Sheet 1 of the Five Sheets

  • Jonathan C. Roberts
  • Christopher J. Headleand
  • Panagiotis D. Ritsos


The ideology behind the first sheet is to explore many ideas, discover alternative solutions and define three potential ideas that will be further refined in the next three sheets. Through following the five stages of sheet 1, metaphorically you go on a journey. You will start with simple and undeveloped ideas and finish with three potential solutions that you can develop further in the subsequent sheets. You start with immature concepts, even partially formed ideas, that will mature through the act of sketching and thinking through the solutions. In fact, the very act of sketching helps you work through the ideas in a concrete way. At this stage of design it is more about generating ideas and exploring the design possibilities rather than focusing on one final solution. This chapter will help you work through the ideas and eventually you will decide upon three potential solutions that you will further develop on the next sheets.


Mobile Device Design Space Good Design Design Idea Exploratory Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Abram G, Treinish L (1995) An extended data-flow architecture for data analysis and visualization. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on visualization (VIS’95). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 263–269Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergman E (2000) Information appliances and beyond: interaction design for consumer products. Morgan Kayfmann, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brehmer M, Munzner T (2013) A multi-level typology of abstract visualization tasks. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19(12):2376–2385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks FP Jr (1993) Keynote address: a vision for visualization. In: Proceedings of 4th IEEE visualization conference, San Jose, p 2Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Entman RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43(4):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norman DA (2013) The design of everyday things, revised and expanded, reprint paperback edn. MIT Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pirolli P, Card S (2005) The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In: Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis, vol 5, pp 2–4Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rams D (1970) Ten principles for good design.
  10. 10.
    Shneiderman B (1996) The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on visual languages. IEEE, pp 336–343Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stolterman E (2008) The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. Int J Des 2(1):55–65Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Upson C, Faulhaber T, Kamins D, DSchlegel, Laidlaw D, Vroom F, Gurwitz R, vanDam A (1989) The application visualization system: a computational environment for scientific visualization. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 9(4):30–42. doi:  10.1109/38.31462
  13. 13.
    Wehrend S, Lewis C (1990) A problem-oriented classification of visualization techniques. In: Proceedings of the 1st conference on visualization (VIS’90). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan C. Roberts
    • 1
  • Christopher J. Headleand
    • 2
  • Panagiotis D. Ritsos
    • 1
  1. 1.Bangor UniversityBangorUK
  2. 2.University of LincolnLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations