The Impact of Expertise on the Capture of Sketched Intentions: Perspectives for Remote Cooperative Design

  • Jennifer Sutera
  • Maria C. Yang
  • Catherine Elsen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8683)


The paper describes the way expertise and field-knowledge can impact the transfer of graphical intentions during architectural cooperative design. The analysis of 28 controlled experiments reveals what matters in transmitting architectural intents and more specifically underlines how novices’ intuitive, deductive processes based on previous and embodied experiences interestingly complement experts’ knowledge of the architectural field and its semantics. The results directly inform how we, as researchers, designers and engineers, should take advantage of both novices’ and experts’ strategies to develop tools, methods or interfaces to support next generation cooperative design.


Cooperative design in architecture transfer of design intents expertise 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Schön, D.A., Wiggins, G.: Kinds of Seeing and their Functions in Designing. Design Studies 13(2), 135–156 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dogan, F., Nersessian, N.J.: Generic abstraction in design creativity: the case of Staatsgalerie by James Stirling. Design Studies 31, 207–236 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorta, T., Kalay, Y., Pérez, E., Lesage, A.-M.: Comparing immersion in remote and local collaborative ideation through sketches: a case study. In: CAAD Futures, Proceedings (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elsen, C., Demaret, J.-N., Yang, M.-C., Leclercq, P.: Sketch-Based Interfaces for Modeling and Users’ Needs: Redefining Connections. AIEDAM 26(3) (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones, J.C.: Design methods: Seeds of human futures. John Wiley, Chichester (1970)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norman, D.A., Verganti, R.: Incremental and radical innovation: design research versus technology and meaning change. Submitted to Design Issues (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baker, M., Détienne, F., Burkhardt, J.-M.: Quality of collaboration in design: articulating multiple dimensions and viewpoints. In: 1st Interdisciplinary Innovation Conference, Telecom ParisTech. (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Darses, F.: Résolution collective des problèmes de conception. Le Travail Humain 72, 43–59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Safin, S., Juchmes, R., Leclercq, P.: Use of graphical modality in a collaborative design distant setting. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation (suppl.1) (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elsen, C., Darses, F., Leclercq, P.: What Do Strokes Teach Us about Collaborative Design? In: Luo, Y. (ed.) CDVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7467, pp. 114–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dessy, J.: De l’emploi des symboles dans les esquisses architecturales. Thesis, Université de Liège (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Someren, M., Barnard, Y., Sandberg, J.: The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. Academic Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kavakli, M., Gero, J.S.: The Structure of Concurrent Cognitive Actions: a Case Study on Novice and Expert Designers. Design Studies 23(1), 25–40 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hattenhauer, D.: The Rhetoric of Architecture: a Semiotic Approach. Communication Quarterly 32, 71–77 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eco, U.: Function and Sign: the Semiotics of Architecture. In: Signs, Symbols and Architecture, pp. 11–69 (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Sutera
    • 1
  • Maria C. Yang
    • 2
  • Catherine Elsen
    • 1
  1. 1.LUCID-ULgUniversity of LiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Systems DivisionMITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations