A Computational Framework for Supporting Design Terminology

A widespread problem in design is the lack of a shared terminology between the stakeholder groups involved in a design across various disciplines. This study will use approaches from computing to create and test a framework for shared design terminology that can be used across the design process, reducing misunderstandings and miscommunication, improving safety, facilitating sharing designs more explicitly and increasing interoperability.

Content

Author and article information

Contributors

Kanar Tahir Hama Salih

Conference

Publication date: July 2022

Publication date (Print): July 2022

Pages: 1-2

Affiliations

[0001]School of Computing and Mathematics

Keele University, UK

Article

DOI: 10.14236/ewic/HCI2022.57

SO-VID: 59a0e409-9eac-4beb-8548-aed7aeab15e8

License:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Conference name: 35th International BCS Human-Computer Interaction Conference

Conference acronym: HCI2022

Conference number: 35

Conference location: Keele, Staffordshire

Conference date: July 11th to 13th, 2022

Conference sponsor: Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC)

Conference theme: Towards a Human-Centred Digital Society

History

Product

1477-9358 BCS Learning & Development

Self URI (article page): https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14236/ewic/HCI2022.57

Self URI (journal page): https://ewic.bcs.org/

REFERENCES

Checkland, P.B. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1981.
Day, R., 2016. Design Error: A Human Factors Approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Eckert, Claudia & Maier, Anja & McMahon, Chris. (2005). Communication in Design. Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice. 10.1007/978-1-84628-061-0_10.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5^th edition). Free Press, New York.
Salustri, Filippo A. & Rogers, Damian (2009). Some Thoughts on Terminology and Discipline in Design. In: Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16-19 July 2008.
Shaw, M.L.G. & Gaines, B.R. (1989). Comparing Conceptual Structures: Consensus, Conflict, Correspondence and Contrast. Knowledge Acquisition, 1(4), pp. 341–363.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, Automation and Human Supervisory Control. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] Checkland, P.B. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1981.

[2] Day, R., 2016. Design Error: A Human Factors Approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

[3] Eckert, Claudia & Maier, Anja & McMahon, Chris. (2005). Communication in Design. Design Process Improvement: A Review of Current Practice. 10.1007/978-1-84628-061-0_10.

[4] Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5^th edition). Free Press, New York.

[5] Salustri, Filippo A. & Rogers, Damian (2009). Some Thoughts on Terminology and Discipline in Design. In: Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16-19 July 2008.

[6] Shaw, M.L.G. & Gaines, B.R. (1989). Comparing Conceptual Structures: Consensus, Conflict, Correspondence and Contrast. Knowledge Acquisition, 1(4), pp. 341–363.

[7] Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, Automation and Human Supervisory Control. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Celebrating 65 years of The Computer Journal - free-to-read perspectives - bcs.org/tcj65