Abstract
The use of words in prose form to represent and communicate design ideas is not popular in engineering or at least not to the same extent as graphical representation. Is this because prose is completely defective for communicating design information? A variant question to the above was first investigated in 1987 at Carnegie-Mellon University and revisited nearly 15 years later at Arizona State University. The investigations gave graphics an edge over prose, albeit with the results so close, especially for the latter, that the maxim; the jury is still out there, would be an apt description. It is for this reason that the matter is revisited in the investigation reported in this paper. Ninety-eight (98) freshmen, taking an engineering graphics course (CETG 102: Engineering Graphics with AutoCAD) at the Botswana International University of Science and Technology, were given a ‘test’ on their first day of the course. In the ‘test’ the students were given a word description of a system and asked to draw/sketch it. The data gained from the experiment was collated and analyzed for quality and or ambiguity. Major findings from the investigation indicate that a fairly large numbers of students interpreted the word description of the system correctly and the ambiguity was fairly minimal with only 28 different groups of wrong interpretations of the same word description observed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
McKoy, F.M. Vargas-Hernandez, N. Summers, J.D. and Shah, J.: Influence of design representation on effectiveness of idea generation. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, pp 1–10. (2001)
Gross, M.D., Do, E.Y.: Drawing on the back of an envelope: a framework for interacting with application programs by freehand drawing. Comput. Graph. 24, 835–849 (2000)
Fish, J.: How sketches work. Ph.D. thesis, Loughborough University of Technology. (1996)
Bertoline, G.R., Wiebe, E.N.: “Fundamentals of graphics communication. (2004)
Larkin, J., Simon, H.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11, 65–99 (1987)
Sezgin, T.M.: Sketch interpretation using multiscale stochastic models of temporal patterns. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2006)
Conole, G.: An overview of design representations. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning, pp. 482–489, (2010)
Athavankar, U.A.: Mental imagery as a design tool. Cybernetics Syst. 28, 25–47 (1997)
Faas, D., Bao, Q. and Yang, M.C.: Preliminary sketching and prototyping: comparisons in exploratory design-and-build activities. In: Proceedings of IDETC/CIE. (2014)
Lohmeyer, Q., Melboldt, M., Matthiesen, S.: Analysing visual strategies of novice and experienced designers by eye tracking application. In: Proceedings of E&PDE 2013, the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, pp. 1–6. 2013
Blog, ef.engr.utk.edu/ef101-2002/as/book/as_chap1.pdf. Accessed April (2014)
Yang, M., Cham, J.: An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early stage engineering design. J. Mech. Des. 129, 476–482 (2007)
McGown, A., Green, G., Rodgers, P.A.: Visible ideas: information patterns of conceptual sketch activity. Des. Stud. 19, 431–453 (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer India
About this paper
Cite this paper
Tjiparuro, Z. (2015). Mapping Sentences into Graphics to Communicate Engineering Design Information: Concept Revisited. In: Chakrabarti, A. (eds) ICoRD’15 – Research into Design Across Boundaries Volume 1. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 34. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2232-3_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2232-3_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-2231-6
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-2232-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)