Design

Saddler, Harry J.

doi:10.1145/379537.379542

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1915 a solution came: a distinct bottle that signalled the identity of the content (the authentic Coca Cola) in a clear manner to the consumers, who now immediately could recognize the authenticity of the soft drink they bought. Saddler (2001) discusses the notion of an 'interpretive community' , a group of people who can 'read' a set of objects. Marketing ensured that Americans would recognize the Coca Cola bottle.…”

Section: Reading Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Robb

2014

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pictorial and visual elements are special types of archaeological data that transgress boundaries; between the past and us and between the material and immaterial. Imagery communicates with the observer in elaborate and often unforeseen ways. What special powers are embedded in the pictorial that seem to hold so much promise and mystery? In what ways can we study how images affect and engage the beholder, and how are images actively entangled in past social worlds? Archaeological approaches to prehistoric images have traditionally circled around representation, symbolism and meaning. By and large this has resulted in a focus on interpretations with contextually inferred meanings set within hermeneutic, phenomenological or evolutionary frameworks. In recent years, however, other ways of exploring imagery have been discussed within cultural studies and visual theory (e.g. Mitchell 1996; Evans & Hall 1999; Rose 2001;O'Sullivan 2005). Common themes are the multi-sensuous aspects of the imagery that involve issues of materiality and aesthesis, emphasizing that in many cases images evolve into something with qualities of their own. Within anthropology and archaeology, in contrast, there are discussions of the possible agency of art and the pictorial (e,g, Gell 1998; Knappett 2002). Indeed, both objects and imagery are entangled in the social. Nonetheless, despite the power that past imagery seems to have over our minds in the present day, the study of past imagery is still theoretically and methodologically underdeveloped in archaeology (e.g. Hamilton et al. 1996:281-307;Aldhouse-Green 2004; Cochrane & Russel 2007). We need to elaborate on the different roles that the images may have in the social. That is, how can imagery work as actants and initiate or evoke thoughts and actions that are not originally intended, and how can it result in new, unintended and unforeseen consequences? There are a great number of approaches and elaborate theories on how to understand the pictorial in the social and humanist sciences. In 1 2 Encountering Imagery this introduction, we discuss a few that we believe have the greatest potential for archaeological studies. In this volume, we aim to engage with these issues and highlight the manifold, and hitherto less employed, methodological and theoretical ways in which imagery may be understood. Art and imageryIn traditional Art History images are generally assumed to have a content, something that needs to be decoded or unlocked (Cornell & Fahlander 2002:74). One typical example in this tradition is Panofsky's study of art as iconography (the identification, description and the interpretation of the content of images) and iconology (the analysis of the meaning of that content). Despite quite substantial criticism (e.g. Kubler 1962:127f; O'Sullivan 2005:15) iconological approaches in archaeology are generally concerned with questions of identifying what the imagery is supposed to represent, and in the second stage, to interpret how such an image may fit into a cultural cosmology or ideolo...

show abstract

Section: Reading Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Robb

2014

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although ambiguous representations possess benefits, their ill-defined nature makes it difficult for engineering designers to comprehend and recognise how they work in relation to a product's technical parameters (Saddler, 2001). It may be difficult for a viewer other than the originator to understand the embodied meaning, context or scale (McGown, et al, 1998).…”

Section: Standardising the Use Of Design Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Saddler (2001), the industrial design profession has representations that are ill-defined, imprecise and lack in communicative power. In addition, communication could be improved by having a common understanding of shared definitions (Matthew, 1997).…”

Section: Tool Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In comparing the differences between representations favoured by the 2 disciplines, Veveris (1994) observed that engineering designers used models associated with engineering principles, functional mechanisms, production issues; whereas industrial designers applied representations related to appearance and usability. Despite the various attempts to classify representations by other authors (Tjalve et al 1979;Ullman, 1988;Tovey, 1989;Evans, 1992;Ferguson, 1992;Goldschmidt, 1992;Veveris, 1994;Kavakli et al, 1998; 7 Cross, 1999;Do et al, 2000;Otto and Wood, 2001;Cain, 2005 Although ambiguous representations possess benefits, their ill-defined nature makes it difficult for engineering designers to comprehend and recognise how they work in relation to a product's technical parameters (Saddler, 2001). It may be difficult for a viewer other than the originator to understand the embodied meaning, context or scale (McGown, et al, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a tool for building shared representations among industrial designers and engineering designers

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of multi-disciplinary collaboration in New Product Development (NPD). As such, interactions between industrial designers and engineering designers have become increasingly important. This research project aims to build a shared understanding between the 2 disciplines during NPD. Following empirical research that revealed collaboration-related problem areas, as well as collecting data concerning the use of design representations, a card system was developed to provide information on the role and significance of design representations, leading to joint understanding, improved communication and creation of shared knowledge. When asked in the validation study if the system would foster collaboration, 68.2% of industrial designers and 63.2% of the engineering designers gave a good and excellent rating, indicating that the system could play a significant role towards the support of multidisciplinary teamwork. Despite the importance of inter-disciplinary collaboration, few studies have examined the relationship between industrial design and engineering design.For this study, industrial design encompasses the specification of product form including aesthetic judgement, semantics, user interface and social requirements (IDSA, 2006;Tovey, 1994;Flurscheim, 1983). In contrast, the term engineering design broadly encompasses mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering (Fielden, 1963), all of which employ science-based problem solving methods (Hurst, 1999 Previous research has mainly focused on inter-disciplinary collaboration between engineering design and manufacturing (Beskow, 1997;Ulrich and Eppinger, 2000) and engineering with marketing (Griffin and Hauser, 1996;Shaw and Shaw, 1998). With the exception of Persson and Warell (2003) Standardising the Use of Design RepresentationsDesign representations can be expressed through language, graphic or artefacts (Goel 1995; Goldschmidt, 1997) and they refer to models of the 6 object being symbolised (Palmer, 1987 (Goldschmidt, 1992). In comparing the differences between representations favoured by the 2 disciplines, Veveris (1994) observed that engineering designers used models associated with engineering principles, functional mechanisms, production issues; whereas industrial designers applied representations related to appearance and usability. Despite the various attempts to classify representations by other authors (Tjalve et al. 1979;Ullman, 1988;Tovey, 1989;Evans, 1992;Ferguson, 1992;Goldschmidt, 1992;Veveris, 1994;Kavakli et al., 1998; 7 Cross, 1999;Do et al., 2000;Otto and Wood, 2001;Cain, 2005 Although ambiguous representations possess benefits, their ill-defined nature makes it difficult for engineering designers to comprehend and recognise how they work in relation to a product's technical parameters (Saddler, 2001). It may be difficult for a viewer other than the originator to understand the embodied meaning, context or scale (McGown, et al., 1998). The need for accurate and effective representat...

show abstract

“…as a thinking and reflective tool (Ferguson 1992, Suwa et al 1998, Saddler 2001, Visser 2006; to verify decisions (Olofsson and Sjölén 2005); to derive new ideas (Scrivener et al 2000, Eckert andBoujut 2003); as an extension to short term memory (Lipson and Shpitalni 2000); to record ideas (Baskinger 2008); and as a persuasive aid (Menezes and Lawson 2006). More importantly, these representations allow team members to see a design problem at the same level so as to create a shared mental image of the product (Goldschmidt 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations Used by Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of New Product Development (NPD), research has shown that not having a common understanding of Visual Design Representations (VDRs) has affected collaboration between industrial designers and engineering designers when working together. The aim of the research presented in this paper was two-fold. Firstly, to identify the representations employed by industrial designers and engineering designers during NPD from a literature survey. Secondly, to define and categorise these representations in the form of a taxonomy that is a systematic organisation of VDRs that are presently dispersed in the literature. For the development of the taxonomy, four measures encompassing orthogonality, spanning, completeness and usability were employed. It resulted in four groups consisting of sketches, drawings, models and prototypes. Validation was undertaken by means of an interview survey and further presenting the taxonomy at an international conference. The results showed that there were no issues raised by the respondents concerning the structure of the taxonomy or its components. KEYWORDSvisual design representations, industrial design, engineering design

show abstract

Design

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Development of a tool for building shared representations among industrial designers and engineering designers

A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations Used by Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About