Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:13:47.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method to explore strategies to communicate user experience through storyboards: an automotive design case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2022

Jacob Rodda Open the ORCID record for Jacob Rodda [Opens in a new window] ,
Charlie Ranscombe  and
Blair Kuys
Jacob Rodda*
Affiliation:
Centre for Design Innovation, School of Design, Faculty of Health, Arts & Design, Swinburne University, 1 John St, Hawthorn, VIC 3121, Australia
Charlie Ranscombe
Affiliation:
Centre for Design Innovation, School of Design, Faculty of Health, Arts & Design, Swinburne University, 1 John St, Hawthorn, VIC 3121, Australia
Blair Kuys
Affiliation:
Centre for Design Innovation, School of Design, Faculty of Health, Arts & Design, Swinburne University, 1 John St, Hawthorn, VIC 3121, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Jacob Rodda, E-mail: jrodda@swin.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An engaging user experience is an increasingly important design characteristic in the automotive industry. Compared with physical design characteristics (form, material, mechanical design, appearance), automotive designers find UX (user experience) challenging to communicate during the early stages of the design process without investing in expensive prototypes and/or models. This paper presents the development of a method to explore strategies to communicate UX through the medium of storyboards early in the design process. The method enables links to be drawn between the design tool of storyboarding and the attributes of theoretical UX outlined in theoretical frameworks. By applying this method in a case study of a storyboard created by Ford Design Asia Pacific, we identify how the theoretical attributes of UX are manifested, and we also highlight certain attributes of UX that are difficult to convey during the early phases of automotive design. This research thus contributes a method relevant to practice that assists with effectively communicating UX in early-stage automotive design where higher fidelity prototyping is unviable. Additionally, it enables the study of storyboard outcomes in the design process to assess the degree to which the intended UX is communicated. In doing so, it contributes a first step toward formalizing the analysis of UX in concept design, which in turn opens up this highly subjective area to further research in the automated analysis of conceptual design and even generative design.

Keywords

Conceptual designdesign methodsproduct developmentstoryboarduser experience
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 36 , 2022 , e16
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, M (2017) Visual Materials, Analysis Of. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Aromaa, S and Väänänen, K (2016) Suitability of virtual prototypes to support human factors/ergonomics evaluation during the design. Applied Ergonomics 56, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atasoy, B and Martens, J-B (2011) STORIFY: a tool to assist design teams in envisioning and discussing user experience. Paper presented at the CHI ‘11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atasoy, B and Martens, J-B (2016) STORYPLY: designing for user experiences using storycraft. In Markopoulos, P Martens, J-B Malins, J Coninx, K and Liapis, A (eds), Collaboration in Creative Design: Methods and Tools. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 181–210.Google Scholar
Bevan, N (2009) What is the difference between the purpose of usability and user experience evaluation methods? UXEM'09 Workshop, INTERACT 2009, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
Biswas, P, Orero, P and Sezgin, TM (2019) Special issue on intelligent interaction design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 33, 369–369. doi: 10.1017/S0890060419000404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnici, A, Akman, A, Calleja, G, Camilleri, KP, Fehling, P, Ferreira, A and Rosin, PL (2019) Sketch-based interaction and modeling: where do we stand? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 33, 370–388. doi: 10.1017/S0890060419000349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burd, B, Barker, L, Divitini, M, Fermin Perez, FA, Russell, I, Siever, B and Tudor, N (2017) Courses, Content, and Tools for Internet of Things in Computer Science Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buskermolen, DO, Terken, J, Eggen, B and Loenen, Ev 2015.Effect of visual quality and animation of concept representations on users’ responses to early design concepts: A study on the adaptive patient room concept. International Journal of Design 9, 91–106.Google Scholar
Buxton, B (2007) Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Camere, S, Schifferstein, R and Bordegoni, M (2015) The experience map. A tool to support experience-driven multi-sensory design. In Proceedings of DesForm 2015, Milano, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Camere, S, Schifferstein, HNJ and Bordegoni, M (2018).From Abstract to Tangible: Supporting the Materialization of Experiential Visions with the Experience Map.International Journal of Design 12, 51–73.Google Scholar
Corbin, J, Strauss, A and Strauss, AL (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Cruz Mendoza, R, Bianchi-Berthouze, N, Romero, P and Lavín, GC (2015) A classification of user experience frameworks for movement-based interaction design. The Design Journal 18, 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deininger, M, Daly, S, Lee, JC, Seifert, C and Sienko, K (2019) Prototyping for context: exploring stakeholder feedback based on prototype type, stakeholder group and question type. Research in Engineering Design. doi:10.1007/s00163-019-00317-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmet, P (2003) Measuring emotion: development and application of an instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In Blythe, MA, Overbeeke, K, Monk, AF and Wright, PC (eds), Funology. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmet, P and Hekkert, P (2007) Framework of Product Experience. International Journal of Design 1, 56–77.Google Scholar
Eckoldt, K, Hassenzahl, M, Laschke, M and Knobel, M (2013) Alternatives: exploring the car's design space from an experience-oriented perspective. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forlizzi, J and Battarbee, K (2004) Understanding experience in interactive systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, W and Hardcastle, JM (2000) Textiles in Automotive Engineering. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.Google Scholar
Garcia, ACB, Carretti, CE, Ferraz, IN and Bentes, C (2002) Sharing design perspectives through storytelling. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 16, 229–241. doi:10.1017/S0890060402163086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomin, J (2014) What is human centred design? The Design Journal 17, 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gkouskos, D, Normark, CJ and Lundgren, S (2014) What drivers really want: investigating dimensions in automobile user needs. International Journal of Design 8, 59–71.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, I, Val, E, Justel, D, Iriarte, I and Lasa, G (2018) Aesthetic interaction consistency: exploring the foundation for static and dynamic aesthetics. Paper presented at the DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haesen, M, Meskens, J, Luyten, K and Coninx, K (2009) Supporting multidisciplinary teams and early design stages using storyboards. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, T and Whitehead, D (2013) Analysing Data in Qualitative Research. Marrickville, Sydney: Elsevier-Mosby.Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M (2007) The hedonic/pragmatic model of user experience. In Law, E, Vermeeren, A, Hassenzahl, M and Blythe, M (eds), Towards a UX Manifesto. Lancaster: COST.Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M (2010) Experience design: technology for all the right reasons. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 3, 1–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jetter, C and Gerken, J (2007) A simplified model of user experience for practical application. Paper presented at the NordiCHI 2006, Oslo: The 2nd COST294-MAUSE International Open Workshop “User eXperience-Towards a unified view”.Google Scholar
Jordan, PW (2000) Designing Pleasurable Products: An Introduction to the New Human Factors. London: Taylor Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körber, M, Eichinger, A, Bengler, K and Olaverri-Monreal, C (2013) User experience evaluation in an automotive context. Paper presented at the 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, J and Kudrowitz, B (2018) Good idea! Or, good presentation? Examining the effect of presentation on perceived quality of concepts. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 32, 380–389. doi:10.1017/S0890060418000100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lallemand, C, Gronier, G and Koenig, V (2015) User experience: a concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Computers in Human Behavior 43, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, EL-C, Hassenzahl, M, Karapanos, E, Obrist, M and Roto, V (2014) Tracing links between UX frameworks and design practices: dual carriageway. Paper presented at the Proceedings of HCI Korea.Google Scholar
Lawson, G, Salanitri, D and Waterfield, B (2016) Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer. Applied Ergonomics 53, 323–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenz, E, Diefenbach, S and Hassenzahl, M (2013 a) Exploring relationships between interaction attributes and experience. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, E, Diefenbach, S and Hassenzahl, M (2013 b) An interaction vocabulary: describing the how of interaction. Paper presented at the CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, E, Diefenbach, S and Hassenzahl, M (2014) Aesthetics of interaction: a literature synthesis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, C-C, Lee, Y-H, Ho, C-H and Chen, K-H (2019) Investigating vehicle interior designs using models that evaluate user sensory experience and perceived value. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 1–20. doi:10.1017/S0890060419000246Google Scholar
Marquardt, N and Greenberg, S (2015) Sketching user experiences: the hands-on course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J (2017) Qualitative Researching. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J, Wright, P and Blythe, M (2005) User experience and the idea of design in HCI. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNely, BJ (2012) Shaping organizational image-power through images: case histories of Instagram. Paper presented at the 2012 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, C, Bianchi-Berthouze, N, Romero, P and Casillas Lavin, GV (2015) A classification of user experience frameworks for movement-based interaction design. The Design Journal 18. doi:10.1080/14606925.2015.1059606Google Scholar
Michailidou, I, Haid, C, Gebauer, C and Lindemann, U (2015) The two-stage storyboarding experience design method. Paper presented at the 2015 IASDR Conference: Interplay.Google Scholar
Mihas, P (2019) Qualitative Data Analysis. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagamachi, M (1999) Kansei engineering: the implication and applications to product development. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.Google Scholar
Norman, D (2004) Emotional Design Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ranscombe, Charlie, Rodda, Jacob and Johnson, Mark (2019) Visualising User Experiences: Analysing Embodiment of UX in Autonomous Vehicle Concepts. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design 1, 4039–4048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.411Google Scholar
Ray, S and Choi, YM (2017) Employing design representations for user-feedback in the product design lifecycle. Paper presented at the DS 87-4 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vol 4: Design Methods and Tools, Vancouver, Canada, 21–25 August 2017.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J (2015) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Saunders, MN, Seepersad, CC and Hölttä-Otto, K (2011) The characteristics of innovative, mechanical products. Journal of Mechanical Design 133, 021009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syed, M and Nelson, SC (2015) Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerging Adulthood 3, 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, J, Gencel, C and Rönkkö, K (2013).A Framework for Software Usability and User Experience Measurement in Mobile Industry.Joint Conference of the 23rd International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 8th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, pp. 156–164. doi: 10.1109/IWSM-Mensura.2013.31Google Scholar
Tovey, M, Porter, S and Newman, R (2003) Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies 24, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truong, KN, Hayes, GR and Abowd, GD (2006) Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Lelie, C (2006) The value of storyboards in the product design process. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 10, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Saucken, C, Michailidou, I and Lindemann, U (2013) How to Design Experiences: Macro UX versus Micro UX Approach. In Marcus, A (ed.), Design, User Experience, and Usability. Web, Mobile, and Product Design. DUXU 2013. Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Zhang, C, López-Parra, M, Chen, J and Tian, L (2019) CoStorm: a term map system to aid in a collaborative ideation process. AI EDAM 33, 247–258.Google Scholar