Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0142-5471
  • E-ISSN: 1569-979X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article argues that supporting conceptual information design should be a priority as it could better equip design practitioners for their jobs. Findings from a longitudinal evaluation of a tool – MapCI Cards – using multiple methods to assess the impact of supporting conceptual design in professional practice are reported here. Internal and external factors emerged as having an adverse influence on information designers’ responses to conceptual design. Increased conceptual design awareness and more confident decisions resulted from working with a support tool. Structure, flexibility, and externalizations are indicated as possible ways to effectively support conceptual information design. The article ends with recommendations for future support tools.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Al-Hakim, L.; Kusiak, A. & Mathew, J.
    2000 A graph-theoretic approach to conceptual design with functional Perspectives. Computer-Aided Design, 32, 867–875. 10.1016/S0010‑4485(00)00075‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(00)00075-0 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baer, K.
    2008Information design workbook: graphic approaches, solutions, and inspiration + 30 case studies. Beverly (Mass): Rockport.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barthes, R.
    1991Responsibility of forms: critical essays on music, art, and representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baya, V. & Leifer, L. J.
    1996 Understanding information management in conceptual design. InCross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dorst, K. (eds.) Analysing design activity. England: John Wiley & Sons, pp.151–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bektaş, E.; Heintz, J. L. & Wamelink, J. W. F.
    (2008) A Review of knowledge management in collaborative design: The necessity of project knowledge integration in large scale building projects. Innovation Conference in AEC 2008. Antalya, Turkey (1–12).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Black, A., Luna, P., Lund, O. & Walker, S.
    eds. 2017Information design: research and practice. Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9781315585680
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315585680 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohm, T.
    2014 When Information Design is a Matter of Life or Death. Box and Arrows. Available at: https://boxesandarrows.com/when-information-design-is-a-matter-of-life-or-death/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brunetti, G. & Golob, B.
    2000 A feature-based approach towards an integrated product model including conceptual design information. Computer-Aided Design32, 877–887. 10.1016/S0010‑4485(00)00076‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(00)00076-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cezzar, J.
    2020 Teaching the Designer of Now: A New Basis for Graphic and Communication Design Education. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(2), pp.213–227. 10.1016/j.sheji.2020.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Conway, R., Masters, J. & Thorold, J.
    2017From Design Thinking to Systems Change. London: RSA, Action and Research Centre, available athttps://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cross, N.
    2000Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. 3rd edn.Chichester: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dorst, K.
    1996Analysing design activity. England: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Frascara, J.
    ed. 2015Information design as principled action: Making information accessible, relevant, understandable, and usable. Common Ground Publishing. 10.18848/978‑1‑61229‑786‑6/CGP
    https://doi.org/10.18848/978-1-61229-786-6/CGP [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E.
    1999 Design: cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), pp.21–29. 10.1145/291224.291235
    https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235 [Google Scholar]
  15. General Services Administration (GSA)
    General Services Administration (GSA) ~201718F Methods. Available at: https://methods.18f.gov/ [Accessed22 November 2020]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gobert, I. & van Looveren, J.
    2014Thoughts on Designing Information. Zurich: Lars Müller.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Heller, S. & Landers, R.
    2014Infographic designers’ sketchbooks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hern, A.
    2018 Hawaii missile false alarm due to badly designed user interface, reports say. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/15/hawaii-missile-false-alarm-design-user-interface
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hsu, W. & Liu, B.
    2000 Conceptual design: issues and challenges. Computer-Aided Design, 32, 849–850. 10.1016/S0010‑4485(00)00074‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(00)00074-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. IDEO
    IDEO 2018Design Kit Travel Pack. Available at: https://www.designkit.org/resources/9 [Accessed22 November 2020]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Information design exchange (idX) group
    Information design exchange (idX) group 2007Development of international core competencies and student and faculty exchange in information designAvailable at: www.iiid.net/PDFs/idxPublication.pdf [Accessed10 May 2010].
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones, C. J.
    1992Design methods. 2nd edn.New York: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lawson, B.
    2006How Designers Think – The Design Process Demystified. University Press, Cambridge. 10.4324/9780080454979
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080454979 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lazar, K.
    2019 Signs Of Confusion [Video] News segment on CBS’s “2 On Your Side”. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqApVMFLKvw [Accessed22 November 2020]
  25. Lockton, D.
    2010Design with Intent toolkit card deck. Available at: https://designwithintent.co.uk/ [Accessed22 November 2020]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LUMA Institute
    LUMA Institute 2012Innovating for People: Human-Centered Design Planning Cards. Available at: https://www.luma-institute.com/ [Accessed22 November 2020]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lynch, P. J. & Horton, S.
    2016Web style guide: Foundations of user experience design. Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J.
    (2013) Qualitative Data Analysis, SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mueller, V.
    2009 Conceptual design tools: Establishing a framework for specification of concept design tools. Proceedings of Arab Society for Computed Aided Architectural Design (ASCAAD). Manama, Bahrain, pp.103–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Norman, D.
    1981 Some Observations on Mental Models, InGentner, D. and Stevens, A. L., eds.Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.pp.7–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2020 This is the one skill designers need to develop most in 2020 [Online]Fast Company. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/90449305/this-is-the-one-skill-designers-need-to-develop-most-in-2020 [Accessed22 November 2020]
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Paper Giant
    Paper Giant 2017The More-Than Research Game. Available at: https://www.papergiant.net/the-more-than-research-game [Accessed22 November 2020]
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Parush, V.
    2015Conceptual design for interactive systems. Designing for Performance and User Experience. Morgan Kaufman.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Patel, N.
    2018 Everything is too complicated: What are you assuming people already know? The Verge [online], Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/7/16861056/ces-2018-badassumptions-smart-assistants-tech-confusion [Accessed9 January 2018].
  35. Patton, M. Q.
    2002Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd edn.London: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pontis, S.
    2012a Guidelines for conceptual design to assist diagram creators in information design practice. PhD Thesis. London College of Communication. University of the Arts London.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2012bMapping Complex Information Cards (MapCI Cards). Available at: www.mapcidesign.com/cards/ [Accessed22 November 2020]
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2014 A guided approach to conceptual design in the information design process. Information Design Journal. 21(2), 115–128. 10.1075/idj.21.2.04pon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.21.2.04pon [Google Scholar]
  39. 2019aMaking sense of field research: A practical guide for information designers. Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2019bBreaking Assumptions in Design Education: Reflections on teaching information design to non-designers. 7th ICTVC conference, June 19–21. University of Patras, Greece.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (Forthcoming). Guidelines for diagram content analysis: A design tool (Chapter 8). In: C. Richards Ed.: Elements of diagramming: theories, design methods & uses. Gower Publishing. Taylor & Francis Group: UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Pontis, S. & Babwahsingh, M.
    2016 Improving information design practice: A closer look at conceptual design methods. Information Design Journal (IDJ), 22(3), 249–265. 10.1075/idj.22.3.06pon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.22.3.06pon [Google Scholar]
  43. Pontis, S. & van der Waarde, K. Summer
    2020 Looking for alternatives. Challenging assumptions in design education. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Volume6, Issue2, 228–253.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Qin, S. F., Wright, D. K. & Jordanov, I. N.
    2000 From on-line sketching to 2D and 3D geometry: a system based on fuzzy knowledge. Computer-Aided Design32, 851–866. 10.1016/S0010‑4485(00)00078‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(00)00078-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. Roam, D.
    2008The back of the napkin: solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. New York: Portfolio.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Roberts, S.
    2017 The UX-ification of research, Stripe Partners [online], Available at: www.stripepartners.com/the-ux-ification-of-research/ [Accessed5 January 2018].
  47. Senechal, A.
    1997 It’s all in the PROCESS. Adobe Magazine, pp.34–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tversky, B.
    2002 What do sketches say about thinking. In2002 AAAI Spring Symposium, Sketch Understanding Workshop, Stanford University, AAAI Technical Report SS-02-08 (pp.148–151).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y. & Tomiyama, T.
    1996 Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler. Ai Edam, 10(4), pp.275–288. 10.1017/S0890060400001621
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060400001621 [Google Scholar]
  50. UXPlus
    UXPlus 2017 Seed Cards – challenges and inspirations for experience design. Available at: www.seed-cards.com/ [Accessed22 November 2020]
  51. Wang, L., Shen, W., Xie, H., Neelamkavil, J. & Pardasani, A.
    2002 Collaborative conceptual design – state of the art and future trends. Computer-Aided Design, 34(13), 981–996. 10.1016/S0010‑4485(01)00157‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00157-9 [Google Scholar]
  52. Yamamoto, Y. & Nakakoji, K.
    2005 Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies63, 513–535. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.023 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual design; externalizations; flexibility; information design; structure
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error