Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation

Buckingham Shum, S

Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation

Buckingham Shum, S

Permalink

Publisher:: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, 1996, 1, pp. 185 - 215
Issue Date:: 1996-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2013006537OK.pdf		127.25 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Buckingham Shum, S https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6334-7429	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Moran, TP	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Carroll, JM	en_US
dc.date.issued	1996-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use, 1996, 1, pp. 185 - 215	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	0-8058-1566-X	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/29634
dc.description.abstract	Semiformal, argumentation-based notations are one of the main classes of formalism currently being used to represent design rationale (DR). However, our understanding of the demands on designers of using such representations has to date been drawn largely from informal and anecdotal evidence. One way to tackle the fundamental challenge of reducing DRs representational overheads, is to understand the relationship between designing, and the idea structuring tasks introduced by a semiformal DR notation. Empirically based analyses of DR in use can therefore inform the design of the notations in order to turn the structuring effort to the designers advantage. This is the approach taken in this chapter, which examines how designers use a DR notation during design problem solving. Two empirical studies of DR-use are reported, in which designers used the QOC notation (MacLean et al., this volume) to express rationale for their designs. In the first study, a substantial and consistent body of evidence was gathered, describing the demands of the core representational tasks in using QOC, and the variety of strategies which designers adopt in externalising ideas. The second study suggests that an argumentation-based design model based around laying out discrete, competing Options is inappropriate during a depth-first, `evolutionary mode of working, centered around developing a single, complex Option. In addition, the data provide motivation for several extensions to the basic QOC notation. The chapter concludes by comparing the account of the QOCdesign relationship which emerges from these studies, with reports of other DR approaches in use.	en_US
dc.publisher	Lawrence Erlbaum Associates	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use	en_US
dc.title	Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.location	Hillsdale, NJ	en_US
utslib.for	1203 Design Practice and Management	en_US
utslib.citation.edition	1	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Teaching and Learning)
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.edition	1	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	Hillsdale, NJ	en_US

Abstract:

Semiformal, argumentation-based notations are one of the main classes of formalism currently being used to represent design rationale (DR). However, our understanding of the demands on designers of using such representations has to date been drawn largely from informal and anecdotal evidence. One way to tackle the fundamental challenge of reducing DRs representational overheads, is to understand the relationship between designing, and the idea structuring tasks introduced by a semiformal DR notation. Empirically based analyses of DR in use can therefore inform the design of the notations in order to turn the structuring effort to the designers advantage. This is the approach taken in this chapter, which examines how designers use a DR notation during design problem solving. Two empirical studies of DR-use are reported, in which designers used the QOC notation (MacLean et al., this volume) to express rationale for their designs. In the first study, a substantial and consistent body of evidence was gathered, describing the demands of the core representational tasks in using QOC, and the variety of strategies which designers adopt in externalising ideas. The second study suggests that an argumentation-based design model based around laying out discrete, competing Options is inappropriate during a depth-first, `evolutionary mode of working, centered around developing a single, complex Option. In addition, the data provide motivation for several extensions to the basic QOC notation. The chapter concludes by comparing the account of the QOCdesign relationship which emerges from these studies, with reports of other DR approaches in use.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/29634