Externalizing Co-design Cognition Through Immersive Retrospection

  • Tomás DortaEmail author
  • Emmanuel Beaudry Marchand
  • Davide Pierini
Conference paper


This paper presents an insightful explanation of designers’ experience over time during immersive co-design sessions. The data was collected through immersive retrospection interviews, here used to assess a co-design activity. Three teams of two proficient designers individually self-evaluated their perceived experience by observing an immersive video unfolding their respective co-design sessions inside a social virtual environment (Hyve-3D).


  1. 1.
    Gero JS, Mc Neill T (1998) An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Des Stud 19:21–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Someren MW, Barnard YF, Sandberg JAC (1994) The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lloyd P, Lawson B, Scott P (1995) Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Des Stud 16:237–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akin Ö, Akin C (1996) Frames of reference in architectural design: analysing the hyperacclamation (A-h-a-!). Des Stud 17:341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cross N (2001) Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In: Eastman C, Newstatter W, McCracken M (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp 79–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, AveburyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Suwa M, Gero J, Purcell T (1999) Unexpected discoveries: how designers discover hidden features in sketches. In: Visual and spatial reasoning in design (Vol. 99). Key centre of design computing and cognition. University of Sydney, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tang HH (2002) Exploring the roles of sketches and knowledge in the design process. Department of Architectural and Design Science, Faculty of Architecture, University of SydneyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bilda Z, Demirkan H (2003) An insight on designers’ sketching activities in traditional versus digital media. Des Stud 24:27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suwa M, Purcell T, Gero J (1998) Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions. Des Stud 19:455–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suwa M, Tversky B (1997) What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Des Stud 18:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gero JS, Tang HH (2001) The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process. Des Stud 22:283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bowers VA, Snyder HL (1990) Concurrent versus retrospective verbal protocol for comparing window usability. Proc Human Factors Soc Ann Meet 34:1270–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dorta T, Kalay Y, Lesage A, Pérez E (2011) Elements of design conversation in the interconnected HIS. Int J Des Sci Technol 18:65–80Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brinthaupt TM, Hein MB, Kramer TE (2009) The self-talk scale: development, factor analysis, and validation. J Pers Assess 91:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dong A, Kleinsmann M, Valkenburg R (2009) Affect-in-cognition through the language of appraisals. Des Stud 30:138–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Safin S, Dorta T, Pierini D, Kinayoglu G, Lesage A (2016) Design Flow 2.0, assessing experience during ideation with increased granularity: a proposed method. Des Stud 47:23–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Csikszentmihalyi M (1997) Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marchand-Beaudry E, Han X, Dorta T (2017) Immersive retrospection by video-photogrammetry: UX assessment tool of interactions in museums, a case study. In: Fioravanti A, Cursi S, Elahmar S, Gargaro S, Loffreda G, November G, Trento A (eds) Proceedings of the 35th eCAADe conference—volume 2, ShoCK!—Sharing Computational Knowledge!, pp 729–738Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dorta T, Kinayoglu G, Hoffmann M (2016) Hyve-3D and the 3D cursor: architectural co-design with freedom in virtual reality. Int J Archit Comput 14:87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomás Dorta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emmanuel Beaudry Marchand
    • 1
  • Davide Pierini
    • 1
  1. 1.Hybridlab, University of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations