Designing as construction of representations: A dynamic viewpoint in cognitive design research

Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 103-152

  Visser, Willemien ^a  

^a INRIA   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; OPERATIONS RESEARCH; PLANNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

COGNITIVE DESIGN; SITUATIVITY (SIT) APPROACH; SOCIAL PLANNING; SYMBOLIC INFORMATION PROCESSING (SIP);

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS;

EID: 33745397191     PISSN: 07370024     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327051hci2101_4     Document Type: Review

References (149)

1. Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275-294.
2. Adelson, B., Littman, D. C., Ehrlich, K., Black, J. B., & Soloway, E. (1985). Novice-expert differences in software design. In B. Shackel (Ed.), Human-computer interaction - INTERACT '84. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
3. Adelson, B., & Soloway, E. (1988). A model of software design. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 185-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4. Akin, Ö. (1979/1984). An exploration of the design process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 189-207). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
5. Akin, Ö. (1986). Psychology of architectural design. London: Pion.
6. Anderson, J. R. (1978). Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery. Psychological Review, 85, 249-277.
7. Atwood, M. E., McCain, K. W., & Williams, J. C. (2002). How does the design community think about design? DIS'02, Designing Interactive Systems conference.
8. Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (1995). Structured and opportunistic processes in design: A critical discussion. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 131-151.
9. Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2000). Putting ethnography to work: The case for a cognitive ethnography of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 147-168.
10. Bannon, L. J. (1995). The politics of design: Representing work. Communications of The ACM, 38(9), 66-68.
11. Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating design: A review of forty years of design research. Design Issues, 20(1), 16-29.
12. Baykan, C. A. (1996). Design strategies. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 133-150). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
13. Bisseret, A., Figeac-Letang, C., & Falzon, P. (1988). Modeling opportunistic reasonings: the cognitive activity of traffic signal setting technicians (Research report No. 898). Rocquencourt, France: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique.
14. Bonnardel, N. (1991). Criteria used for evaluation of design solutions. In Y. Quéinnec & F. Daniellou (Eds.), 11th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association: Designing for everyone and everybody (Vol. 2, pp. 1043-1045). London: Taylor & Francis.
15. Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1-3), 139-159.
16. Bucciarelli, L. (1984). Reflective practice in engineering design. Design Studies, 5(3), 185-190.
17. Burkhardt, J.-M., & Détienne, F. (1995, 27-29 June). An empirical study of software reuse by experts in object-oriented design. Proceedings of INTERACT'95, Lillehammer, Norway.
18. Byrne, R. (1977). Planning meals: Problem-solving on a real data-base. Cognition, 5, 287-332.
19. Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H. A. (2001). Scientific discovery and inventive engineering design: Cognitive and computational similarities. In E. K. Antonsson & J. Cagan (Eds.), Formal engineering design synthesis (pp. 442-465). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Carroll, J. M. (2002). Dimensions of participation. Elaborating Herbert Simon's "Science of Design." Workshop "User-Centred Design" of the International Conference In Honour of Herbert Simon "The Sciences of Design. The Scientific Challenge for the 21st Century." Lyon, France: INSA.
21. Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Chin, G., & Koenemann, J. (1997, 18-20 August). Requirements development: Stages of opportunity for collaborative needs discovery. DIS'97 conference, Designing Interactive Systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, Amsterdam.
22. Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Chin, G., & Koenemann, J. (1998). Requirements development in scenario-based design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(12), 1156-1170.
23. Chalmé, S., Visser, W., & Denis, M. (2004). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. In T. Rothengatter & R. D. Huguenin (Eds.), Traffic and Transport Psychology. Theory and Application (pp. 61-71). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
24. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J.-M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC: APA.
25. Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79-103). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
26. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies. Special issue Expertise in design, 25(5), 427-442.
27. Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing design activity. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
28. Cross, N., Dorst, K., & Roozenburg, N. F. M. (Eds.). (1992). Research in design thinking. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press.
29. Darke, J. (1984). The primary generator and the design process. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 175-188). Chichester, UK: Wiley. (Original work published 1979)
30. Darses, F. (1990a, 2-6 September). An assessment of the constraint satisfaction approach for design: A psychological investigation. 5th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE-5), Urbino, Italia.
31. Darses, F. (1990b). Constraints in design: Towards a methodology of psychological analysis based on AI formalisms. INTERACT'90, North Holland.
32. D'Astous, P., Détienne, F., Visser, W., & Robillard, P. N. (2004). Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: A study of software technical review meetings. Design Studies, 25, 625-655.
33. Davies, S. P. (1991). Characterizing the program design activity: Neither strictly top-down nor globally opportunistic. Behaviour & Information Technology, 10(3), 173-190.
34. Decortis, F., Leclercq, P., Boulanger, C., & Safin, S. (2004, March). New digital environments to support creativity. International Seminar on Learning and Technology at Work, Institute of Education, London.
35. Design Studies. (1998). Special issue on Sketching and drawing in design. Design Studies, 19(4), 385-546.
36. Détienne, F. (2002). Software design. Cognitive aspects. London: Springer.
37. Détienne, F., Burkhardt, J.-M., & Visser, W. (2004). Cognitive effort in collective software design: Methodological perspectives in cognitive ergonomics. In A. Jedlitschka & M. Ciolkowski (Eds.), The future of empirical studies in software engineering. 2nd International Workshop, WSESE 2003, Roman Castles, Italy, September 2003 Proceedings (pp. 23-31). Stuttgart, Germany: Frauenhofer IRB Verlag.
38. De Terssac, G., & Chabaud, C. (1990). Référentiel opératif commun et fiabilité [Operative frames of reference and reliablity]. In J. Leplat & G. De Terssac (Eds.), Les facteurs humains de la fiabilité dans les systèmes complexes [Human factors of reliablity in complex systems] (pp. 111-139). Paris: Octarès.
39. Dillon, A., & Sweeney, M. (1988, 5-9 September). The application of cognitive psychology to CAD. HCI'88 Conference on People and Computers IV, Manchester, U.K..
40. Do, E. Y.-L., Gross, M. D., Neiman, B., & Zimring, C. M. (2000). Intentions in and relations among design drawings. Design Studies, Special issue on Visual design representation, 21(5), 483-503.
41. Dorst, K. (1997). Describing design. A comparison of paradigms. Doctoral dissertation, Delft, The Netherlands: Technische Universiteit Delft [University of Technology].
42. Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261-274.
43. Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation-Merleau-Ponty's critique of mental representation: The Relevance of Phenomenology to Scientific Explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. Special issue on Dreyfus and Representationalism, 1(4), 367-383.
44. Dykstra-Erickson, E., Mackay, W., & Arnowitz, J. (2001). design (of). interactions, march-april, 109-117.
45. Eastman, C. (1969). Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study of design. In D. Walker & L. M. Norton (Eds.), IJCAI'69, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 669-690). San Mateo, CA: Kaufmann.
46. Eastman, C. (2001). New directions in design cognition: studies of representation and recall. In C. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 147-198). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
47. Falzon, P. (1994). Dialogues fonctionnels et activité collective [Functional dialogs and collective activity]. Le Travail Humain, 57(4), 299-312.
48. Ford, S., & Marchak, F. M. (1997). The future of visual interaction design? SIGCHI Bulletin, 29(1).
49. Fricke, G. (1999). Successful approaches in dealing with differently precise design problems. Design Studies, Special Issue on Empirical Studies of Engineering Design in Germany, 20(5), 417-430.
50. Garrigou, A., & Visser, W. (1998, 9-11 février). L'articulation d'approches macroscopiques et microscopique en ergonomie: Une tentative de prise de recul sur une pratique de recherche en cours [Organising macroscopic and microscopic approaches in ergonomics: An attempt to stand back from a research practice in progress]. Actes des Deuxièmes Journées "Recherche et Ergonomie" de la SELF (Société d'Ergonomie de Langue Française), Toulouse (France).
51. Gero, J. S. (1998). Conceptual designing as a sequence of situated acts. In I. Smith (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in structured engineering (pp. 165-177). Berlin: Springer.
52. Gilhooly, K.J. (1989). Human and machine problem solving: Toward a comparative cognitive science. In K. J. Gilhooly (Ed.), Human and machine problem solving (pp. 1-12). New York: Plenum.
53. Gilmore, D. J. (1990). Methodological issues in the study of programming. In J. M. Hoc, T. Green, R. Samurçay & D. Gilmore (Eds.), Psychology of programming. London: Academic.
54. Gilmore, D. J., Winder, R., & Détienne, F. (Eds.). (1994). User-centred requirements for software engineering environments. Berlin: Springer.
55. Goel, V. (1994). A comparison of design and nondesign problem spaces. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 9, 53-72.
56. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
57. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395-429.
58. Greeno, J. G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.
59. Greeno, J. G., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Situativity and symbols: Response to Vera and Simon. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 49-60.
60. Greeno, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning. In R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology (2nd ed., Vol. II, pp. 589-672). New York: Wiley.
61. Guindon, R., Krasner, H., & Curtis, B. (1987). Breakdowns and processes during the early activities of software design by professionals. In G. M. Olson, S. Sheppard, & E. Soloway (Eds.), Empirical studies of programmers: Second workshop. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
62. Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275-310.
63. Herbsleb, J. D., Klein, H., Olson, G. M., Brunner, H., Olson, J. S., & Harding, J. (1995). Object-oriented analysis and design in software project teams. Human-Computer Interaction, 10(2 & 3), 249-292.
64. Hoc, J.-M., Green, T. R. G., Samurçay, R., & Gilmore, D.J. (Eds.). (1990). Psychology of programming. London: Academic.
65. Hubka, V., & Eder, W. E. (1987). A scientific approach to engineering design. Design Studies, 8(3), 123-137.
66. Hwang, T. S., & Ullman, D. G. (1990). The design capture system: Capturing back-of-the-envelope sketches. Journal of Engineering Design, 1, 339-353.
67. Jedlitschka, A., & Ciolkowski, M. (Eds.). (2004). The future of empirical studies in software engineering. 2nd International Workshop, WSESE 2003, Roman Castles, Italy, September 2003 Proceedings. Stuttgart, Germany: Frauenhofer IRB Verlag.
68. Jeffries, R., Turner, A. A., Polson, P. G., & Atwood, M. E. (1981). The processes involved in designing software. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 255-283). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
69. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Analogy and the exercise of creativity. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Kant, E. (1985). Understanding and automating algorithm design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-11, 1361-1374.
71. Kaplan, C. A., & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 374-419.
72. Karsenty, L. (1991). Design strategies in database conceptual modelling. In Y. Quéinnec & F. Daniellou (Eds.), 11th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association: Designing for everyone and everybody. London: Taylor & Francis.
73. Kavakli, M., Scrivener, S. A. R., & Ball, L. (1998). Structure in idea sketching behaviour. Design Studies, Special Issue on Sketching and drawing in design, 19(4), 485-517.
74. Kelley, D., & Hartfield, B. (1996). The designer's stance. In T. Winograd (Ed.), Bringing design to software (pp. 151-170). New York: ACM Press.
75. Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (2001). What have psychologists (and others) discovered about the process of scientific discovery? Current Directions in Psychological Science, June, 10(3), 75-79.
76. Kulkarni, D., & Simon, H. A. (1988). The processes of scientific discovery: The strategy of experimentation. Cognitive Science, 12, 139-175.
77. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10,000 words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
78. Lebahar, J. C. (1983). Le dessin d'architecte. Simulation graphique et réduction d'incertitude [Architectural drawing. Graphic simulation and uncertainty reduction). Roquevaire, France: Editions Parenthèses.
79. Leclercq, P. (1999). Interpretative tool for architectural sketches. 1st International Roundtable Conference on Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design. "Computational and cognitive approaches." Cambridge, MA: MIT.
80. Lee, A., & Pennington, N. (1994). The effects of paradigms on cognitive activities in design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 577-601.
81. Leplat, J. (1981). Task analysis and activity analysis in situations of field diagnosis. In J. Rasmussen & W. B. Rouse (Eds.), Human detection and diagnostic of system failures (pp. 289-300). New York: Plenum.
82. Logan, B., & Smithers, T. (1993). Creativity and design as exploration. In J. S. Gero & M. L. Maher (Eds.), Modeling creativity and knowledge-based design (pp. 193-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
83. Löwgren, J. (1995). Applying design methodology to software development. DIS'95, Designing Interactive Systems conference.
84. Malhotra, A., Thomas, J. C., Carroll, J. M., & Miller, L. A. (1980). Cognitive processes in design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, 119-140.
85. Martin, G., Détienne, F., & Lavigne, E. (2000, 17-20 juillet). Negotiation in collaborative assessment of design solutions: An empirical study on a Concurrent Engineering process. Paper presented at the International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, CE'2000, Lyon, France.
86. Martin, G., Détienne, F., & Lavigne, E. (2001, July 9-13). Analysing viewpoints in design through the argumentation process. INTERACT2001, Tokyo, Japan.
87. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Human nonadversary problem solving. In K. J. Gilhooly (Ed.), Human and machine problem solving (pp. 39-56). New York: Plenum.
88. McGown, A., Green, G., & Rodgers, P. A. (1998). Visible ideas: Information patterns of conceptual sketch activity. Design Studies, 19(4), 431-453.
89. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness. Activity theory and human-computer interaction (2nd printing 1997) (pp. 69-102). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
90. Navinchandra, D. (1991). Exploration and innovation in design. New-York: Springer.
91. Neiman, B., Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y.-L. (1999, August 23-25). Sketches and their functions in early design. A retrospective analysis of a pavilion house. 4th Design Thinking Research Symposium, DTRS99, Cambridge, MA.
92. Newell, A. (1969). Heuristic programming: Ill structured problems. In J. Aronovsky (Ed.), Progress in operations research. New York: Wiley.
93. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
94. Norman, D. A. (1993). Cognition in the head and in the world: An introduction to the special issue on situated action. Cognitive Science, 17(1), 1-6.
95. Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (Eds.). (1986). User centered system design. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
96. Ochanine, D. (1978). Le rôle des images opératives dans la régulation des activités de travail [The role of operative images in work activity regulation]. Psychologie et Education, 3, 63-79.
97. Olson, G. M., Olson, J. S., Carter, M. R., & Storrosten, M. (1992). Small group design meetings: An analysis of collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 347-374.
98. Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
99. Reitman, W. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelley & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgments and optimality (pp. 282-315). New York: Wiley.
100. Rittel, H. W. J. (1972/1984). Second-generation design methods (Interview with Donald P. Grant and Jean-Pierre Protzen). In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 317-327). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
101. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973/1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
102. Rodgers, P. A., Green, G., & McGown, A. (2000). Using concept sketches to track design progress. Design Studies, Special issue on Visual design representation, 21(5), 451-464.
103. Roozenburg, N. F. M., & Dorst, K. (1999). Describing design as a reflective practice: Observations on Schön's theory of practice. In E. Frankenberger, P. Badke-Schaub & H. Birkhofer (Eds.), Designers. The key to successful product development (pp. 29-41). London: Springer.
104. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
105. Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181-190.
106. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3-14.
107. Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135-156.
108. Scrivener, S. A. R. (1997). Drawing from visual thinking. TRACEY electronic journal, Issue "Thinking." Retrieved September 21, 2005, from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ac/tracey/thin/scriven.html
109. Simon, H. A. (1969/1999). The sciences of the artificial (3rd, rev. ed. 1996; Orig. ed. 1969; 2nd. rev. ed. 1981) (3 ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
110. Simon, H. A. (1971/1975). Style in design. In C. Eastman (Ed.), Spatial synthesis in computer-aided building design (pp. 287-309). London: Applied Science Publishers.
111. Simon, H. A. (1973/1984). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181-201.
112. Simon, H. A. (1979). Information processing models of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 363-396.
113. Simon, H. A. (1987/1995). Problem forming, problem finding, and problem solving in design. In A. Collen & W. W. Gasparski (Eds.), Design and systems: General applications of methodology (Vol. 3, pp. 245-257). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
114. Stacey, M., & Eckert, C. (2003). Against ambiguity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12(2), 153-183.
115. Star, S. L. (1988). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Heterogeneous problem-solving, boundary objects and distributed artificial intelligence. In M. Huhns & L. Gasser (Eds.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 3, pp. 37-54). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
116. Stefik, M. J. (1981a). Planning and meta-planning (MOLGEN: Part 2). Artificial Intelligence, 16, 141-170.
117. Stefik, M. J. (1981b). Planning with constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1). Artificial Intelligence, 16, 111-140.
118. Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams. An analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473-496.
119. Stolterman, E. (1991). How system designers think. About design and methods. Some reflections based on an interview study. e-SJIS.org, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 3, 137-150.
120. Suchman, L. A. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56-64.
121. Thomas, J. C. (1989). Problem solving by human-machine interaction. In K. J. Gilhooly (Ed.), Human and machine problem solving (pp. 317-362). New York: Plenum.
122. Thomas, J. C., & Carroll, J. M. (1979/1984). The psychological study of design. Design Studies, 1(1), 5-11. Also in N. Cross (Ed.) (1984), Developments in design methodology (pp. 221-235). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
123. Tseng, W., Scrivener, S. A. R., & Ball, L. (2002). The impact of functional knowledge on sketching. In E. Edmonds, L. Candy, T. Kavanagh & T. Hewett (Eds.), C&C'02. Creativity and Cognition (pp. 57-64).
124. Ullman, D. G., Dietterich, T. G., & Staufer, L. A. (1988). A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data. AI EDAM, 2, 33-52.
125. Valkenburg, R. (2001). Schön revised: Describing team designing with reflection-in-action. In P. Lloyd & H. Christiaans (Eds.), Proceedings of DTRS 5 (pp. 315-329). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press.
126. Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249-271.
127. Van der Lugt, R. (2000). Developing a graphic tool for creative problem solving in design groups. Design Studies, Special issue on Visual design representation, 21(5), 505-522.
128. Van der Lugt, R. (2002). Functions of sketching in design idea generation meetings. In E. Edmonds, L. Candy, T. Kavanagh & T. Hewett (Eds.), C&C'02. Creativity and Cognition.
129. Verstijnen, I. M., Heylighen, A., Wagemans, J., & Neuckermans, H. (2001, 17-19 July). Sketching, analogies, and creativity. On the shared research interests of psychologists and designers. 2nd International Conference on Visual and Spatial reasoning in Design, VR'01, Bellagio, Lake Como, Italy.
130. Verstijnen, I. M., Leeuwen, C. V., Goldschmidt, G., Hamel, R., & Hennessey, J. M. (1998). Sketching and creative discovery. Design Studies, Special issue on Sketching and drawing in design, 19(4), 519-546.
131. Visser, W (1987). Strategies in programming programmable controllers: A field study on a professional programmer. In G. M. Olson, S. Sheppard, & E. Soloway (Eds.), Empirical studies of programmers: Second workshop (pp. 217-230). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
132. Visser, W. (1988). Giving up a hierarchical plan in a design activity (Research report No. 814). Rocquencourt, France: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. Retrieved from htpp:// www.inria.fr/rrrt/rr-0814.html
133. Visser, W. (1990). More or less following a plan during design: Opportunistic deviations in specification. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. Special issue: What programmers know, 33, 247-278.
134. Visser, W. (1991). Evocation and elaboration of solutions: Different types of problem-solving actions. An empirical study on the design of an aerospace artifact. In T. Kohonen & F. Fogelman-Soulié (Eds.), Third COGNITIVA symposium. COGNITIVA 90. At the crossroads of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive science, and Neuroscience, Paris (pp. 689-696). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Also accessible at http://hal.inria.fr/ inria-00000165.
135. Visser, W. (1992). Design organization: There is more to expert knowledge than is dreamed of in the planner's philosophy (Research report No. 1765). Rocquencourt, France: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. Also in J. Perrin & D. Vinck (Eds.), The role of design in the shaping of technology. Proceedings from the COST A3 and COST A4 workshop, Lyon, France, 3 and 4 February 1995 (pp. 213-269). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.inria.fr/rrt/rr=1765.html
136. Visser, W. (1993). Collective design: A cognitive analysis of cooperation in practice. In N. F. M. Roozenburg (Ed.), Proceedings of ICED 93, 9th International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, pp. 385-392). Zürich: HEURISTA.
137. Visser, W. (1994). Organisation of design activities: opportunistic, with hierarchical episodes. Interacting With Computers, 6(3), 239-274 (Executive summary: 235-238).
138. Visser, W. (1995a). Reuse of knowledge: Empirical studies. In M. Veloso & A. Aamodt (Eds.), Case-based reasoning research and development (pp. 335-346). Berlin: Springer.
139. Visser, W. (1995b). Use of episodic knowledge and information in design problem solving. Design Studies, 16(2), 171-187.
140. Visser, W. (1996). Two functions of analogical reasoning in design: A cognitive-psychology approach. Design Studies, 17, 417-434.
141. Visser, W. (2004). Dynamic aspects of design cognition: Elements for a cognitive model of design (Research report No. 5144). Rocquencourt, France: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. Retrieved from http://www.inria.fr/rrrt/rr-5144.html
142. Visser, W., & Hoc, J.-M. (1990). Expert software design strategies. In J.-M. Hoc, T. Green, R. Samurçay & D. Gilmore (Eds.), Psychology of Programming (pp. 235-250). London: Academic.
143. Visser, W., & Trousse, B. (1993). Reuse of designs: Desperately seeking an interdisciplinary cognitive approach. In W. Visser (Ed.), Proceedings of the IJCAI Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Workshop "Reuse of designs: An interdisciplinary cognitive approach," Chambéry, France, August 29, 1993 (pp. 1-14). Rocquencourt, France: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique.
144. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1981). An introduction to radical constructivism. Retrieved September 21, 2005, from http://srri.nsm.umass.edu/ vonGlasersfeld/onlinePapers/html/082.html
145. Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem-solving skill in the social sciences. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 165-213). New York: Academic Press.
146. Whitefield, A. (1986). An analysis and comparison of knowledge use in designing with and without CAD. In A. Smith (Ed.), Knowledge engineering and computer modelling in CAD. Proceedings of CAD86. Seventh International Conference on the Computer as a Design Tool. London: Butterworths.
147. Winograd, T. (Ed.). (1996). Bringing design to software. New York: ACM Press.
148. Winograd, T. (1997). From computing machinery to interaction design. Retrieved September 21, 2005, from http://hci.stanford.edu/winograd/ acm97.html
149. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-218.