Skip to main content
×
Home

Information and interaction requirements for software tools supporting analogical design

  • Gülşen Töre Yargin (a1) and Nathan Crilly (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

One mode of creative design is for designers to draw analogies that connect the design domain (e.g., a mechanical device) to some other domain from which inspiration is drawn (e.g., a biological system). The identification and application of analogies can be supported by software tools that store, structure, present, or propose source domain stimuli from which such analogies might be constructed. For these tools to be effective and not impact the design process in negative ways, they must fit well with the information and interaction needs of their users. However, the user requirements for these tools are seldom explicitly discussed. Furthermore, the literature that supports the identification of such requirements is distributed across a number of different domains, including those that address analogical design (especially biomimetics), creativity support tools, and human–computer interaction. The requirements that these literatures propose can be divided into those that relate to the information content that the tools provide (e.g., level of abstraction or mode of representation) and those that relate to the interaction qualities that the tools support (e.g., accessibility or shareability). Examining the relationships between these requirements suggests that tool developers should focus on satisfying the key requirements of open-endedness and accessibility while managing the conflicts between the other requirements. Attention to these requirements and the relationships between them promises to yield analogical design support tools that better permit designers to identify and apply source information in their creative work.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Reprint requests to: Gülşen Töre Yargın, Engineering Design Centre, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK. E-mail: gt336@cam.ac.uk
References
Hide All
Avital M., & Te'eni D. (2009). From generative fit to generative capacity: exploring an emerging dimension of information systems design and task performance. Information Systems Journal 19(4), 345367.
Ball L.J., Ormerod T.C., & Morley N.J. (2004). Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices. Design Studies 25(5), 495508.
Barber J., Bhatta S., Goel A., Jacobson M., Pearce M., Penberthy L., Shankar M., Simpson R., & Stroulia E. (1992). AskJef: integration of case-based and multimedia technologies for interface design support. In Artificial Intelligence in Design'92 (Gero J.S., Ed.), pp. 457475. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bartocci G., Potts L., & Cotugno C. (2008). Experience report: communicating ethnographic findings effectively within multidisciplinary teams and to your clients. Proc. Int. Conf. Design of Communication, SIGDOC ‘08, pp. 99–102. Lisbon: ACM.
Bingham C.B., & Kahl S.J. (2013). The process of schema emergence: assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Journal 56(1), 1434.
Biomimicry 3.8 Institute. (2008–2014). AskNature. Accessed http://www.asknature.org/ on July 14, 2014.
Blomberg J., & Burrell M. (2008). An ethnographic approach to design. In The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook (Sears A., & Jacko J.A., Eds.), pp. 965988. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Bonnardel N. (2000). Towards understanding and supporting creativity in design: analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. Knowledge-Based Systems 13(7–8), 505513.
Bracewell R., Wallace K., Moss M., & Knott D. (2009). Capturing design rationale. Computer-Aided Design 41(3), 173186.
Candy L., & Edmonds E. (1995). Creativity in knowledge work: a process model and requirements for support. Proc. OZCHI'95, HCI: A Light into the Future, Vol. 95, pp. 242248. Wollongong, Australia: CHISIG.
Candy L., & Edmonds E. (1996). Creative design of the Lotus bicycle: implications for knowledge support systems research. Design Studies 17(1), 7190.
Candy L., & Edmonds E. (1997). Supporting the creative user: a criteria-based approach to interaction design. Design Studies 18(2), 185194.
Cardoso C., & Badke-Schaub P. (2011). Fixation or inspiration: creative problem solving in design. Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 7782.
Chakrabarti A., Sarkar P., Leelavathamma B., & Nataraju B. (2005). A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19(2), 113132.
Chan J., Fu K., Schunn C., Cagan J., Wood K., & Kotovsky K. (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), 081004.
Chen C.-C., & Crilly N. (2014). Modularity, redundancy and degeneracy: cross-domain perspectives on key design principles. Proc. 8th Annual IEEE Systems Conf., SysCon 2014, pp. 546–553. Ottawa: IEEE.
Cheong H., & Shu L. (2012). Automatic extraction of causally related functions from natural-language text for biomimetic design. Proc. ASME 2012 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. & Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 373–382. Chicago: ASME.
Cheong H., & Shu L. (2013). Using templates and mapping strategies to support analogical transfer in biomimetic design. Design Studies 34(6), 706728.
Christensen B.T., & Schunn C.D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35(1), 2938.
Clarke E. (1978). The neural circulation: the use of analogy in medicine. Medical History 22(3), 291307.
Crilly N. (2010). The roles that artefacts play: technical, social and aesthetic functions. Design Studies 31(4), 311344.
Csikszentmihalyi M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dahl D.W., & Moreau P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research 39(1), 4760.
Deldin J.-M., & Schuknecht M. (2014). The AskNature Database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In Biologically Inspired Design (Goel A.K., McAdams D., & Stone R., Eds.), pp. 1727. London: Springer–Verlag.
Diggins T., & Tolmie P. (2003). The “adequate” design of ethnographic outputs for practice: some explorations of the characteristics of design resources. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7(3), 147158.
Dupin J.J., & Johsua S. (1989). Analogies and “modeling analogies” in teaching: some examples in basic electricity. Science Education 73(2), 207224.
Edmonds E.A., Weakley A., Candy L., Fell M., Knott R., & Pauletto S. (2005). The studio as laboratory: combining creative practice and digital technology research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63(4), 452481.
Elam J.J., & Mead M. (1990). Can software influence creativity? Information Systems Research 1(1), 122.
Erickson T. (1998). Towards a pattern language for interaction design. In Recovering Work Practice and Informing Systems Design (Luff P., Hindmash J., & Heath C., Eds.), pp. 252261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer G. (1993). Creativity enhancing design environments. In Modeling Creativity and Knowledge-Based Creative Design (Gero J.S., & Maher M.-L., Eds.), pp. 269282. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Galitz W.O. (2007). The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gaver W.W., Beaver J., & Benford S. (2003). Ambiguity as a resource for design. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'03, pp. 233–240. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: ACM.
Gentner D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou S., & Ortony A., Eds.), pp. 199241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goel A.K., McAdams D.A., & Stone R.B. (2014). Biologically Inspired Design: Computational Methods and Tools. London: Springer–Verlag.
Goel A.K., Vattam S., Wiltgen B., & Helms M. (2012). Cognitive, collaborative, conceptual and creative—four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: a study in biologically inspired design. Computer-Aided Design 44(10), 879900.
Goel A.K., Vattam S., Wiltgen B., & Helms M. (2014). Information-processing theories of biologically inspired design. In Biologically Inspired Design (Goel A.K., McAdams D., & Stone R., Eds.), pp. 127152. London: Springer–Verlag.
Goldschmidt G. (2011). Avoiding design fixation: transformation and abstraction in mapping from source to target. Journal of Creative Behavior 45(2), 92100.
Greene S.L. (2002). Characteristics of applications that support creativity. Communications of the ACM 45(10), 100104.
Halasz F., & Moran T.P. (1982). Analogy considered harmful. Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 383–386. Gaithersburg, MD: ACM.
Hastings D., & McManus H. (2004). A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems. Proc. Engineering Systems Symp., pp. 1–19, Cambridge, MA.
Helms M., & Goel A. (2013). Grounded knowledge representations for biologically inspired design. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, pp. 351–360. Seoul: ICED.
Helms M., Vattam S.S., & Goel A.K. (2009). Biologically inspired design: process and products. Design Studies 30(5), 606622.
Hewett T. (2005). Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 63(4), 383409.
Hewett T., & DePaul J.L. (2000). Toward a human centered scientific problem solving environment. In Enabling Technologies for Computational Science (Houstis E.N., Rice J.R., Gallopoulos E., & Bramley R., Eds.), pp. 7990. Boston: Kluwer.
Hey J., Linsey J., Agogino A.M., & Wood K.L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education 24(2), 283294.
Holland J.H. (1986). Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holyoak K.J., Gentner D., & Kokinov B.N. (2001). Introduction: the place of analogy in cognition. In The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science (Gentner D., Holyoak K.J., & Kokinov B.N., Eds.), pp. 119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Holyoak K.J., & Thagard P. (1995). Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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), 160180.
Hughes J.A., O'Brien J., Rodden T., Rouncefield M., & Viller S. (2000). Patterns of home life: informing design for domestic environments. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 4(1), 2538.
ISO. (n.d.). ISO 9241 Series: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work With Visual Display Terminals (VDTs). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
Jansson D.G., & Smith S.M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies 12(1), 311.
Johnson G.J., Bruner, II G.C., & Kumar A. (2006). Interactivity and its facets revisited: theory and empirical test. Journal of Advertising 35(4), 3552.
Johnson H., & Carruthers L. (2006). Supporting creative and reflective processes. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 64(10), 9981030.
Kalogerakis K., Lüthje C., & Herstatt C. (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27(3), 418436.
Knippers J., & Speck T. (2012). Design and construction principles in nature and architecture. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 7(1), 015002.
Kules B. (2005). Supporting creativity with search tools. In NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools (Shneiderman B., Fischer G., Hewett T., Eds.), pp. 5364. Washington, DC: NSF.
Kules B., & Shneiderman B. (2008). Users can change their web search tactics: design guidelines for categorized overviews. Information Processing & Management 44(2), 463484.
Kuniavsky M. (2003). Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Lepora N.F., Verschure P., & Prescott T.J. (2013). The state of the art in biomimetics. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 8(1), 013001.
Linsey J.S., Markman A.B., & Wood K.L. (2012). Design by analogy: a study of the wordtree method for problem re-representation. Journal of Mechanical Design 134(4), 041009.
Linsey J.S., Wood K.L., & Markman A.B. (2008). Modality and representation in analogy. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 85100.
Liu Y., & Shrum L. (2002). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 31(4), 5364.
Maher M.L., Balachandran M., & Zhang D.M. (1995). Case-Based Reasoning in Design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mak T.W., & Shu L.H. (2004). Abstraction of biological analogies for design. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 53(1), 117120.
Mak T.W., & Shu L.H. (2008). Using descriptions of biological phenomena for idea generation. Research in Engineering Design 19(1), 2128.
Nagel J.K., Nagel R.L., Stone R.B., & McAdams D.A. (2010). Function-based, biologically inspired concept generation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(4), 521535.
Nielsen J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Usability Inspection Methods (Nielsen J., & Mack R.L., Eds.), pp. 2562. New York: Wiley.
Nijstad B.A., Stroebe W., & Lodewijkx H.F. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38(6), 535544.
Nørgaard M., & Hornbæk K. (2009). Exploring the value of usability feedback formats. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 25(1), 4974.
Oppenheimer R. (1956). Analogy in science. American Psychologist 11(3), 127135.
Pearce M., Goel A.K., Kolodner J.L., Zimring C., Sentosa L., & Billington R. (1992). Case-based design support: a case study in architectural design. IEEE Expert 7(5), 1420.
Perttula M., & Sipilä P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design 18(1), 93102.
Ramey J., Robinson C., Carlevato D., & Hansing R. (1992). Communicating user needs to designers: hypermedia-supported requirements documents. Proc. Int. Professional Communication Conf., IPCC'92, pp. 241–247, Sante Fe, NM, September 29–October 3.
Resnick M., Myers B., Nakakoji K., Shneiderman B., Pausch R., Selker T., & Eisenberg M. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. In NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools (Shneiderman B., Fischer G., Hewett T., Eds.), pp. 2536. Washington, DC: NSF.
Sarkar P., & Chakrabarti A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22(2), 101116.
Shneiderman B. (1997). Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable user interfaces. Proc. Int. Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 33–39. Orlando, FL: ACM.
Shneiderman B. (2000). Creating creativity: user interfaces for supporting innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(1), 114138.
Schneiderman B., & Plaisant C. (2005). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human–Computer Interaction, 4th ed.Reading, MA: Pearson Education.
Shu L. (2010). A natural-language approach to biomimetic design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(4), 507519.
Spiro R.J., Feltovich P.J., Coulson R.L., & Anderson D.K. (1989). Multiple analogies for complex concepts: antidotes for analogy-induced misconception in advanced knowledge acquisition. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou S., & Ortony A., Eds.), pp. 498531. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stacey M., & Eckert C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12(2), 153183.
Terry M., & Mynatt E.D. (2002). Recognizing creative needs in user interface design. Proc. Conf. Creativity & Cognition, pp. 38–44. Loughborough: ACM.
Töre Yargın G. (2013). Developing a model for effective communication of user research findings to the design process. PhD Thesis. Middle East Technical University.
Töre Yargın G., & Erbuğ Ç. (2012). Information system for visualizing user research to lead innovation. Proc. DMI 2012 Int. Research Conf. (Bohemia E., Liedtka J., Rieple A., Eds.), pp. 71–85. Boston: DMI.
Vattam S.S., & Goel A.K. (2011). Foraging for inspiration: understanding and supporting the online information seeking practices of biologically inspired designers. Proc. ASME 2011 Int. Design Engineering Technical Conf. Computers and Information in Engineering Conf., pp. 177–186. Denver, CO: ASME.
Verhaegen P.-A., D'hondt J., Vandevenne D., Dewulf S., & Duflou J.R. (2011). Identifying candidates for design-by-analogy. Computers in Industry 62(4), 446459.
Vermaas P.E., & Eckert C. (2013). My functional description is better! Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27(3), 187190.
Vincent J.F., Bogatyreva O.A., Bogatyrev N.R., Bowyer A., & Pahl A.-K. (2006). Biomimetics: its practice and theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3(9), 471482.
Vosniadou S., & Ortony A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis. In Similarity and Analogical Reasoning (Vosniadou S., & Ortony A., Eds.), pp. 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson J.O., Rosen D., Nelson B.A., & Yen J. (2010). The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies 31(2), 169186.
Yamamoto Y., & Nakakoji K. (2005). Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 63(4), 513535.
Zahner D., Nickerson J.V., Tversky B., Corter J.E., & Ma J. (2010). A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 24(2), 231244.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

AI EDAM
  • ISSN: 0890-0604
  • EISSN: 1469-1760
  • URL: /core/journals/ai-edam
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 41 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 228 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.