Cover not available
Article published In:
Information Design Journal
Vol. 26:1 (2021) ► pp.33–52

Understanding the impact of supporting conceptual information design

Structure, externalizations and flexibility matter

ORCID logo | Princeton University
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.
Keywords: information design, conceptual design, structure, flexibility, externalizations
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
Published online: 26 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.20015.fon
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baer, K. 2008. Information design workbook: graphic approaches, solutions, and inspiration + 30 case studies. Beverly (Mass): Rockport.Google Scholar
Barthes, R. 1991. Responsibility of forms: critical essays on music, art, and representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.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
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
Black, A., Luna, P., Lund, O. & Walker, S. eds., 2017. Information design: research and practice. Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Cross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dorst, K. 1996. Analysing design activity. England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Frascara, J. ed., 2015. Information design as principled action: Making information accessible, relevant, understandable, and usable. Common Ground Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. 1999. Design: cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), pp.21–29. DOI logoGoogle 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
Heller, S. & Landers, R. 2014. Infographic designers’ sketchbooks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Lawson, B. 2006. How Designers Think – The Design Process Demystified. University Press, Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle 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
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis, SAGE.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
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
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
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
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roam, D. 2008. The back of the napkin: solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. New York: Portfolio.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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar