Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:28:03.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Do Semantic Clues Affect People's Perceptions of Products with Multiple Meanings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

Y. Zhong ,
R. Takawaki  and
E. T. Harada
Y. Zhong*
Affiliation:
University of Tsukuba, Japan
R. Takawaki
Affiliation:
University of Tsukuba, Japan
E. T. Harada
Affiliation:
University of Tsukuba, Japan
*
s2030544@s.tsukuba.ac.jp

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.

A psychological experiment was conducted to explore the relationship between design features of physical controllers and perceived multiple meanings or possible operations by users. In particular, we focused on affordances and informatives, two semantic clues derived from product semantics, to find out how these clues affect users’ perceptions. The results indicated that both desired shapes, text, and icon could encourage and discourage the perception of specific operations. Those empirical data could be useful for product designers in communicating effectively with users through their products.

Keywords

product designuser experienceevaluation
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2253 - 2262
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

Krippendorff, K. (1989), “On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition That ‘Design Is Making Sense (Of Things).’”, Design Issues. Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 9–39. 10.2307/1511512Google Scholar
Taha, J., Czaja, S. J., Sharit, J., and Morrow, D. G. (2013), “Factors affecting usage of a personal health record (PHR) to manage health”, Psychology and Aging. Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1124–1139. 10.1037/a0033911CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czaja, S. (2019), “Usability of Technology for Older Adults: Where Are We and Where Do We Need to Be”, Journal of Usability Studies. Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 61–64.Google Scholar
Zhong, Y., Harada, E., Tanaka, S., and Ankyu, E. (2020), “Usability Study of Electronic Product with Healthy Older Adults Based on Product Semantic”, HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Posters: 22nd International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 19-24, 2020, Springer Cham, Switzerland, pp. 127–133. 10.1007/978-3-030-60703-6_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. and Butter, R. (1984), “Product Semantics: Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form”, Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 4–9. 10.2307/1511512Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. and Butter, R. (2008), “Semantics: Meanings and contexts of artifacts”, In Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Hekkert, P. (Eds.), Product experience, Elsevier, New York, pp. 353-376. 10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50017-4Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2006), “Meaning of artifacts in use”, In Taylor and Francis (Eds.), The Semantic Turn: A new Foundation for Design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 77–145. 10.4324/9780203299951Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979), “The Theory of Affordances”, The Ecological Approach to Visual (1st ed.), Psychology Press, pp. 127-137. 10.4324/9780203767764Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1999), “Affordance, conventions, and design”, Interactions, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 38–41. 10.1145/301153.301168Google Scholar
Frens, J. W. (2006), “Designing for rich interaction: integrating form, interaction, and function”, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. 10.6100/IR608730Google Scholar
Parmentier, D. D., Acker, B. B. V., Saldien, J., and Detand, J. (2021), “A framework to design for meaning: insights on use, practicality and added value within a project-based learning context”, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol 31, pp. 815–838. 10.1007/s10798-020-09575-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, J.G., Short, B.W., Van Laerhoven, K., Villar, N., and Kortuem, G. (2003), “Exploring Cube Affordance: Towards a Classification of Non-verbal Dynamics of Physical Interfaces for Wearable Computing”, IEE Eurowearable 2003, Birmingham, UK, Sept. 4-5, 2003, pp. 113–118. 10.1049/ic:20030156Google Scholar
Maier, J., and Fadel, G. (2009), “Affordance based design: A relational theory for design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 20, pp. 13–27. 10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3Google Scholar
Murakami, T., Higuchi, M., and Yanagisawa, H. (2009), “Trial of formulating affordance features for product design”, Virtual and Mixed Reality, VMR 2009, San Diego, CA USA, July 19-24, 2009, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 586–595. 10.1007/978-3-642-02771-0_65Google Scholar
Boess, S., and Kanis, H. (2008), “Meaning in Product Use: A Design Perspective”, In Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Hekkert, P. (Eds.), Product experience, Elsevier, New York, pp. 305-332. 10.1016/B978-008045089-6.50015-0Google Scholar
You, H., and Chen, K. (2007). Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Design Studies, 28(1), pp. 23–38. 10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.002Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, C. (2019), “Increasing usability of homecare applications for older adults: A case study”, Designs, Vol. 3 No. 2. 10.3390/designs3020023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, J., Franke, H., and Ruettinger, B. (2008), “Designing interactive consumer products: Utility of paper prototypes and effectiveness of enhanced control labelling”, Applied Ergonomics. Vol. 39, pp. 71–85. 10.1016/j.apergo.2007.03.001Google ScholarPubMed