Design language: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
See also:
See also:
* [[design-based research]] and [[design science]]
* [[design-based research]] and [[design science]]
* [[Developing design documents (3D) model]] (Boot et. al)


== Dimensions of Design Languages ==
== Dimensions of Design Languages ==

Revision as of 15:52, 7 November 2007

Draft

Definition

  • “Design languages, formal or intuitive, lie at the heart of all design and development processes and tools.” (Gibbons & Brewer, 2005:111).
  • A design language is “a tool that designers use to communicate designs, plans, and intentions to each other and to the users of their artifacts” (Botturi, 2006: 268)
  • “Notational systems, used in mature fields of study, are closely related to design languages. The future of a technological field depends on the ability to communicate ideas and changes with others in the field. Instructional technology is one field that can benefit from a notation system enabling designers to duplicate, execute, and communicate their ideas” (Waters & Gibbons 2004: 57).

See also:

Dimensions of Design Languages

Gibbons & Brewer (2005:115-118) distinguish the following dimensions along which design languages may vary:

  • Complexity
  • Precision
  • Formality & standardization
  • Personal vs. shared
  • Implicit vs. explicit
  • standardized vs. nonstandardized
  • computability

The current state in educational technology

“In the field of instructional software development, designers and producers lack a common, explicit notation system (Gibbons, Nelson & Richards, 2000; Waters & Gibbons, 2004). A notation system is an embedded element of a design language and captures abstract ideas to create transferable designs (Gibbons & Brewer, 2005). Part of the reason why designers and producers use different languages and notation systems, even though they are discussing the same instructional software, is simply that they are interested in different aspects of the product and thus need to describe different features and functionalities (Nelson, 2003). (Boot et al. 2007: 919).”

Examples

References

  • Eddy W. Boot, Jon Nelson, Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer, Andrew S. Gibbons (2007). Stratification, elaboration and formalisation of design documents: Effects on the production of instructional materials, British Journal of Educational Technology 38 (5), 917–933. [doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00679.x]
  • Botturi, L. (2006). E2ML. A visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technologies Research & Development, 54(3), 265-293. Abstract/PDF (Access restricted)
  • Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how designers design? A theory of design structure. TechTrends, 47(5), 22–27. PDF (Access restricted)
  • Gibbons, Andrew, S. and Erin K. Brewer, (2005) “Elementary principles of design languages and design notation systems for instructional design”. In J.M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, and D. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations to instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ, pp. 111-129.
  • Waters, Sandie, H. & Andrew, S. Gibbons (2004). Design languages, notation systems, and instructional technology: A case study: Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 57-69. PDF (Access restricted)