Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0142-5471
  • E-ISSN: 1569-979X



The article is concerned with a central contribution of designing to information visualization in the digital humanities. The activity is characterized as one of externalization, instantiation in visible or tangible form of ideas. A spectrum of different interpretations of this process in the existing literature is discussed. The arguments are illustrated with recent practical examples from the authors’ own work in designing with a range of cultural organizations. The article concludes with reflections on how projects may best benefit from this work of design, empowering the designer as a co-researcher, alongside the historian, curator or other humanities scholar.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. van Amstel, F. M. C., Hartmann, T., van der Voort, M. C., & Dewulf, G. P. M. R.
    (2016) The social production of design space. Design Studies, 46. 199–225. doi:  10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Archer, L. B.
    (1968) The structure of design processes. Doctoral thesis. London: Royal College of Art. Available on British Library Ethos (ID: 697935). Also available on RCA Research Repository. Retrieved fromresearchonline.rca.ac.uk/2949/
  3. (1979) Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1(1), 17–20. doi:  10.1016/0142‑694X(79)90023‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(79)90023-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. (1995) The nature of research. Co-design, 6–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnheim, R.
    (1993) Sketching and the psychology of design. Design Issues, 9(2), 15–19. doi:  10.2307/1511669
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1511669 [Google Scholar]
  6. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D.
    (1985) Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bailey, J., & Pregill, L.
    (2014) Speak to the eyes: The history and practice of information visualization. Art Documentation, 33(2), 168–191. doi:  10.1086/678525
    https://doi.org/10.1086/678525 [Google Scholar]
  8. Berners-Lee, T. J.
    (1989) Information management: A proposal. CERN-DD-89-001-OC. Geneva: CERN.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bertin, J.
    (1967) Sémiologie graphique. Paris: Mouton/Gauthier-Villars.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Biemann, C., Crane, G. R., Fellbaum, C. D., & Mehler, A.
    (2014) Computational humanities: Bridging the gap between computer science and digital humanities (Dagstuhl Seminar 14301). Dagstuhl Reports, 4(7). doi:  10.4230/DagRep.4.7.80
    https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.4.7.80 [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyd Davis, S.
    (2019) Time machines. In: J. Pilcher (Ed.), Culture, technology and the image. Bristol: Intellect Books. 52–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boyd Davis, S., & Gristwood, S.
    (2018) ‘A dialogue between the real-world and the operational model’: the realities of design in Bruce Archer’s 1968 doctoral thesis. Design Studies, 56, 185–204. doi:  10.1016/j.destud.2017.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boyd Davis, S., & Kräutli, F.
    (2015) The idea and image of historical time: Interactions between design and digital humanities. Visible Language, 49(3) [Special issue ‘Critical making: Design and the digital humanities’], 100–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Buchanan, R.
    (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. 10.2307/1511637
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bush, V.
    (1945) As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cockburn, A., Karlson, A., & Bederson, B. B.
    (2009) A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(1). doi:  10.1145/1456650.1456652
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1456650.1456652 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cottrell, S.
    (2017) Understanding textual uncertainty in dates using interactive timelines. Proc. Electronic Visualisation and the Arts, EVA 2017 (pp.68–73). London: British Computer Society. doi:  10.14236/ewic/EVA2017.13
    https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2017.13 [Google Scholar]
  18. Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, P. J.
    (2008) Representing artefacts as media: Modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 15–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dávila, P.
    (2017) Visualization as assemblage. Information Design Journal, 23(1) [‘Information Visualization’], 19–31. doi:  10.1075/idj.23.1.04dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.23.1.04dav [Google Scholar]
  20. Dörk, M., Pietsch, C., & Credico, G.
    (2017) One view is not enough: High-level visualizations of a large cultural collection. Information Design Journal, 23(1), 39–47. doi:  10.1075/idj.23.1.06dor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.23.1.06dor [Google Scholar]
  21. Dorst, K., & Cross, N.
    (2001) Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. doi:  10.1016/S0142‑694X(01)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  22. Drucker, J.
    (1984) Letterpress language: Typography as a medium for the visual representation of language. Leonardo, 17(1), 8–16. doi:  10.2307/1574850
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1574850 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2014) Graphesis: the visual production of knowledge in a digital era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Drucker, J., & Nowviskie, B.
    (2004) Speculative computing: Temporal modelling. In: S. Schreibman, R. Siemens, & J. Unsworth (Eds.), A companion to digital humanities (pp.431–447). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 10.1002/9780470999875.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999875.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  25. Engelbart, D. C.
    (1962) Augmenting human intellect: A conceptual framework. Summary Report AFOSR-3233. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute. 10.21236/AD0289565
    https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0289565 [Google Scholar]
  26. Frayling, C.
    (1993) Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1). London: Royal College of Art.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Glanville, R.
    (2007) Try again. Fail again. Fail better: The cybernetics in design and the design in cybernetics. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1173–1206. doi:  10.1108/03684920710827238
    https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920710827238 [Google Scholar]
  28. Glanville, R., & Pak, B.
    (2010) Quasi entailment mesh. European Meetings on Cybernetics and Systems Research. University of Vienna, 6–9April 2010 [n.p.].
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldschmidt, G.
    (1991) The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143. doi:  10.1080/10400419109534381
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goody, J.
    (1987) The Interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Havelock, E. A.
    (1986) The muse learns to write. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hunter, E. B.
    (2018) Building video game adaptations of dramatic and literary texts. InL. Levenberg, T. Neilson, & D. Rheams (Eds.), Research methods for the digital humanities (pp.173–194). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑96713‑4_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96713-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hutchins, E.
    (1999) Cognitive artifacts. InR. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (pp.126–127). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jänicke, S.
    (2016) Valuable research for visualization and digital humanities: A balancing act. Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities, VisWeek, Hilton Baltimore hotel, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 23–28 October 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kimbell, L.
    (2011) Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. doi:  10.2752/175470811X13071166525216
    https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 [Google Scholar]
  36. Klein, L. F.
    (2013) The image of absence: Archival silence, data visualization, and James Hemings. American Literature, 85(4), 661–688. doi:  10.1215/00029831‑2367310
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00029831-2367310 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kräutli, F.
    (2016) Visualising cultural data: Exploring digital collections through timeline visualisations. PhD thesis, Royal College of Art, London. Retrieved fromresearchonline.rca.ac.uk/1774/
  38. Kräutli, F., & Boyd Davis, S.
    (2013) Known unknowns: Representing uncertainty in historical time. InK. Ng, J. P. Bowen, & S. McDaid (Eds.), Proceedings of EVA London, British Computer Society, London, 29–31 July 2013 (pp.61–68). London: British Computer Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lloyd, D., & Dykes, J.
    (2011) Human-centered approaches in geovisualization design: Investigating multiple methods through a long-term case study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12), 2498–2507. doi:  10.1109/TVCG.2011.209
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.209 [Google Scholar]
  40. MacEachren, A. M.
    (2001) An evolving cognitive-semiotic approach to geographic visualization and knowledge construction. Information Design Journal, 10(1), 26–36. 10.1075/idj.10.1.06mac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.10.1.06mac [Google Scholar]
  41. Nelson, T. H.
    (1974) Computer lib / Dream machines. [Self-published].
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Noël, G.
    (2014) Design education: Creating diagrams to help students understand complex problems. Information Design Journal, 21(2), 88–98. doi:  10.1075/idj.21.2.02noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.21.2.02noe [Google Scholar]
  43. Norman, D. A.
    (1991) Cognitive artifacts. InJ. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ong, W. J.
    (1982) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen & Co.. 10.4324/9780203328064
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203328064 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pask, G., Kallikourdis, D., & Scott, B. C. E.
    (1975) The representation of knowables. International Journal for Man-Machine Studies, 7(1), 15–134. doi:  10.1016/S0020‑7373(75)80003‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(75)80003-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Priestley, J.
    (1764) A description of a chart of biography. Warrington: British Library General Reference Collection.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ratto, M.
    (2011) Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. Information Society, 27(4), 252–260. doi:  10.1080/01972243.2011.583819
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rittel, H.
    (1972) On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the ‘first and second generations’. Bedriftsøkonomen, 8, 390–396.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rudd, J., Stern, K., & Isensee, S.
    (1996) Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate. Interactions, 3(1), 76–85. doi:  10.1145/223500.223514
    https://doi.org/10.1145/223500.223514 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rust, C., Hawkins, S., Whiteley, G., Wilson, A., & Roddis, J.
    (2000) Knowledge and the artefact. InD. Durling, & K. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of Doctoral Education in Design Conference (pp.395–404). La Clusaz, France, 8–12July 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y.
    (1996) External cognition: How do graphical representations work?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185–213. doi:  10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048
    https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schön, D. A.
    (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Simon, H. A.
    (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. doi:  10.1037/h0042769
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769 [Google Scholar]
  54. Spivey, M. J.
    (2007) Redesigning our theories of human information processing. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 261–265. 10.1075/idj.15.3.08spi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.15.3.08spi [Google Scholar]
  55. Staley, D.
    (2017) On the “maker turn” in the humanities. InJ. Sayers (Ed.), Making things and drawing boundaries: Experiments in the digital humanities (Debates in the digital humanities). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Stevens, J.
    (2013) Design as communication in microstrategy: Strategic sensemaking and sensegiving mediated through designed artifacts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(2), 133–142. doi:  10.1017/S0890060413000036
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060413000036 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sweeting, B.
    (2016) Design research as a variety of second order cybernetic practice. Constructivist Foundations, 11(3), 572–579.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Thompson Klein, J.
    (2017) The boundary work of making in digital humanities. InJ. Sayers (Ed.), Making things and drawing boundaries: Experiments in the digital humanities (Debates in the Digital Humanities). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Trouillot, M. R.
    (2015) Silencing the past: Power and the production of history (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Vane, O.
    (2019) Cultural visualisation and the value of simplicity. Europeana Tech Insight, 11: Generous Interfaces. Retrieved fromhttps://pro.europeana.eu/page/issue-11-generous-interfaces
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Visser, W.
    (2006) The cognitive artifacts of designing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.1201/9781482269529
    https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482269529 [Google Scholar]
  62. Warde, B.
    (2009) The crystal goblet, or why printing should be invisible. InH. Armstrong (Ed.), Graphic Design Theory: readings from the field (pp.39–43). New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Whitelaw, Mitchell
    (2015) Generous interfaces for digital cultural collections. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 9(1), Retrieved fromwww.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/1/000205/000205.html
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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