Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:49:20.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the Usability of Guidelines for the Design of Surprising Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

O. Raafat  and
N. Becattini
O. Raafat
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
N. Becattini*
Affiliation:
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
*
[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.

The paper introduces guidelines to support designers to generate ideas for the development of surprising products. The guidelines are structured coherently with the concept of sensory incongruity and the Function-Behaviour-Structure framework to create a mismatch between previously conceived expectations and product features. The usability of the interactive presentation is checked with an experiment that involved more than 30 subjects with a background in product design (mechanical engineers and industrial designers), which demonstrated to be capable of generating ideas using the same.

Keywords

product designidea generationsurpriseexpectationsuser-centred design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 931 - 940
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), 2022.

References

Becattini, N., Borgianni, Y., Cascini, G. and Rotini, F., 2015. Surprise as a situated phenomenon. In DS 80-11 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol 11: Human Behaviour in Design, Design Education; Milan, Italy, 27-30.07. 15 (pp. 071–080).Google Scholar
Becattini, N., Borgianni, Y., Cascini, G. and Rotini, F., 2017. Surprise and design creativity: investigating the drivers of unexpectedness. International journal of design creativity and innovation, 5(1-2), pp.29–47.Google Scholar
Becattini, N., Borgianni, Y., Cascini, G. and Rotini, F., 2020. Investigating users’ reactions to surprising products. Design Studies, 69, 100946.Google Scholar
Bell, S.S., Holbrook, M.B. and Solomon, M.R., 1991. Combining esthetic and social value to explain preferences for product styles with the incorporation of personality and ensemble effects. Journal of social behavior and personality, 6(6), p.243.Google Scholar
Besemer, S.P., 2000. Creative product analysis to foster innovation. Design Management Journal (Former Series), 11(4), pp.59–64.Google Scholar
Besemer, S.P. and O'Quin, K., 1999. Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), pp.287–296.Google Scholar
Bobrow, D.G., 1984. Qualitative reasoning about physical systems: an introduction. Artificial intelligence, 24(1-3), pp.1–5.Google Scholar
Borgianni, Y. and Hatcher, G., 2017. Similarities and differences between humorous and surprising products. In DS 87-8 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 8: Human Behaviour in Design, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017 (pp. 031–040).Google Scholar
Brown, D.C., 2012. Creativity, surprise & design: an introduction and investigation. In DS 73-1 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity Volume 1.Google Scholar
Buzan, T. and Buzan, B., 1994. The Mind Map Book. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Cazeaux, C., 2002. Metaphor and the categorization of the senses. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), pp.3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, I. and Shu, L.H., 2012. Investigating effects of oppositely related semantic stimuli on design concept creativity. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), pp.271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbaix, C. and Vanhamme, J., 2003. Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting surprise–a pilot investigation. Journal of economic psychology, 24(1), pp.99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U., 2000, June. Towards a situated function-behaviour-structure framework as the basis of a theory of designing. In Workshop on Development and Application of Design Theories in AI in Design Research, Artificial Intelligence in Design’00, Worcester, MA, pp. gk (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U., 2002, July. Towards agent-based product modelling. In Workshop on Knowledge Intensive CAD (pp. 3–17). Springer, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U., 2004. The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design studies, 25(4), pp.373–391.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Kannengiesser, U., 2012. Representational affordances in design, with examples from analogy making and optimization. Research in Engineering Design, 23(3), pp.235–249.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S. and Rosenman, M.A., 1990. A conceptual framework for knowledge-based design research at Sydney University's Design Computing Unit. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 5(2), pp.65–77.Google Scholar
Gero, J.S., Tham, K.W. and Lee, H.S., 1992. Behavior-a Link between Function and Structure in Design. IFIP Transactions B-applications in Technology, 4, pp.193–220.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J., 1977. The theory of affordances. Perceiving, Acting and Knowing. Eds. Robert Shaw and John Bransford.Google Scholar
Grace, K., Maher, M.L., Fisher, D. and Brady, K., 2015. Modeling expectation for evaluating surprise in design creativity. In Design Computing and Cognition'14 (pp. 189–206). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, S., 2017. Surprising longevity. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Product Design (pp. 298–315).Google Scholar
Han, J., Forbes, H. and Schaefer, D., 2019, July. An exploration of the relations between functionality, aesthetics and creativity in design. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 259–268). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. and Van Wieringen, P.C., 2003. ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British journal of Psychology, 94(1), pp.111–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludden, G.D., Kudrowitz, B.M., Schifferstein, H.N. and Hekkert, P., 2012a. Surprise and humor in product design. Humor, 25(3), pp.285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludden, G.D. and Schifferstein, H.N., 2007. Effects of visual-auditory incongruity on product expression and surprise. International Journal of Design, 1(3), pp.29–39.Google Scholar
Ludden, G.D., Schifferstein, H.N. and Hekkert, P., 2008. Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues, 24(2), pp.28–38.Google Scholar
Ludden, G.D., Schifferstein, H.N. and Hekkert, P., 2009. Visual–tactual incongruities in products as sources of surprise. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(1), pp.61–87.Google Scholar
Ludden, G.D., Schifferstein, H.N. and Hekkert, P., 2012b. Beyond surprise: A longitudinal study on the experience of visual-tactual incongruities in products. International journal of design, 6(1), pp.1–10.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L., 2010, August. Evaluating creativity in humans, computers, and collectively intelligent systems. In Proceedings of the 1st DESIRE Network Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design (pp. 22–28).Google Scholar
Maher, M.L., 2011. Design creativity research: From the individual to the crowd. In Design Creativity 2010 (pp. 41–47). Springer, London.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L., Brady, K. and Fisher, D.H., 2013. Computational models of surprise in evaluating creative design. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computational creativity (Vol. 147). Sydney: University of Sydney, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning.Google Scholar
Maher, M.L. and Fisher, D.H., 2012. Using AI to evaluate creative designs. In DS 73-1 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity Volume 1.Google Scholar
O'Quin, K. and Besemer, S.P., 2006. Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results-oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), pp.34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Ramírez, E.R., 2012. The role of surprise on persuasion in industrial design. International Journal of Product Development, 16(3-4), pp.263–283.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ramírez, E.R., 2014. Industrial design strategies for eliciting surprise. Design studies, 35(3), pp.273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisenzein, R., Horstmann, G. and Schützwohl, A., 2019. The cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise: A review of the evidence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(1), pp.50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, K.R., 2001. Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research, pp.92–120.Google Scholar
Schifferstein, H.N. and Desmet, P.M., 2008. Tools facilitating multi-sensory product design. The Design Journal, 11(2), pp.137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suls, J.M., 1972. A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues, 1, pp.81–100.Google Scholar