Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:01:48.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyzing opportunities for using interactive augmented prototyping in design practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2009

Jouke Verlinden  and
Imre Horváth
Jouke Verlinden
Affiliation:
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Imre Horváth
Affiliation:
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of tangible objects is paramount in industrial design. Throughout the design process physical prototypes are used to enable exploration, simulation, communication, and specification of designs. Although much is known about prototyping skills and technologies, the reasons why and how such models are employed in design practice are poorly understood. Advanced techniques and design media such as virtual and augmented prototyping are being introduced without insight as to their benefits. We believe that an augmented prototyping system, that is, employing augmented reality technology to combine physical and digital representations, could positively influence the design process. However, we lack knowledge on why and how it might facilitate design. This paper reports on case studies performed in different domains of industrial design. At each of three Dutch design offices, a project was followed with particular attention to physical prototyping and group activities. The projects encompassed information appliance design, automotive design, and interior design. Although the studies vary in many aspects (product domain, stakeholders, duration), the findings can be applied in conceptualizing advanced prototyping systems to support industrial design. Furthermore, the data reveal that the roles of a prototype in current practice are not necessarily utilitarian; for example, the prototype may serve as a conversation piece or as seducer. Based on so-called “hints,” bottlenecks and best practices concerning concept articulation are linked to usage scenarios for augmented tangible prototyping. The results point to modeling and communication scenarios. Detailed study of the cases indicates that communication activities, especially design reviews, would benefit most from interactive augmented prototyping.

Keywords

Augmented RealityCase StudyDesign ProcessPrototypingTangible User Interfaces
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 23 , Issue 3: Tangible Interaction for Design , August 2009 , pp. 289 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

REFERENCES

Bandyopadhyay, D., Raskar, R., & Fuchs, H. (2001). Dynamic Shader Lamps. Proc. Painting on Movable Objects Int. Symp. Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bimber, O. (2002). Interactive rendering for projection-based augmented reality displays. PhD Dissertation. Darmstadt University of Technology.Google Scholar
Bimber, O., & Raskar, R. (2005). Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds. Wellesley, MA: A.K. Peters, Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brereton, M., & McGarry, B. (2000). An observational study of how objects support engineering design thinking and communication: implications for the design of tangible media. Proc. CHI ’00, pp. 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broek, J.J., Sleijffers, W., Horváth, I., & Lennings, A.F. (2000). Using physical models in design. Proc. CAID/CD ’00, pp. 155–163.Google Scholar
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelbrektsson, P., & Söderman, M.P. (2004). The use and perception of methods and product representations in product development: a survey of Swedish industry. Journal of Engineering Design 15 (2), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geuer, A. (1996). Einsatzpotential des Rapid Prototyping in der Produktentwickelung. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-J, Do, E.Y.-L., & Gross, M.D. (2003). MouseHaus Table, a physical interface for urban design. Adjunct Proc. UIST ’03, pp. 41–42.Google Scholar
Horacek, H. (2003). From arguments to hints—a didactic perspective on deductive reasoning. Proc. 3rd Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument.Google Scholar
Huet, G., Culley, S.J., McMahon, C.A., & Fortin, C. (2007). Making sense of engineering design review activities. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 21 (3), 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.Google Scholar
Kim, C., Park, J., Yi, J., & Turk, M. (2005). Structured light based depth edge detection for object shape recovery. Proc. Workshop on Projector–Camera Systems.Google Scholar
Kohlas, J., Monney, P.A., Haenni, R., & Lehmann, N. (1995). Model-based diagnostics using hints. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 946, pp. 259–266. London: Springer.Google Scholar
McGarry, B. (2005). Things to think with: understanding interactions with artefacts in engineering design. PhD Thesis. University of Queensland, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering.Google Scholar
Mobach, M.P.A. (2007). Critical systems perspective on the design of organizational space systems. Research and Behavioural Science 24, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nam, T.-J., & Lee, W. (2003). Integrating hardware and software: augmented reality based prototyping method for digital products. Proc. CHI ’03, pp. 956–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauterberg, M., Fjeld, M., Krueger, H., Bichsel, M., Leonhardt, U., & Meier, M. (1998). BUILD-IT: a planning tool for construction and design [video]. Proc. CHI '98, pp. 177–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, B. (2002). Physically augmenting reality: human–computer interaction with projection-augmented models. PhD Thesis. University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
Tovey, M. (1997). Styling and design: intuition and analysis in industrial design. Design Studies 18, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsang, M., Fitzmaurice, G.F., Kurtenbach, G., Khan, A., & Buxton, B. (2002). Boom chameleon: simultaneous capture of 3D viewpoint, voice and gesture annotations on a spatially-aware display. Proc. UIST ’02, pp. 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underkoffler, J., & Ishii, H. (1999). Urp: a luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. Proc. CHI ’99, pp. 386–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinden, J., & Horvath, I. (2006). Framework for testing and validating interactive augmented prototyping as a design means in industrial practice. In Research in Interactive Design (Fischer, X., & Coutellier, D., Eds.), Vol. 2. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Verlinden, J., & Horvath, I. (2007). A critical systems position on augmented prototyping systems for industrial design. Proc. ASME-CIE ’07, Paper No. DETC2007-35642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verlinden, J., Horvath, I., & Edelenbos, E. (2006). Treatise of technologies for interactive augmented prototyping. Proc. Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering 2006, pp. 523–536.Google Scholar
Verlinden, J., Suurmeijer, C., & Horvath, I. (2007). Which prototype to augment? A retrospective case study on industrial and user interface design. Proc. HCI Int., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4563, pp. 574–583. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, M.Y. (2004). An examination of prototyping and design outcome. Proc. DETC ’04, Paper No. DETC2004-57552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. (1988). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar