A Silent Revolution: From Sketching to Coding – A Case Study on Code-based Design Tool Learning
Song Xu 1  
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Graduate School of Design, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology
2
Graduate School of Design, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Song Xu   

Graduate School of Design, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 123 University Road, Section 3, 64002 Douliou, Yunlin, Taiwan
Online publish date: 2017-06-15
Publish date: 2017-06-18
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(7):2959–2977
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Along with the information technology rising, Computer Aided Design activities are becoming more modern and more complex. But learning how to operation these new design tools has become the main problem lying in front of each designer. This study was purpose on finding problems encountered during code-based design tools learning period of designers, especially those influential factors. The research was based on two design protocol analysis studies. A pilot study was performed for research details adjustment. Three selected participants have been told to complete one sketching work with two different digital design tools. A 30 minutes teaching was performed on each participant. Processing was introduced for data analysis. We found digital methods can be used to performing design process analyzing. We construct a multi-scale analyzing structure for design process and we demonstrate the possibility of pure quantitative study of the design process.
 
REFERENCES (17)
1.
Ben, J. (2005). Design ideation: the conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613-624.
 
2.
Catherine, S., & Tom, C. (2010). Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during graphic design ideation? Design Studies, 31(5), 439–460.
 
3.
Gabriela, G. (1997). Capturing indeterminism: representation in the design problem space. Design Studies, 18(4), 441-455.
 
4.
Gabriela, G., & Porter W. (2004). Design Representation. London: Springer, 185-201.
 
5.
James, T. W. (2015). To Make or to Create? What Should Students of Design be taught? Design Issues, 31, 3–15.
 
6.
John, S. G. (1990). Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26-36.
 
7.
John, S. G., & Udo, K. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies, 25, 373–391.
 
8.
Jorge, A. M., José, A. D. M., Sabina, A. C., & Betina, P. F. (2013). An exploratory study on the use of digital sculpting in conceptual product design. Design Studies, 34(2), 264–284.
 
9.
Larry, S., & Rivka, O. (2006). Materializing design: the implications of rapid prototyping in digital design. Design Studies, 27(3), 325–355.
 
10.
Neil, G. (2007). Fab: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop--from Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication. NY: Basic Books, pp.120-155.
 
11.
Nicholas, N. (1995). Being Digital. London: Hodder & Stoughton, pp.163-171.
 
12.
Philip, C., Ben, H., & Steve, C. (2015). Activity Theory as a means for multi-scale analysis of the engineering design process: A protocol study of design in practice. Design Studies, 38, 1-32.
 
13.
Richard, C., Hoon, P., & Dorian, W. (2002). Design devices: digital drawing and the pursuit of difference. Design Studies, 23(3), 263-286.
 
14.
Schenk, P. (1991). The role of drawing in the graphic design process. Design Studies, 12(3), 168-178.
 
15.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, pp. 379–423, 623–656.
 
16.
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.
 
17.
Tomás, D., Edgar, P., & Annemarie, L. (2008). The ideation gap: hybrid tools, design flow and practice. Design Studies, 29(2), 121–141.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215