Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Cognition in Data Visualization

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Visualization Psychology

Abstract

In this chapter I introduce the topic of design cognition and its relevance to data visualization. I outline two historically dominant paradigms of design cognition. The first, promoted by Herbert Simon in the 1970s, is the rational problem solving paradigm which is based on information processing psychology and problem solving theory. The second, promoted by Donald Schön in the 1980s, is the reflective practice paradigm which is based on constructivist philosophy and situated views of cognition. I outline some of their strengths and weakness and attempts to reconcile their differences. Underlying philosophical issues pertaining to cognition and epistemology are briefly discussed. I then examine implications of these two paradigms for four data visualization topics: defining, automating, modeling, and teaching data visualization design. In discussing these topics, possible avenues of future research are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. R. S. Adams, J. Turns, and C. J. Atman. Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3):275–294, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. O. Akin. Variants in design cognition. In C. Eastman, W. Michael McCracken, and W. C. Newstetter, editors, Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, page 105–124. Elsevier, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S. Alspaugh, N. Zokaei, A. Liu, C. Jin, and M. A. Hearst. Futzing and moseying: Interviews with professional data analysts on exploration practices. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):22–31, Jan 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. C. J. Atman, R. S. Adams, M. E. Cardella, J. Turns, S. Mosborg, and J. Saleem. Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4):359–379, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. L. J. Ball and B. T. Christensen. Advancing an understanding of design cognition and design metacognition: Progress and prospects. Design Studies, 65:35–59, Nov 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. E. Blevis, Y.-k. Lim, E. Stolterman, T. V. Wolf, and K. Sato. Supporting design studio culture in HCI. In CHI’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 2821–2824, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, and K. Campbell. Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases. Routledge, 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Buchanan. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2):5–21, 1992.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. J. M. Carroll. Scenarios and design cognition. In Proceedings IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, page 3–5, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P. J. Cash, B. J. Hicks, and S. J. Culley. A comparison of designer activity using core design situations in the laboratory and practice. Design Studies, 34(5):575–611, Sep 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. C. L. Cramer-Petersen, B. T. Christensen, and S. Ahmed-Kristensen. Empirically analysing design reasoning patterns: Abductive-deductive reasoning patterns dominate design idea generation. Design Studies, 60:39–70, 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. N. Crilly. Creativity and fixation in the real world: A literature review of case study research. Design Studies, 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. P. Crismond. Investigate-and-Redesign Tasks as a Context for Learning and Doing Science and Technology: A study of naive, novice and expert high school and adult designers doing product comparisons and redesign tasks. PhD thesis, Harvard University, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. N. Cross. Science and design methodology: A review. Research in Engineering Design, 5(2):63–69, June 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. N. Cross. Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3):49–55, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. A. Damle and P. J. Smith. Biasing cognitive processes during design: the effects of color. Design Studies, 30(5):521–540, Sep 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. S. B. Davis and O. Vane. Design as externalization: Enabling research. Information Design Journal, 25(1):28–42, Dec 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Dong, M. S. Kleinsmann, and F. Deken. Investigating design cognition in the construction and enactment of team mental models. Design Studies, 34(1):1–33, Jan 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. A. Dong, D. Lovallo, and R. Mounarath. The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions. Design Studies, 37:37–58, Mar 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. K. Dorst. Exploring the structure of design problems. In International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED), page 10, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. K. Dorst. Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press, Mar 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. K. Dorst and J. Dijkhuis. Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2):261–274, Apr 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. J. Drucker. Humanities approaches to graphical display. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 5(1):1–21, 2010.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. C. M. Eastman. New directions in design cognition: Studies of representation and recall. In Design Knowing and Learning, page 147–198, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  25. N. Goodman. Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett Publishing, 1978.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. S. Goodwin, J. Dykes, S. Jones, I. Dillingham, G. Dove, A. Duffy, A. Kachkaev, A. Slingsby, and J. Wood. Creative user-centered visualization design for energy analysts and modelers. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2516–2525, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. C. M. Gray, C. Dagli, M. Demiral-Uzan, F. Ergulec, V. Tan, A. A. Altuwaijri, K. Gyabak, M. Hilligoss, R. Kizilboga, K. Tomita, and et al. Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3):25–49, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. C. M. Gray, P. Parsons, A. L. Toombs, N. Rasche, and M. Vorvoreanu. Designing an aesthetic learner experience: UX, instructional design, and design pedagogy. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(1):41–58, 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. S. Greenberg. Embedding a design studio course in a conventional computer science program. In Creativity and HCI: From experience to design in education, pages 23–41. Springer, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  30. A. Hatchuel. Towards design theory and expandable rationality: The unfinished program of Herbert Simon. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(3–4):260–273, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  31. N. V. Hernandez, J. J. Shah, and S. M. Smith. Understanding design ideation mechanisms through multilevel aligned empirical studies. Design Studies, 31(4):382–410, Jul 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. K. Höök and J. Löwgren. Characterizing interaction design by its ideals: A discipline in transition. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(1):24–40, 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  33. H. Jiang and C.-C. Yen. Protocol analysis in design research: a review. In Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference (IASDR 2009), 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  34. E. A. Kinsella. Constructivist underpinnings in Donald Schön’s theory of reflective practice: echoes of Nelson Goodman. Reflective Practice, 7(3):277–286, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. B. Lawson. The context of mind. Designing in context, page 133–148, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  36. B. Lawson. How Designers Think. Routledge, 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. B. R. Lawson. Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22(1):59–68, 1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. P. Little and M. Cardenas. Use of “studio” methods in the introductory engineering design curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3):309–318, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. J. Löwgren. Applying design methodology to software development. In Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, & techniques - DIS ’95, pages 87–95, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States, 1995. ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. Löwgren and E. Stolterman. Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. MIT Press, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  41. J. Mackinlay, P. Hanrahan, and C. Stolte. Show me: Automatic presentation for visual analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1137–1144, 2007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. J. D. Mackinlay. Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(2):110–141, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. X. Mao, O. Galil, Q. Parrish, and C. Sen. Evidence of cognitive chunking in freehand sketching during design ideation. Design Studies, 67:1–26, Mar 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. N. McCurdy, J. Dykes, and M. Meyer. Action design research and visualization design. In Proceedings of the 6th Biannual Workshop on evaluation and BEyond - methodoLogIcal approaches for Visualization (BELIV), page 10–18. ACM Press, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  45. S. McKenna, D. Mazur, J. Agutter, and M. Meyer. Design activity framework for visualization design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):2191–2200, 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. M. Meyer and J. Dykes. Reflection on reflection in applied visualization research. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 38(6):9–16, 2018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. M. Meyer and J. Dykes. Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):87–97, 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  48. M. Meyer, M. Sedlmair, P. S. Quinan, and T. Munzner. The nested blocks and guidelines model. Information Visualization, 14(3):234–249, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. V. O. Mittal, J. D. Moore, G. Carenini, and S. Roth. Describing complex charts in natural language: A caption generation system. Computational Linguistics, 24(3):431–467, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  50. A. V. Moere and H. Purchase. On the role of design in information visualization. Information Visualization, 10(4):356–371, Oct 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. D. Moritz, C. Wang, G. L. Nelson, H. Lin, A. M. Smith, B. Howe, and J. Heer. Formalizing visualization design knowledge as constraints: Actionable and extensible models in Draco. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):438–448, Jan 2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. T. Munzner. A nested model for visualization design and validation. In IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, volume 15, page 921–928, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  53. H. G. Nelson and E. Stolterman. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. The MIT Press, second edition, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  54. A. Newell and H. A. Simon. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  55. P. Parsons. Understanding data visualization design practice. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1), 2022.

    Google Scholar 

  56. P. Parsons, C. M. Gray, A. Baigelenov, and I. Carr. Design judgment in data visualization practice. In IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), short papers, Sep 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  57. P. Parsons and P. Shukla. Data visualization practitioners’ perspectives on chartjunk. In IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), short papers, Sep 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  58. P. Parsons, P. Shukla, and C. Park. Fixation and creativity in data visualization design: Experiences and perspectives of practitioners. In IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), short papers, 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  59. R. S. Perez and C. D. Emery. Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3):80–95, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. M. Polanyi. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  61. M. Polanyi. The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  62. A. Purcell and J. S. Gero. Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4):363–383, Oct 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Y. J. Reimer and S. A. Douglas. Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3):191–205, Sep 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. H. W. Rittel and M. M. Webber. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2):155–169, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. N. F. Roozenburg and K. Dorst. Describing design as a reflective practice: Observations on Schön’s theory of practice. In Designers, pages 29–41. Springer, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  66. D. A. Schön. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Basic Books, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  67. D. A. Schön. Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3):10, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  68. D. A. Schön. Designing as a reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Research and Engineering Design, 3(3), 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  69. K. Sedig and P. Parsons. Design of visualizations for human-information interaction: A pattern-based framework. Synthesis Lectures on Visualization, 4(1):1–185, 2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. M. Sedlmair, M. Meyer, and T. Munzner. Design study methodology: Reflections from the trenches and the stacks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2431–2440, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. B. Shneiderman and C. Plaisant. Strategies for evaluating information visualization tools: multi-dimensional in-depth long-term case studies. In Proceedings of the 2006 AVI workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization, pages 1–7, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  72. H. A. Simon. Administrative Behavior. Macmillan Inc., 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  73. H. A. Simon. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  74. H. A. Simon. The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial intelligence, 4(3–4):181–201, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. E. Stolterman. The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1):55–65, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  76. C. Stones and T. Cassidy. Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during graphic design ideation? Design Studies, 31(5):439–460, Sep 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. L. A. Suchman. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  78. A. H. Vera and H. A. Simon. Situated action: A symbolic interpretation. Cognitive science, 17(1):7–48, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. W. Visser. Two functions of analogical reasoning in design: a cognitive-psychology approach. Design Studies, 17(4):417–434, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. W. Visser. Designing as construction of representations: A dynamic viewpoint in cognitive design research. Human–Computer Interaction, 21(1):103–152, Mar 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. W. Visser. Design: one, but in different forms. Design Studies, 30(3):187–223, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. M. Vorvoreanu, C. M. Gray, P. Parsons, and N. Rasche. Advancing UX education: A model for integrated studio pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’17, page 1441–1446. ACM, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  83. K. Wongsuphasawat, D. Moritz, A. Anand, J. Mackinlay, B. Howe, and J. Heer. Voyager: Exploratory analysis via faceted browsing of visualization recommendations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):649–658, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. K. Wongsuphasawat, D. Moritz, A. Anand, J. Mackinlay, B. Howe, and J. Heer. Towards a general-purpose query language for visualization recommendation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics, HILDA ’16. ACM, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Paul C. Parsons

Authors
  1. Paul C. Parsons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul C. Parsons .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Danielle Albers Szafir

  2. Department of Computer Science, King's College London, London, UK

    Rita Borgo

  3. OeRC, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Min Chen

  4. Department of Public Health, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

    Darren J. Edwards

  5. School of Interactive Arts & Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada

    Brian Fisher

  6. Northeastern University, Boston, USA

    Lace Padilla

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Parsons, P.C. (2023). Design Cognition in Data Visualization. In: Albers Szafir, D., Borgo, R., Chen, M., Edwards, D.J., Fisher, B., Padilla, L. (eds) Visualization Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34738-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation