The Design Sketching Process

  • Rikke Omgreen
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 221)


Sketching the what-if situation provided insight into alternative design possibilities, and gave an idea of how the sketched design will work in the context at hand. Though software provided possibilities of creating a high fidelity executable prototype at a very fast pace, here sketches that were non- executable drawings of the envisioned system, are investigated. The sketches were used in various forms within the development team as well as in collaboration with external experts and users. Where issues of usability and technical requirements are often dealt with separately, this approach suggest simulation through drawings of the context of use and the different users’ needs. This turned the design sketching period into both an analysis and interaction design of the new envisioned work processes, as well as gave input to the future production process. The case study illustrating this design sketching process from rough drawings of conceptualisations and detailed storyboards of functionalities was the development of an e-learning platform tbr case-based learning.


Development Team Enterprise Architecture Interaction Design Work Context Soft System Methodology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Checkland & Scholes (1990): Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avison & Wood-Harpers (1990): “Muttiview”, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Orngreen, Rikke (2004): “CaseMaker-An Environment for Case-based e-Learning” in Electronic Journal of eLearning, EJEL, vol 2, nr. l, p. 167–180Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orngreen & Levinsen (2005): “Proactive teacher tools for online teachers”, in The 8th IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education (WCCE2005), 4-7 july 2005, University, of Stellenbosch, Capetown South Africa, 2005, 10 pagesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sommerville, I. (1992): Software Engineering, Fourth edition, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Snitker, T. (2004): Breaking Through to the Other Side, Nyt Teknisk Forlag, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orngreens, Rikke phd. dissertation on the development of multimedia teaching casesGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fautkner, C. (1998): The essence of Human-Computer Interaction, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bordwell D. and Thompsen K. (1997): Film Art, an Introduction, McGraw-Hill, 5. editionGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart J. (1999): The Art of the Storyboard-Storyboard for Film, TV and Animation, Focal PressGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landay, J. (1996): Interactive Sketching for the Early Stages of User Interface Design, Ph.D. Thesis, School of Computer Science, Computer Science Division, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA December 19, 1996, CMU-CS-96-201 Also appears as CMU-HCli-96-105.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orngreen, R. & Pries-Heje, J (1999): “Designing the design-need-based storyboard adaptation for multimedia systems design” from Proceedings of the 22nd Information Systems Research seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS22): Enterprise architectures for virtual organisations, 7-10 August, 1999, Keuruu, Finland. Vol. 3Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preece, J.; Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. (2002): Interaction Design-beyond human computer interaction, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Newman, Lin, Hong & Landay (2003): “DENIM: An Informal Web Site Design Tool Inspired by Observations of Practice”, in Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 2003, Volume 18, pp. 259–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Backer, D. (1994): “Multimedia Presentation and Authoring”, in Buford, J.K: Multimedia Systems, Addison Wesley, Publishing Company, ACM Press, SIGGRAPH series, New York, New York, USA, pp. 285–303Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hofstetter, Fred (1997): Multimedia Literacy, second edition, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simonsen, Kensing & BØdker (2000), Professionel IT-forundersogelse (ENG: professional 1T pre-investigations), 1. udgave, Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holtzblatt, K. and H. Beyer (1996). “Contextual Design: Principles and Practice.” in Field Methods Casebook for Software Design. D. Wixon and R. J. New York, Wiley & Sons: p. 301–333.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Buur & BØdker (2000): “From usability lab to “design collaboratorium”-designing with interaction styles”, in proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems, DIS2000, New York 2000Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plimmer & Grundy (2005): “Beautifying Sketching-based Design Tool Content: Issues and Experiences” in 6th Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC2005), Newcastle, Vol. 40. M. Billinghurst and A. Cockburn (Eds.), 8 pages.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Landay & Myers (2001): Sketching interfaces: Toward more human interface design.” In IEEE Computer, 34(3), 56–64.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conallen, J. (2000): Building Web Applications with UML, Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc., reading, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen, L (2004) Engaging Personas and Narrative Scenarios-A study on how user-centered approach influenced the perception of the design process in the e-business group at Astra Zeneca-, CBS Ph.D.serie, nr.2004-17Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenbamn, J. and Kyng, M. (editors) (1991): Design at work-cooperative design of computer systems, Lawrence Erlbaum associates publishers, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rikke Omgreen
    • 1
  1. 1.Copenhagen Business SchoolDenmark

Personalised recommendations