Cover not available

Article published In: Information Design Journal
Vol. 26:1 (2021) ► pp.33–52

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Understanding the impact of supporting conceptual information design

Structure, externalizations and flexibility matter

ORCiD logo with link | Princeton University
Published online: 26 April 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.20015.fon
Abstract
This article argues that supporting conceptual information design should be a priority as it could better equip design practitioners for their jobs. Findings from a longitudinal evaluation of a tool – MapCI Cards – using multiple methods to assess the impact of supporting conceptual design in professional practice are reported here. Internal and external factors emerged as having an adverse influence on information designers’ responses to conceptual design. Increased conceptual design awareness and more confident decisions resulted from working with a support tool. Structure, flexibility, and externalizations are indicated as possible ways to effectively support conceptual information design. The article ends with recommendations for future support tools.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Related work
    • Understanding the impact of conceptual design
    • Information designers’ responses to conceptual design
    • Overview of tools supporting conceptual design
      • Computer technology tools
      • Analogue tools
    • MapCI Cards: A conceptual information design support tool
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Data collection and analysis
  • Using MapCI Cards in professional practice
    • Changes in workflow
      • Increased awareness
      • Increased structure
    • Factors influencing conceptual design
    • Conceptual design phases requiring diverse degrees of support
      • Problem understanding
      • Audience understanding
      • Subject matter understanding
      • Analysis & synthesis
      • Concept design
    • Conceptual design outputs paving the way forward
  • Implications of supporting conceptual information design
  • Recommendations for conceptual information design support tools
  • Conclusions and future work
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (52)
References
Al-Hakim, L.; Kusiak, A. & Mathew, J. 2000. A graph-theoretic approach to conceptual design with functional Perspectives. Computer-Aided Design, 321, 867–875. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baer, K. 2008. Information design workbook: graphic approaches, solutions, and inspiration + 30 case studies. Beverly (Mass): Rockport.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1991. Responsibility of forms: critical essays on music, art, and representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baya, V. & Leifer, L. J. 1996. Understanding information management in conceptual design. In Cross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dorst, K. (eds.) Analysing design activity. England: John Wiley & Sons, pp.151–168.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bektaş, E.; Heintz, J. L. & Wamelink, J. W. F. (2008). A Review of knowledge management in collaborative design: The necessity of project knowledge integration in large scale building projects. Innovation Conference in AEC 2008. Antalya, Turkey (1–12).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, A., Luna, P., Lund, O. & Walker, S. eds., 2017. Information design: research and practice. Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohm, T. 2014. When Information Design is a Matter of Life or Death. Box and Arrows. Available at: [URL]
Brunetti, G. & Golob, B. 2000. A feature-based approach towards an integrated product model including conceptual design information. Computer-Aided Design 321, 877–887. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cezzar, J. 2020. Teaching the Designer of Now: A New Basis for Graphic and Communication Design Education. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(2), pp.213–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conway, R., Masters, J. & Thorold, J. 2017. From Design Thinking to Systems Change. London: RSA, Action and Research Centre, available at [URL]
Cross, N. 2000. Engineering design methods: strategies for product design. 3rd edn. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dorst, K. 1996. Analysing design activity. England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frascara, J. ed., 2015. Information design as principled action: Making information accessible, relevant, understandable, and usable. Common Ground Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. 1999. Design: cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), pp.21–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
General Services Administration (GSA). ~2017. 18F Methods. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
Gobert, I. & van Looveren, J. 2014. Thoughts on Designing Information. Zurich: Lars Müller.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heller, S. & Landers, R. 2014. Infographic designers’ sketchbooks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hern, A. 2018. Hawaii missile false alarm due to badly designed user interface, reports say. The Guardian. Available at: [URL]
Hsu, W. & Liu, B. 2000. Conceptual design: issues and challenges. Computer-Aided Design, 321, 849–850. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IDEO. 2018. Design Kit Travel Pack. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
Information design exchange (idX) group. 2007. Development of international core competencies and student and faculty exchange in information design Available at: [URL] [Accessed 10 May 2010].
Jones, C. J. 1992. Design methods. 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lawson, B. 2006. How Designers Think – The Design Process Demystified. University Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazar, K. 2019. Signs Of Confusion [Video] News segment on CBS’s “2 On Your Side”. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
Lockton, D. 2010. Design with Intent toolkit card deck. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
LUMA Institute. 2012. Innovating for People: Human-Centered Design Planning Cards. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
Lynch, P. J. & Horton, S. 2016. Web style guide: Foundations of user experience design. Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis, SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mueller, V. 2009. Conceptual design tools: Establishing a framework for specification of concept design tools. Proceedings of Arab Society for Computed Aided Architectural Design (ASCAAD). Manama, Bahrain, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norman, D. 1981. Some Observations on Mental Models, In Gentner, D. and Stevens, A. L., eds. Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. pp. 7–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2020. This is the one skill designers need to develop most in 2020 [Online] Fast Company. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
Paper Giant. 2017. The More-Than Research Game. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
Parush, V. 2015. Conceptual design for interactive systems. Designing for Performance and User Experience. Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patel, N. 2018. Everything is too complicated: What are you assuming people already know? The Verge [online], Available at: [URL] [Accessed 9 January 2018].
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd edn. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontis, S. 2012a. Guidelines for conceptual design to assist diagram creators in information design practice. PhD Thesis. London College of Communication. University of the Arts London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012b. Mapping Complex Information Cards (MapCI Cards). Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
2019a. Making sense of field research: A practical guide for information designers. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019b. Breaking Assumptions in Design Education: Reflections on teaching information design to non-designers. 7th ICTVC conference, June 19–21. University of Patras, Greece.
(Forthcoming). Guidelines for diagram content analysis: A design tool (Chapter 8). In: C. Richards (Ed.): Elements of diagramming: theories, design methods & uses. Gower Publishing. Taylor & Francis Group: UK.
Pontis, S. & Babwahsingh, M. 2016. Improving information design practice: A closer look at conceptual design methods. Information Design Journal (IDJ), 22(3), 249–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontis, S. & van der Waarde, K. Summer. 2020. Looking for alternatives. Challenging assumptions in design education. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Volume 6, Issue 2, 228–253.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Qin, S. F., Wright, D. K. & Jordanov, I. N. 2000. From on-line sketching to 2D and 3D geometry: a system based on fuzzy knowledge. Computer-Aided Design 321, 851–866. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roam, D. 2008. The back of the napkin: solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, S. 2017. The UX-ification of research, Stripe Partners [online], Available at: [URL] [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Senechal, A. 1997. It’s all in the PROCESS. Adobe Magazine, pp.34–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tversky, B. 2002. What do sketches say about thinking. In 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium, Sketch Understanding Workshop, Stanford University, AAAI Technical Report SS-02-08 (pp. 148–151).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y. & Tomiyama, T. 1996. Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler. Ai Edam, 10(4), pp.275–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UXPlus. 2017. Seed Cards – challenges and inspirations for experience design. Available at: [URL] [Accessed 22 November 2020]
Wang, L., Shen, W., Xie, H., Neelamkavil, J. & Pardasani, A. 2002. Collaborative conceptual design – state of the art and future trends. Computer-Aided Design, 34(13), 981–996. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Y. & Nakakoji, K. 2005. Interaction design of tools for fostering creativity in the early stages of information design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 631, 513–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Nastri, Massimiliano
2025. Technology transfer and advanced methodologies of building systems. TECHNE - Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment :30 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue