Sketching tools for ideation (NIER track)

Bellamy, Rachel K. E.; Desmond, Michael; Martino, Jacquelyn; Matchen, Paul M.; Ossher, Harold; Richards, John T.; Swart, Cal

doi:10.1145/1985793.1985909

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sketching covers many domains of human activity and inside these domains, there are several works exploiting sketching for one or many sub-activities such as for example: problem analysis in general [44], computer science [17] (e.g., user experience support [8], [18], user interface design, prototyping, and recognition [23], [13], [14], [39], [3], [2], [47], cross-device UI design [25], user-centered design in agile projects [32], [7], system walkthrough [24]), system development (e.g., QUILL [16] for model-based design of web applications), flexible modelling [40] (e.g., FlexiSketch [54], [55] for model sketching), RAPIDO [35] for web API development, sketching UML models (e.g., TAHUTI for sketching UML Class diagrams [19] and SketchML for various UML diagrams [3]), distributed software design [29], [33], task modelling [41], notation creation [55]), computer-supported collaborative work [21] (e.g., stakeholders' meetings [20], collocated tables for meetings [51] and interactive design spaces [6]), product and service design (e.g., sketching in design [21], extreme designing [15], industrial design [52], shape-changing products [42]), public displays [36], learning (e.g., classroom design studio [26], teaching geometry [11]), ideation [4] and concept generation…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crosside: A Cross-Surface Collaboration by Sketching Design Space

Pérez-Medina

Vanderdonckt

Villarreal-Narvaez

2019

International Conferences on Distributed Multimedia Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces, motivates, defines, and exemplifies CROSSIDE, a design space for representing capabilities of a software for collaborative sketching in a crosssurface setting, i.e., when stakeholders are interacting with and across multiple interaction surfaces, ranging from lowend devices such as smartwatches, mobile phones to high-end devices like wall displays. By determining the greatest common denominator in terms of system properties between forty-one references, the design space is structured according to seven dimensions: user configurations, surface configurations, input interaction techniques, work methods, tangibility, and device configurations. This design space is aimed at satisfying three virtues: descriptive (i.e., the ability to systematically describe any particular work in cross-surface interaction by sketching), comparative (i.e., the ability to consistently compare two or more works belonging to this area), and generative (i.e., the ability to generate new ideas by identifying potentially interesting, undercovered areas). A radar diagram graphically depicts the design space for these three virtues.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crosside: A Cross-Surface Collaboration by Sketching Design Space

Pérez-Medina

Vanderdonckt

Villarreal-Narvaez

2019

International Conferences on Distributed Multimedia Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Later work automated particular aspects of managing sketches by automatically grouping clusters of sketches in close spatial proximity [25], shrinking sketches when moved to the periphery [13], or using metaphors such as Post-It Notes to organize and relate sketches [19]. Other systems capture and present the history of interactions with a whiteboard as a tree of storyboards [3] and allow designers to navigate a network visualization of canvases [12].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet while designers wish to manipulate content in more sophisticated ways than adding and erasing strokes [11], physical whiteboards remain a passive medium lacking active support for design. In response, nearly three decades of research [31,18] has explored the design of interactive whiteboards, investigating approaches for sketch recognition [5, 21,16,9,7], sketch management [31,32,26,25,13,19,3,12], and distributed sketching [19,14,15,29]. Yet interactive whiteboards are not widely used in practice [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting informal design with interactive whiteboards

Mangano

LaToza

Petre

et al. 2014

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whiteboards serve an important role in supporting informal design, providing a fluid and flexible medium for collaborative design. Interactive whiteboards offer the potential for enhanced support for manipulating content, managing sketches, and distributed work, but little is known about how this support affects the practice of informal design. To understand the opportunities and challenges, we first conducted a literature review, identifying 14 behaviors that occur during informal design. We then designed an interactive whiteboard system to support all of these behaviors and deployed the system to three groups of designers. Through usage logs and interviews, we examined the effects of interactivity on whiteboard use across a wide spectrum of design behaviors, identifying ways in which interactive whiteboards support the practices used in physical whiteboards and where they enable designers to work more effectively.

show abstract

“…Procesos tan naturales -como el bocetar representaciones simplificadas de las ideas en una discusión o proceso de planeación o diseñoson portados a escenarios digitales buscando "naturalizar" la interacción de los usuarios con el computador. Alrededor de esta iniciativa particular, y en gran medida gracias a la ubicuidad de dispositivos portátiles como tablets (iPad favorita entre todas), existen desarrollos promisorios [6]. De la misma manera, tecnologías emergentes, apoyadas en paradigmas -como por ejemplo la interacción con multitouch, y la surface computing-ofrecen avenidas de investigación, renovación y exploración en los escenarios asociados al diseño y definición de interfaces humano-computador [25,27].…”

Section: Estado Actual Alternativas Y Consideracionesunclassified

Interacción humano-computador en escenarios educativos y artísticos. Kinect como propuesta viable

Rodríguez

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Las posibilidades y herramientas que ofrece un sistema computacional son cada vez más avanzadas, amplias y completas. Con el avance, en este sentido, las posibilidades de interacción con los sistemas computacionales modernos han venido ampliándose y tomando rutas y formas que hace apenas unos años no se consideraban plausibles. Desde los esquemas iniciales de entrada-salida de datos, pasando por el uso tarjetas perforadas o interruptores y alertas luminosas o sistemas de impresión, hasta el desarrollo del teclado y el mouse, y las interacciones que utilizan esquemas multitoque e interacciones naturales; la interacción humanocomputador es un campo de crecimiento constante. Existe sin embargo un vacío en términos de esquemas de interacción para escenarios de creación artística y de enseñanza. En este trabajo se presenta una breve reseña de los requerimientos, características y necesidades de una solución a este vacío, y se propone la utilización de Kinect como dispositivo de interacción humano-máquina para los escenarios descritos, teniendo en cuenta su accesibilidad, robustez, facilidad de uso y modificación, así como la amplísima gama de posibilidades que ofrece.

show abstract

Sketching tools for ideation (NIER track)

Cited by 13 publications

References 12 publications

Crosside: A Cross-Surface Collaboration by Sketching Design Space

Crosside: A Cross-Surface Collaboration by Sketching Design Space

Supporting informal design with interactive whiteboards

Interacción humano-computador en escenarios educativos y artísticos. Kinect como propuesta viable

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About