Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T23:29:32.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The balance between a usable and emotional product design – a comparison of different methods for prioritising relevant influencing factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Judith van Remmen ,
Dennis Horber ,
Jonas Händel ,
Jörg Miehling  and
Sandro Wartzack
Judith van Remmen*
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
Dennis Horber
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
Jonas Händel
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
Jörg Miehling
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
Sandro Wartzack
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
*
[email protected]

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.

Designing an equally usable and emotionally appealing product remains a challenge for product developers, not least due to conflicting goals. Product developers need to constantly map the affective user requirements to the product, whereby the requirements for the emotional and usable product design often cannot be equally addressed. The systematic approach presented can help product developers in conflicting decision-making situations to represent these affective user requirements by selecting and prioritising context-relevant influencing factors using multi-criteria decision-making methods.

Keywords

user-centred designemotional engineeringuser experiencedecision making
Type
Industrial Design
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 2463 - 2472
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), 2024.

References

Brans, J.P., Vincke, P. and Mareschal, B. (1986), “How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brin, S. and Page, L. (1998), “The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine”, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 30 No. 1-7, pp. 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buker, T. (2023), “Ein Ansatz zur Reduktion produktinduzierter Nutzerstigmatisierung durch Förderung einer gleichermaßen gebrauchstauglichen wie emotionalen Produktgestalt”, FAU University Press, 2023.Google Scholar
Buker, T., Miehling, J. and Wartzack, S. (2022a), “Improving Products by Combining Usability and Emotions”, in Krause, (Ed.), Design Methodology for Future Products, Springer International Publishing, pp. 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buker, T., Schmitt, T., Miehling, J. and Wartzack, S. (2022b), “What's more important for product design – usability or emotionality? An examination of influencing factors”, Journal of Engineering Design, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Demirbilek, O. and Sener, B. (2003), “Product design, semantics and emotional response”, Ergonomics, Vol. 46 No. 13-14, pp. 1346–1360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmet, P. (2012), “Faces of Product Pleasure: 25 Positive Emotions in Human-Product Interactions”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
DIN EN ISO 9241-11 (2018), Ergonomics of human-system interaction: Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11:2018) No. EN ISO 9241-11:2018, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin.Google Scholar
DIN EN ISO 9241-210 (2010), Ergonomics of human-system interaction: Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems No. DIN EN ISO 9241-210, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin.Google Scholar
Govers, P.C.M. and Mugge, R. (2004), “"I love my jeep, because it's tough like me", the effect of product-personality congruence on product attachment”, in Kurtgözü, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Design and Emotion, METU, Ankara, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Gräßler, I., Thiele, H. and Scholle, P. (2019), “Methode zur Einflussanalyse in der SzenarioTechnik auf Basis gerichteter Graphen”, in Krause, D., Paetzold-Byhain, K. and Wartzack, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Symposium Design for X, 18-19 September 2019, Jesteburg, Germany, 2019, The Design Society.Google Scholar
Hassenzahl, M. (2018), “The Thing and I: Understanding the Relationship Between User and Product”, in Blythe, M. and Monk, A. (Eds.), Funology 2: From Usability to Enjoyment, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalid, H.M. (2006), “Embracing diversity in user needs for affective design”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 409–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurosu, M. and Kashimura, K. (1995), “Apparent usability vs. inherent usability”, in Miller, J., Katz, I., Mack, R. and Marks, L. (Eds.), Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '95, 07.05.1995 - 11.05.1995, Denver, Colorado, United States, ACM Press, New York, USA, pp. 292–293.Google Scholar
Mahlke, S. (2008), “User Experience of Interaction with Technical Systems”, 2008.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2004), “Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things”, in The Journal of American Culture, Vol. 27.Google Scholar
Quinn, J.M. and Tran, T.Q. (2010), “Attractive phones don't have to work better”, in Mynatt, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Hudson, S., Edwards, K. and Rodden, T. (Eds.), CHI 2010: Conference proceedings: the 28th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta Georgia USA, ACM, New York, pp. 353–362.Google Scholar
Rudolph, J. (2020), “Redefining User Needs”, in Bucchianico, Di, Shin, G., Shim, C.S., Fukuda, S., Montagna, S., and Carvalho, G., C. (Eds.), Advances in Industrial Design, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 309–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J.A. (2003), “Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion”, Psychological review, Vol. 110 No. 1, pp. 145–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saaty, R.W. (1987), “The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used”, Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 9 No. 3-5, pp. 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröppel, T., Miehling, J. and Wartzack, S. (2019), “Roadmap für die Entwicklung einer Methodik zur dualen Nutzerintegration”, in Binz, H., Bertsche, B., Bauer, W., Riedel, O., Spath, D. and Roth, D. (Eds.), SSP 2019, 16.05.2019, Stuttgart, Frauenhofer IAO, Stuttgart, pp. 293–302.Google Scholar
Shinohara, K. and Wobbrock, J.O. (2011), “In the shadow of misperception”, in Tan, D., Fitzpatrick, G., Gutwin, C., Begole, B. and Kellogg, W.A. (Eds.), CHI 2011: Conference proceedings; the 29th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver Canada, ACM, New York, pp. 705–714.Google Scholar
Sonderegger, A., Zbinden, G., Uebelbacher, A. and Sauer, J. (2012), “The influence of product aesthetics and usability over the course of time: a longitudinal field experiment”, Ergonomics, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 713–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taherdoost, H. and Madanchian, M. (2023), “Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts”, Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thüring, M. and Mahlke, S. (2007), “Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human–technology interaction”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. and Ikar, D. (2000), “What is beautiful is usable”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trathen, S. (2014), “Aesthetics Versus Usability: What Drives Our Product Choices?”, in Bohemia, E., Eger, A., Eggink, W., Kovačević, A., Parkinson, B. and Wits, W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands Institution of Engineering Designers; Design Society, Westbury, Wiltshire, Glasgow.Google Scholar
van Remmen, J.S., Horber, D., Miehling, J. and Wartzack, S. (2023), “The Balance Between a Usable and Emotional Product Design - A Concept for Prioritising Relevant Influencing Factors”, in Krause, D., Paetzold-Byhain, K. and Wartzack, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Symposium Design for X, 2023, The Design Society, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
VDI/VDID 2424 (2023), Industrial design: User-centered design in the product development process, Vol. 03.100.40, Beuth, Berlin.Google Scholar
Watson, R.H. (1978), “Interpretive structural modeling—A useful tool for technology assessment?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, D. (2016), Adaptive Verkürzung des Analytischen Hierarchie Prozesses zur rationalen Lösung multikriterieller Entscheidungsprobleme.Google Scholar
Zöller, S.G. and Wartzack, S. (2017), “Considering Users’ Emotions in Product Development Processes and the Need to Design for Attitudes”, in Fukuda, S. (Ed.), Emotional engineering, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar