Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:38:27.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EMBEDDING PERCEPTION: HOW CHANGES IN MANUFACTURING APPROACH INFLUENCE INTERACTION-DESIGN PREFERENCES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Lewis Urquhart  and
Andrew Wodehouse
Lewis Urquhart*
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
Andrew Wodehouse
Affiliation:
University of Strathclyde
*
Urquhart, Lewis William Robert, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom, lewis.urquhart@strath.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper explores how small-but–detectable changes in manufacturing protocol can alter interaction-design preferences for users. Building on a number of previous studies by the authors, this paper focuses on the manufacture of a set of emotionally attuned pattern-based surface texture designs by means of computer-numerically controlled (CNC) machining. An experiment is subsequently reported that explores how the variations in toolpath rastering approach can affect the visual and tactile qualities of the textures in relation to interaction-design preferences, with a focus on psychological experience. The implications with respect to user-centred design (UX) and manufacturing protocol more broadly are subsequently discussed, with recommendations for a reconfiguration of computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) approaches to better encode the diverse preferences that users may have when considering how products are manufactured.

Keywords

Design engineeringEmotional designUser centred designCNC machiningTexturing
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 1615 - 1624
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Agost, M. J., & Vergara, M. (2014). Relationship between meanings, emotions, product preferences and personal values. Application to ceramic tile floorings. Applied ergonomics, 45(4), 1076–1086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Ashby, M. & Johnson, K. (2002). Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design. Oxford, UK: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
Bar, M., & Neta, M. (2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645–648. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertamini, M., Palumbo, L., Gheorghes, T. N., & Galatsidas, M. (2016). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity? British Journal of Psychology, 107(1), 154–178. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12132CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collier, G. L. (1996). Affective synesthesia: Extracting emotion space from simple perceptual stimuli. Motivation and Emotion, 20(1), 1–32. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02251005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forty, A. (1986). Objects of desire: design and society since 1750. UK: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Foster, D. H. (1984). Local and Global Computational Factors in Visual Pattern Recognition. In Figural Synthesis, edited by Dodwell, P. C. and Caelli, T., 83–115. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hann, M. (2012). Structure and form in design: Critical ideas for creative practice. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hann, M. (2013). Symbol, Pattern & Symmetry: the cultural significance of structure. London, UK: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. (2008). Lines: A Breif History. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2012). Toward an Ecology of Materials. Annual Review of Anthropology. 41, 427–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. (2015). The Life of Lines. UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2009). Meanings of materials through sensorial properties and manufacturing processes. Materials & Design, 30, 2778–2784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2010). A tool for meaning driven materials selection. Materials & Design, 31, 2932–2941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karana, E., Pedgley, O., & Rognoli, V. (2015). On Materials Experience. Design Issues, 31, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Lévy, P. (2013). Beyond Kansei engineering: The emancipation of Kansei design. International Journal of Design, 7(2), 83–94.Google Scholar
Miodownik, M. A. (2007). Toward designing new sensoaesthetic materials. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 79(10), 1635–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing Interactions. MA, USA: MIT PresGoogle Scholar
Niedderer, K. (2012). Exploring Elastic Movement as a Medium for Complex Emotional Expression in Silver Design. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 57–69.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43. http://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallasmaa, J. (2005/2012). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. NJ, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simondon, G. (2005). L'Individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d'information. France: MillonGoogle Scholar
Urquhart, L., & Wodehouse, A. (2018). The line model of form and emotion: perspectives on western design. Human Technology, 14 (1), 27–66. https://dx.doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.201805242751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urquhart, L., & Wodehouse, A. (2020). The Emotive and Semantic Content of Pattern: An Introductory Analysis. The Design Journal, 24, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urquhart, L., Wodehouse, A. (2023). The Creation of Emotionally Attuned Patterns Through an Analysis of Line. In: Gero, J.S. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition’22. DCC 2022. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20418-0_48Google Scholar
Wade, D. (1982). Geometric Patterns and Borders. USA: Wildwood House Ltd.Google Scholar
Wang, K. (2019). Advanced Manufacturing and Automation. NY, USA: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washburn, D. K., & Crowe, D. S. (1988). Symmetries of Culture. WA, USA: University of Washington PressGoogle Scholar