Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:29:10.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating different perspectives on design rationale: Supporting the emergence of design rationale from design communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Frank M. Shipman III  and
Raymond J. McCall
Frank M. Shipman III
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843–3112, U.S.A.
Raymond J. McCall
Affiliation:
College of Environmental Design & Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Design rationale is a topic that implies different things to different people. To some it implies argumentation and frameworks for argumentation. To others it implies the documentation of design, like that required for many types of industrial or government work. Still others describe design rationale as the capture and potential reuse of normal communication about design. These perspectives of design rationale use different representations, which influence their ability to capture and to retrieve and use information. We propose an integrated approach to design rationale where design communication is captured and, over time, incrementally structured into argumentation and other formalisms to enable improved retrieval and use of this information. Two systems, PHIDIAS and the Hyper-Object Substrate, are used to demonstrate: (1) how to capture and integrate a variety of design information, (2) how to support the structuring of unstructured information, and (3) how to use design information to actively support design.

Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 141 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Buckingham-Shum, S., & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 40(4), 603–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, J., Begeman, M. (1988). gIBIS: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. Proc. Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'88) pp. 140–152. ACM, New York.Google Scholar
Conklin, E.J., & Burgess Yakemovic, K.C. (1991). A process-oriented approach to design rationale. Human Computer Interaction 6(3–4), 357–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G., Lemke, A., McCall, R., & Morch, A. (1991). Making argumentation serve design. Human Computer Interaction 6(3–4), 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G., Lemke, A.C., Mastaglio, T., & Morch, A. (1992). The role of critiquing in cooperative problem solving. ACM Transact. Information Syst. 9(2), 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G., McCall, R., & Morch, A. (1989). JANUS: Integrating hypertext with a knowledge-based design environment. Proc. Hypertext '89. pp. 105–117. ACM, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G., McCall, R., Ostwald, J., Reeves, B., & Shipman, F. (1994). Seeding, evolutionary growth, and reseeding: Supporting the incremental development of design environments. Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CH1'94) pp. 292–298.Google Scholar
Girgensohn, A., Zimmermann, B., Lee, A., Burns, B., & Atwood, M. (1995). Dynamic forms: An enhanced interaction abstraction based on forms. Proc. INTERACT '95, pp. 362–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorry, G.A., Long, K.B., Burger, A.M., Jung, C.P., & Meyer, B.D. (1991). The virtual notebook system: An architecture for collaborative work. J. Organizational Comput. 1(3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, M.D. (1996). The electronic cocktail napkin—Computer support for working with diagrams. Design Studies 17(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, W., Rittel, W. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems. Working paper 131, Center for Planning and Development Research, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (1990). SIBYL: A qualitative decision management system. In Artificial Intelligence at MIT: Expanding Frontiers, (Winston, P., Shel-lard, S., Eds.), pp. 104–133. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lieberman, H. (1986). Using prototypical objects to implement shared behavior in object-oriented systems. OOPSLA 1986 Conference Proceedings, pp. 214–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLean, A., Young, R., & Moran, T. (1989). Design rationale: The argument behind the artifact. In Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '89 Conference Proceedings, pp. 247–252. ACM, New York.Google Scholar
Malone, T.W., Lai, K.Y., & Fry, C. (1992). Experiments with OVAL: A radically tailorable tool for cooperative work. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '92) pp. 289–297. ACM, New York.Google Scholar
McCall, R. (1979). On the structure and use of issue systems in design. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, University Microfilms.Google Scholar
McCall, R. (1991). PHI: A conceptual foundation for design hypermedia. Design Studies 12(1), 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, R., Mistrik, I., & Schuler, W. (1981). An integrated information and communication system for problem solving. Proc. Seventh Int. CO-DATA Conference, Pergamon, London.Google Scholar
McCall, R., Bennett, P., d'Oronzio, P., Ostwald, J., Shipman, F., & Wallace, N. (1990). PHIDIAS: Integrating CAD graphics into dynamic hypertext. Proc. 1990 Eur. Conf. HyperText, pp. 152–165.Google Scholar
McCall, R., Bennett, P., & Johnson, E. (1994). An overview of the PHID-IAS II Hyper CAD system. In Reconnecting: ACAD1A '94, (Harf-mann, A., & Fraser, M., Eds.), pp. 63–74. Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture.Google Scholar
Moran, T., Chiu, P., van Melle, W., & Kurtenbach, G. (1995). Implicit structures for pen-based systems within a freeform interaction paradigm. Proceedings of CHI'95, pp. 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford American Dictionary (1980).Google Scholar
Reeves, B. (1993). Supporting collaborative design by embedding communication and history in design artifacts. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Reeves, B., Shipman, F. (1992). Supporting communication between designers with artifact-centered evolving information spaces. Proc. Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Bedriftsokonomen 8, 390–396.Google Scholar
Rittel, H. (1984). Second generation design methods. In (Cross, N., Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, pp. 317–327. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Shipman, F. (1993). Supporting knowledge-base evolution with incremental formalization, Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical Report CU-CS-658–93, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Shipman, F.M., Chaney, R.J., & Gorry, G.A. (1989). Distributed hypertext for collaborative research: The virtual notebook system. Proc. Hypertext '89, pp. 129–135. ACM, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipman, F.M., Marshall, C.C., & Moran, T.P. (1995). Finding and using implicit structure in human-organized layouts of information. Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '95 Conference Proceedings, pp. 346–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipman, F., & McCall, R. (1994). Supporting knowledge-base evolution with incremental formalization. Proc. CHI'94, pp. 285–291.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., Bell, B., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (1987). Constraint-based hypertext for argumentation. Proc. Hypertext '87, pp. 215–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S. (Ed.) (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, UK.Google Scholar