Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:50:29.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF USER INVOLVEMENT RESEARCH: A CONTRIBUTION TO USER-CENTRED DESIGN THEORY

Part of: Design Theory and Research Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

A. Wallisch  and
K. Paetzold
A. Wallisch*
Affiliation:
Bundeswehr University Munich, Germany
K. Paetzold
Affiliation:
Bundeswehr University Munich, Germany
*
*anne.wallisch@unibw.de

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 concept of involving user perspectives into product development processes has its roots in the early 1960s. Although this seems to be following a quite long tradition, as a design research field, it did not improve substantially and, so far, no consistent perception or even definition of the concept can be found. The paper points out where design research on user involvement still lacks methodological and theoretical foundation and makes the attempt of providing impulses for systemizing the existing body of knowledge within the Design Society as a research community.

Keywords

user-centred designdesign methodologydesign sciencedesign researchdesign theory
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 71 - 80
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Amman, E.M. (2009), “The Knowledge Cube and Knowledge Conversions”, World Congress on Engineering 2009 Vol I, WCE 2009, 1-3 July 2009, London, U.K., pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Ariza, N. and Maya, J. (2014), “Proposal to identify the essential elements to construct a user experience model with the product using the thematic analysis technique”, 13th International Design Conference (DESIGN 2014), Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
Baxter, G.D. et al. (2005), “Using cognitive task analysis to facilitate the integration of decision support systems into the neonatal intensive care unit”, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 243–257.10.1016/j.artmed.2005.01.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayazit, N. (2004), “Investigating design: A review of forty years of design research”, Design Issues, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 16–29.10.1162/074793604772933739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, London.10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booher, H.R. and Minninger, J. (2003), “Human systems integration in army systems acquisition”, In: Booher, H.R. (Ed.), Handbook of human systems integration, John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 663–698.10.1002/0471721174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (1982), “Designerly ways of knowing”, Design Studies, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 221–227.10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conell, B.R. et al. (1997), The principles of universal design. [online] NC State University. The Center for Universal Design. Available at: https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm (28.12.2019).Google Scholar
Finder, Design Methods (2019), Design Methods FTW! [online] Design Methods Finder. Available at: https://designmethodsfinder.com (14.10.2019).Google Scholar
Eigner, M., Dickopf, T. and Huwig, C. (2016), “An interdisciplinary model-based design approach for developing cybertronic systems”, International Design Conference (DESIGN 2016), May 16-19, 2016, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 1647–1656.Google Scholar
Fitts, P.M. (1951), “Engineering Psychology and Equipment Design”, In, Stevens, S.S. (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology, John Wiley, New York, pp. 1287–1340.Google Scholar
Garrett, J.J. (2011), The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond, Second Edition, New Riders, Pearson Education, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C. and Stacey, M. (2017), “What do we need to say about a design method?”, 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vancouver, Canada, 21-25 August 2017, pp. 102–110.Google Scholar
Graziosi, S. et al. (2013), “A method for capturing and translating qualitative user experience into design specifications: the haptic feedback of appliance interfaces”, 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), 19-22 August 2013, Seoul, Korea, pp. 427–436.Google Scholar
Gual, J., Puyuelo, M. and Lloveras, J. (2011), “Universal design and visual impairment: Tactile products for heritage access”, International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED11), 15-18 August 2011, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 70–80.Google Scholar
Herriott, R., (2014), “Delimiting Inclusive Design”, 13th International Design Conference (DESIGN 2014), Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 2051–2060.Google Scholar
Hu, F. et al. (2013), “Semiotic Basis for designing Product Architecture”, International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED13, 19-22 August 2013, Seoul, Korea, pp. 159–168.Google Scholar
Isa, S.S. and Liem, A. (2015), “A comparative study on the role of models and prototypes in human-centered design versus design-driven innovation approaches”, International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED2015, 27-30 July 2015, Politecnico di Milano, Italy, pp. 203–214.Google Scholar
ISO (2019), “ISO 9241-210:2019: Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems”, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.Google Scholar
Jimenez-Narvaez, L.M. et al. (2015), “Harnessing social media and cloud-computing technologies for co-design in open collaborative innovation: The case of 24 hours of innovation”, 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), 27-39 July 2015, Milan, Italy, pp. 207–216.Google Scholar
Jordan, P.W. (2000), Designing Pleasurable Products, Taylor & Francis, London.10.4324/9780203305683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, T. and Kelley, D. (2013), Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential within Us All, HarperCollins UK, London.Google Scholar
Moon, Ki, S. (2009), “Universal product platform and family design for uncertain market”, 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, 24.-27 August 2009, Palo Alto, CA, USA, pp. 59–70.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.S., Lim, J.S. and Park, J.A. (2009), “Affordance Feature Reasoning: a Case Study for Human-Product Interaction”, 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, 24-27 August 2009, Palo Alto, CA, USA, pp. 429–440.Google Scholar
Law, E. et al. (2007), Towards a UX Manifesto, COST294-MAUSE affiliated workshop, Lancaster, UK.10.14236/ewic/HCI2007.95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. and Coughlin, J.F. (2015), “User involvement in product design practices: A case study on technologies for older adults”, 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), 27-39 July 2015, Milan, Italy, pp. 33–44.Google Scholar
Leveson, N.G. and Turner, C.S. (1993), “An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents”, IEEE Computer, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 18–41.10.1109/MC.1993.274940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S. and Cormican, K. (2012), “Towards empathic design in the Irish medical device industry”, 12th International Design Conference (Design 2012), Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 1039–1048.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. (1969), “Man-Computer interaction: A challenge for human factors research”, IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 164–180.10.1109/TMMS.1969.299924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability engineering, AP Professional Press, Chestnut Hill.10.1016/B978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, A.D. (2006), Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, Basis Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Olson, T.O. and Welo, O. (2011), “Maximizing Product Innovation through Adaptive Application of User-Centered Methods for Defining Customer Value”, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 172–192. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242011000400013Google Scholar
Ortíz Nicolás, J.C., Aurisicchio, M. and Desmet, P.M.A. (2013), “Differentiating positive emotions elicited by products: an exploration of perceived differences between 25 positive emotions by users and designers”, 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), 19-22 August 2013, Seoul, Korea, pp. 247–256.Google Scholar
Ottosson, S. and Sterten, J. (2014), “User participation is not always an easy thing when developing an innovation”, 13th International Design Conference (DESIGN 2014), Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 579–588.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. et al. (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer Verlag, London.10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155–169.10.1007/BF01405730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, F.E., Baxter, G.D. and Churchill, E.F. (2014), Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems: What System Designers Need to Know about People, Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781447151340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rügg-Stürm, J. (2005), The New St. Gallen Management Model: Basic Categories of an Approach to Integrated Management, Palgrave Macmillan, UK, https:/doi.org/10.1057/9780230505162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, Co-Design, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
Seshadri, P. and Reid, T. (2015), “Novice Engineers’ predisposition to compassionate design”, 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), 27-39 July 2015, Milan, Italy, pp. 143–152.Google Scholar
Shao, D., Nagai, Y. and Sosa, R. (2019), “Design for sustainability and innovation: a kansei engineering evaluation of the adaptive reuse of old buildings”, International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), 5-8 August 2019, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 3221–3230.10.1017/dsi.2019.329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, R. et al. (2018), “Robot ergonomics: towards human-centred and robot-inclusive design”, 15th International Design Conference (Design 2018), Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 2323–2334.10.21278/idc.2018.0137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stravrakos, K.S. and Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2013), “Investigating the role of aesthetics for interaction design”, 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), 19-22 August 2013, Seoul, Korea, pp. 557–566.Google Scholar
Wallisch, A. et al. (2019), “Overcoming fuzzy design practice: revealing potentials of user-centered design research and methodological concepts related to user involvement”, IEEE International Conference on Engineering, technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 17-19 June 2019, Valbonne Sophia-Antipolis, France. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2019.8792591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, J., Paetzold, K. and Nitsch, V. (2015), “Description of a competence orined approach for designing technical assistance systems”, 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15), 27-39 July 2015, Milan, Italy, pp. 57–64.Google Scholar
Watanabe, K. et al. (2013), “A unified approach for systematic and participatory design”, 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), 19-22 August 2013, Seoul, Korea, pp. 191–200.Google Scholar
Zogaj, S. and Bretschneider, U. (2012), “Customer integration in new product development: a literature review concerning the appropriateness of different customer integration methods to attain customer knowledge”, [online] SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2485240 (18.10.2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar