頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 構想發展階段中的設計思考活動之研究=The Study on the Activity of Design Thinking in the Step of Concept Development |
---|---|
作 者 | 盧麗淑; 管倖生; | 書刊名 | 商業設計學報 |
卷 期 | 9 民94.11 |
頁 次 | 頁209-222 |
分類號 | 962 |
關鍵詞 | 構想發展; 設計思考; 視覺修辭; 口語分析; Concept development; Design thinking; Visual rhetorical; Protocol analysis; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本研究試圖從修辭學觀點,探討平面設計者在構想發展的思考與視覺修辭之關係。主要以口語分析方法,蒐集設計者構想發展時思考的口語資料,進行編碼及內容分析。本研究提出構想發展之口語資料編碼系統,大致分成兩個階段,第一階段,分成三組活動基模,即檢視活動(Evaluation)、繪圖活動(Drawing)、思考活動(Thinking)。第二階段,將思考活動中的視覺修辭予以分類,共可分成比喻(Metaphor)、比擬(Analogy)、象徵(Symbolize)、借代(Lend)、示現(Notify)與描摹(Imitate)等六種修辭技巧。本研究以和平海報創作為設計主題,研究結果顯示:(1)可從思考活動中引用視覺修辭的概念修辭面向,進行追蹤與探討構想階段中的思考模式。(2)活動基礎模式方面,受測者A主要是以思考活動與繪圖活動為主,其次為檢視活動;受測者B則主要是以思考活動為主,依序為檢視活動、與繪圖活動。(3)思考活動中概念修辭之引用,共通性在於大致均以象徵、比喻為主要概念修辭,描摹之概念修辭均未引用。差異性在於受測者A在示現與描摹等概念修辭均無引用,受測者B則在借代與描摹等概念修辭均無引用。 |
英文摘要 | This research endeavors to discover the process of how designers visualize their inspiration and concept through the analysis of visual rhetoric. The central methods adapted here were protocol analysis, and gathering their verbal data while designing in order for decoding. In this research, the verbal data of coding system was generally divided into two categories: first, was a three-set activity-based model being evaluation, drawing, and thinking; second, the divisions of the designers' processing of visualization and conceptualization. The latter was six basic rhetoric skills: metaphor, analogy, symbolization, lending, notification and imitation. The task for the designers in this research was a poster designed n the main idea. "peace." The research results revealed the follows (1) it is possible to decode the rhetoric skills the designers use to further analyze the structure of their design thinking and conceptualization. (2) Upon activity-based model, the a-subject mainly participate in tests of thinking, drawing, and evaluation, while the B-subject did so in the order of thinking, evaluation, and drawing. (3) As for the analysis of the use of rhetoric skills, symbolization and analogy were obviously adapted where as imitation is not intended. Another difference showed the A-subject preferred rhetoric skills such as notification and imitation less while the B-subject adapted few skills of leading and notification. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。