What is in the Cards: Exploring Uses, Patterns, and Trends in Design Cards

Title of the Paper

What is in the Cards: Exploring Uses, Patterns, and Trends in Design Cards

Paper Information

• Subject Area: Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Design Methods
• Keywords: Design Cards, Card-Based Design Tools, Design Process, Design Knowledge, Creativity Support, Design Support Tools, Methodology Research, Design Patterns, Design Education, Design Inspiration

Research Background and Issues

• Identified Problems or Challenges:

  1. Although design cards are increasingly diverse in functionality and content as tools supporting design practices, challenges remain in their practical application.
  2. Designers have limited understanding of design cards, which restricts their widespread adoption.
  3. Issues such as lack of perceived value, high acquisition costs, and insufficient workplace support hinder the effective use of design cards.

• Significance: Design cards address diverse design needs, supporting creativity, team collaboration, and the dissemination of domain knowledge. They also facilitate the translation of academic research into practice. Exploring the functions and usage of design cards in depth can enhance their practicality and acceptance.

• Research Motivation and Related Work:

  1. Some prior studies (e.g., Wölfel and Merritt, 2013; Roy and Warren, 2019) have attempted to classify design cards, but their scope is limited and fails to fully capture the embedded knowledge content.
  2. This paper aims to bridge the gap between existing classifications and practical contexts by systematically analyzing the types of design knowledge embedded in cards and their applicable stages, while also exploring emerging trends.

Solution

• Methods and Research Framework:

  1. Conducted a survey with 103 design practitioners in Taiwan to understand the usage and barriers of design cards.
  2. Performed content analysis and classification of 161 sets of design card tools developed between 1952 and 2020.
  3. Collaborated with design experts in workshops to generate initial classification codes (including design stage divisions based on the Double Diamond model) and refined them iteratively.

• Innovations:

  1. Analyzed cards using a dual-dimensional framework of design knowledge "content" (what) and "applicable stages" (when).
  2. Proposed a more detailed new classification system, including seven types of embedded knowledge and six design stages.
  3. Expanded the scope of research to include a historical analysis of a large number of design cards, examining their content and trend evolution.

• Key Techniques and Implementation Steps:

  • Collected and reviewed the content and background of 161 sets of design cards, determining initial classification dimensions through expert discussions.
  • Categorized design cards into seven types of embedded knowledge and redefined six stages of the design process (from research to evaluation).

Research Findings

• Specific Outcomes:

  1. Classification of Embedded Knowledge in Design Cards:
     • Creative Inspiration
     • Human Insights
     • Material & Domain Knowledge
     • Methods & Tooling
     • Problem Definition
     • Team Building
     • Values in Practice
  2. Classification of Applicable Design Stages:
     • Research
     • Ideation
     • Prototyping
     • Implementation
     • Evaluation
     • Meta-design
  3. Trend analysis covering 1952 to 2020, showing a shift in card design content from creativity to deeper dimensions such as specific domains and values.

• Advantages:

  • The classification surpasses previous studies in content granularity and stage specificity.
  • Addresses gaps in design tools for later stages (e.g., implementation, evaluation).
  • Highlights the importance of cards in design education.

• Experimental or Evaluation Results:

  1. Over 70% of card tools were developed in the past decade, reflecting the sustained growth in innovation and demand for design cards.
  2. Data shows that the majority of cards (81%) focus on the ideation stage, while cards supporting implementation and evaluation stages account for less than 2%.

• Limitations and Future Research Directions:

  1. Limitations of survey data: confined to Taiwan, requiring future studies to validate generalizability.
  2. Coverage issues: did not include all possible design cards (especially unpublished or lost resources).
  3. Future research could explore more application support, particularly developing tools for later design stages, and investigate how customization of cards can enhance adaptability.

Through a systematic review and analysis of design cards, this paper not only reveals the current state and shortcomings of design cards but also provides clear future research directions and improvement strategies to enhance their practicality.