Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:01:01.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE STUDY OF COGNITIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DESIGNERS AND USERS BASED ON SCHEMA THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Su Guo ,
Shengxi Fan  and
Yichen Meng
Su Guo*
Affiliation:
Tongji University; Zhengzhou University of Aeronautics
Shengxi Fan
Affiliation:
Tongji University;
Yichen Meng
Affiliation:
Zhengzhou University of Aeronautics
*
Guo, Su, Tongji University, China, People's Republic of, 24405922@qq.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study is grounded upon the cognitive process and knowledge representation, analyzes the differences in perceptions between designers and users by applying schema theory. Per design process, we disassembled the semantic words that represent the design concept, and re-construct the representative visual imagery library. We experimented the imagery library with selective designers and users, and through their selections of the images, we uncovered: 1. The differences largely exist in concept interpretation and imagery selection between designers and users, which has strong relationship with their different schema; 2. The experiment revealed the fact that designers are inclined to understand the concept by disassembling the elements, and have obvious tendency of professionalism, while users’ interpretation prefers complete forms and life-oriented; 3. As compared with users, designers relatively prefer brand-new, creative elements in selecting visualized representation.

Keywords

Design cognitionDesign learningConceptual designConceptual schema
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3513 - 3522
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Anay, H., and Ozten, U.(2019).“On the Nature of the Conceptual Schemata Development of Architecture Students”, International Journal of Architecture and Planning, Vol.7 No.1,pp.78–98. https://doi.org/10.15320/iconarp.2019.67Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C., and Bartlett, F. C. (1995). “Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology”, Cambridge university press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akin, O.(2001).“Variants of Design Cognition”.,In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (Eastman, C., Newstetter, W., & McCracken, M., Eds.),Elseiver,pp. 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50006-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, R.(2007). “Strategies of Design Research: Productive Science and Rhetorical Inquiry”,In:Michel, R.ed. Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects. Berlin, Boston: Birkhäuser, pp. 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8472-2_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N.,Good, D.,Matravers, D.,and Clarkson, P.J.(2008).“Design as communication: exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation”, Design Studies, Vol.29 No.5, 425–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M., and Isherwood, B. (1979). The world of goods Allen Lane. London, UK.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. (1990).“Design prototypes: a knowledge representation schema for design”,AI magazine, Vol.l1No.4,pp.26–26. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v11i4.854Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G., and Smolkov, M.(2006).“Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance”, Design studies, Vol.27 No.5, 27(5),pp.549–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, I., Val, E., Justel, D., & Iriarte, I. (2017).“A Framework For Product Design Based On Semantic Attribution Process”, The Design Journal, Vol.20 No.1,pp.16–27, https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, H., Chuang, C., and Chang, C. (2000).“A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception”,International journal of industrial ergonomics,Vol.25 No.4,375–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00026-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalaj, J., and Pedgley, O.(2019). “A semantic discontinuity detection (sdd) method for comparing designers' product expressions with users' product impressions”,Design Studies,Vol.62 No.5, pp.36–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, B. (2005). “How Designers Think ”(4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080454979Google Scholar
Luo, S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., and Xu, J. (2020). “A user biology preference prediction model based on the perceptual evaluations of designers for biologically inspired design”,Symmetry, Vol.12 No.11, pp.18–60. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12111860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo,S.and Zhu,S.(2005).“Users' and designers' product form perceptual image”, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2005, Vol.41 No.10,pp.28–34. https://doi.org10.3321/j.issn:0577-6686.2005.10.006Google Scholar
Margolin,V.(1997).“Getting to know the user”,Design studies, Vol.18 No.3, pp.227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00001-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, D. (2013). “A car styling-based study: the designer's intension and user's interpretation”,PhD. Hunan University, Changsha.Google Scholar
Zeisel, J. (1984). “Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behaviour research”, No. 5, CUP archive.Google Scholar