). Improving your human-computer interface: A practical technique. Boston: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., & Yu, E. (1999). From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Communications of the ACM, 42, 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1999). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterno, F. (1999). Model-based design and evaluation of interactive applications. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C. (1999). ScenIC: A strategy for inquiry-driven requirements determination. In Proceedings: 4th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (pp. 58–65). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, C., Takahashi, K., & Anton, A. I. (1994). Inquiry-based requirements analysis. IEEE Software, 11, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland, C., Ben Achour, C., Cauvet, C., Ralyte, J., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Maiden, N. A. M. (1998). A proposal for a scenario classification framework. Requirements Engineering, 3, 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2001). Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of human computer interaction. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G. (2000). Bridging the communications gap: Develo** a lingua franca for software developers and users. In Actes du XVIIIe Congres: INFORSID (pp. 13–32). Toulouse: Inforsid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G. (2002). User-centred requirements engineering. London: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., & Carroll, J. M. (1998). Generalizing claims and reuse of HCI knowledge. In H. Johnson, L. Nigay, & C. Roast (Eds.), People and computers XIII; Proceedings: BCS-HCI conference (pp. 159–176). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., & Carroll, J. M. (1999). Designing claims for reuse in interactive systems design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 213–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., & Maiden, N. A. M. (1992). Analysing the novice analyst: Cognitive models in software engineering. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 719–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., & Ryan, M. (1997). Assessing the usability and efficiency of design rationale. In S. Howard, J. Hammond, & G. Lindgaard (Eds.), Proceedings: Human computer interaction INTERACT-97 (pp. 148–155). London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., Maiden, N. A. M., Minocha, S., & Manuel, D. (1998). Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24, 1072–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., Gault, B., & Maiden, N. A. M. (2005). ISRE: Immersive scenario-based requirements engineering with virtual prototypes. Requirements Engineering, 10, 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., Thew, S., Venters, C., De Bruijn, O., NcNaught, J., Proctor, R., & Buchan, I. (2007). ADVISES project: Scenario-based requirements analysis for e-science applications. In Proceedings of UK All Hands Conference on e-Science, Nottingham. Available on CD-ROM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. G., Thew, S., & Jarvis, P. (2011). Experience with user-centred requirements engineering. Requirements Engineering, 7, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thew, S., Sutcliffe, A. G., De Bruijn, O., McNaught, J., Procter, R., Venters, C., & Buchan, I. (2008). Experience in e-science requirements engineering. In Proceedings: 16th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (pp. 277–282). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thew, S., Sutcliffe, A. G., Procter, R., De Bruijn, O., McNaught, J., Venters, C., & Buchan, I. (2009). Requirements engineering for e-science: Experiences in epidemiology. IEEE Software, 26(1), 80–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, E. S. K. (1993). Modelling organisations for information systems requirements engineering. In S. Fickas & A. C. W. Finkelstein (Eds.), Proceedings: 1st international symposium on requirements engineering (pp. 34–41). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Alistair Sutcliffe

Authors
  1. Alistair Sutcliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alistair Sutcliffe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Sciences and Tech, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 332, Pennsylvania, 16802, Pennsylvania, USA

    John M. Carroll

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sutcliffe, A. (2013). Integrating Design Representations for Creativity. In: Carroll, J. (eds) Creativity and Rationale. Human–Computer Interaction Series, vol 20. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4111-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4111-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4110-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4111-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation