Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
D
in architectural design: their esign seems inconceivable without drawings. Produced drawings
properties as a graphic medium’ are used at all stages of design for many different purposes.
Journal of Architectural Edu-
cation Vol 41 No 2 (1988) Designers often distinguish between freehand drawings produced
pp 26–38
2 Goldschmidt, G ‘The dialec- in the early and late stages of design1,2, regarding the former as private
tics of sketching’ Design Studies tools for thinking rather than public communication and presentation aids.
Vol 4 No 2 (1991) pp 123–143
3 Scrivener, S A R ‘The inter- Vagueness, incompleteness and ambiguity are among the properties of
active manipulation of unstruc-
sketches taken as indicative of this function1,3–5. According to Goldsch-
tured images’ International Jour-
nal of Man-Machine Studies Vol midt2, design thinking is a dialectic between different forms of ‘seeing’,
16 (1982) pp 301–313
4 Goel, V Sketches of Thought seeing-as and seeing-that, that draw on different cognitive processes and
MIT Press, Cambridge MA knowledge types. Translation between modes of seeing is thought to both
(1995)
5 Fish, J and Scrivener, SAR develop and stimulate new ideas through reinterpretation. Systematic stud-
‘Amplifying the minds eye:
sketching and visual cognition’
ies are beginning to clarify the role of idea sketches in this cyclic pro-
LEONARDO Vol 23 No 1 (1990) cess2,4,6–11. It may be debatable whether sketches, via perception, are a
pp 117–126
6 Goldschmidt, G ‘On visual driving force for discovery or simply aid creative cognition (cf. Purcell
design thinking: the vis kids of
and Gero9), but it is becoming clear that sketching and cognition are closely
architecture’ Design Studies Vol
15 (1995) pp 158–174 coupled. If these processes are closely coupled then cognitive processes
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud
0142-694X/00 $ - see front matter Design Studies 21 (2000) 465–481
PII: S0142-694X(00)00019-3 465
2000 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain
7 Schon, D A and Wiggins, G
‘Kinds of seeing and their func-
and structures should be reflected in sketching structure, which indeed
tion in designing’ Design Studies seems the case12–15. We, too, are concerned with what sketching structure
Vol 13 No 2 (1992) pp 135–156
8 Suwa, M and Tversky, T reveals of cognitive processes and structures. We begin by reviewing data
‘What do architects and students
perceive in their design
supporting the hypothesis that drawings of recently seen objects are seg-
sketches? a protocol analysis’ mented according to geometric components. However, our principal inter-
Design Studies Vol 18 No 4
(1997) pp 385–403 est are those data that go against the hypothesis. In particular, what
9 Purcell, A T and Gero, J accounts for this unpredicted behaviour and what does it tell us about
‘Drawings and the design pro-
cess’ Design Studies Vol 19 No underlying cognitive processes?
4 (1998) pp 389–430
10 Suwa, M, Purcell, T and
Gero, J ‘Macroscopic analysis of
design processes based on a
scheme for coding designers’
1 Structure in sketching behaviour
cognitive actions’ Design Studies
Kavakli et al.15 conducted a study investigating whether sketching behav-
Vol 19 No 4 (1998) pp 455–484 iour reflects the geometric structure of the objects represented. Novice
11 Verstijnen, I M, Van
Leeuwen, C, Goldschmidt, G, designers undertook five sketching tasks. Three required them to observe
Hamel, R and Hennessey, JM
‘Sketching and creative dis-
and then draw from memory three chairs, called the Library, School and
covery’ Design Studies Vol 19 Café chairs (Figure 1). The fourth required them to design a chair from
No 4 (1998) pp 519–546
12 van Summers, P Drawing imagination and the last to overtrace their drawings.
and Cognition Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, MA
(1994)
13 Novick, L R and Tversky, The chairs were conceived as composed of volumetric components or parts
B ‘Cognitive constraints on (Figure 2). The participants’ depicted chairs defined the geometric structure
ordering operations: the case of
geometric analogies’ Journal of to be analysed, i.e. this was not a memory test. If a designer drew one of
Experimental Psychology: Gen-
eral Vol 116 (1987) pp 50–67
these parts completely, before moving on to draw the next part, they were
14 Taylor, H A and Tversky, B said to be drawing Part by Part. Consider Figure 5(c) where parts P5 and
‘Descriptions and depictions of
environments’ Memory and Cog- P6 were coded Non Part by Part as they are clearly represented incom-
nition Vol 20 (1992) pp 483–496
15 Kavakli, M, Scrivener,
pletely. Had part P5 in Figure 5(c) been represented completely, like P5
SAR and Ball, LJ ‘Structure in in Figure 2(a), before drawing commenced on another part then it would
have been coded Part by Part. Often participants began with ‘stick’ draw-
ings that were then elaborated (cf. Figure 6, drawing D1). The legs of
drawing D1 in Figure 6 were coded as Part by Part because, although
lacking geometrical detail, the full extent of the parts is represented. Thus
the judgement between Part by Part and Non Part by Part drawing is not
made on the basis of geometrical detail but on whether or not the represen-
tation captures the fundamental geometry of the part.
Participant Part by Non Part Part by Non Part Part by Non Part Part by Non Part Part by
Part by Part Part by Part Part by Part Part by Part Part
1 17 2 7 3 6 3 30 8 78.9
2 10 10 18 0 15 3 43 13 76.8
3 16 6 26 3 20 4 62 13 82.7
4 34 0 34 6 7 8 75 14 84.3
Total 77 18 85 12 48 18 210 48
%Part by 81.1 87.6 72.7 80.7 19.3
Part
Summarising, when parts are first externalised from memory they are
occasionally produced Non Part by Part. Of all First parts, 56.6% are pro-
duced in the Session First Drawings, with Non Part by Part production
apparently unaffected by the presence of parts drawn earlier, suggesting
this behaviour is cognitively determined. However, the proportion of First
parts produced Non Part by Part decreases markedly in later drawings com-
pared to Session First Drawings. Since Session First Drawings production
does not appear to benefit from drawing stimuli it is unlikely that reduction
in Non Part by Part in later drawings is principally due to drawing stimuli.
Rather, this variability in Non Part by Part production of First parts pro-
vides further support for top-down cognitively determined switching
involving factors that diminish in intensity as the task progresses.
Table 2 Frequency of drawing number, parts and Non Part by Part percentages
Drawing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
number
Drawing 12 12 10 7 6 5 2 2 2 1
frequency
Part 51 57 55 26 23 24 9 6 3 4
frequency
% Non 18 7 27 23 35 4 22 33 0 25
Part by
Part
How can we explain the reduction in Non Part by Part production in Draw-
ing 2 vs Drawings 1 and 3? Thus far, the evidence suggests that changes
in drawing behaviour in First parts are determined by cognitive factors that
are less evident as the task progresses, hence the drop in Drawing 2. Let
us assume, however, that drawing stimuli only become a driving force as
parts are repeated. Since the effect is weaker in Drawing 2 compared to
Drawing 3, we might expect Non Part by Part production to increase with
drawings. However, this does not appear to be the case from Table 2, and
Non Part by Part production decreases in Drawing 6. If drawing stimuli
are the primary determinants of cognitive shift then their effects are com-
plex. Again this suggests the involvement of top-down cognitive factors
in the variable proportion of Non Part by Part production over the first
three drawings.
Participant 3’s first and second perspective drawings of the Library chair
are of single parts, the first showing the back-leg component, the second
the back. In Drawing 3 (Figure 5(c)), also in perspective, the designer first
draws the seat and near and far front legs completely before sketching only
the leg portions of the back-leg components, stopping in each case just
above the conjunction of seat and leg. Here the designer seems quite certain
about the back-leg component. However, the fact that he stops drawing at
the conjunction suggests some uncertainty, as otherwise why not complete
the entire legs? On the other hand, efficiency could account for Non Part
by Part production here.
When drawing the School chair (Figure 5(d)), Participant 3 draws the seat
completely, the hand hole in the seat and the leg-to-seat attachment bolts.
The designer then draws the back leg and then the front legs before adding
some detail to the seat. Given that it is a perspective drawing, at first only
the visible parts of the front and back legs are shown. However, having
embellished the seat the designer returns and draws in the occluded frag-
ments of the legs, correctly recalled in Drawing 1. Clearly, this disfigures
the chair’s mimetic realism. One reason for drawing in the occlusions
might be that the participant recognises that the bolts are inaccurately pos-
itioned with respect to their veridical mental model of the chair. In this
case Non Part by Part production would be in the service of accurate
description and is unlikely to register uncertainty. Alternatively, the partici-
pant might have realised that the bolts in the drawing (which in the actual
chair function to connect the seat to the legs) serve no proper function.
This realisation of a functional anomaly would produce uncertainty about
their conception of the chair.
We have noted above that Non Part by Part production in Drawings 1 and
2 appears to be connected with uncertainty. This may be uncertainty about
the structure of components and/or their conjunction. We are drawn to
conclude that Non Part by Part production in Drawing 1 is a feature of
the resolution of this uncertainty. A number of explanations for Non Part
by Part production in Drawing 3 seem plausible (e.g. uncertainty, accuracy
and mode of representation). Nevertheless, uncertainty is again prominent
in our interpretations. Some Drawing 3 Non Part by Part production occurs
in the absence of component and conjunction information in earlier draw-
ings, but in most cases information about the parts drawn Non Part by Part
already exists. Since, typically, both parts and their conjunction have
already been outlined with some commitment, the impression is that Non
Part by Part production is related to uncertainty about the precise form and
arrangement of parts. Analysis of the 10 remaining drawings (8 of which
reproduce earlier drawings) that exhibit Non Part by Part production in
Drawings 4–10 also reveals both instances of uncertainty (i.e. general
and particular).
5.4 Discussion
We are now in a position to interpret the variations in Non Part by Part
production between Drawings 1 and 3. We have already concluded that
this is unlikely to be an effect of drawing stimuli. The qualitative analysis
of drawings above draws us to the conclusion that uncertainty is a primary
factor determining the cognitive shifts responsible for Non Part by Part
production. When a previously perceived object is recalled from memory
it is recalled part by volumetric part (e.g. Drawings 1 and 2). A cognitive
shift may be necessary to resolve uncertainty about the components them-
selves or how they are combined leading to Non Part by Part production
(e.g. Drawing 1). Once initial uncertainty is resolved, the remaining parts
can be extracted from memory Part by Part (e.g. hence the fall in Non Part
by Part production in Drawing 2). Having extracted First parts and their
organisation from memory in general terms, uncertainty, reflected in Non
Perhaps the simplest way of explaining why parts are drawn is to assume
a cognitive focusing mechanism allowing attention to be spotlighted on
areas of the mental representation involved in the task23. Under conditions
of certainty this model is scanned component by component. If the model
is incomplete, then it may be possible to focus attention down onto the
area of uncertainty to produce a temporary representation in which the
‘hole’ is somehow defined by those parts of the model that impinge on it.
However, it may be that this localised focusing limits access to resolved
areas of the model. As the area of uncertainty is filled it may become
available to visualisation. The act of focusing might be beneficial both in
searching for stored task-chair or other object information. Of course, this
is a speculation that needs to be tested empirically. Nevertheless, if we
accept that Non Part by Part production reflects cognitive uncertainty, it
is interesting to note that the designers invariably work from the unknown
to the known. They do not draw the resolved fragments of parts, leaving
the ‘holes’ to be filled in, but resolve the ‘hole’ and then complete the parts.
Figure 6 provides clearer evidence for such reasoning processes and their
role in creating uncertainty. Figure 6 shows five depictions of the School
chair. In D1 all of the parts are externalised. However, the leg members
are wrong as they show front-back leg members. The designer then pro-
duces D2–D4, but seems to change his mind between D1 and D4 (D3
displaying Non Part by Part production) as the legs are now shown bending
toward the middle of the seat. Why might this change have occurred?
Considering D1, what is the function of the bolts? They appear to have
none as they are out of alignment with the legs. In D2 the relation between
bolts and legs is more salient than in D1. At this point the designer may
have realised that the legs would have to be positioned such as to bolt to
the seat, i.e. D4. Finally, in D5 the designer first draws the seat and the
legs, occluded by the seat. At this point the designer appears uncertain
about the legs and draws in the occluded parts, but this time showing them
correctly as a front and a back pair. Furthermore, although the front legs
(cf. Figure 1(b)) are shown incorrectly as bent into the horizontal plane,
this detail suggests that the change of mind reflects increased recollection
of the actual chair rather than simply an improved design. Thus, drawing
stimuli may engender uncertainty when compared to memory and when
used for reasoning about the functionality or logical coherence of depic-
tions.
7 Conclusion
Because idea sketching is partially determined by underlying cognitive
structures and processes12,13,15 we can learn much about those processes
Drawing in design and recall may be different matters but their correspon-
dences are enough to suggest that the results may generalise. First, recalling
a previously seen object draws on episodic memory which is a feature of
design thinking6,24. Second, participants’ sketches are incomplete5, and like
idea sketches probably function to stimulate recall and inhibit premature
commitment5. However, here we are suggesting uncertainty is the cause
of incompleteness, i.e. its production is not a deliberate strategy exploiting
perception to stimulate invention. The same is quite likely to be the case in
design also. Third, like design, sketches seem to support reinterpretation5–8
but here revealing weaknesses in conception that cause backward reflection
on the current conception rather than highlighting new conceptions that
move the task forward. Again reinterpretation may also contribute in this
way to design. Finally, the recall drawing task becomes a design task,
i.e. requiring invention, when episodic memory is insufficient for concrete
specification. This is probably the general case for any visual recall task
requiring the reification of recalled entities. Here, it is argued that uncer-
tainty drives invention and perhaps uncertainty also drives invention in
design.
24 Visser, W ‘Use of episodic
knowledge an information in Acknowledgments
design problem solving’ in N
Cross, H Christians and K To Dr Manolya Kavakli of the Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical
Dorst (eds) Analysing Design University, Turkey, who worked with Scrivener and Ball on the design
Activity John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester (1996) pp 271–289 and execution of the study on which this paper is based.