No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reviving Everyday Products by Understanding the User Behaviour of Everyday Designing
Part of:
User-Centred Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
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.
Everyday Designing (ED) involves the re-use of existing products for new purposes. In order to gain an understanding of how people perceive and apply product elements as cues for everyday designing and level of appropriation when reusing product for the new purpose, an experiment was conducted. In the experiment, four everyday products were provided for repurpose. The 40 repurposed products from 10 participants were analyzed with the interviews and questionnaire. ED products were reborn with various purposes beyond the original functions of the products. The results indicate that there is a difference between perceived product elements as usual and product elements as cues for everyday designing. Materials and manipulability plays an important role in ED although form-centred perceptions were mainly observed. It seems that the product elements as ED cue and the prior experience of the product seem to affect the level of the product appropriation. Although this study has an exploratory character, it could provide design practitioners with a better understanding of users’ ED behaviour, which could contribute to discovering new insight of product and product sustainability.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3979 - 3988
- Creative Commons
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) 2019
References
Blevis, E. (2007), “Sustainable Interaction Design : Invention & Disposal, Renewal & Reuse”, CHI, pp. 503–512.Google Scholar
van Boeijen, A. (2015), Crossing Cultural Chasms towards a Culture-Conscious Approach to Design, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
Broadbridge, A. and Marshall, J. (1995), “Consumer complaint behaviour: the case of electrical goods”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 8–18.Google Scholar
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2004), “Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design”, Design Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 547–577.10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001Google Scholar
Dix, A. (2007), “Designing for Appropriation”, Proceedings of the 21st BCS HCI Group Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 27–30.Google Scholar
Grèzes, J. and Decety, J. (2002), “Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study”, Neuropsychologia, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 212–222.Google Scholar
Janlert, L.-E. and Stolterman, E. (1997), “The character of things”, Design Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 297–314.Google Scholar
Kanis, H., Rooden, M.J. and Green, W.S. (2000), “Usecues in the Delft Design Course”, Contemporary Ergonomics, pp. 365–369.Google Scholar
Kim, C. and Christiaans, H. (2012), “Soft’ usability problems with consumer electronics: The interaction between user characteristics and usability”, Journal of Design Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 223–238.10.1504/JDR.2012.047938Google Scholar
Kim, H. and Lee, W. (2014), “Everyday design as a design resource”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Ludden, G.D.S., Hendrik, N.J. and Hekkert, P. (2008), “Surprise As a Design Strategy”, Design Issues, Vol. 24 No. 2.10.1162/desi.2008.24.2.28Google Scholar
Maestri, L. and Wakkary, R. (2011), “Understanding repair as a creative process of everyday design”, ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition, pp. 81–90.10.1145/2069618.2069633Google Scholar
Maestri, L.A. (2007), A Study of Everyday Repair : Informing Interaction Design By, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Ram, S. and Jung, H.S. (1991), “‘Forced’ adoption of innovations in organizations: Consequences and implications”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117–126.Google Scholar
Rosner, D. and Bean, J. (2009), “Learning from IKEA hacking”, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 09, Vol. 09, p. 419.Google Scholar
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Desmet, P.M.A. (2008), “Tools facilitating multi-sensory product design”, Design Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 137–158.Google Scholar
Shieh, M., Hsu, F. and Tian, J. (2016), “A Study of Product Form Design Using the Theory of Archetypes”, UAHCI, Vol. 9737, pp. 327–339.Google Scholar
Suri, J.F. and IDEO (2005), Thoughtless Acts?: Observations on Intuitive Design, Chronicle Books, Available at: https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=r8gIHFia3iYC.Google Scholar
Wakkary, R. and Tanenbaum, K. (2009), “A Sustainable Identity : The Creativity of an Everyday Designer”, CHI, pp. 365–374.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access