skip to main content
10.1145/3059454.3059472acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dimensional Reasoning and Research Design Spaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 June 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present an exploration into the use of dimensional reasoning and the creation of research design spaces. We hypothesized that researchers, engaged in open-ended creative problem solving, could adapt the methods of design thinking and design spaces to create dimensionalized research design spaces. To investigate how researchers might explicitly engage in such dimensionalization processes, we created and studied (n=5, n=5) an interactive web-based system for the creation of research design spaces. Our results showed that a 'dimensions-first' approach was difficult for researchers to work with. We then created and studied (n=11) a prototype 'examples-first' approach. Our results suggest that the ability of researchers to explicitly dimensionalize their research areas is quite varied and that significant scaffolding is required to help researchers reason in this way.

References

  1. Michel Beaudouin-Lafon and Wendy E Mackay. 2003. Prototyping tools and techniques. Human Computer Interaction -- Development Process (2003), 122--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Joeran Beel, Bela Gipp, Stefan Langer, and Marcel Genzmehr. 2011. Docear: An Academic Literature Suite for Searching, Organizing and Creating Academic Literature. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 465--466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Michael Mose Biskjaer, Peter Dalsgaard, and Kim Halskov. 2014. A Constraint-based Understanding of Design Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 453--462. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Nathalie Bonnardel and Tamara Sumner. 1996. Supporting evaluation in design. Acta Psychologica 91, 3 (1996), 221--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Richard Buchanan. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues 8, 2 (1992), 5--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Stuart K Card, Jock D Mackinlay, and George G Robertson. 1990. The design space of input devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 117--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Joel Chan, Katherine Fu, Christian Schunn, Jonathan Cagan, Kristin Wood, and Kenneth Kotovsky. 2011. On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of mechanical design 133, 8 (2011), 081004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Chaomei Chen. 2006. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 57, 3 (2006), 359--377. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Coggle. 2016. https://coggle.it/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Christopher Collins, Sheelagh Carpendale, and Gerald Penn. 2009a. Docuburst: Visualizing document content using language structure. In Computer graphics forum, Vol. 28. Wiley Online Library, 1039--1046. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Christopher Collins, Fernanda B Viegas, and Martin Wattenberg. 2009b. Parallel tag clouds to explore and analyze faceted text corpora. In Visual Analytics Science and Technology, 2009. VAST 2009. IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 91--98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Arthur Cropley. 2006. In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity research journal 18, 3 (2006), 391--404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies: why and how. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 193--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Rune Nielsen. 2008a. Maps for design reflection. Artifact 2, 3--4 (2008), 176--189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Rune Nielsen. 2008b. Towards a design space explorer for media facades. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat. ACM, 219--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Alan Dix, Rachel Cowgill, Christina Bashford, Simon McVeigh, and Rupert Ridgewell. 2016. Spreadsheets As User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 192--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross. 2001. Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem--solution. Design studies 22, 5 (2001), 425--437.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Niklas Elmqvist, Pierre Dragicevic, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2008. Rolling the dice: Multidimensional visual exploration using scatterplot matrix navigation. IEEE transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14, 6 (2008), 1539--1148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. EndNote. 2016. http://endnote.com/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jennifer English, Marti Hearst, Rashmi Sinha, Kirsten Swearingen, and Ka-Ping Yee. 2002. Hierarchical faceted metadata in site search interfaces. In CHI'02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 628--639. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Microsoft Excel. 2016. https://office.live.com/start/Excel.aspx. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jean-Daniel Fekete, Jarke J Van Wijk, John T Stasko, and Chris North. 2008. The value of information visualization. In Information visualization. Springer, 1--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. FreeMind. 2016. http://freemind.en.softonic.com/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Vinod Goel and Peter Pirolli. 1992. The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive science 16, 3 (1992), 395--429.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. TC Graham, Leon A Watts, Gaëlle Calvary, Joëlle Coutaz, Emmanuel Dubois, and Laurence Nigay. 2000. A dimension space for the design of interactive systems within their physical environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, 406--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Tovi Grossman and Daniel Wigdor. 2007. Going Deeper: a Taxonomy of 3D on the Tabletop. In Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems, 2007. TABLETOP '07. Second Annual IEEE International Workshop on. 137--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Joy Paul Guilford. 1956. The structure of intellect. Psychological bulletin 53, 4 (1956), 267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Chris Heape. 2007. The Design Space: the design process as the construction, exploration and expansion of a conceptual space. Ph.D. Dissertation. SDUSDU, Det Tekniske FakultetFaculty of Engineering, Mads Clausen InstituttetThe Mads Clausen Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. David G Jansson and Steven M Smith. 1991. Design fixation. Design studies 12, 1 (1991), 3--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Waqas Javed and Niklas Elmqvist. 2012. Exploring the design space of composite visualization. In Visualization Symposium (PacificVis), 2012 IEEE Pacific. IEEE, 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Eser Kandogan, Juho Kim, Thomas P. Moran, and Pablo Pedemonte. 2011. How a Freeform Spatial Interface Supports Simple Problem Solving Tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 925--934. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Rudolf K Keller, Anurag Garg, and Tao Tao. 1993. HyperRef: online support for research literature assessment and documentation. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international conference on Systems documentation. ACM, 163--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Andruid Kerne, Eunyee Koh, Steven M Smith, Andrew Webb, and Blake Dworaczyk. 2008. combinFormation: Mixed-initiative composition of image and text surrogates promotes information discovery. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 27, 1 (2008), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Andruid Kerne, Andrew M. Webb, Steven M. Smith, Rhema Linder, Nic Lupfer, Yin Qu, Jon Moeller, and Sashikanth Damaraju. 2014. Using Metrics of Curation to Evaluate Information-Based Ideation. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 21, 3, Article 14 (June 2014), 48 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. David Kirsh. 2010. Thinking with external representations. Ai & Society 25, 4 (2010), 441--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Giovan Francesco Lanzara and Lars Mathiassen. 1985. Mapping situations within a system development project. Information & Management 8, 1 (1985), 3--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. LitAssist. 2016. http://www.litassist.com/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Allan MacLean, Richard M Young, Victoria ME Bellotti, and Thomas P Moran. 1991. Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human--computer interaction 6, 3--4 (1991), 201--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Renan Manola, Renata SS Guizzardi, and Roberta Lima Gomes. 2008. Biblioref: a semantic bibliographic reference management system. In Companion Proceedings of the XIV Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web. ACM, 149--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Justin Matejka, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2012. Citeology: visualizing paper genealogy. In CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Tony McCaffrey and Lee Spector. 2011. Innovation is built on the obscure: Innovation-enhancing software for uncovering the obscure. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 371--372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Sarnoff Mednick. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological review 69, 3 (1962), 220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Yevgeniy Medynskiy, Mira Dontcheva, and Steven M Drucker. 2009. Exploring websites through contextual facets. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2013--2022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Mendeley. 2016. https://www.mendeley.com/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. MindManager. 2016. https://www.mindjet.com/mindmanager/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. MindMeister. 2016. https://www.mindmeister.com/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Lior Noy, Yuval Hart, Natalie Andrew, Omer Ramote, Avi Mayo, and Uri Alon. 2012. A quantitative study of creative leaps. In Proc. Third Int. Conf. Comput. Creativity, Dublin. 72--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Charles Perin, Pierre Dragicevic, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2014. Revisiting bertin matrices: New interactions for crafting tabular visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 20, 12 (2014), 2082--2091.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 1995. Information foraging in information access environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 51--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis, Vol. 5. 2--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Daniel M Russell, Mark J Stefik, Peter Pirolli, and Stuart K Card. 1993. The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 269--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Donald A Schon. 1992. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design 3, 3 (1992), 131--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Google Sheets. 2016. https://www.google.com/sheets/about/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Harri Siirtola and Kari-Jouko Räihä. 2006. Interacting with parallel coordinates. Interacting with Computers 18, 6 (2006), 1278--1309. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Herbert A Simon. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics (1955), 99--118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Consuelo Valdes, Diana Eastman, Casey Grote, Shantanu Thatte, Orit Shaer, Ali Mazalek, Brygg Ullmer, and Miriam K. Konkel. 2014. Exploring the Design Space of Gestural Interaction with Active Tokens Through User-defined Gestures. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4107--4116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Andrew M Webb and Andruid Kerne. 2011. Integrating implicit structure visualization with authoring promotes ideation. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries. ACM, 203--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Edward J Wegman and Qiang Luo. 1997. High dimensional clustering using parallel coordinates and the grand tour. Computing Science and Statistics 28 (1997), 93--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. XMind. 2016. http://www.xmind.net/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Ka-Ping Yee, Kirsten Swearingen, Kevin Li, and Marti Hearst. 2003. Faceted metadata for image search and browsing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 401--408. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Zotero. 2016. https://www.zotero.org/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Fritz Zwicky. 1967. New methods of thought and procedure: contributions to the Symposium on Methodologies; Pasadena, California, May 22--24, 1967. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Fritz Zwicky. 1969. Discovery, Invention, Research: through the morphological approach. Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Dimensional Reasoning and Research Design Spaces

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      C&C '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition
      June 2017
      584 pages
      ISBN:9781450344036
      DOI:10.1145/3059454
      • General Chairs:
      • David A. Shamma,
      • Jude Yew,
      • Program Chair:
      • Brian Bailey

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 June 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      C&C '17 Paper Acceptance Rate27of94submissions,29%Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader