Method Card Design Dimensions: A Survey of Card-Based Design Tools

  • Christiane Wölfel
  • Timothy Merritt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8117)

Abstract

There are many examples of cards used to assist or provide structure to the design process, yet there has not been a thorough articulation of the strengths and weaknesses of the various examples. We review eighteen card-based design tools in order to understand how they might benefit designers. The card-based tools are explained in terms of five design dimensions including the intended purpose and scope of use, duration of use, methodology, customization, and formal/material qualities. Our analysis suggests three design patterns or archetypes for existing card-based design method tools and highlights unexplored areas in the design space. The paper concludes with recommendations for the future development of card-based methods for the field of interaction design.

Keywords

method cards creativity cards design methods design tools 

References

  1. 1.
    Vines, J., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Monk, A., Olivier, P.: Questionable concepts: critique as resource for designing with eighty somethings. In: Proc. CHI 2012, pp. 1169–1178. ACM, NY (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Halskov, K., Dalsgaard, P.: Inspiration card workshops. In: Proc. DIS 2006, pp. 2–11. ACM, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lucero, A., Arrasvuori, J.: PLEX cards: a source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. In: Proc. Fun and Games 2010, pp. 28–37. ACM, NY (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alves, V., Roque, L.: A deck for sound design in games: enhancements based on a design exercise. In: Proc. ACE 2011. ACM, NY (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daly, S.R., et al.: Assessing Design Heuristics for Idea Generation in an Introductory Engineering Course. International Journal of Engineering Education 28(2), 463 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golembewski, M., Selby, M.: Ideation decks: a card-based design ideation tool. In: Proc. DIS 2010, pp. 89–92. ACM, NY (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eno, B., Schmidt, P.: Oblique strategies. Opal, London (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burns, A.: Oblique Strategies for Ambient Journalism. M/C Journal (May 2010), http://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/230
  9. 9.
    Beck, E., Obrist, M., Bernhaupt, R., Tscheligi, M.: Instant card technique: how and why to apply in user-centered design. In: Proc. PDC 2008, pp. 162–165. ACM, NY (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lafrenière, D., Dayton, T., Muller, M.: Variations of a theme: card-based techniques for participatory analysis and design. In: Proc. CHI 1999, pp. 151–152. ACM, NY (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muller, M.J.: Layered participatory analysis: new developments in the CARD technique. In: Proc. CHI 2001, pp. 90–97. ACM, NY (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tschudy, M., Dykstra-Erickson, E., Holloway, M.: PictureCARD: A Storytelling Tool for Task Analysis. In: Proc. PDC 1996, Cambridge, MA, USA, November 13-15 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harrison, S., Tatar, D.: On Methods. Interactions 18(2), 10–11 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singapore University of Technology Design: SUTD Method Cards (2012), design.sutd.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/files/extraResources/MethodCards.pdf
  15. 15.
    Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human - Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Wiley (June 2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IDEO: IDEO Method Cards: 51 Ways to Inspire Design. IDEO, Palo Alto (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kolding School of Design: DSKD Method Cards (2011), http://www.designskolenkolding.dk/index.php?id=2241
  18. 18.
    Möller, O.: MethodKit. Idea Society, Stockholm, Sweden (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    SILK (Social Innovation Lab Kent): Method Deck. Kent, UK (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheok, A.D., Kok, R.T., Tan, C., Fernando, O.N.N., Merritt, T., Sen, J.Y.P.: Empathetic living media. In: Proc. DIS 2008, pp. 465–473. ACM, NY (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Center for Creative Leadership: Visual Explorer Post Card Facilitator’s Set. Greensboro, NC (2013), http://solutions.ccl.org/Visual_Explorer_Post_Card_Facilitator's_Set
  22. 22.
    Hudson, W.: Playing your cards right: getting the most from card sorting for navigation design. Interactions 12(5), 56–58 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eco Innovators: Design Play Cards: Designing for Sustainability. Melbourne (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bowen, G.: Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. Int. J. Qual. Meth. 5(3) (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stanford University Institute of Design: Bootcamp Bootleg (2010), http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf
  26. 26.
    Pousman, Z., Stasko, J.: A taxonomy of ambient information systems: four patterns of design. In: Proc. AVI 2006, pp. 67–74. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao, S., Nakamura, K., Ishii, K., Igarashi, T.: Magic cards: a paper tag interface for implicit robot control. In: Proc. CHI 2009, pp. 173–182. ACM, NY (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alexander, C.: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford University Press, UK (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Wölfel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Timothy Merritt
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.Aarhus School of ArchitectureAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations