View
7
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
furnituredesign
Furniture design: Application of semantic differential techniques to measure and
evaluate design and user groups’ perceptions of aesthetic, form and utility
through the medium of chair design.
Musdi Shanat BA (Ind. Design), MSc. (Computer Science and Engineering)
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The University of Western Australia
School of Architecture, Landscape & Visual Arts 2014
ABSTRACT
A chair is a piece of furniture for sitting, a movable piece in a space that makes
it fit for living and working. It is difficult to design a chair that is ideal for living
because designing a chair is a problem-solving activity in which the essential principle
is accommodating the consumer’s needs and preferences. A lot of furniture items on the
market fall short of fulfilling and supporting the preferences and desires of consumers.
This scenario happens because the product that has been designed by the designers may
not speak to the consumer efficiently. Hence, a strategy and procedure needs to be
initiated to support designers’ engagement with the perceptions and expectations of
users as an important component of the design process.
This study explores the potential for the implementation of the semantic
differential procedure as a measure of human perceptions through the medium of chair
design. The semantic differential approach will be used to analyse human perception in
reaction to the appearance of the chair and enhance the understanding of people’s
preferences and expectations. This method is a combination of an associational and
scaling procedure for measuring human attitude and perceptions towards a product,
event or activity. It involves the subject’s allocation of a concept within a standard
system of descriptions by means of a series of independent associative judgments. In
this study, the semantic differential questionnaires were carefully designed to assess the
perceptions of two subject groups, designers and users, in respect to the form, aesthetics
and utility of the outdoor chair. The implications of differences and similarities in
preferences, and the relationship between image-words and actual design elements for
the subject group may help the designer in the control of furniture style for the intended
end users. The semantic differential technique was first evolved by Charles E. Osgood
and his associates (1969) from their research into measuring the meaning of the words.
The respondent is asked to choose where his/her position lies, on a scale between two
bipolar adjectives. Nowadays, the technique and application of the semantic differential
method has broadened to include not only individual perceptions, but also the
connotative meaning of the object, and people’s perceptions about objects and services.
For this research context, the semantic differential approach identifies the
connotative value of the sample objects and discovers consumers’ feelings and
perceptions in the respect of the product form, aesthetics and utility through design
elements and the physical appearance of the product. The connotative values of the
object are a concern to anything that is affiliated with words or phrases that are
established from human experience, such as prejudice, perception and life's lessons. By
implementing this method to the furniture study, it is not only providing a descriptive
information of human perceptual responses and the connotative meaning of the product
but it is also capable of generating a statistical standard means of the product description
in relation to independent associative judgments of opposite adjectives of nouns and
phrases.
Three stages of the research are included in this study. These stages comprise the
establishment of the design experiment, the evaluation of the design process and
feedback on the object evaluations. The first stage of the research study comprises the
design of a new chair and conceptualizes the semantic differential questionnaire. The
second stage of the research framework demanded the redesign of the first prototype
and the reformulation of the second questionnaire, which was based on the previous
feedback and suggestions. Finally, the third stage of the research study is an interactive
phase, bringing the original redesigned chair, a new chair design, and two competing
chairs into assessment using an improved version of the semantic differential
questionnaire.
In conclusion, the semantic differential approach is able to provide a logical and
grounded approach for the product to be evaluated in terms of its specification and
particular characteristics of the physical form. The quantitative data also show that some
significant difference exists between the Design and the User Group participants in
visualizing or perceiving the object. This method maintains the distinction of being
flexible and practical to use, and can work in a wide range of disciplines under certain
conditions.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like thank Allah SWT for making it possible for me
to complete this thesis, a long, rigorous and complicated work.
The completion of this thesis has come to fruition with the encouragement and
advice given by others. Some I have known for a long time and others relatively
recently. There has always been a group of people enthusiastically supporting me, my
ideas, and my investigation into the unknown, the development of this research project
and the writing of this thesis.
This PhD would not exist without the people who contributed their experiences
that make up this research. I would like to acknowledge my sincere gratitude to my
principal supervisor, Associate Professor Patrick Beale for his expert advice, direction,
dedication, and enthusiasm in supporting my study. Without his efficiency, this research
journey would not have been possible. I was also touched by his understanding of my
family circumstances and personal setbacks that did not make my academic life easily
attainable at times.
I would like to express my special gratitude to Dr Michael Azariadis (Graduate
Education Officer) and associates for reading parts of the earlier thesis proposal and
providing insightful critical comments. I appreciate his willingness, precious time and
attention to my writing.
To be a student at the School of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts, The
University of Western Australia, has been an exciting adventure. Hence, special sincere
appreciation to my faculty staff and colleagues, for their diligent help when I really
needed a hand. My gratitude goes to Winthrop Professor Simon Anderson, Rosanna
Marchesani, Jamie Graham, Graeme Warburton, Jim Duggin for helping me in my
administrative work, constructing the prototypes in the workshop and fixing some
computer problems. Thank you also goes to Dr Abdul Rahman Saili, Dr Nize
Shaharanie, Mohd. Zamzami and Ana, and to all my other friends and doctoral students
for the intellectual challenges they have offered over the years.
Special thanks also to the staff and administration of University Malaysia
Sarawak and the Faculty of Applied and Creative Arts in particular. I would like to
acknowledge the financial assistance given to me by the Ministry of Higher
Education, Malaysia and The University of Western Australia in the form of a
scholarship and various grants.
I would like to thank my parents, Haji Shanat Haji Taib, Hajjah Essie Bana and
parents-in-law Haji Saili Haji Sabol and Hajjah Elen Kalang, who have always
encouraged and supported me to pursue my higher education and prayed for my
success. I am grateful to my siblings Mus Effendy, Ida Kartini, Mohd Zulkarnain and
in-laws (Dr. Abdul Rahman, A.Wahid, Hasimah, N.Hafizah) for their unwavering
support during my PhD.
Last but not least, a big hug and many thanks to my wife, Dr Jamayah Saili for
her enormous understanding, encouragement, sustained interest and compassion. The
little heroes of our life, my children, Iman Farhan and Iman Ariffin who have made my
PhD life more colourful.
I would like to acknowledge all the people who have contributed to this
thesis in one way or another even if they have not been personally named above.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Table
CHAPTER 1 ...........................................................................................................................16
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................17
1.1 Research objectives ...........................................................................................................19
1.2 Research questions ............................................................................................................21
1.3 Research design.................................................................................................................22
1.4 Outline of the following chapters .......................................................................................23
CHAPTER 2 ...........................................................................................................................26
2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................26
2.1 Semantic differential .........................................................................................................27
2.1.1 The phenomenology of semantic differential study .....................................................27
2.1.2 The semantic differential procedures ..........................................................................29
2.1.3 The integration of semantic differential study within product design ...........................30
2.1.4 The semantic differential scaling tool .........................................................................33
2.1.5 The semantic differential image words .......................................................................35
2.2 Furniture design ................................................................................................................37
2.2.1 Furniture design market segmentation ........................................................................38
2.2.2 Consumer tastes, needs and preferences pertaining to furniture ...................................42
2.3 Human perception and psychological response ..................................................................44
2.3.1 The definition of perception........................................................................................44
2.3.2 Why study perception? ...............................................................................................45
2.3.3 Human psychological responses to physical form .......................................................46
CHAPTER 3 ...........................................................................................................................50
3.1 Proposition and methods....................................................................................................51
3.1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................51
3.1.1 Terms and meanings: product design and furniture design and use of the terms interchangeably ...................................................................................................................52
3.1.2 Product design development process...........................................................................52
3.1.3 Designer opinions of product development process .....................................................57
3.2 Research Framework .........................................................................................................60
3.2.0 The deployment of the furniture research framework ..................................................61
3.2.1 Phase 1: New design...................................................................................................62
3.2.2 Phase 2: Re-briefing and designing .............................................................................63
3.2.3 Phase 3: Comparative study ........................................................................................65
3.3 The strategy of furniture design attributes ..........................................................................67
3.3.0 The strategy to make meaning more meaningful .........................................................68
3.3.1 Image words or Image texts ........................................................................................69
3.3.2 Self checking filtering system .....................................................................................71
3.3.3 Congruity clustering ...................................................................................................73
3.3.4 Theme ........................................................................................................................75
3.4 Approaches to user research on chair design ......................................................................79
CHAPTER 4 ...........................................................................................................................82
4.1 Outdoor chair design: technical concept development ........................................................83
4.2 Idea generation and design development ............................................................................85
4.2.1 Design statement ....................................................................................................... 86
4.2.2 Sketches/drawings ......................................................................................................87
4.2.3 Computer generated drawing ......................................................................................93
4.2.4 Technical drawing ......................................................................................................95
4.2.5 Mock-ups ...................................................................................................................98
4.2.6 Prototypes ................................................................................................................ 100
CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................... 102
5.1 The prototype .................................................................................................................. 103
5.2 Full scale mock-up .......................................................................................................... 105
5.3 Ideal size ......................................................................................................................... 107
5.4. Sitting and positioning .................................................................................................... 110
5.5 Anticipated prototypes for the semantic differential assessments ...................................... 113
5.6 Design parameters of prototype designs ........................................................................... 117
5.7 Prototype making ............................................................................................................ 118
5.7.1 Chair legs ................................................................................................................. 118
5.7.2 Backrest ................................................................................................................... 121
5.7.3 Chair seats ................................................................................................................ 122
5.7.4 Stretcher ................................................................................................................... 125
5.7.5 Chair joints and fixings ............................................................................................ 126
5.8 Design development activities of Prototypes 1, 2 and 3 .................................................... 133
5.8.1 Design development process through design cues analysis ........................................ 137
5.9 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 143
CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................................... 145
6.0 Introduction of semantic differential questionnaires ......................................................... 146
6.1 Semantic differential scale ............................................................................................... 146
6.2 The construction of the questionnaires ............................................................................. 149
6.2.1 The Questionnaire-1 ................................................................................................. 150
6.2.2 Questionnaire-2 ........................................................................................................ 154
6.3 Obstacles in constructing the questionnaire ...................................................................... 157
CHAPTER 7 ......................................................................................................................... 159
7.0 Reliability analysis of questionnaire design...................................................................... 160
7.1 Compilation of feedback for Questionnaire-1: The first survey ........................................ 161
7.1.1 The demographic study ............................................................................................ 163
7.1.2. Section A: General knowledge on physical characteristics of outdoor chairs ............ 166
7.1.3 Section B: Participants specific evaluation procedure of the form, aesthetics and utility ......................................................................................................................................... 171
7.2 Compilation of the feedback from Questionnaire-2 .......................................................... 176
7.2.1 The demographic study ............................................................................................ 178
7.2.2 Section A: The emotional response to the appearance of the furniture ....................... 181
7.2.3 Section B: Considered response to furniture design ................................................... 184
7.2.3.1 Section B1......................................................................................................... 185
7.2.3.2 Section B2......................................................................................................... 189
7.2.3.3 Section B3......................................................................................................... 192
7.2.4 Section C: Elements and principles of design ............................................................ 195
7.2.5 Section D: Chair components ................................................................................... 198
7.3 Section C: Analytical comparative study between both questionnaires ............................. 200
7.3.1 Univariate analysis ................................................................................................... 200
7.3.2 Difference in form evaluation of chair designs between the Design and User Groups 200
7.3.3 Difference in aesthetic evaluation of chair designs between the Design and User Groups ......................................................................................................................................... 202
7.3.4 Differences in utility evaluation of chair designs between the Design and User Groups ......................................................................................................................................... 203
7.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 204
CHAPTER 8 ......................................................................................................................... 205
8.1 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 206
8.2 Rating and ranking of outdoor chairs ............................................................................... 209
8.3 Individual taste and preferences ....................................................................................... 210
8.4 How participants use their visual experience when they take part in the evaluation or answer the questions. ........................................................................................................................ 214
8.5 Semantic differential approach of furniture study is suitable for subjective criteria ........... 216
8.6 Consequences of ‘design language’ ................................................................................. 218
8.7 The design preferences .................................................................................................... 220
8.8 The capabilities of the semantic differential procedure to refine the design process .......... 222
CHAPTER 9 ......................................................................................................................... 226
9.1 Summary of the thesis ..................................................................................................... 227
9.2 Synthesis of key findings ................................................................................................. 228
9.3 Research limitations and future research opportunities ..................................................... 232
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Research objectives of the study ............................................................................ 19 Figure 1.2: Research framework of furniture design study ....................................................... 22 Figure 2.1: Application of semantic differential approach through difference research genres 32 Figure 2.2: Personal response can be identified when the respondent judges the object by marking the extremities ...........................................................................................................34 Figure 2.3: The Ingram Chair by Charles Rennie Mackintosh ................................................. 38 Figure 3.1: A design process: Typical stages are consistent with the rational model ............... 53 Figure 3.2: The design process model based on Stone’s description of the stages in the process (Stone, 2010) ...........................................................................................................................54 Figure 3.3: Fast drawing technique of stylish outdoor chairs by the researcher ....................... 55 Figure 3.4: Types of idea visualization; drawing, digital drawing and three-dimensional rendering that have been prepared by the researcher ..............................................................56 Figure 3.5: Furniture design framework ................................................................................. 61 Figure 3.6: Full scale model of Prototype 1............................................................................. 62 Figure 3.7: Full scale model of Prototype 2............................................................................. 64 Figure 3.8: Full scale model of Prototype 3............................................................................. 64 Figure 3.9: Sample 1: The competing chair (Sample 1) ........................................................... 66 Figure 3.10 : Sample 2: The competing chair (Sample 2) ........................................................ 66 Figure 3.11: Attributes’ or ‘image words’ to describe a chair using adjectives, nouns and syntax. ....................................................................................................................................68 Figure 3.12: Diagram of procedure to determine a theme for semantic differential research on an outdoor chair .....................................................................................................................69 Figure 3.13: A compilation of image words to describe furniture characteristics and symbols derived from examining thesauri, dictionaries, journals, conference proceedings and website articles ....................................................................................................................................70 Figure 3.14: An example of a list of image words after applying the self-filtering system ......... 72 Figure 3.15: Finer determination to distinguish outdoor chair adjectives and themes .............. 74 Figure 3.16: Hierarchical organization of semantic descriptions: An extensive clustering process to determine where the descriptor should belong ........................................................77 Figure 3.17: Participation of the Design Group in the design survey at the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts, University of Western Australia ...............................81 Figure 4.1: The ¾ perspective view of the Prototype 1............................................................. 83 Figure 4.2: The ¾ perspective view of the Prototype 2............................................................ 84 Figure 4.3: The ¾ perspective view of the Prototype 3............................................................. 85 Figure 4.4: Example design statement Prototype 2 .................................................................. 86 Figure 4.5: The researcher used a ball-point pen and marker for sketches exploring ............... 88 Figure 4.6: The researcher applied a pencil to this drawing.................................................... 89 Figure 4.7: These drawings build on and refine initial sketches into more finished concepts. ... 90 Figure 4.8: Drawings do not need to be to scale. However, there is a need for proportionality and logic in the sketches. .........................................................................................................91 Figure 4.9: The researcher has applied basic rendering techniques to create depth dimension and dynamism to the drawing(s). .............................................................................................92 Figure 4.10: Computer generated drawing provides an opportunity for the researcher to view drawings from any angle or perspective. .................................................................................94 Figure 4.11: Computer generated drawing allows t h e researcher to modify the drawings according to subsequent recommendations for new features. For example, the image on the right demonstrates a longer backrest compared to the image on the left...................................94 Figure 4.12: Computer generated drawings afford the opportunity to change the color and material of the object according to designer/client preferences. ...............................................95 Figure 4.13: Samples of first-angle projection of the general drawing of Prototype 3 .............. 96 Figure 4.14: Sample of an exploded assembly perspective drawing of Prototype 2 .................. 97 Figure 4.15: Samples of scale size mock-up chairs, constructed using 3mm of straw board for structural and three dimensional study purposes..................................................................... 98 Figure 4.16: A full size model is made from pine wood and discarded material. ...................... 99 Figure 5.1: The transformation design from mock-up to the final prototype ........................... 104
Figure 5.2: Both chairs are a new and fresh design based on participants’ feedback and suggestions from first perception assessment. ........................................................................ 106 Figure 5.3: The diagram shows chair parts and technical terms for typical chairs taken from (Panero & Zelnik, 1979, pp.127) .......................................................................................... 107 Figure 5.4: The diagram of human seating in various postures .............................................. 110 Figure 5.5: Side and front elevation of general drawings for Prototype 1, 2 and 3 ................. 112 Figure 5.6: Full size model of Prototype 1 ............................................................................. 114 Figure 5.7: Photographic images of Prototype 2 and 3. ......................................................... 115 Figure 5.8: Side elevation of chair leg shapes ....................................................................... 119 Figure 5.9: Slim leg shape of Prototype 2 and 3 .................................................................... 119 Figure 5.10: Image of front and back legs of Prototype 1, 2 and 3 ......................................... 120 Figure 5.11: The splat of a chair is the upright flat panel that serves as a backrest ................ 121 Figure 5.12: An ergonomic consensus: Level of ideal backrest support is 5° and less. ........... 122 Figure 5.13: The diagram of human seating positions in various postures. ............................ 122 Figure 5.14: Enhanced seat pattern Chair No.1 (idea development) ...................................... 123 Figure 5.15: Prototype 2 used a slatted hardwood for its top-seat design .............................. 124 Figure 5.16: Chair No.3 used 6.5 mm transparent acrylic for top-seat design ........................ 124 Figure 5.17: Varieties of finish for the prototype design. ....................................................... 125 Figure 5.18: Line drawings of stretcher positions for outdoor chairs ..................................... 126 Figure 5.19: Joint details of Prototype 1 ............................................................................... 127 Figure 5.20: Dovetail joint of Prototype 2 ............................................................................. 128 Figure 5.21: Dowel joint is applied to connect the seat-top to the seat frame ......................... 129 Figure 5.22 Joint details of Prototype 2................................................................................. 130 Figure 5.23: Joint details of Prototype 3 ............................................................................... 132 Figure 5.24: Thumbnail sketches of the Prototype 1 .............................................................. 133 Figure 5.25: Computer assisted drawing program is used to generate idea and develop design form for Prototype 1 .............................................................................................................. 134 Figure 5.26: Computer assisted drawing program helps researcher to further developed creative idea for developing of Prototype 2 ........................................................................... 136 Figure 5.27: Idea development of Prototype 3 ....................................................................... 137 Figure 5.28: Design development of outdoor chair according to feedback from semantic differential Questionnaire-1 .................................................................................................. 138 Figure 5. 29: The design development ‘cues’ of design and user group of participants in regards to feedbacks of experience-perception of chair samples. ........................................... 140 Figure 5.30: The cues of design and user group of participants’ perception have been translated into several of format such as drawing, mock-up and prototype. ............................................ 141 Figure 5.31: ‘Cues’ helps researcher to visualize and translate idea, concept and formthrough drawings, mock-ups and models ............................................................................................ 143 Figure 6.1: List of attributes that can generates question about aesthetic values of the product ............................................................................................................................................. 151 Figure 6.2 : List of attributes that used to generate questions on physical values and ‘elements and principles of design’ of the product. ................................................................................ 152 Figure 6.3: List of attributes that used to generate specific questions in respect to ‘form’, ‘aesthetics’ and’ utility’ themes ............................................................................................. 154 Figure 6.4: List of attributes to describe emotional appeal of four subject evaluation ............ 155 Figure 6.5: List of attributes to describe emotional appeal of four subject evaluation ............ 156 Figure 7.1: Questionnaire-1: The demographic study of design and user group of participants’ hobbies and interests ............................................................................................................. 163 Figure 7.2: Questionnaire-1: The demographic study on participants’ preference in ............. 164 Figure 7.3: Questionnaire-1: Participants conceived consideration ...................................... 165 Figure 7.4: How important aesthetic values influence participants’ decision making before purchasing outdoor furniture. ............................................................................................... 167 Figure 7.5: How important physical values affect participants’ decision making before purchasing outdoor furniture. ............................................................................................... 168 Figure 7.6: How important utility values contribute to participant decision making before purchasing outdoor furniture ................................................................................................ 169
Figure 7.7: Have you thought carefully about the ‘elements and principles of design’ before purchasing outdoor furniture?............................................................................................... 170 Figure 7.8: Response to question B1 of Questionnaire-1: “How did you feel about the form/shape of this chair?”..................................................................................................... 171 Figure 7.9: Response to question B2 of Questionnaire-1: “How did you feel about the aesthetic values of this chair?” ............................................................................................................ 172 Figure 7.10: Response to question B3 of Questionnaire-1: “Do you think the ‘elements and principles of design’ are successfully applied in the subject evaluation”. ............................... 173 Figure 7.11: Responses to question B4 of Questionnaire-1: “How did you rate emotional appeal when evaluating this subject”? .................................................................................. 174 Figure 7.12: Responses to question B5of Questionnaire-1: which part of the chair you like most? .................................................................................................................................... 175 Figure 7.13: Participants answered the semantic differential questionnaire and observed outdoor chairs in different time space and location................................................................ 177 Figure 7.14: Four units of outdoor chairs: The subject samples for second part of design assessment ............................................................................................................................ 178 Figure 7.15: Questionnaire-2: The demographic study on hobbies and interests.................... 179 Figure 7.16: Questionnaire-2: Preference of style and design ............................................... 179 Figure 7.17: Questionnaire-2: Conceived consideration before purchasing outdoor chair ..... 180 Figure 7.18: Response to question A1, Questionnaire-2: “What is your emotional response to each chair?” ......................................................................................................................... 182 Figure 7.19: Response to question A1, Questionnaire-2: “What is your emotional response to each chair?” ......................................................................................................................... 183 Figure 7.20: Question B1 (1): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to design shape of the chair. ...................................................................................................... 185 Figure 7.21: Question B1 (2): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to interest feeling to sit on it. ..................................................................................................... 186 Figure 7.22: Question B1 (Question 3 & 4): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to appearance of stability and durability of the design form. ................................. 187 Figure 7.23: Question B1 (Question 5 & 6): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to appearance of heaviness and size of the furniture. ................................................ 188 Figure 7.24: Question B2 (1): Feedback on participants’ feelings about the aesthetic values of each chair in relation to physical appearance, decorative level and functionality of the chair. ............................................................................................................................................. 190 Figure 7.25: Question B3: Feedback on Participants feelings about the Utility values of each chair in relation to ergonomics, image identity, product maintenance and life span expectation of the chairs. ......................................................................................................................... 192 Figure 7.26: Question B3: Feedback on Participants feelings about the Utility value of each chair in relation to image of designer’s signature design, material and expected price of the chairs. ................................................................................................................................... 193 Figure 7.27: Question C1: “Please rate the degree to which each of the following elements of design has been successfully applied” ................................................................................... 195 Figure 7.28: Question C2: “Please rate the degree to which each of the following principles of design has been successfully applied” ................................................................................... 197 Figure 7.29: Section D, Questionnaire-2: Rate the degree to which each of the following elements is successful? .......................................................................................................... 198 Figure 7.30: Profile plot of ‘Form’ scores between the chair designs and Design and User Group of participants ............................................................................................................ 201 Figure 7.31: Profile plot of ‘Aesthetic’ scores between the chair designs and design and user group of participants ............................................................................................................. 202 Figure 7.32: Profile plot of ‘Utility’ scores between the chair designs and design and user group of participants ............................................................................................................. 203 Figure 8.1: Two samples of outdoor chairs and two final prototypes in the semantic differential assessment of Questionnaire-2 .............................................................................................. 207 Figure 8 2: The first prototype which has been used as object evaluation in Questionnaire-1 208 Figure 8.3: Design Group’s preferred samples ...................................................................... 209 Figure 8.4: User group’s preferred samples .......................................................................... 209
Figure 8.5: Design and user group of participant provide different interpreting level when evaluating the chair samples ................................................................................................. 215 Figure 8.6: Flowchart of participants’ perception process .................................................... 216 Figure 8.7: An activity from start establishing the design until receives the final values......... 224 Figure 8.8: Details process of new steps of additional process in design planning activity. .... 224 Figure 9.1: Both chairs demonstrate a designer image with trendy and exclusive features. .... 230 Figure 9.2: Chair preferences after detail observation. ......................................................... 231
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Checklists of scale or full size mock-up to each chair design ................................. 100 Table 5.1: Basic measurement of chair dimension which have been taken from Panero & Zeinik (1979, pp. 127)...................................................................................................................... 109 Table 5.2: General measurements of Prototype 1, 2 and 3 ..................................................... 111 Table 5.3: Design parameters before executing the prototype design ..................................... 117 Table 5.4: Assessment matrix is used to evaluate the drawings in discovering the best idea and concept for Prototype 1 ......................................................................................................... 135 Table 6. 1: The six-point rating scale – no option for neutral ................................................. 147 Table 6.2: The seven-point rating scale – perfect for supplying meaningful opinion ............... 147 Table 6.3: The nine-point rating scale – the scale range is too finely detail ........................... 147 Table 6 4: A snap shot of survey questions of Questionnaire-2 answered by participant No.43 of user participant ..................................................................................................................... 148 Table 6.5: Main topic of Questionnaire-1 and Questionnaire-2 ............................................. 149 Table 7.1: Detail results of reliability analysis - Cronbach’s alpha to Questionnaire-2 .......... 161 Table 7.2: Percentage of participants involved in the first phase of research survey .............. 162 Table 7.3: Question B2 (1): Participants feedback on aesthetic values of each chair in relation to satisfactory standards of finish, degrees of stylistic coherence and originality of the design
concept of the chair. .............................................................................................................. 191
16
CHAPTER 1
Chapter one introduces the semantic differential technique
as a tool to assess and evaluate participants’ perceptions of
aesthetics, form and utility through the medium of chair
design. The first section addresses the research objectives
followed by the research questions and then finally the
research design employed in this study.
“Furniture is basically always a child of its time, if only because the demands that
people make on it change – and often change several times even in the course of our
own lifetimes”.
Karl Mang (Karl, 1979)
17
1.0 Introduction
“One Sunday afternoon, the ambience fresh and quiet in my
backyard, I was sitting on a wooden outdoor chair with nobody to
disturb my thoughts. After 15 minutes of reading a magazine, I could
not focus anymore. My attention now moved to the chair on which I
sat. I felt comfortable, relaxed, and close to nature. All these
elements were in congruity”.
Musdi Shanat
What I have narrated here is my experience with a piece of furniture. Since there
was a perceptible object I was engaged with, many attributes were involved in this
experience, such as cognitive and affective responses, emotions and sensory perception.
These experiences actually happen due to the aesthetic reactions associated with human
senses (Bloch, 1995; Hekkert, 2006). However some people may ask themselves what
difference does it makes: a chair is still a chair!
Today, people’s lifestyles have changed. They spend a lot of time sitting down
in the office, at home and even outdoors. A chair not only supports its occupant in work
it also conveys status in the workplace. A chair is also designed and developed within
symbolic contexts, for instance, with the intention of revealing one’s economic status,
which further serves to bolster egos and demonstrates taste. Studies have shown that the
furniture with which individuals surround themselves is an expression of their self-
image and is intended to send messages about themselves to others (Cranz, 1998). For
example, at the functional level a chair generates a physical and psychological
connection with the individual sitting on it via its shape and utilization of materials. It
may personify meanings and values, which connect with the user at an intellectual,
aesthetic, emotional and spiritual level (Fiell & Fiell, 2005). Nevertheless there is no
chair design that is considered ideal and able to fulfil all peoples’ needs and preferences.
It is really up to the consumer to get the chair that they need and decide if it is good
enough.
18
Given this, it is important to understand what the user thinks about a piece of
furniture. Consumer participations and empirical feedback from systematic design
process able to gives some inspirations and valuable inputs in the design. Furniture
design may be understood as a problem-solving activity and a vital principle is to
develop a successful design that meets the consumer’s need. It is essential to grasp the
definition of a chair. A chair is a tangible object, which is a movable or non-moveable
piece in a space that makes it fit for living and working. A chair is a piece of furniture
for sitting. It consists of a seat, a back, and sometimes arm rests and is commonly used
by one person. Chairs often have four legs to support the seat, which is raised above the
floor.
The findings from this study will provide new knowledge through an exploration
of furniture design set within a semantic differential framework. The combination of art
and science design will distinguish this research from other design studies. In general,
the semantic differential approach is a technique that is applied to uncover the symbolic
and connotative value of an object. It is used to explore consumers’ feelings about
artefacts and services, for example furniture that uses hardwood and with a natural
finish can be associated with a classic image, or, in some cases, people might associate
it with something elegant and exclusive.
A review of the relevant literature in the context of semantic differential studies
also reveals that this approach is intended to aid in understanding how human beings
interpret the appearance, the use and the content of a product (Krippendorff, 2006;
Llinares & Page, 2007b; Sevener, 2003). Therefore, this approach has huge potential in
terms of understanding and transforming consumers’ feelings about product
representations and incorporating them into design elements, forms and features.
No similar research has been undertaken as the majority of semantic differential
studies have focused on human psychology and behaviour (Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum, 1957; Snider & Osgood, 1969), product communication design (Ming
Chuen. Chuang & Ma, 2001; Hsu, Chuang, & Chang, 2000), image and branding
(Hekkert, 2006; Nagashima, 1977) and is involved with highly complex statistical
methods and specialist software analytical approaches (Nagamachi, 1995; Schutte &
Eklund, 2001). The researcher has also been motivated to implement this approach
because it enables designers and furniture developers to incorporate end user feedback
19
in the design and development process. Through the semantic differential technique we
are able to understand how a product inspires or embodies symbolic meaning. In
addition, the feedback of consumers can serve as a styling benchmark for designers
prior to the commencement of a new furniture project. It also helps the furniture
developer and designer to arrive more accurately at a project that has a higher reliability
of market acceptance.
In conclusion, feedback through the questionnaires also provided practical and
useful knowledge about the chair design for the development process. Initially, the
designer’s intention was to design a chair based on priority criteria, such as ergonomics,
simple construction and design styles. The detailed criteria obtained from this study can
assist designers, small scale furniture makers and large scale manufacturers to
understand the perceptions of consumers pertaining to chair design so that they can be
trained to think like an end user.
1.1 Research objectives
Figure 1.1: Research objectives of the study
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
To determine if the semantic differential method is applicable to measure human perceptions of furniture design
To formulate design strategies for furniture developers through semantic differential approaches
To enhance understanding of consumer needs and preferences
To examine chairs for their visual appearance that evokes consumer tastes
1
2
3
4
20
The first objective of this study was to determine whether the semantic
differential technique could be used to measure and evaluate human perceptions and
reactions to furniture design, particularly in relation to outdoor chairs. Two categories of
participant – a Design group and a User group – were asked to complete a questionnaire
in order to gauge individual perceptions of the chairs characteristics and their aesthetic,
form and utility values.
The second research objective was to examine chairs for their visual appearance
and evoke particular consumer tastes. In theory, consumer tastes and preferences can be
measured and can embrace a relationship between the subject evaluations in terms of
psychological and physiological functions. Consumer feedback can provide valuable
information to designers on how people perceive furniture, and the qualities and
expectations they require. Subsequently, the interpretation of design recommendations
from the consumer will assist as a design compendium of practical elements in the
furniture design process.
The third research objective was to formulate design strategies for furniture
designers and furniture developers using the semantic differential method, and to
receive information with which to modify the design according to market taste. In other
words, this approach allows consumers to state their preferences and requirements so
that furniture designers can incorporate this into the development of the chair. Taking
into account consumer feedback should allow the development of greater trust in a
collaborative working relationship between the consumer and designer.
Finally, the fourth design objective was to enhance the understanding of
consumer needs and preferences through the study rather than simply those of the
designers. The implications of differences in preference and the relationship between
image-word (language) and actual design elements for the two subject groups (Design
and User Groups) will support designers in demonstrating that the incorporation of end
user feedback on the design and development process can probably reduce cost for the
manufacturer and also help the designer to adopt a more relevant perspective on
furniture style for the intended end users.
21
1.2 Research questions
Since this study is an experimental and applied design project, the relevance of
questions that might be triggered, such as the relevance of the feedback data, can be
applied to the formulation of furniture design strategies, especially for the designer in
responding to consumer demand. The validity of the research method for this study will
therefore be questioned as will the best approach to constructing a questionnaire that is
capable of generating feedback that is relevant to the study with maximal reliability.
For the purpose of this study, a series of experiments and explorations in terms
of design and styling of chair samples will be conducted and two sets of questionnaires
will be implemented to investigate and differentiate the distinctive features of
descriptors or attributes over the subject matter. The researcher will investigate whether
the proposed method is capable of providing sufficient suggestions in respect of
consumer preference and taste. The researcher also needs to investigate the best
standard methods for obtaining precise responses from users’ perceptions and design
taste.
Table 1.1 illustrates the process of creating research questions from initiating a
broad subject with a focused topic through to creating a specific research question.
Table 1.1: Broad topics to create focused research questions
Broad Topic
Narrow Topic
Focused Topic
Research Questions
Research methodology
Semantic differential Technique and validity of the method
How sufficient is this method to be applied in this study?
Is the data from the feedback valid and accurate?
Perceptions Measure and interpret perception
Design perception of form, aesthetics and utility through medium of chair design.
How can relevant feedback data be applied to the formulation of furniture design?
What type of preference and taste is involved when observing the prototypes?
22
1.3 Research design
Figure 1.2: Research framework of furniture design study
This research has compared the perceptions of chair design in terms of
aesthetics, form and utility among two subject groups (A Design Group and a User
Group). There were three phases within the design research which led to the
identification of appropriate outcomes and project constraints. Each phase within the
design research included three components – experiment, evaluation and feedback.
The first research programme was called the new design phase. A full scale
prototype of a new chair was designed and evaluated using the semantic differential
questionnaire. At this stage, the participants of the Design and User Groups were
required to complete a questionnaire based on their emotional response to a full scale
working prototype using physical and emotional attributes of abstract variables and the
bipolar scales rating from one to seven. The physical and emotional attributes refer to
the noun and adjective in conjunction that describe and quantify meaning, features and
characteristics of the subject evaluation, particularly of a chair. Feedback from the
questionnaire was applied to the next level of the research programme.
The second phase of the research programme was named the ‘re-briefing and
designing process.’ In this process, two sets of prototypes or chair samples were
designed based on the participants’ feedback and recommendations. The first chair
design was represented as a (re)design image of the earlier prototype, followed by a new
chair design, which was not connected to any style of the earlier design. However, the
design specifications for both chairs still referred back to the feedback of the first
New design Re-briefing process
Comparative study
1 2 3 Questionnaire-1 Questionnaire-2
23
survey. The idea and concept development, and prototype making process for both
chairs were still adopted from a common product design process and development
guidelines. For instance, the chair should have a project brief, sketches, drawings,
technical and assembly drawings, a mock-up, and, finally, the construction of a full
scale model.
The final part of the research programme consists of a comparative phase. A
semantic differential survey questionnaire was prepared and distributed to preselected
participants during the final evaluation session. The second survey questionnaire was
designed to elicit participants’ responses and emotional perceptions of the prototypes
together with two commercial chairs (these chairs were selected from commercial
furniture shops) through experiments that explored the relationship between image-
words and design elements. Participants were required to answer the questionnaire in
which each question referred to the four proposed chairs simultaneously.
The full size prototypes provided visual and tangible evidence to the participants
to help them apply the relationship between various attributes (aesthetics, form and
utility) to each of the chairs. It is important to note that although this study has general
validity, the results obtained were vital to help in completing the thesis and to explore
more relevant perspectives on furniture styles for consumers.
1.4 Outline of the following chapters
In general, this thesis comprises nine chapters. Chapter one introduces the semantic
differential technique as a tool to assess and evaluate participants’ perceptions of
aesthetics, form and utility through the medium of chair design. The first section
addresses the research objectives followed by the research questions, and, then, finally,
the research design employed in this study.
24
Chapter two is devoted to a review of the phenomenology of the semantic
differential study, systematic planning to make meaning more significant and the
integration of semantic study in product design. Section 2.2, explores furniture design,
fitting the semantic differential approach to furniture design, an overview of furniture
design market segmentation, and consumer tastes, needs and preferences in respect of
furniture. Finally, section 2.3, reviews and defines what human perception is,
classification of human senses and perception, and why we need to study perception.
The detailed discussion of the study of Chapter three was laid out in a systematic
explanation starting with the initial propositions and research propositions and methods
followed by the deployment of the furniture research frameworks. This chapter also
discusses the deliberation of furniture design attributes, which were presented to make
the product image words become more meaningful.
Chapter four presents information pertaining to outdoor chair design in relation to
the technical concepts and product design development. The discussion of product
design development includes a clarification of furniture design briefs and the necessity
of drawing, computer generated design, technical drawing, mock-ups and prototypes in
the completion of the furniture design cycle.
Chapter five focuses on the prototype design, which is used to explore ideas,
elaborate on requirements and is central to the prototyping and manufacturing process.
The first section of this chapter identifies the correct sitting position for this type of chair
and proceeds with ergonomic studies for the prototype design. This is then followed by
an analysis of the prototyping process. This includes material selection, chair legs, seat,
backrest, and joints and assembly systems, which are considered individually and as a
part of the whole.
Chapter six presents a complete discussion about the formulation of the semantic
differential questionnaire and strategies for recruiting the respondents. Two sets of
questionnaires were designed in two different phases of the research study.
Questionnaire-2 increased the number of the main topic questions after examination of
the feedback from the responses to the first questionnaire. The target respondents for this
study are the Design Group and the User Group of participants.
25
Chapter seven presents information on the overall findings from the two survey
questionnaires that were completed by the two categories of respondents – Design
Group and User Group. This chapter consists of three sections of analysis; Section 7.1
and Section 7.2 are the compilation of the feedback from Questionnaire-1 and
Questionnaire-2, respectively. Section 7.3 is a comparative study using both
questionnaires and examines the differences in chair evaluation between the Design and
User Group participants.
Chapter eight presents a critical discussion of the survey questionnaires that were
delivered to two groups of respondents: one group of people who identified themselves
as design professionals – the Design Group, and a group of users from among non-
design professionals. The focus of the discussion is based on an examination of the
visual appearance of the chair concentrating on the topics of aesthetics, form and utility.
It is also important to highlighted that the aesthetics component includes elements and
principles of design. The findings of the design process experiment for each stage in the
evolution of project is extrapolated from the data gathered and processed through a
variety of statistical methods. This is then referenced to the semantic differential
methodology for consideration of its effectiveness in refining the design process for the
consumer product. The discussion touches on the suitability of the semantic differential
method for evaluating subjective criteria, the values of the ratings and rankings, the
exclusive nature of design language and the consequences of design preferences for the
Design and User Groups of participants.
Chapter nine offers a summary of the research project with a re-determination of the
research objectives and the theoretical framework of the study. This chapter discusses
the key findings of the study and briefly concludes the limitations of the research and
opportunities for further research.
26
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter is devoted to a review of the phenomenology
of semantic differential study, in which planning is
organized to make meaning become more significant, and
the integration of semantic differential study into product
design. Section 2.2 specifically explores fitting the
semantic differential approach to furniture design with an
overview of furniture design market segmentation, and
consumer tastes, needs and preferences in furniture.
Finally, section 2.3, reviews and defines what human
perception is, a classification of the human senses of
perception, and why we need to study perception.
“To regard thinking as a skill rather than a gift is the first step towards doing
something to improve the skill…”
Edward de Bono, Practical thinking
27
2.1 Semantic differential
The semantic differential approach has been successful in this study, partly
because it is flexible and relatively easy to adapt to research demands, easy to
administer and it appears to be very effective in producing results from which general
inferences may be drawn (Osgood, et al., 1957; Shanat & Beale, 2010; Snider &
Osgood, 1969). Most semantic differential research approaches are intended to aid in
understanding how human beings interpret the appearance, the use and the content of a
product in respect of its primary characteristics and the prominent attributes of a product
or a person (Krippendorff, 2006; Llinares & Page, 2007b; Sevener, 2003). To this end,
scaling tools of opposite adjectives of semantic descriptions are used for measuring
social attitudes and emotional values of the products (Osgood, et al., 1957). These
scaling tools are able to quantify the similarities and differences of many users’
perceptions of the products. In this context, it is crucial that the qualitative adjectives
and descriptors used are appropriate for the scaling tools to be relevant (Al-Hindawe;
Shin-Wen Hsiao & Ching-Hai Chen, 1997).
2.1.1 The phenomenology of semantic differential study
Semantic differential is a procedural technique to discover, identify and
conceptualize connotative values of the subject and to disclose consumers’ feelings and
perceptions about human beings, animals, artefacts and services. The connotative values
fundamentally refer to anything that may be associated with a word or phrase. An
example of a connotative value for the word Outdoor Chair maybe leisure, relax, and so
on. The connotative value is a subjective attribute that an individual brings to a word
based on experience, prejudice, perception and life's lessons (Bradley & Lang, 1994;
Ming Chuen. Chuang & Ma, 2001; Petiot & Bernard, 2003; Skrandies, 1998; Snider &
Osgood, 1969). The researcher believes that establishing the connotative values of
product design will bring about the ownership feeling between the consumer and the
product. The connotative values will provide an opportunity to designers to open up the
possibility of being involved in a more versatile design that stands a better chance of
filling the gap in consumer preferences.
28
In earlier applications, semantic differential methods were frequently used for
measuring social attitudes, especially in the field of linguistics and social psychology.
The method was first devised by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum in 1957 to investigate
the connotative (emotional) meaning of any chosen verbal term that are marked by polar
adjectives and scaling procedures (Osgood, et al., 1957). These research focuses are
consistent with those of other studies and suggest that the semantic differential approach
is also capable of framing a design concept by translating consumers’ feelings and
emotional perceptions of the product into a ‘measured’ evaluation of the design
elements, forms and features through words and phrases (Hsu, et al., 2000; Petiot &
Bernard, 2003; Skrandies, 1998). The measurement of meaning, which is research into
affective meaning, refers to the emotional reactions of an individual in response to the
image or an object. The characteristics and descriptions of the product are identified
from the consumer’s image and emotional colorations in addition to the explicit or
denotative meaning of any specific word or phrase in a language.
Snider & Osgood (1969) defined the semantic differential method as a
combination of associational and scaling procedures. It involves the subject’s allocation
of a concept within a standard system of descriptions by means of a series of
independent associative judgments. For example, a judgmental situation is presented
with a pair of descriptive polar (opposite adjectives, nouns and phrases) terms, such as
huge-small, heavy-light, bulky-slender and a concept; for instance, an outdoor chair. In
this context the subject merely indicates the direction of this association from which one
can conclude that an outdoor chair is huge, heavy and bulky or it could be that an
outdoor chair is huge, light and slender. Through this technique significant information
can be collected speedily and accurately, especially when the subject indicates the
intensity of the association by using the extremes of the seven-point rating scale. The
seven-point rating scale has the advantage of being able to distinguish whether a subject
is judged to be extremely impressive or not impressive by using the full scale of ‘1’ to
‘7’. A decision of whether the subject evaluation is impressive or not impressive maybe
given by checking the neutral point of ‘4’ on the rating scale.
29
2.1.2 The semantic differential procedures
The semantic differential procedure or methodology has been applied to a wide
range of fields including product design in studies relating to telephones, cars, and many
others. The effectiveness and usefulness of the semantic differential approach has been
carried out and commented upon in relation to Machine tool studies (Mondragón,
Company, & Vergara, 2005), telephones (Hsu, et al., 2000), support systems for office
chairs (Jindo, Hirasago, & Nagamachi, 1995), wine glasses (Petiot & Bernard, 2003),
printers (W.C. Chang & Van, 2003), table clocks (Sevener, 2003), micro-electronic
products (Ming Chuen. Chuang & Ma, 2001), mobile phones (Ming Chuen. Chuang &
Ma, 2001), image and brand perceptions (Nagashima, 1977), emotional response to
products and human values (Hekkert, 2006), and to many more. There is no clear
evidence that research on the form, aesthetics and utility of outdoor chairs using the
semantic differential approach has been executed. Although Jindo (1995) and associates
investigated an office chair using the semantic differential approach, their research
focus was more on ergonomic factors rather than form, aesthetics and utility. However,
some semantic differential studies of other products and services have been carried out,
and it can be adapted and adjusted to suit the research process of the researcher.
According to Salvador Mondragón, Pedro Company and Margarita Vergara
(2005), to measure the emotional context of a product, direct involvement from random
and pre-selected user groups is necessary to furnish accurate feedback and reliable
information. The need to tabulate and observe the different profile of user groups is
important because of the substantial inter-subject variability. This variability can enrich
the data and open up the possibility to engage in more versatile design that stands a
better chance of filling the gap in consumer needs. Therefore, an expert or professional
group needs to be involved in the survey together with an ordinary user group. The
professional group and general group participants will deliver a pattern of preference in
feedback and formal qualities from an object under study. Semantic evaluation studies
have shown that different population groups will deliver significantly different
outcomes and opinions when evaluating the same object or product. This is true of
generational groups (C. C. Chang & Shih, 2003) as well as different professionally
orientated groups including designers (Hsu, et al., 2000); students and manufacturers
(Nakada, 1997) are among the groups more typically categorized as general users.
30
Although the semantic differential technique has been documented in areas, such
as architecture, environmental design, ergonomics and product design, it has been little
used for commercial product development. In spite of this, the researcher believes that
the semantic differential approach can be applied to any commercial product study by
collecting and interpreting the products attributes and charting the consumer profiles.
The system may even be extended to include a broad range of industrial sections in
which delivery to the public is required from product developers and the furniture
industry. However, a reliable road map will be required, which remains a challenging
task for the researchers and product developers.
2.1.3 The integration of semantic differential study within product design
The application of the semantic differential approach in product development
studies is embedded as a measurement instrument that is commonly used by user-
centred design research, Kansei engineering studies and (the) product semantic research
studies. User-centred design studies applies the semantic differential approach because
it can provide a concise understanding of the consumer’s needs, wants and desires by
looking at the positive or/and negative experiences of the consumer during the product
investigation, shopping, or sales process (Chandler & Hyatt, 2003; Eronen, 2004). In
general, user-centred design is a study of users’ experiences and an exploration of the
perspective a user brings to a system, which enables designers to design the system to
meet their needs. The designer is always at the centre of all design decisions, and,
ultimately, optimizes the user’s experience of a system, product, or process by
measuring their experiences and perceptions.
An alternative approach to analysing product perception is through the Kansei
engineering technology approach. The Kansei engineering study is a product
development methodology used to seek a clear interpretation of consumer product
meaning through human impressions, feelings and demands. The investigation and
analysis of existing products with human participation is vital to determine appropriate
design solutions and to establish suggestions for design parameters (Schutte & Eklund,
2001). By using this method, consumers reflect their personal impressions and
characterize the product descriptions through a specialist programme and cluster
artefacts according to their classes using the senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell and
31
taste to recognize and identify the product (Nagamachi, 1995). In addition, the Kansei
engineering approach can also be used to investigate and explore the complex structure
of people’s emotions by building databases on consumers feelings based on genetic
algorithms1, neural networks or fuzzy logic (Karlsson, Aronsson, & Svensson, 2003;
Nagamachi, 1995; Schutte & Eklund, 2001). However, this method or process is
complex and difficult to understand without specialist knowledge. Implementation
within a small company with limited resources and without access to expertise in
ergonomics, competency in computer science, and appropriate management experiences
is likely to be extremely difficult (Parr, 2003). This methodology is only popular for big
companies, such as Mazda, Toyota, Ford, Wacoal, Sharp, Fuji and others. Highly
scientific approaches may be suitable for big companies that can employ staff with a
wide range of expertise in their research and development areas and produce products
that are directly involved with human safety issues, such as automobiles, or product
interfaces, such as switches of control panels (human-machine interaction), and similar
project engineering products.
Another established research method that focuses on human perception and
feeling is product semantics. Product semantic studies are also commonly applied to the
semantic differential approach in order to observe and explore human perceptions about
certain products and services through words and language (Alcántara, Artacho,
Gonzáles, & Garcia, August 2005). The product semantic studies focus on the symbolic
qualities of man-made forms in the context of their use, and the application of this
knowledge to industrial design (Petiot & Bernard, 2003). Previous research on this
method lacks suggestions concerning solutions to re(do), re(design) and improve the
existing product to a better design that is closer to consumer desires. Therefore, product
semantic studies can be combined with the product design development process in order
to explore a better design suggestion. Theoretically, these methods can conflate well.
1 A genetic algorithm (GA) is use to proof how much robustness involved in searching a true optimum solution of certain characters and attributes by treating the multi-peaked problem with adding white noises to its fitness function. (Arakawa, M., Shiraki, W., Ishikawa, H. (1999). Kansei design using genetic algorithms. IEEE SCM ’99 Conference Proceedings)
32
Figure 2.1 summarizes the list of prominent research that embeds the semantic
differential approach in different styles of research discipline. The diversity of niche
studies with the semantic differential approach is not a threat for this research but an
essential factor to broaden the technique, which can later be implemented by other
designers.
NICHE Se
man
tic d
iffer
entia
l app
roac
h RESEARCH
User-centred Design
Design trends for the redesign of product form (W.C. Chang & Van, 2003)
Engineering Design (Hassenzahl, Beu, & Burmester, 2001) Emotionally evocative homepages (Kim, Lee, & Choi, 2003)
Kansei Engineering
Kansei image in architectural design (Hung & Nieh, 2009) Design identity (Carter, Ruggels, & Chaffee, 1968) Real estate promotion – housing assessment (Llinares & Page,
2007a) Product form perception (Hsu, et al., 2000)
Product Semantics
Aesthetic responses to design principles on product references (Veryzer, 1993)
Evaluation of machine tool design (Mondragón, et al., 2005) A semantic recognition of office chairs (Hsiao, 1997) Measuring consumer perception – glasses (Petiot & Bernard,
2003)
Others/design perception
Knowledge of common furniture (Bowe & Bumgardner, 2004)
Opinion management (Carter, et al., 1968) Consumer behaviour (Ricardo, 2008) Influence of aesthetic properties on product pleasure
(Sevener, 2003)
Figure 2.1: Application of semantic differential approach through difference research genres
33
2.1.4 The semantic differential scaling tool
The semantic differential scaling tool is one of the procedures that is capable of
quantifying the similarities and differences between many consumers’ perceptions
through the use of tailor-made questionnaires. In 1967, Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum
introduced this technique in their book The Measurement of Meaning. The semantic
differential approach is not merely restricted for the assessment of attitude such as
human analyse profiles, performance and satisfaction, but it is also can be applied to
identify the intensity of feeling and emotion based on a person's subjective
understanding through connotative meanings of words.
The semantic scale is composed of polar opposite adjectives separated by a five-
to seven-point rating scale, for example, good and bad. The appropriate uses of nouns,
adjectives, syntax and descriptors to describe human feelings are crucial when utilizing
the scale. In the typical form of a semantic differential study, a group of subjects is
presented with a number of pairs of antonymous adjectives; for example, Creative –
Uncreative, Beautiful – Ugly, Bold – Slender et cetera. To fully utilize the scale, the
subject would be given an attitude referent. The attitude referent would be perhaps an
object or event in the subject's environment, for example, the referent aesthetic
appearance of an outdoor chair. The subject's task would be to rate the referent
aesthetic appearance of the outdoor chair on the seven-point scale from bad to good, not
comfortable to very comfortable, simple design to stylish design and so on. If the
subject selected the middle space then it is understood that the evaluation would be
neutral. However, if the subject selected one of the spaces closer to the good end of the
scale, then the evaluation would be considered as a positive endorsement of the referent
aesthetic appearance of the outdoor chair. Figure 2.2 illustrates how the semantic
differential approach is able to expand meaning using signifiers or descriptors. The
participants ticked or scored 2, which indicates that the emotional response to Bulky
design – Sleek design was a negative opinion and perception of the proposed referent.
This personal opinion is accountable and can be further interpreted when the subject
judges the object by marking the extremities (one or seven, respectively). Similarly if
they have not formed an opinion and show this by marking the position four, then
opinion is considered neutral. By combining answers and feedback from participants,
34
the researcher is able to predict the decision and preference patterns of respondents, and,
later, be able to formulate assumptions about their taste (Refer figure 2.2).
What is your emotional response to this chair?
Bulky design 1 3 4 5 6 7 Sleek design
Typical design 1 2 3 4 5 6 Trendy design
Figure 2.2: Personal response can be identified when the respondent judges the object by marking the extremities
Research on the semantic differential approach by Uriel Weinreich (1969)
revealed that the accurate choice of subject descriptors in the semantic scales provides
considerable help for researchers to capture the emotional impact of the product design,
and allows for the researcher to understand how the subject is located in emotional
space or semantic space. The semantic space is used to make visual discoveries of
human perceptions by analysing examples mainly from within but also outside the
product category. This space is designed by involving participants’ opinions, and thus
reflects their perceptions. It is designed to remove the stereotypical perceptions that
designers carry by considering themselves as users. It reflects the user’s ideas of the
physical appearance of products as well as specific abstract mental constructs structured
around the gradient from typical to the atypical (Athavankar, 2009). If the subject is
rated using many attributes on the same set of scales, the resulting profiles can be used
to compare and generalize the distance between them. Alternatively, the same attribute
may be rated by another user, or the same user may be retested for the same attributes at
another time. The distance between profiles may be computed in each case, giving
measures of interpersonal agreement on the disagreement profiles and of the change of
profiles. This is considered to be an advantage of using the semantic differential scale. It
is easily implemented and is not a complicated concept for lay people to understand
since the requirement is only for the subject to make some sort of judgment and circle a
number.
35
2.1.5 The semantic differential image words
The semantic differential approach may be considered to be a user friendly
procedure that is relatively easy to apply to any design study, delivering an effective
quantitative means of evaluating and studying the meaning, and, particularly, the
affective meaning of things (Alcántara, et al., August 2005). Shang and fellow
researchers (2000) utilized the semantic differential approach in their studies, and
suggested that consumer responses on product perception should be evaluated through
the relationships between image words and design elements in order to obtain accurate
information (Hsu, et al., 2000). However, the dissimilarities of the relationships between
image words and design elements for two subject groups, such as designers and general
users can cause discrepancies in preferences. One way to narrow the range of this
discrepancy is by identifying the characteristics of the end user, and by studying the
users’ needs and preferences as well as the latest design trends. All these components
can be achieved through selective comparison of the special image words with regards
to the evaluation of the principle component analysis (Hsu, et al., 2000).
The interpretation of image words through expression in language is a medium
of representation emphasizing the intention and desire for the artefact. Language is the
best medium through which to interpret human expression and emotional responses.
People can describe, express and convey opinions or illustrate their judgment and
feeling for artefacts and tangible objects through words, phrases, syntax, and, later, the
researcher will analyse, examine the language, and translate it into cues or keywords for
design development activities.
Klaus Krippendorff (2006) revealed the importance of language as a process to
differentiate product meaning and product expression among people. Through language
and phrases, the designer will learn to understand consumer requirements and desires
that may be applied to the design. If a product design is created based on statistical data
and holistic facts gathered from respondents feedback between what things are
highlighted and that which is hidden in participants opinions, the product may survive
and be sustainable in any marketplace (Krippendorff, 2006).
36
In the professional context, designers also have their own language – commonly
termed as the design language – which comprises a set of abstractions used to enhance
the structure of an idea about objects towards generating solutions for the design
problem. The design language provides an important linkage between technological
theory and design theory, which signifies the actions to be performed upon objects,
concepts, qualities and properties. The design language is a unique case of natural
language in which a subpopulation of language users share terms, expressions, syntax,
and semantics (Gibbons, Botturi, Boot, & Nelson, 2007). Thus, lay people may not
understand or may misinterpret certain terminologies of the design language because
this language is formalized for a special purpose, and is used to emphasize metaphorical
expression and design expression in respect of certainty.
The semantic differential approach is capable of being used to investigate
product preferences and for understanding the relationships between participants and
clients’ personal concepts and product preference. According to Thompson and David
(1988), it is essential to understand the relationships between the clients conceptual
personality and product preferences because individuals’ perceptions of possessions
reflect their ‘self-concept’, or, in other words, a new image of themselves for example
when products are used as visual props in self-presentation (Thompson & David, June
1988).
The consumers and end users potentially have an instinctive and intuitive ability
to describe and find the image words, for certain products by looking at and observing
the content or physical appearance of the product, which are supported by knowledge
and experience with similar categories of product. However, the intervention of the
semantic differential approach needs to clearly define the perceptions of products. The
use of a mediator, such as a descriptor of image words is essential in describing the
product forms and characteristics (Hsiao, 1997; Jindo, et al., 1995; Shin-Wen Hsiao &
Ching-Hai Chen, 1997). The application of the semantic differential methodology is
considered to be a simple, economical means of obtaining data on emotional reactions
that could be used in many different situations, including human perceptions in product
design of the significance of cultural contexts, form and characteristics.
37
2.2 Furniture design
The basic components of chair design comprise legs, stretchers, seat rails, seat
rest, arm rest, back upright and back rails or splats (refer figure 2.3). Commonly, the
chair consists of supports to elevate it off the ground. The stretcher is used to reinforce
the chair leg elements, which it connects and strengthens giving extra stability and
strength. Meanwhile the seat rail is the horizontal framework that supports the seat of
the chair. The chair seat is the space allowed for sitting and scientifically serves to
distribute the load from the weight of the body over a reasonable surface area. The back
upright is a term for the vertical members of the chair back that are continuous with the
back legs and function to support the backrest. The backrest consists of back rails or
splats (upright flat panel) that function as a back support. There are many types of
design style from solid form, to curved, pierced and carved. A chair with arms is called
an armchair. For this study the arm chair only refers to the competing chair or (Refer
section 3.2.3, Comparative study). The armrests will also support part of the body
weight through the arms and function to make getting in and out of the chair easier.
Figure 2.3 illustrates the basic chair components that commonly apply to any chair
design (The Ingram Chair 2).
Each individual item of furniture design offers different functions and fulfils
different needs depending on consumer requirements. For example, chairs are used in
dining rooms, outdoors, offices, waiting rooms, community halls and others. One of the
most outstanding and important items of furniture that has been in constant use
throughout history is the chair. The chair sustains a far greater physical and
psychological relationship with its user than does a table or any other piece of moveable
furniture (Charlotte & Fiell, 1993, p. 7). This is because people spent more time in
sitting and set unique preferences in achieving the maximum comfort while sitting on
the chair. Chairs are used in almost all areas of the house, but only the outdoor chair has
the flexibility of being useful both inside the house as well as out of doors. Outdoor
chairs have their own advantages; prices are generally affordable and the chairs have
been built to withstand the vagaries of the weather. In consideration of these factors, the
2 The Ingram Chair (1900) was designed by Charles Rennie Mackintosh. This chair was built with a natural cherry wood frame and cushion with polyurethane foam and polyester padding, and has been upholstered with a full selection of fabrics or leathers.
38
researcher decided to design an outdoor chair that would emphasize the elements of
personalization and belonging, and be able to fulfil the needs of consumer preferences.
Figure 2.3: The Ingram Chair by Charles Rennie Mackintosh
The importance of the furniture design, particularly chair for the industry
because of demands from consumer. In general, modern people are interested in their
own accommodation with original interior design, affordable and comfortable furniture.
Thus, furniture is conceived, fabricated, and marketed for specific niches, specific
consumers and specific purposes. In other words the consumers are becoming more
conscious of image, color and impression when it comes to furniture. The positive
response from consumer gives opportunity to industry to grow and sustain, and
increasing the marketing and sales for furniture manufacturers and opening new
markets.
2.2.1 Furniture design market segmentation
The furniture design activity not only aims to develop a great design, but to
provide a design that can be manufactured in large numbers at a low price. For example
Stretcher
Seat rest Seat rail
Back upright Back rest
Leg
39
IKEA constantly cut the costs of design, production, transportation, materials and
marketing and the result is that retail prices across the board will be 2% to 3%
cheaper3. The flexible furniture systems that have recently come on the market, and are
often sold flat packed to be assembled at home are a good example from IKEA and
Muji furnitures. They provide an excellent means of supplying at a reasonable price and
with easy installation, furniture with a high emphasis on visual appearance and
ergonomic design. The visual appearance of furniture design always deals with the
emotional dimensions of pleasantness and unpleasantness. Words like colour, shape and
texture, each of which have their own consequences and expression on consumer visual
experiences, can communicate these properties and contribute towards building all
kinds of feelings (McDonagh, Hekkert, Erp, & Gyi, 2004).
Furniture designs are not objects of coincidence but they are designed, bought,
and used with purpose (Landon, 1974). Consumers never buy furniture without having
some reason to purchase; they buy or invest because they want to meet their abstract
goal; for example, I want to be happy, and the concrete goal I need a piece of furniture.
For this reason, in consumer research, Sirgy (1982) believed that user personalities can
be reflected through the products they acquire and use. Every person has their self-
concept, which is advanced as a useful construct for explaining consumer choice. They
decide what kind of product characteristics they want before purchasing, and, most
importantly, the consumers prefer products and brands with a symbolic meaning that is
consistent with their self-concept (Malhotra, 1988; Mugge, Govers, & Schoormans,
2009). The self-concept is the actual and the ideal of self-perception and can be
distinguished from four different self-concepts namely; (i) Actual self – defined as how
people see themselves; (ii) Ideal self – defined as how people would like to see
themselves, (iii) Actual-social self – defined as how people believe they are seen by
significant others, and, finally, (iv) Ideal-social self – defined as how people would like
to be seen by significant others (Sirgy, Grewal, & Mangleburg, 2000; Sirgy et al.,
1997).
In respect of this situation, many furniture outlets like the opportunity to sell a
broad selection of different styles of furniture. However, the price of furniture is
3Brad Tuttle. (2012). Everything at IKEA Is Getting Cheaper. Retrieved from
http://business.time.com/2011/07/06/everything-at-ikea-is-getting-cheaper/
40
increasing due to the fact that it is being built in a modern style and custom built to
client requirements (Ljungberg & Edwards, 2003; Luppold, 1987). Consumers seek to
buy uniquely designed products that have significance and meaning in their lives,
possibly modern to reflect and to declare their own uniqueness of identity (Gabrielsen,
Kristensen, & Zarchkowsky, 2010; Ljungberg & Edwards, 2003). There are many
different aspects of furniture that need to be analysed, such as consequences of material
selection, production technology and the availability of relevant skills (Vidal, Lama,
Bugarín, & Barro, 2003). Usually consumers want durable furniture, however,
durability can sometimes be sacrificed because they also want the look or feel of other
alternatives of furniture, such as style, size, texture and colour (Mackenzie, Cooper, &
Garnett, 2010). Thus, the researcher should think critically when selecting the material
before deciding whether it is fit and suitable to be used and applied to the design and the
whole process of industrial production techniques. The approach should adopt or
embrace the possibility of mass production in combining structural ingenuity with
meticulous detailing (Demetrios & Fehlbaum, 2007).
China became the largest furniture exporting country and the largest volume
producer in the industry in the world. In 2006, China’s export volume of furniture
reached 17.4 billion US dollars, which represented 1/5 of the total furniture trade in the
world. China’s furniture products are becoming very popular, and depend on low cost
and imitation of design products. After the global economic crisis, many of China’s
furniture company made more effort to find a way of exchanging the added value of a
product through innovation. China’s furniture enterprises believed that the design style
of furniture is becoming more innovative due to consumers’ vivid lifestyles. They
believed that changes in lifestyle have an impact on the development of trends in
furniture design. Wu (2009) also agreed that the design of furniture is also the design of
a kind of lifestyle. According to Vinson and his co-researchers, the basic value
orientations of consumers can be expected to vary across geographical regions when
various socio-cultural influences exist. They also believed that personal values vary by
age, education level, income, as well as other consumer demographics (Vinson, Scott, &
Lamont, 1977).
A new product design and development process cannot survive without a
marketing study. The marketing research in which related information about where we
want to market the product and the strength and the weakness of local resources should
41
be gathered to build up the product image database (Hillebrand & Biemans, 2004). As
this research is conducted in Australia, it is reasonable to give a quick account of the
furniture industry in this region. Most furniture manufacturing and other woodworking
industries are located in eastern and south-eastern Australia. The outdoor furniture
industry sector is focused in south-western Australia where the Eucalyptus marginata or
Karri forests are located. Karri, a local hardwood, has many of the characteristics and
the appearance of teak. In Australia, the demand for wood and timber products remains
on the rise due to the population growth and higher standard of living. However, the
shortfall between supply and demand of the local wood is challenging for both the
processors and manufacturers in providing a wider range of end products including
furniture, board products, pulp and paper 4 . Therefore, the manufacturing business
strategies of designed products should emphasize sustainability and maintaining the
quality of the product so that it can engage the value adding process of end products.
The furniture industry in Australia comprises many small to medium size
nameless companies of custom furniture makers who also retail or (also) supply direct
to selected retailers. They import overseas furniture and rebrand them with a new name
so that it can attract the local market. Evidently, the new rebranded image can have
important implications for the furniture marketplace because, if the end product can
produce precise consumer preferences and needs, it can influence the behaviour of
consumers who look at and choose brands, product classes, and product attributes
(Vinson, et al., 1977). According to Pinson (1986), the brand name and identity image
are capable of contributing substantially to the consumers’ emotional impact through
which it is possible to connect and create a positive relationship between humans and
products. Without a brand identity, there is no way for a manufacturer to advertise to the
consumer through the media or referrals. Brand identity is an expression of a brand,
which includes its name, trademark, means of communication and visual appearance.
The brand identity needs to draw upon the authentic qualities of the product and apply
distinctions of rational identity with positive connotations that allude to the experience
and aspirations of the user (McCormack & Cagan, January, 2004). The furniture design
4 Forest Industry Council (Southern NSW). (2012). Importance of the forest industry. Retrieved from http://forestindustrycouncil.com.au/importance-of-the-forest-industry/
42
industry should be able to carry the essence of the brand to the customer, especially
through its form and appearance.
2.2.2 Consumer tastes, needs and preferences pertaining to furniture
The majority of Australians live in major cities and there is an increasing trend
for a fast paced and busy lifestyle. For the younger adult generations, a self-contained
apartment, a small villa house or a town house are alternative options for living because
the locations are much nearer to the city, and offer a fair price or rental rate. However,
the small living space presents a disadvantage when planning to place furniture items.
This has caused the need for more flexible, multi-purpose furniture pieces, and
consequently one of the key design trends that have been observed is for versatility.
In a review of the existing literature by Liu Yong-Xiang and Li Jie (2006) they
found that furniture design should consist of dual functions, which must consider both
utilitarian functions and emotional functions. The emotional functions comprise
consumer experience traditions and particular lifestyles. The design should not only
concentrate on the shape, colour and form of the product but full consideration should
be given to the specific circumstances and cultural influences of the marketplace. For
example, the number of consumers, the natural resources, climate and the surrounding
environmental conditions need to be taken into account. In consumer behaviour it has
been recognized that people use the consumption of objects to express their individual
and social identity in their environment (Ahuvia, 2005). They use certain products and
services to indicate their social class, occupation, lifestyle, status and so on.
Furthermore social class, such as family upbringing and formal education are the
mediators of taste expressed in concept choices. Taste is interpreted as manifested
preferences that become objectified in the consumption of objects.
When seeking to specify the design characteristics of a comfortable seat, it is
important to consider a functional definition of comfort as it applies to seating. The
designer should not merely emphasise size and form in the pursuit of meeting functional
requirements but also provide maximum consideration to the space required for posture
and movement (Liu & Li, November 2006). The best a seat can do is not to cause
discomfort to the user. Liu and Li (2006) predicted that the irregular pattern and abstract
43
decoration of the furniture items would become popular and may direct a new trend for
furniture characteristic development.
Up to date trends in product design have changed from functionalism
epitomized by the phrase form follows function to product semantics of form follows
meaning (Hsu, et al., 2000; Krippendorff, 2006) and product emotions (Chitturi, 2009;
Don, 2002). According to this general direction, the users' desires and preferences are
essential in the development of product designs especially competing in aggressive
market segments. In order to meet users' needs, the product designers have to make
explicit connotative and denotative meanings of their products, and be capable of
demonstrating some affection and emotional attachment the between product and the
users. In other words, the products that have been designed must serve as a means for
expressing something to the end user. For example, the colour, texture, form, material
and shape of the product should convey certain meaning to the user either as being
representative of exclusive expression, having a masculine image or a feminine image
or similar. The semantic differential technique is only one of many procedures or
processes that permits an investigator of consumer preferences through a carefully
modulated scoring system. For example, in this study, the highest ranked outcome in
each category, as identified by the participants of the Design and User groups, will
deliver a pattern of preference in aesthetic and formal qualities from an object under
study. This outcome should not only generate a more satisfactory and controlled design
outcome, but should also generate a more positive forecast of design improvement and
user feedback leading to improved design outcomes.
In conclusion, it may be assumed that the future market for furniture design,
particularly chairs, does not depend merely on the demand for the number of chairs
produced, but will rely on the success with which the product meets the needs and
preferences of the consumer. These essential factors will help to sustain demand and
add value to the product. Designers and product developers must explore, investigate
and understand consumer needs and their emotional engagement with particular product
designs. To establish a thriving product is understood to require the designer/developer
grasping what is in the minds of the consumers as well as their desires (Margolin,
1997).
44
2.3 Human perception and psychological response
Each individual has a different perception of the world and the things therein.
The way we look at the world is basically a reflection or interpretation of the sensory
signal from the primary cortex, which is a truthful representation of the real world
(Sengpiel & Hubener, 1999). Human perception of the world and the things therein is
direct, immediate and without any interfering actions taking place in the brain. The
processes of perception change depending on what humans see. When a human is
looking at something with a pre-conceived idea, they will summarize those abstract or
general ideas inferred from specific instances and see them whether or not they are
there. This scenario stems from the fact that human beings are not capable of translating
new knowledge and information without the inherent bias of their previous knowledge
and experiences (Mather, 2009).
2.3.1 The definition of perception
Perception, in a simple definition, can be explained as a process of acquiring,
interpreting and gathering information through the senses, organizing and making sense
thereof. One of the significant senses that helps to interpret information is through the
visual sensory, such as eye and touch – skin and muscle. Without eyes, humans cannot
interpret and describe any tangible objects including visual artefacts, such as a painting,
sculpture, dress, furniture and so on. The eye is known as the sight sense and provides
the ability to detect light and interpret it through visual perception. The visual
perception only occurs when people are able to interpret and translate information and
the surroundings from visible light, which reaches the eyes.
People do not see and perceive the same perceptual experience when looking at
the same subject. According to Bloch (1995), the visual and physical appearance of a
product is a decisive factor in consumer response and can influence the mood of a
person looking at them, and, hence, lead to an appreciation of the product. Petiot and
Bernard (2003) suggested that in respect of meeting and satisfying human appreciation,
a product should advance attractiveness and have the quality to fulfil consumer desires.
The attractiveness or the pleasant appeal of the product can build a positive emotional
45
state or relationship between the consumer and a product, which indicates a strong
linkage between them, and leads to considering the product as part of them.
Perception differs from individual to individual due to the variety of personal,
socio-economic and cultural differences. The personal factors, which act as individual
perceptions include age, gender, race, and past experiences. As humans grow and
develop, they learn to see and comprehend relationships and themes from visual stimuli
instead of simple observation of individual objects and shapes. The socio-economic
factors include occupation, level of education, environmental factors, and family
upbringing. For example people who have formal education and knowledge in design
education, such as artists, designers, painters and architects, always see and perceive
tangible creations differently and are likely to inject elements and principles of design in
their arguments.
2.3.2 Why study perception?
Over the past few years, people have studied perception for a variety of reasons.
Some of the reasons have been to solve particular problems that arise from practical
considerations and intellectual curiosity concerning the perception issues of individuals,
such as understanding how different human senses have different ranges of sensibility
or sensitivity and different capabilities. The most important research is in the need to
know and understand how people perceive the world of objects through colour, vision,
and through comprehension of language, and through the appearance (form and aspect)
of objects in the world.
Every day people come in contact with products that communicate some
message to them. Traffic lights, communication tools, transportation vehicles and
entertainment products are just a few of the design inventions that people rely on during
work, play, study, and sleep. In order to make all these products work efficiently and
effectively, that product must accommodate and suit the human sensory system and fit
with the users’ preferences. For example, it would not be appropriate to put a wooden
bench in the guest room of a 5-star hotel because most people expect to have a
comfortable couch. Similarly, a traffic sign with blue letters on a green background
would be inefficient, because the contrast between these two colours would make the
46
letters difficult to distinguish. Human perceptual capabilities, limits and individual
preferences can be explored through the study of the human perception.
Perception can be regarded as each individual’s personal theory of reality, the
knowledge obtaining process that defines our view of the artefacts in this world. This is
because the perceptual outlook helps and guides mental and behavioural activities, and
naturally finds it fascinating to inquire about the bases of perception. Nevertheless,
natural curiosity advances many of the conjectures about perception. They are intrigued
by their everyday experience and are curious about the bases of those experiences
(Bowe & Bumgardner, 2004; C. C. Chang & Hsu, 2001; Ming Chuen. Chuang & Ma,
2001; Petiot & Bernard, 2003). In summary, to understand perception as much as
possible, one must study not only the properties of the physical world but also those of
the perceiver.
2.3.3 Human psychological responses to physical form
The research findings from Bloch have revealed that across a range of
overpopulated product categories, consumers are increasingly making product choices
based on aesthetics and visual attractiveness (Bloch, 1995), which are not only based on
physical appearance per se but can be derived from the product attributes of the physical
properties, such as colour, texture, material, form and many more (Blijlevens, Creusen,
& Schoormans, 2009). The appearance attributes together provide the consumer with an
overall impression of the product. The consumer expression about product impression is
actually a signal from consumers who do actually access or use the product, and who
are thus well placed to perceive its meanings. From time to time this will improve the
psychological responses to the physical form.
There are several emotional precepts and reactions that are involved when the
consumer assesses the form of a product. As soon as a product is released to the market,
the consumer will begin to provide feedback, opinions and other responses depending
on, and informing of, whatever they like or dislike about the product. This act is the
consequence of engaging with the psychology of consumer responses. There are three
levels or types or areas in which this psychological engagement with the subject can
47
take place. The areas of interest in this study are the cognitive, affective and he
behavioural consequences or responses to products.
When consumers have basic knowledge of a product category (product
categorization of a new product), which is based on a conscious intellectual activity
(thinking, reasoning, remembering and imagining) that is based on empirical knowledge
(facts), they are considered to be applying a cognitive response when evaluating the
product. In other words, their evaluation is considered to be valid (Bloch, 1995; Bloch,
Brunel, & Arnold, 2003; Crilly, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2004; Pinson, 1986). This group
believes that the best way to understand a new product in a market is by placing it
within existing categories and associating it within similar categories of product
specification. If a product form is highly unusual or new, the categorization assignment
becomes difficult. However, with moderate incongruity it is reasonably fair to justify
the further processing of product alternatives, which can still be categorized with related
success. Consumers who have the ability to apply cognitive responses when examining
a product are likely to find that form and physical appearance can affect their beliefs
and desire to purchase the product. For example, a wrinkled leather upholstered couch is
preferred over a synthetic leather one because wrinkled leather represents comfort,
softness and elegance of image.
People also apply affective responses when assessing a product, which
commonly involve emotions, moods and feelings when describing products (Norman,
1988, 2002). They have a tendency to describe the product with emotional states, such
as nice design, good workmanshi, bad pattern, beautiful shape and many more. When
the product has been evaluated based on affective responses, the semiotic content of the
product is likely to be associated. For example, in a modern society, teenagers and
young adults who buy electrical gadgets are more concerned with the appearance and
with the style than with the durability of the item. The intrinsic elements of stimulus
will require a strong involvement and positive emotions when making decisions about
the choice of a particular product based on its originality (Llinares & Page, 2007a) and
style (M.-C. Chuang & Shiau, 1998). Research by Chuang and his group has shown that
the product form perception of different age groups has affected the purchasing pattern
among consumers. They emphasize that the preference and image perceptions of
mobiles phone among elementary, junior high, senior high school, and college students
has shown different behaviours when interacting with the same product. It actually
48
affected the market segmentation or product differentiation in the development of a new
communication product (C. C. Chang & Shih, 2003).
Bloch (1995) reported in his study that consumers who judged the product based
on behavioural responses were more likely inclined to generalize the decision. If the
features, form and specification of the product are good, the consumer will continue to
approach the product, and avoid it if it is not able to fulfil their requirements and
preferences. The approach behaviour demonstrates an attraction to a particular design,
and a desire to spend some time exploring the object, the site and context in more detail,
while the avoidance behaviour signals the opposite and will or may lead to distancing
themselves from the object. They may change to another choice of product if the
particular object is not capable of fulfilling what they desire. When consumers examine
a particular product and decide that the object does not fulfil what they want they will
look for alternative products. Neither the approach response nor the avoidance response
are part of the product experience, and the need to go through product testing,
screening, using and examining before gaining feedback, is still required. For example,
the occasional chair with pleasing form and black suede upholstery may be attractive
and look comfortable from looking at its physical appearance. Unfortunately, before
confirming this point of view, the consumer needs to sit and feel the material before
providing an opinion about that subject.
In conclusion, the visual appearance of the product (physical form) may provide
a variety of perceptions simply through looking at the product. The literature shows
that the visual appearance of a product can influence consumer product evaluations and
choice in many ways. The appearance of the design can influence consumers´ first
impressions, from which they can quickly generalize whether the design depicts
advantages or disadvantages in relation to practicality or comfort when in use (Dul &
Weerdmeester, 2008) and vice versa (Creusen & Schoormans, 2005). In addition, the
design of a product can generate consumer inferences and logical judgment in respect of
several product attributes (Berkowitz, 1987; Bloch, 1995). The reasoning involves users
making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions
of colour, shape, form, texture, functions, ergonomics level and many more. Cognitive,
affective and behavioural responses always allow for different opinions that rely
extensively on the individual’s knowledge domain and their familiarity with similar
products. This limits people’s ability to develop accurate concepts about a product’s
49
context of use (Chamorro Koc, Popovic, & Emmison, 2008). However, the consumer
may judge a new product with an emotional response and through feelings that are
based on the products social context or environment of use. They may also describe the
relationship through their experience of the usability of the product through visual
means as well as through using or testing the product. This has always been a natural or
typical way for people to describe certain categories of object.
50
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
This chapter introduces the research proposition and
continues with a systematic explanation of the method
used to carry out the investigations. Also included is a
discussion of furniture design attributes that inform the
meaningful choice or image-words used in the semantic
differential questionnaires.
“Design methodology is alive and well, and living under the name of design research”
L. Bruce Archer, page 347 (Cross, 1984)
51
3.1 Proposition and methods
Chapter three encloses the research proposition or research methodology of
furniture design study. A typical design process is partly adopted but when pursuing a
full cycle of design process a special research framework is planned. The research
framework of the study comprises three phases for which detailed explanations can be
viewed in Section 3.2. The researcher also discusses some techniques in generating
themes and attributes or image words by grouping them according to their classes
inspired by ergonomic feelings, design characteristics or preferences from the semantic
differential approach. In general, this research is a mixed method research comprises of
quantitative and design experiment approach. The semantic differential type of
questionnaire(s) and creating three dimensional furniture models significantly improved
the research investigation and analysis on the needs, preferences of the prototype
design.
3.1.0 Introduction
Product design research is a problem-solving process. Its objective is to create a
successful and productive design, which suits the consumer’s needs. To achieve this
goal in this thesis, systematic methods and procedures of design research have been
proposed, which, when integrated with the processes of data collection, consumer
response, analysis, synthesis and decision making, will assist in achieving an optimal
solution to a stated design problem.
A systematic and practical design method allows the researcher to become more
aware and more consistent in exploring the research process. A comprehensive research
strategy for this study is important to ensure the effectiveness of the research and to be
able to receive accurate and reliable feedback. A review of the relevant literature shows
that a systematic process of research methods is able to assist researchers in generating
data and in analysing this data correctly and systematically. If product researchers are
able to maintain the research plan systematically, it will assist them in bringing the
research to a conclusion more rapidly than with a non-systems based product process
(Creswell, 1994; Norman, 1988).
52
3.1.1 Terms and meanings: product design and furniture design and use of the terms interchangeably
In this research, it is not unusual that the researcher refers to product design but
often changes it to furniture design. This may create confusion for readers. The word
product design refers to the designing and making of an innovative new product, which
includes industrial design, furniture design, packaging design, shoe design and other
consumer product fields. According to Laura Slack “A product design is a generic term
for the creation of an object that originates from design ideas – in the form of drawings,
sketches, prototypes, or models through a process of design that can extend into the
objects’ production, logistics, and marketing” (Slack, 2006).
Furniture design refers to a branch of product design that can sometimes be
considered to be a specialist or a niche area of product design. Furniture design is also
undertaken by interior designers, and, traditionally by architects. These designers may
be seeking a unique style of furnishing for an interior or architectural project. They may
be working as a design consultant to a manufacturer or as a manufacturing entrepreneur
on their own behalf. The furniture design process should ideally follow every part of the
product design process; for example, establish the design concept, drawings, idea
development, three dimensional mock-up(s) and prototype(s). In the context of this
document, the practical application of the word furniture design or/and product design
refers to the same object – an outdoor chair. The subject matter of this study can be
categorized as a furniture design and at the same time it is considered as a product of the
study.
3.1.2 Product design development process
The design process refers to the formation of a plan to assist a designer in
creating a product. Based on the work of Lance Green and Elivio Bonollo (2002), the
design process describes any principles, practices, procedures, and common methods
applied by most of the designers at all levels of product design activities, such as
drawing, idea development, mock-up and prototype. In certain conditions the design
process also depends on the objectives of the research project, whether pursuing a full
cycle of a design process or introducing a new design method that is only relevant to the
53
process of design. Figure 3.1 illustrates a typical product design process cycle idea to
cover the completed product. This basic design process is common to the vast majority
of products, and describes most clearly the process designers will follow. However, it
must be noted that individual designer’s will not all follow the process in the same
linear sequential manner, but will rather adapt the process to their own personality and
working context.
START Concept design Drawing Idea development
Technical model Assembly drawing Mockup
Prototype Evaluation FINAL
Figure 3.1: A design process: Typical stages are consistent with the rational model
Many researchers and designers have endeavoured to chart a route through the
design process from beginning to end (refer to Figures 3.1 & 3.2). One common idea
that underpins the design process is the assumption that it consists of a sequence of
distinct and diagnosable activities that occur in some predictable and identifiably logical
order. At first sight this appears to be a sensible way of analysing design, however, in
reality, the process is not as simple and linear as the rational model suggests, as it
involves back tracking between the various stages. According to Lance Green and
Elivio Bonollo (2002), designers learn about design tools through short-course training;
however, the problem arises when the designers cannot readily include these tools in the
design process due to the difficulty of changing the established and proven techniques
of design. Many of these tools and methods require important input data and paperwork,
and, as a result, they ignore the process or modify the process according to the result
they want to establish. The dissatisfaction with traditional methods of design and with
the widening of the scope and complexity of design problems, the design process is not
easy to comply with and obviously needs some modification. A number of researchers,
including Bryan Lawson (1997), Terry Lee Stone (2010), Lance Green and Elivio
Bonollo (2002) amongst others, have agreed that the decision of designers to apply
certain design models and processes depends on the complexity of the project, and is in
response to some interaction between the designer and client as work progresses.
54
Figure 3.2: The design process model based on Stone’s description of the stages in the process (Stone, 2010)
Figure 3.2 above illustrates another model for the product design development
process. Although different designers may have different terms for these steps, all
employ something similar. This flow chart demonstrates an overview of how a design
proceeds from its earliest stages to completion. This model also acts as a blueprint for
the interaction between the designer and client and it is also a basis for fees or charges.
Steps one and two are known as the discovery phase. In this stage, the designer
receives the task from the client and they begin to discuss the client’s needs and goals
and develop preliminary working schedules. This phase is also known as the initiation
and orientation stage in research. The designers at this point respond and submit a
proposal for design services. Their goals are to establish basic project parameters,
clarify objectives and identify opportunities. The designers seek relevant background
information and materials, which leads to the creative briefing activity.
Steps three and four consist of an ideate phase in which designers and/or
researchers form a mental image of something that is not present. The mental image
refers to a representation of ideas via intellectual processes, for instance, thumbnail
sketches, and drawings. The aims of phases three and four are to develop an overall
strategy, design approach, generate preliminary ideas and evaluate these ideas. They are
then able to work towards the establishment of a design brief and initiate design
concepts. The designer analyses and synthesizes the research and information collected
and begins to develop design criteria and articulate strategies. A designer’s ideation and
thoughts can take the following forms; thumbnail sketches, drawings, mood boards or a
55
series of alternative concept models. The designer will provide some insights and an
initial validation will occur with the peer group, client, or independent third party critic,
and then the design concept presented should meet the project’s stated goals and
objectives.
Steps five and six include a product development stage where the main aims are to
develop ideas to be more practical and better able to fulfil the client’s needs. An
appropriate concept, design direction and pragmatic design recommendations will lead
to final design approval. Designers initiate ideas via developing a design concept.
Advanced iterations of the concept(s) include drawings (refer to Figure 3.3), idea
development processes, technical models, assembly drawings and the creation of mock-
ups for three-dimensional observation (refer to Figure 3.4). The modifications or
amendments are made on the basis of client requests in cases where a designer has been
appointed or commissioned to design. Some designers might perform tests on the
design, which may then lead to another round of refinements. Assessment may include
validation and usability tests, depending on the product that is under development.
Figure 3.3: Fast drawing technique of stylish outdoor chairs by the researcher
56
Figure 3.4: Types of idea visualization; drawing, digital drawing and three-dimensional rendering that have been prepared by the researcher
Steps seven and eight comprise the delivery stage. The main goals are to reach the
point of final production. In this stage, the designers and/or researchers are also
typically needed to prepare a report and a full size working prototype before they
execute a final design for the product. The designers and/or researchers may be engaged
in the supervision or management of production materials, methods and means of
evaluation. For example, appropriate materials can be selected for the product or colours
and finish techniques can be suggested for the object surfaces. The prototype is a full
size functional model used for demonstration purposes and for final evaluation in
preparation for manufacturing.
The final step (step nine) is project completion. Basically, in this stage, designers
have a project debriefing to review the project procedures and outcomes. They also
typically prepare a case study report whilst the details of the project are still fresh in
their minds. The primary goal is to finalize the project and begin work on a new project,
incorporating everything that has been learned from previous projects.
From the point of view of the researcher; steps five and six, consisting of the ‘idea
development process’ and the validating process, constitute the most important and
decisive stages. They have to work consistently to produce an end product that meets
the client’s requirements in conjunction with the end user preferences and requirements.
There is no published research that offers evidence that designers exactly follow the
designated design process flow chart, and, as a consequence, all product research
57
outcomes are unique. The flow chart above, therefore appears, to be both theoretical
and prescriptive. It may have been constructed more by thinking about design than by
experimental observation and characteristically it is logical and systematic (Lawson,
1997). To get a better appreciation of the design process for outdoor chairs, Chapter
Four, Chair Design, presents a discussion of outdoor chair design in respect of technical
concept development and product design development. The discussion of product
design development includes clarification of the furniture design briefs and the need for
drawings, computer assisted design, technical drawings, mock-ups and prototypes to
complete the furniture design cycle.
3.1.3 Designer opinions of product development process
The semantic differential study is not an easy research subject since it takes the
researcher quickly into the psychology of thinking, and, to some extent, of feeling and
emotion. In addition, the preparation of the object evaluation (outdoor chairs) is not an
easy task since it requires skill and creative thinking, which is directed towards some
physical end product, the nature of which must be communicated to participants who
may help in providing inputs for the design and the construction. For this entire study,
the researcher is not merely acting like a researcher per se but is also working as a
designer. With formal education in industrial design and experience as a practicing
industrial designer, this background has provided an opportunity to carry out this
research by design as well as work through the design with the benefit of the research
activity that has been undertaken in parallel. Thus, the explanation for the designer’s
opinion of the product development process is not only based on personal professional
experience but is supported by the professional literature in the discipline.
Although the earlier examination of some flow charts (Refer figures 3.1 and 3.2)
of the design process suggests that many models seem quite logical, none were really
useful and strictly followed. The researcher tries to describe what goes on in a
designer’s head when executing a design process. First and foremost, the designer has to
develop a design brief. The design brief is a written explanation, outlining the aims,
objectives and milestones of a design project. A thorough and articulate design brief is a
critical part of the project design process. Normally, a design brief consists of a design
concept, a design statement and design parameters of an intended creation. The design
58
concept embodies the designer’s ideas and intentions, and, at this stage, its physical
appearance, form and function may not be fully resolved. Most design concept
strategies start with a brief scanning of the problem as it appears initially, and it is
common to find the elements of solutions in this documentation. The design concept is
important for the designer to create a product that is able to fulfil the description of the
general class of the product that can satisfy the consumers’ requirements. The product
must appeal to its intended consumer at a variety of levels; for example, function,
usability, reliability, shape, form and colour. This is why it is so important to study the
design problem carefully, as without truly understanding the problem, there is little hope
of generating concepts that can be turned into realizable products that satisfy all its
requirements.
There are a few methods to stimulate ideas, such as creating a mood or an image
board and executing thumbnail sketches. A mood board is a technique used by designers
to help them acquire a good idea of what their clients are looking for. It is basically a
collage of items, such as photographs, sketches, magazine clippings, fabric swatches
and colour samples. Although the selection of these items does not necessarily exactly
match what the designer actually wants to develop, it can be an inspiration and
stimulates ideas before proceeding to the design stage. Thumbnail sketches and
drawings are also some of the techniques to describe ideas and to explore multiple ideas
quickly. Thumbnail sketches involve drawing quick, abbreviated drawings and with no
corrections and no finalized items (refer to Figure 3.3). After completing the thumbnail
drawing, the researcher needs to pick a practical idea and develop it into a proper and
meaningful drawing.
Modern technology has introduced many remarkable tools for designers by
creating drawing programs (computer assisted drawing). Computer assisted drawings
can provide tools for designers to draw and render the desired product efficiently. The
digital drawings produced help to generate design concepts, externalize problems,
organize cognitive activity, and facilitate problem solving, perception and translation of
ideas digitally, therefore potentially accelerating the drawing process.
Another method of further investigating design performance, specifically on
three dimensional studies of the object, is to construct a mock-up. A mock-up is often
used to determine the proportions of the object and is used to test whether it is suited to
59
human shapes and sizes. Sometimes, mock-ups can also be used to test the colour,
finish, and design details, which cannot be visualized from the initial drawings. The use
of scale models or mock-ups in the design process can assist in the selection and
validation of the project before proceeding to the full prototype phase. The prototype is
always meant to function like and to replicate the final manufactured object before
being put into production.
In this evaluation and validation process, respondents can provide both
quantitative and/or qualitative feedback, providing the designer with detailed insights
into individuals’ beliefs, experiences and perceptions. For this thesis, the researcher
highlights evaluation and validation criteria based on aesthetics, utility and form, not to
elicit a positive answer, but to gather a broad range of feedback about particular criteria
to further inform the design process. A concise and thorough analysis and interpretation
of peoples’ reactions to a chair plays an important role in better informing the designer
of consumers’ needs and desires, stylistic preferences, dislikes and so on. User feedback
is vitally important for the long term success of the designed product, and should always
be factored into the design process.
60
3.2 Research Framework
In this study, the semantic differential procedure is used to evaluate outdoor
chairs with two types of participant, namely, a Design Group and a User Group.
In this study, the Design Group includes freelance designers, design consultants,
and full time designers working with furniture and the soft furnishing industry. The
researcher also considered furniture retailers and interior decorators as part of the
Design Group because they are specialized people and have the ability to provide
special services in parallel with design knowledge. There is no specific working
experience or educational background required as long as they engage in design
activities including designing, selecting and identifying good quality furniture for retail
market trends. In this study, the researcher defines the User Group as a group of people
who are interested in design activities, however they are not engaged or working
directly in the design disciplines. The User Group is likely to give opinions on product
features based on the social context of use. However, the Design Group uses their
professional judgment to focus only on product features when defending their opinions
(Chamorro Koc, et al., 2008).
There are a total of three phases in the research framework for this project. The
first phase comprises the establishment of the design brief and the design concept of the
outdoor chair. It also includes the design and fabrication of the fast prototype known as
Prototype 1. The second phase of the research involves the redesign and re-briefing of
Prototype 2 and designing of a new chair (Prototype 3). Both chairs are designed and
fabricated according to participants’ feedback and preferences. Finally, the third
research phase is an assessment stage, which brings together Prototype 2 and Prototype
3 simultaneously with two other chairs (Sample 1 and Sample 2). Samples 1 and 2 are
competing chairs sourced from among the commercial chairs available on the market.
The final four chairs were assessed in terms of form, aesthetics and utility and the fair
assessment is evidently conducted in avoiding prejudiced results later. The next sub-
topic explains in detail how the assessment is carried out.
61
3.2.0 The deployment of the furniture research framework
The research framework of this study comprises three phases. Each phase or
stage of research in the framework has been included with the components of
experimentation, evaluation and feedback. Stage one is known as the new design phase,
stage two is called the re-briefing and designing process (redesign and create a new
design), and stage three, the comparison study phase.
STAGE/ PHASE
PROTOTYPE
EVALUATION
USER FEEDBACK
Prototype 1
Questionnaire-1
Analysis 1
Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Analysis 2
Figure 3.5: Furniture design framework
1
3 Questionnaire-2
(Implementation)
2
Results
(Implementation)
Results
(Implementation)
Comparative study and design recommendations
discussion
(Implementation)
Prototype 2 Prototype 3 Sample 1 Sample 2
62
3.2.1 Phase 1: New design
To begin the project, the researcher designed and constructed a working
prototype of Prototype 1 (refer to Figure 3.6) based on specialized design specifications.
The design specifications are in accordance with current trends and the popularity of
outdoor chair forms and shapes on the market today. From the design brief, the
researcher generated the initial design concepts in the form of drawings, an idea
development process, technical models, assembly drawings and mock-ups (details of the
design concept can be referred to in the creative folio). Further elaborations of the
furniture design concept and the furniture design process can be found in Chapter Four,
Chair Design.
Figure 3.6: Full scale model of Prototype 1
Drawing was one of the critical elements in this phase because it was used to
demonstrate a thinking process from generating a concept to something that is useful,
practical and tangible. Drawings were done quickly to help generate ideas in a shorter
period of time, which gave the designer the freedom to select which drawing to
emphasize and develop. The selected idea was developed according to the requirements
63
of the brief and within the product design parameters. The three-dimensional drawings
were based on the initial quick sketches and produced by using three-dimensional
software (Google SketchUp and Autodesk -3D studio Max). The use of computer
technology to generate drawing techniques is capable of cutting short the design
visualization process, and provides a more realistic and detailed representation of the
chair.
The next stage was to provide the technical drawings that could be used as a
reference point in prototype design making. The prototype comprised a full size
functional model for evaluation and validation purposes. The final prototype was then
exhibited. Concurrently, questionnaires were distributed to selected users based on the
pre-set outline design questionnaire requirements. Then, the results from the feedback
were carefully analysed using statistical analysis software (SPSS).
3.2.2 Phase 2: Re-briefing and designing
The second phase of the research study is the re-briefing and design stage. In
this stage, a formula of design suggestions and user perceptions was applied to direct
the next amendment in the second stage of the research framework. The second stage of
the design process involved the development of the second prototype (Prototype 2) and
the third prototype (Prototype 3). The second prototype is a re-designed model of
Prototype 1 with the design specifications following but not restricted to the user
suggestions and preferences expressed in Questionnaire-1. The researcher retained
certain design elements and forms, and approximately applied the new
recommendations according to the feedback of Questionnaire-1. To understand how
Questionnaire-1 is designed, please refer to Chapter 6, The Questionnaire for the
detailed information.
The second phase of the research study also involved the exploration of the third
prototype (Prototype 3). Prototype 3 was designed and fabricated according to a normal
furniture design development process through to completion, as illustrated in Figure 3.8.
The researcher assumed that the time frame to establish a final design of Prototype 3
could be reduced. This is because in this stage, the feedback data obtained from the
earlier questionnaire may be helpful to cut short the design development process by
64
providing some suggestions for the design specifications and factual information of end
users’ needs and desires.
Figure 3.7: Full scale model of Prototype 2
Figure 3.8: Full scale model of Prototype 3
65
3.2.3 Phase 3: Comparative study
Phase three constituted the final phase of the chair design circle. In this stage,
the researcher brought an original redesigned chair (Prototype 2) and a new chair design
(Prototype 3) together with two competing chairs (Sample 1 and 2) or ‘reference
objects’5 for comparison and examination purposes. The reference object functions as a
competing object for any commercial chair available on the market. These competing
objects were named Sample 1 and Sample 2 (refer to Figures 3.9 and 3.10), and
complied with the basic design specifications and recommendations from the earlier
feedback6 and survey results. The reference objects were selected and bought from a
commercial furniture warehouse and specialist furniture supplier. This additional feature
of incorporating a competing chair stimulates the respondents’ affective and cognitive
perceptions and prompts debate as to whether the outdoor chair really needs extra
features in order to fulfil the expectations and preferences of consumers. An additional
reason why the researcher engaged competing chairs in the survey is because of the
need to understand how the design can be rated against what may be a typical or a
stereotype product.
In this stage, the researcher endeavoured to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
semantic differential approach in its capacity to accommodate user preferences.
Questionnaire-2 was also formulated at this point. A complete discussion of the
semantic differential questionnaire is discussed in Chapter Six, Questionnaire. An
improved version of the semantic differential questionnaires granted the researcher
more opportunity to develop specific target questions. The evaluation criteria for the
questionnaires were based on perceptions concerning the form, aesthetics and utility. It
was not necessary to elicit a positive answer from the respondents for it to be judged a
successful design of the questionnaire.
5 Two samples of commercial outdoor chairs from a commercial furniture warehouse and a specialist furniture shop.
6 The basic design specifications of Sample 1, for example, are that it should have four legs, a back rest, be made from hard wood and have no arm rest. The preference for Sample 2 still follows the same design rules but an extra feature was injected, which is that the chair should reflect the designer’s signature taste and should come with an arm rest feature.
66
Figure 3.9: Sample 1: The competing chair (Sample 1)
Figure 3.10 : Sample 2: The competing chair (Sample 2)
67
In conclusion, this study comprises a three stage research framework, known as
new design, re-briefing and designing and comparative study. Throughout the whole
process, three prototypes were fabricated, two semantic differential questionnaires were
prepared and two stages of analysis were conducted. The prototypes were considered
essential to all research phases because of the importance of showcasing to participants
the particular tasks and features. The participants were also required to respond to some
parts of the questionnaire by observing the prototypes (Prototype 1, Prototype 2 and
Prototype 3). The tailor made semantic differential questionnaires were carefully
constructed to capture and record the perceptions of participants’ through the medium of
chair design. Finally, descriptive and comparative analysis was performed after
disseminating the Sematic Differential Questionnaire-1 and Questionnaire-2.
The flow of this research is dynamic and not linear. The researcher was not only
required to work on the survey and analysis, as it was also necessary to design and build
prototypes based on the results and recommendations. These procedures allowed the
researcher to measure and understand the preferences and requirements of participants
before purchasing furniture.
3.3 The strategy of furniture design attributes
This study applies a systematic classification of image text to describe furniture
characteristics. The image text or the chair descriptor is also known as the chair
attributes, which function to describe the object’s appearance, meaning, specifications,
characteristics and physical aspects of the product. The furniture attributes can be
discovered and depicted through words and language.
68
3.3.0 The strategy to make meaning more meaningful
The word attribute in this context refers to a noun, adjective or arrangement of
syntax, which has been used to evaluate the subject; in this case a chair. For example,
these elements are related and provide a broadened spectrum for researchers to seek
additional image words to describe this subject. In simple words, a noun is not a name
but rather a descriptor of itself, or an abstract term. An adjective serves to modify a
noun or pronoun by describing, identifying, or quantifying its specific characteristics.
Syntax, simply put, refers to the arrangement of words in a sentence and has the ability
to use complete words, phrases and sentences. Figure 3.11 illustrates how the three
elements of adjectives, nouns and syntax can enrich a list of furniture design attributes
through subject evaluation. The set of adjectives, nouns, syntax or phrases are modern,
beautiful, concept, image, ease to maintain and streamlined shape.
Figure 3.11: Attributes’ or image words to describe a chair using adjectives, nouns and syntax.
The theme of the study can be achieved through selection of the image text, in
which several layers of clustering systems and the hierarchical coordination of the
words are conducted. The image words and phrases were clustered to ensure that
sufficient clustering of the chair attributes can be implemented in the study. Several
procedures were applied to determine the relevancy and interdependency among the
adjectives, phrases and words. An accurate selection of the image texts was essentially
important before establishing the theme for the study. Figure 3.12 demonstrates the root
operation to determine the theme of the study. The first stage of the process identified
the subject of the study, and, in this context, an outdoor chair was the subject matter.
Later, the researcher built up the list of image texts or image words to discover the
object‘s meaning. After that the self-filtering system and congruity clustering was
69
conducted to shortlist and narrow down the long list of the chair’s attributes, finally
establishing the research theme, which was based on the finalized image text. Detailed
elaborations of these processes are discussed in the next section of the study.
Figure 3.12: Diagram of procedure to determine a theme for semantic differential research on
an outdoor chair
3.3.1 Image words or Image texts
Image words or image texts refer to any general nouns, adjectives, syntax
structures and descriptors to describe a product, including furniture. From the image
word or expression, the researcher should be capable of translating it into a basic idea or
understanding of a chair’s characteristics. The words used to describe a chair should
portray a description with a general meaning as well as having connotative meanings.
Choosing appropriate words to describe an object can be done through using or
examining thesauri, dictionaries, journals, conference proceedings and website articles
of similar subject matter (Bowe & Bumgardner, 2004; Ming Chuen. Chuang & Ma, 2001;
Hsiao, 1997; Petiot & Bernard, 2003). For this study, image words do not appear
instantly, but they are formulated through the above-mentioned process including brain
storming among peers.
The search process provided a large number of significant words. The initial set
of words included more than 170 image words, which related to furniture and product
design descriptions. The important point to remember is that descriptions of furniture
characteristics should not be restricted to any requirements and preferences expressed in
a product brief. The attribute lists collected from this technique were pleasant,
decorative, balance, commercial, elegant, grand, safety, simple, dynamic, sleek,
70
compact, easy to dismantle, identity, modern and many more. A full list of image words
is presented in Figure 3.13.
Figure 3.13: A compilation of image words to describe furniture characteristics and symbols derived from examining thesauri, dictionaries, journals, conference proceedings and website
articles
71
3.3.2 Self checking filtering system
The collection of image words is relatively large and needs narrowing because a
large number of furniture descriptors are relatively difficult to analyse. The words are
arranged according to semantic similarity where the words share the same query or have
related meanings. The researcher managed to reduce more than 170 furniture image
words down to 61 image words. The researcher believes that the list of 61 image words
is still too large number to measure and evaluate the subject, especially when designing
the semantic differential questionnaires (not all words will be used and applied in the
questionnaires).
The selection of descriptors or attributes should be susceptible to quantitative
evaluation. The correlation between adjectives and subject evaluation should be
representative of perceptions of the chair. The criteria for the selection of words
followed the guidelines established by the Kansei engineering consumer-oriented
technology for new product development. However, the sample image words were
selected via a manual method (a self-checking filtering system) that does not employ
any technological tools. According to Nagamachi (1995), there are elements that should
be considered prior to the selection of final attributes. The selection of image words
should represent consumer attitudes towards the ergonomic nature of the product. The
image words can also describe the design characteristics according to consumer
feelings. Last but not least, they should be able to adapt the product design to consumer
preferences (Nagamachi, 1995).
Nagamachi (1995) also suggested that the selection of final attributes will
simplify the researchers’ task of filtering and scrutinizing a large number of image
words. The three clustering filters of image words according to class are ergonomic feel,
design characteristics and preference trends. Figure 3.14 demonstrates the list of
retained adjectives after applying the clustering group according to a rule of thumb
prescription. The selection of furniture adjectives or furniture descriptors should present
common concepts and make logical sense to end users.
72
The ergonomic feel refers to an emotional feeling or reaction when seeing and
using the product, whether it is safe and/or comfortable. The design characteristic
filtering system refers to any phrase or word that is able to describe furniture design in
terms of its properties, features, characteristics and physical appearance that can
improve the product's marketability and aesthetics. The researcher decided to select
pleasant, originality, affordable, contemporary design, practicality in design (just to
name a few words) to be put under the design characteristic category.
The preference trend category is filtering any word that relates to furniture
market trends and the way people describe furniture with semiotic expression. Examples
of this category include innovative, creative concept, elegant design, designer taste and
high aesthetic value. Figure 3.14 shows the full list of descriptors and image words after
applying the self-filtering system. Later these image words are narrowed down through
a congruity clustering system.
Figure 3.14: An example of a list of image words after applying the self-filtering system
73
3.3.3 Congruity clustering
The next step of the filtering system is a congruity clustering system. This
technique allows the researcher to select the final image-words to be grouped in their
own category, and allows these image-words to generate their own connection among
the words in their respective class. The category or class of the image-words was
positioned in its own scheme based on the image-word formation, in which the
researcher established a dummy theme and the image-words or adjectives were placed
within their respective theme. The dummy theme comprised adjectives or syntax
representing the direction of the sub-theme in order to embellish and enhance the
general description of the product specification and characteristics of the object
evaluation. The three dummy themes were created and named as the aesthetic, the form
and the utility, which were inspired by the ergonomic feelings, design characteristics
and preferences derived from the Kansei engineering approach.
In the earlier filtering system, the total number of 61 adjectives obtained was
still considered a long list. Before proceeding to the next stage of constructing the
questionnaire this number had to be reduced. The correct selection of attribute lists to
human feelings and human perceptions about the appearance of the product was
important for the furniture semantic descriptions later in the process. Previous literature
reviews reported that the understanding of the links between furniture characteristics
and furniture meaning through adjectives was relatively low because it involves a user’s
internal feelings and desires. There was a crucial need to identify the correct descriptors
in discovering the meaning of the object (Mondragón, et al., 2005). In addition,
Krippendorff and associates (1984) agreed that the adjectives or descriptors were able to
provide the opportunity to understand and interpret the appearance of the product, and
the use and context of the product effectively. Wang & Yang (2006) emphasized that it
was important to reduce the image-words before establishing the list of attributes. The
selection of the image-words should not describe the information and meaning of the
object directly, rather the image-words should generate their own emotional responses.
74
The selection of the image-words or the image texts required establishing a
connection between the physical and emotional characteristics of the chair. The
selective criteria were used to group descriptors under the main heading cited as form,
aesthetics and utility, and their major sub-group headings; namely, ergonomic feelings,
design characteristic and consumer preference trends (Refer to figure 3.15).
Figure 3.15: Finer determination to distinguish outdoor chair adjectives and themes
Form is one of the themes for the outdoor chair study, and the finer
determination to distinguish the adjectives in this class derives from the concept of the
design characteristics of the chair design. The researcher referred to these adjectives as a
sub-theme, which comprised five main sub-themes, known as size, material, durability,
practicality and safety. The mutual connection basically refers to the form of the chair.
For example, does the chair need to be durable, practical and safe for the end users?
Does the material selection and chair size increase the safety elements? Because the
questions given have a link to its physical appearance, the researcher decided to choose
form as the first theme for the chair evaluation in the questionnaire.
The second theme for the semantic differential study is utility. The theme of
utility was adopted when the researcher learnt that the following system for consumer
75
preference trends that afford any accuracy in response needed careful consideration.
This was particularly relevant when considering issues of taste in relation to the tonal
characteristics of a piece of work. The sub-theme under utility comprises design
concept, brand identity, ergonomic factors and elements and principles of design and
price. The researcher believes that the list of attributes will be able to generate
consideration of particular research questions around selected image words. For
example, is the design concept and brand identity of the product able to control the
product price? If a product emphasizes its design ergonomically, does the price and
consumer perception change instantly? It is quite a mental effort to assign single words
to describe all preferences and requires logical thinking and skill to connect them. To tie
these image words together, a general theme has been created under the name of utility.
Under the theme of aesthetics, the ergonomic feeling factor is used to generate
the sub-theme in this category. The selected phrase of the sub-theme comprises images,
finishes, functions and appearances. These four distinctive sub-themes offer mutual or
common relationships and connections to each other, and are able to accelerate
questions within the topic area of study. For example, what type of chair image is suited
to end users? Is the chair’s appearance important to the end user? What type of chair
finish do they want for the final design? Does it need special functions? To make sure
these sub-themes were sticking together a mutual relationship to each other was
established; the aesthetic theme was chosen to be one of the themes in the development
of the questionnaires.
3.3.4 Theme
76
When consumers look at certain products, what they actually conjure up in their
minds is something closely related to the overall style and look of the product.
Researchers or designers need to explain design in terms of how particular arrangements
of design elements work together and how the product can convey something to the end
user so that they can understand the whole idea of the product.
Thus, three main themes – form, aesthetics, and utility – were developed to
enable participants to understand and distinguish a chair’s characteristics in terms of
internal and external expressions. The sub-themes run under the umbrella of the
principal themes, which develop the meaning of the theme. For example, the sub-theme
of aesthetics is broken down into appearance, image, functions and finishes. The second
theme is form, and constitutes safety, size, material, durability and practicality. Finally,
the third theme is utility, which includes brand identity, ergonomics, price, design
concept, and elements and principles of design. Giving examples of sub-themes within
principal themes may assist in making the term more meaningful and clear. Figure 3.14
illustrates an extensive clustering process and determines where the descriptor should
belong, and how it is limited to the selected descriptors or image texts.
77
Figure 3.16: Hierarchical organization of semantic descriptions: An extensive clustering process to determine where the descriptor should belong
The first theme to discuss is aesthetics. Simply put, aesthetics refers to something
looking attractive, beautiful, pleasing in appearance and being able to portray some
meaning to the viewer. The word aesthetic derives from the Greek word, aisthetikos,
referring to sensitivity, perception and feeling. In this context, aesthetic has been
determined as a holistic appearance that not only caters to the beauty of the outer
surface but suggests qualities that give pleasure to the senses, which are described as
78
inner-aesthetic. A set of attributes of aesthetic entities includes images of the physical
representation of the object’s resemblance to certain design styles, such as
contemporary, modern, classic, retro et cetera; standard of finish; and appearance and
image. Although aesthetics will change with the passage of time and with changes in
taste, the aesthetic values, such as the functions and practicality of an object still remain
within it. Figure 3.16 shows the descriptors that are gathered into sub-groups according
the category based on the same side of abstract meaning and duties. For example the
sub-theme of aesthetics is finishes and it comprises workmanship, good quality, top
quality finish, pleasant outlook, natural finishes, unique characters and many more
(refer Figure 3.15). Later, these lists of phrases were used in the questionnaire design
for the formulation of questions about the emotional perception of the participants of the
Design and User Groups.
The second theme of this study is form. Form is one of the visual tools of design
and can be defined as a three-dimensional object embodying volume and thickness. The
length, depth and height of the three-dimensional object under evaluation presents form
as a visible mass, which can be viewed from many angles. A descriptive explanation of
a form is something that involves its shape, ‘its appearance or feeling of safety, size,
material, durability, practicality and every aspect of its physical reality. Form also refers
to three-dimensional physical objects, which must include weight, size, materials and
safety factors. The quality of form should be measured by comfort, safety and
durability. The researcher also emphasizes that the use of form not only provides shape
and structure to the raw material, it also gives a meaning to interpret those materials.
Obviously, form can be associated with the properties of a product’s character and a
manifestation of the product’s usefulness, usability and desirability. Figure 3.5
demonstrates the list of phrases that have been gathered in the designated sub-theme
based on function. One example of the form sub-theme is practicality, which included,
whether the furniture appeared easy to clean, easy to use, portable, easy to assemble,
pleasant, simple, compact and many more.
Finally, the third theme of the study is utility. Utility is defined as a measure of the
relative satisfaction from, or desirability of, consumption of various goods and services.
Under the concept of utility, there is brand identity, ergonomics, price, life span, design
concept, and principles and elements of design. The utility attributes help to lay out
questions of common concepts, explain the perceived differences and similarity in
79
visualizing the position of the products’ semantic attributes and compare its relative
strengths and weakness. For example, the phrases commercial design, conceptual
design, creative concept, designer taste, eco-design, and geometric form belong to the
design concept. The phrases obtained not only help the researcher develop the semantic
differential questionnaire professionally but are also useful in completing the list of
questions that may provide a significant response about the perceptions of participants
of the chair and prototype designs in terms of emotional and connotative values.
In conclusion, this study categorized chair attributes into three main themes –
form, aesthetics and utility. These attributes are important and give tremendous
assistance in engaging the perceptions of the participants of the Design and User Groups
in relation to their overall knowledge of design issues in relation to furniture, and,
specifically, to outdoor chairs.
3.4 Approaches to user research on chair design
This entire study examines the perceptual gap of the relationships between two
groups of respondents – the Design Group and the User Group. The relationship of
perception is measured by observing a series of outdoor chairs and prototypes, and
completing a compulsory questionnaire. A small sample size for the Design Group and
User Group was selected because of the need to achieve effective data collection during
the formative stages of the feedback and evaluation process of the design. This small
scale group helped to ease the task of retrieving data, which may not otherwise have
been readily available or experienced.
In the first survey, a total of 32 participants were involved, which included 5
Design Group members and 27 User Group members. Then, the second phase of the
research engaged with a total of 51 individuals who also answered Questionnaire-2, in
which 84.3 per cent comprised the User Group and 15.7 per cent were from the Design
Group. In general, a smaller number of participants provides limited information
concerning the sources of variation of responses; however, it is possible to provide
sufficient and powerful data on variability for a control analysis to estimate the number
of participant perceptions. This is true as evidenced by Hsu, Chuang and Chang (2000),
Mondragón, Company and Vergara (2005), Sevener (2003), and Petiot and Bernard
(2003) who allowed for a small number of participants to be involved in semantic
80
differential research. For example, Hsu et al. (2000) employed 40 participants (20
designers and 20 users) in their study. This article has been cited by more than 130
researchers from all over the world and published in the International Journal of
Industrial ergonomics (Hsu, et al., 2000). Mondragón Salvador, Company Pedro and
Vergara Margarita conducted research on semantic differentials applied to the
evaluation of machine tool design, and only utilized 35 participants directly in their
research (Mondragón, et al., 2005). A semantic differential study of the influence of
aesthetic properties on product pleasure was carried out by (Sevener, 2003) and utilized
40 participants in the study. Finally, Petiot and Bernard (2003), only involved a total
number of 11 participants; however, more than 76 researchers have cited their article
(Petiot & Bernard, 2003). In summary, a small number of participants is not an issue as
precedent studies have shown. A small sample size is sufficient for the project and is
largely qualitative.
The researcher also decided to have at least two types of respondent because of
accountability issues. The Design and User Groups in this study are obviously important
to provide non-biased results, which should deliver a balanced evaluation of the
product. The researcher needed to obtain a sincere opinion from the User Groups
because they can supply a genuine opinion about the character and symbol of the chair.
Nevertheless, the impressions and opinions of the Design Group are also important and
are needed to support the researcher because they are experts in the field and are
capable of voicing their opinion based on professional knowledge and experience. The
opinions from both groups are equally vital in this research and complement each other.
This research is necessary because, clearly the researcher cannot judge his own design
because it could lead to biased results. Koh and Heng (1996) suggested that designers
are not appropriate to be accountable for their own design suggestions and
recommendations because they might not be seeing or have overlooked some of the
implications concerning the design of the product.
The implications of differences in preference and the relationships among actual
design elements for two subject groups will support the researcher in the controlled
development of a chair style for the intended end users. The design survey is more
easily implemented because prototypes and samples are provided for them to observe
and give comments. User Groups only need to answer the questions based on their
capacity as consumers and potential buyers, whereas the Design Group gives opinion
81
based on a professional point of view. Questionnaires have been specially designed to
assist viewers in understanding the questions effectively, thus they need to select
whether they either admire or dislike the design based on a bipolar rating scale ranging
from one to seven.
Figure 3.17: Participation of the Design Group in the design survey at the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts, University of Western Australia
82
CHAPTER 4
CHAIR DESIGNS
Chapter four presents information relating to the design of
an outdoor chair in relation to the technical concepts and
product design development. The discussion of product
design development includes a clarification of furniture
design briefs and the necessity of drawing, computer
generated design, technical drawing, mock-ups and
prototypes in the completion of the furniture design cycle.
The clarification of chapter four is designed for the reader
who does not have a solid design background.
83
4.1 Outdoor chair design: technical concept development
A chair is an artistic product, and can be considered as a form of decorative art.
The chair can serve both a functional role and possess a symbolic purpose, which is
connected t o status. For example, the throne of a king is a symbol of opulence and
power, even when the king is not sitting on it. Besides anthropometrics, a non-
ergonomic functional requirement is also important in chair design. This includes
aspects such as size, multi-functionality, colour, stackability, durability, weight,
foldability, stain resistance and aesthetic appeal. To obtain a perfect chair design based
on consumers’ requirements is challenging. It requires a great deal of preparation in the
design process; starting from sketches, collecting sufficient data, considering design
trends and creating a mock-up or prototype and testing the chair before putting it on
the market. However, scientific methods for reducing the process are available, which
execute certain methodologies, such as the semantic differential technique, the Kansei
engineering technology, user-centred design and other techniques are also available to
assist in the alignment of this process.
Figure 4.1: The ¾ perspective view of Prototype 1
84
The first chair prototype was designed without the inclusion of market parameters.
Rather, the focus was on technical solutions. The product design specifications of
Prototype 1 was adopted and formulated according to the researcher’s personal inputs,
and recommendations based on general observation from commercial outdoor chair
design elements. The aim of this concept development was to uncover the meanings and
characteristics of the first prototype in order to invent a new design for a more stylish
outdoor chair, which could then be adapted to market design demands. The
development of the second chair or Prototype 2 was based on the participants’ feedback
on the first prototype design. The feedback on the design elements from the research
survey of Prototype 1 were also implemented in Prototype 3, which was substantially to
provide great assistance in refining the concept and design aspects of the chair.
Figure 4.2: The ¾ perspective view of Prototype 2
Finally, the third design or Prototype 3 was created in accordance with an
analysis of the results from the feedback. However, these results were not strictly
followed, although many aspects of the design elements comply with the guidelines
from the feedback. The main reason why the researcher did not follow the results from
the research exactly is that Prototype 3 is a new chair design and is dependent upon its
own design concept and design elements. The concepts and ideas were still based on
technical solutions, current trends in furniture identity and the integration of
contemporary material applications.
85
Figure 4.3: The ¾ perspective view of Prototype 3
4.2 Idea generation and design development
The researcher created most aspects of the chair design through thinking,
conceptualizing and drawing, and approached the development of the chair by taking
into account not only consumer/end user needs, but also by incorporating artistic
expression relating to practicality and substance (refer appendix – the design portfolio).
This approach is the same as that taken by other designers who endeavoured to allow
the consumer to experience new ways of embracing functionality, aesthetics and
meaning of how consumers feel about, use and interact with material objects (Slack,
2006).
To accommodate this demand, researcher prepared a product design statement
prior to the commencement of the project, and then, the next stage was to initiate the
idea through drawing or sketching. Drawing is a fundamental means to progress the
project idea. Once these initial ideas (drawings) are communicated to other people
(peers and supervisors for instance) the researcher can then proceed with a technical
drawing. In the final process after the completion of the technical drawing the
researcher continues to the last stage of the design process, which is the mock-up and
prototype.
86
4.2.1 Design statement
In this thesis, one primary set of design statements associated with three pieces
of furniture were prepared. The design statement allows the researcher to focus on what
he wants to achieve prior to the commencement of the project. It normally consists of
one paragraph and is often written in an informal or personal manner. The statement
might include designer goals for an individual design or series, and how the designer
would like the viewer to read the design and philosophy behind the idea (Please refer
to Figure 4.4).
DESIGN STATEMENT
“To design a stylish outdoor chair retraced from t h e design
p h i l o s o p h y of the modern design era. The design aims for
comfort and practicality, simplicity in appearance, lightness in
weight, durability in strength and economy in manufacturing. The
individual elements of this chair have a distinct design and easily
blend with any ambience. This design is based on minimalist
restyling adapted from previous designs proposed to create a
designer’s signature characteristic feeling. This chair is
manufactured from solid hardwood and maybe ‘other’ material 7
to be used either indoors or outdoors”
Figure 4.4: Example of design statement for Prototype 1,2 and 3
7 The ‘other’ material is emphasised because of the Prototype 3 may applied the different material based on participants feedback in the second questionnaire.
87
4.2.2 Sketches/drawings
Sketching is a fast drawing process executed through freehand drawing. It is not
designated as a finished work. According to Pipes (2007), designer drawings have three
main functions: (i) to exteriorize and examine ideas and modify various design
problems to make them more comprehensible, (ii) to illustrate the appropriateness of the
design idea in relation to the design brief, and (iii) to convey clear and precise
information to those who are accountable to product demands (Pipes, 2007).
Before establishing a finer and more meaningful drawing, the researcher creates
a concept sketch to communicate ideas to other researchers or clients. At this stage, the
researcher attempts to clarify on paper their personal thoughts. The sketch is crucial to
explain in a few economical lines and shades how the product will meet the
expectations of the design statement. Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 illustrate a set of concept
sketches drawn in ball-point pen, pencil and markers. At the early stage, these sketches
are still works in progress. Although the concept sketch looks inexpensive to produce,
the researcher must be conscious that it is an important component in the process of
recognizing potential problems associated with the aims of the as yet unrealised
product. This is consistent with Lawson (1997) who stated that concept sketches freeze
and store spatial ideas that can then be evaluated and manipulated towards further ideas.
88
Figure 4.5: A ball-point pen and markers are used for sketches exploring concepts
89
Figure 4.6: Some initial concept ideas are drawn on plain white paper with a pencil
In this research project, the researcher produced a sufficient number of sketches
for final selection purposes. All the sketches were compiled according to the date and
time they were produced. Then, the researcher continued anticipating and selecting
potential drawing(s) to be developed from the compilation of sketches. The chosen
sketches provide an opportunity for the researcher to develop them to be more
practical and meaningful before finalizing the whole concept. This is an important
component in the idea development process. Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 provide
examples of development drawings and hardcopy records of personal ideas bound
together in a sketchbook.
90
Figure 4.7: These drawings build on and refine the initial sketches into more finished concepts
91
Figure 4.8: Drawings do not need to be to scale. However, there is a need for proportionality and logic in the sketches
92
In the idea development process, drawing is crucial in the communication of
design ideas to other parties. Verbal explanations are inadequate to describe an idea,
and, in fact, they can often lead to confusion. Such drawings do not have to be works of
art. The primary function is to be informative with the aim of communicating design
ideas guided by a design specification and design statement. Applying colour to a
drawing reinforces the design intent and assists in visually clarifying an idea. Figure 4.9
illustrates two pieces of drawing presented in ¾ perspective view. The drawings
were drawn to depict the design and concept that were derived from the overall
feedback of participants and were used in discussion with the supervisor. There are
many media available for rendering in colour, including marker pens, coloured pencils,
pastels, and watercolours. The advantage of applying colour or rendering techniques in
general is that it adds dimension and dynamism to a drawing.
Figure 4.9: The researcher has applied basic rendering techniques to create depth dimension and dynamism to the drawing(s)
93
4.2.3 Computer generated drawing
In the past a designer’s workplace would normally have contained rows of
drawing boards and sketch pads. However, this situation has changed, with almost every
designer now relying on a computer. The computer adds control and flexibility to
drawing activities. An increasing number of design and drawing software packages have
become available on the market, including AutoCAD8, Three Studio Max9 and Google
SketchUp.10 However, it is important to know how to use the software, what it is
capable of and what its limitations are as a tool for drawing and visualization.
In this study, the researcher has applied computer generated drawing in the
design process because the technology can add realistic shading and lighting effects,
colour and texture to the design object. The main purpose of presenting ideas through
computer generated drawing tools is to prepare a visual representation of the design
object, which is as real as possible, can be rotated and viewed from any angle in real-
time (refer to Figure 4.10) and to provide a basis for the even more detailed drawings
and models that are required in the next phase of the design process. Ordinarily, the use
of computer generated drawings means that nothing has to be done twice. That is, it is
possible to add new features to the drawings created earlier in the design process (to
change colours, add new materials, suggest new textures and so on) (refer to Figure 4.11
and Figure 4.12).
In conclusion, computer generated drawings help the researcher to produce
clearer drawing information (sharp shape and form, structure of the product) than using
the traditional method of hand drawing.
8 AutoCAD is a CAD (Computer Aided Design or Computer Aided Drafting) software application for 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional design and drafting. It was published by the American company Autodesk, Inc. (founded in 1982). Further information about AutoCAD is available at http://www.autodesk.com.au
9 3D Studio MAX, is a modeling, animation and rendering software package developed by Autodesk Media and Entertainment. It is frequently used by video game developers, commercial TV studios and architectural and industrial design visualization studios.
10 SketchUp is a 3D modeling program marketed by Google and intended for design, architectural, civil, and mechanical engineers. Further information about Google SketchUp can be found at http://sketchup.google.com.
94
Figure 4.10: Computer generated drawing provides an opportunity for the researcher to view drawings from any angle or perspective
Figure 4.11: Computer generated drawings allow t h e researcher to modify the drawings according to subsequent recommendations for new features. For example, the image on the
right demonstrates a longer backrest compared to the image on the left.
95
Figure 4.12: Computer generated drawings afford the opportunity to change the colour and material of the object according to designer/client preferences
4.2.4 Technical drawing
A technical drawing is essentially a much more exacting representation of the
concept drawing or sketch. It demonstrates more precise and real dimensions. Every
part of the technical drawing is measured to exactly match the size and shape of the
finished object, or in other words it is drawn to scale. It normally includes three views
of the object, a frontal view, side view and plan view.
Figure 4.13 illustrates the first-angle projection of an orthographic drawing of
Prototype 3. The orthographic drawings include elevations of the front, back and top
face of Prototype 3. Most designers often use this drawing when they want to
communicate dimension and shape.
96
Figure 4.13: Samples of first-angle projection of the general drawing of Prototype 3
Figure 4.14 below illustrates an exploded assembly perspective of Prototype 2,
with its component parts suspended from the main body. This drawing is not a full
technical drawing representation but it is still possible to determine accurate dimensions
of the object and the overall disposition of the product, the arrangement of its
component parts, and the way in which they are to be put together. Detailed schematic
assembly and technical drawings of the prototypes can be found at the Appendix
section, design portfolio.
In conclusion, technical drawing is not only applied to a general assembly
drawing (commonly known as orthographic drawing) but it also uses the exploded
assembly perspective, which may also require technical drawing documentation. The
exploded view can be a support document in installation and operation guides,
maintenance manuals and parts catalogues for other designers, manufacturers, retailers
and consumers.
97
Figure 4.14: Sample of an exploded assembly perspective drawing of Prototype 2
98
4.2.5 Mock-ups
In the design process of idea and concept development study, the researcher
adopted a unique approach to share his final idea through the development of mock-
up(s) and prototype(s). Creating a mock-up involves a skilled process using cardboard,
foam, wood, or various materials for testing and analysing the design. The researcher
applied and utilized a computerized method of laser cutting to construct scaled mock-
up(s). Firstly, three dimensional design data in digital format were created and then
converted to PDF format in order to allow the laser machine terminal to recognize the
drawing before executing the cutting process. The advantages of using this method are
that the scaled size mock-up can be built faster with more precise dimensions. Figure
4.15 shows a mock-up at 1:6 scale, constructed using 3 millimetre straw board for
structural and three-dimensional study purposes. These mock-ups were cut using a laser
cutting machine and PVA glue was used to assemble the parts.
Figure 4.15: Samples of scale size mock-up chairs, constructed using 3mm Straw board for structural and three-dimensional study purposes
99
The mock-up can be a full size mock-up or/and scale mock-up, and can
perform multiple functions, to present clear ideas of the final design to customers and to
execute analysis into performance, durability, reliability, ergonomics, practicality and
ease of manufacturing. The researcher also constructed and built full size mock-up(s) or
models for further analysis. Full size models allow for finer and more detailed
intricacies of design.
Figure 4-16 illustrates the full size model of Prototype 2. Both models are the
same basic design and the only difference between them is the enhanced seat patterned
design. Although the seat patterns can be drawn on paper or prepared in digital format,
the impact of presenting a tangible object makes it different and stimulates critical
thinking to allow the researcher to see the strength, production value and reliability of
the design proposed. Having a full size model also gives an opportunity for the
researcher to study the joint system of the chair and to apply the most sufficient style or
techniques to make chairs become more durable.
Figure 4.16: A full size model is made from pine wood and discarded material
100
In this project, the researcher decided to apply a scale and full size mock up as
the first prototype exercise. Prototype 1 is the first chair developed in this study, thus a
need to construct a scale and full size mock-up(s) is essential before the best design
construction and overall appearance proceed to a finished prototype. The finished
prototype was developed independently of the semantic differential process, so a typical
design process was entered into to develop the design, meeting critical input from peers
and supervisor before introducing the chair to the respondents.
In the design development activity of Prototypes 2 and 3, no scale mock-up was
built except for the full size mock-up. The full size mock-up of Prototypes 2 and 3 were
constructed because there was a need for physical assessment of the chair in terms of
comfort, safety and durability. The full size mock-up also used inexpensive and
alternative materials in order to verify a design in terms of form, aesthetics and the
utility of the design.
Table 4.1: Checklists of scale or full size mock-ups for each chair design
Object evaluation Scale model (1:12) Full scale mock-up
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Nil Prototype 3 Nil
4.2.6 Prototypes
A prototype provides the researcher with a tangible means with which to
validate the product before it goes into actual production. A visual identification of the
product can be discussed and assessed publically to ensure the best product solutions.
There are three prototypes for this study (Prototypes 1, 2 and 3). The chair models or
prototypes were designed and developed based on t he intended goals, which reflect
different levels of the design improvement and needs. The level of detail of the
prototypes plays an important role, especially when assessing the level of intricacy in
shape, form, material composition, jointing methods and production methods. The
101
researcher has given a unique name to the prototypes; Prototype 1 is an experimental
design, Prototype 2 is a further concept generation and Prototype 3 is a new concept
generation.
These prototypes are functional and often addressed as working prototypes in
which the application of the prototype simulates, as far as possible, the final design
aesthetics, materials, functionality, and characteristics of the proposed design for
production and manufacture. These types of prototype are suitable for use in market
research and studies of perception due to their design being intended to be identical
to the product produced in the factory. The researcher believes that by constructing
the full size working prototype it would provide an opportunity to examine the
ergonomic qualities of the piece and would offer insights into the visual aspects of the
form and appearance of the products.
In conclusion, to establish a series of prototypes is highly important for this
study. These prototypes not only function as display objects but also work as
communication tools between the designer and his ideas.
102
CHAPTER 5 PROTOTYPES
Chapter five focuses on the prototype design, which is
used to explore ideas, elaborate on requirements and is
central to the design and manufacturing process. The
first section of this chapter identifies the correct sitting
position for this type of chair and proceeds with
ergonomic studies for the prototype design. This is
then followed by an analysis of the prototyping
process, which includes material selection, chair legs,
seat, backrest, and joints and assembly systems
considered individually and as a part of the whole.
103
5.1 The prototype
A prototype is the creation of an almost complete model of a design. A
prototype gives the researcher a clear understanding of real-furniture design
requirements and provides a model from which to learn, visualize, evaluate and improve
design specifications. Prototypes also provide a tangible form of the product and allow
the researcher to detect any possibilities for improvement of the design. Prototypes also
promote informed decision making that may ultimately avoid lengthy and costly
development and production timescales.
The number of prototypes created varies, depending on the scale and budget of
the project. For this study, the researcher created three different types of prototype,
named as Prototypes 1, 2 and 3. Before constructing a final design, the researcher
needed to develop a full size mock-up or non-working prototype using inexpensive
materials in order to verify a design. The full size mock-up(s) functions to determine
furniture size, backrest angle, height of the seat and to check whether it can fit and suit
common human shapes and sizes. Figure 5.1 illustrates the chair designs development
from full size mock-up to full size prototype.
104
Full scale mock-up for Prototype 2
Prototype 2
Full scale mock-up for Prototype 3 Prototype 3
Figure 5.1: The transformation design from mock-up to the final prototype
105
The full size prototype or model is used to explore the basic size, shape, outlook
and feel of each chair. The quality of finish of the prototype is not a priority as long as it
is plausibly presented. For example, the actual seat material for Prototype 3 should be
made from polycarbonate material (a strong synthetic thermoplastic resin) but it has
been changed to Perspex, a transparent thermoplastic acrylic resin. Although the
proposed material was not following product design specification (PDS) requirements,
it is still a complete working chair. In general, the physical appearance of Prototype 3
still complies with the final drawing, although the material does not conform 100% to
the actual recommendations.
The functional prototypes in this study served to simulate the appearance in
terms of colour, texture, and size of the chair as well as embody the practical functions.
This type of prototype is suitable for use in market research, and in photo shoots for
sales and promotional purposes. The construction of a fully working, full scale
prototype represents the best practice for the design concept. It provides the researcher
with a final check for design flaws and allows for last-minute improvements to be made
before the ordering of larger production runs (Lidwell, Holden, & Butter, 2003).
A total number of three outdoor chairs were designed to provide a tangible
means of comprehending and evaluating the proposed design and eliciting meaningful
feedback from participants in terms of their needs and preferences. The three prototypes
served as a reference point for both the Design and User Groups of participants to
identify potential problems and opportunities early in the development process, and is
also an effective way to ascertain and clarify participants’ requirements and desires.
Finally, prototyping is a practical way to cultivate and achieve participants’ involvement
and commitment to a research project.
5.2 Full scale mock-up
The researcher believes that a full scale mock-up is essential if it provides at
least part of the functionality of the design and enables testing of the design. Hence, the
need to engage peers and supervisors to comment on the overall design functions,
including the chair structure and fabrication, is a must. Figure 5.2 shows a
dimensionally accurate full scale prototype in the experimental phase. This is not a final
106
chair design but merely a pilot model of a process so that it can be evaluated in terms of
its proportion, size and comfort. The first image is Prototype 2 which was based on the
design, concept and specification of Prototype 1. The second image is a new chair
design or Prototype 3.
Multiple angles of non-functional model of Prototype 2 for self and peer analysis
Multiple angles of non-functional model of prototype 3 for self and peer analysis
Figure 5.2: Both chairs are a new and fresh design based on participants’ feedback and
suggestions from first perception assessment
107
Both prototypes are used for personal design learning and evaluation purposes.
The shape, form, size, texture, joining and assembly system of the chairs were studied
carefully to identify any design flaws and determine if they really worked and could be
used for the final design. Through constructing and making the prototypes, it enables
the researcher to test and refine the functionality of the design. The researcher is also
able to identify practical issues and the necessary pre-production process before the
chair is manufactured.
5.3 Ideal size
Determining the optimum size for a chair prototype is difficult because there is a
significant variation in peoples’ height and proportions. A reasonable size and
proportion of chair dimension is needed, especially to design an outdoor chair that can
fit all sizes of people to sit to eat, converse and relax. A rule of thumb for standard
dimensions is that the chair should support the lumbar region for both short and long
periods. Figure 5.3 represents the designer’s language that is frequently used to describe
the parts of the seat (Panero & Zelnik, 1979, pp.127). Understanding the basic terms of
chair parts is important because the researcher might use them when describing
dimensions and sizes of the prototype.
A. Seat width
B. Seat depth
C. Seat height
D. Centre line of backrest height from seat surface
E. Backrest height
F. Angle of tilt of seat surface
G. Angle of backrest
Figure 5.3: The diagram describes the technical terms used for typical chairs
108
The internal dimensions of the chair, such as seat height, width and depth, and
backrest height need to match the size of the user to ensure adequate support. The height
of the seat can influence how easy it is to get in and out of the chair. A high seat will
make it easier to stand up and sit down. However, if the seat is too high, the user’s feet
will not touch the ground and it may feel uncomfortable and create pressure under the
user’s thighs. A seat that is too low will be more difficult to get out of, and, obviously,
will direct pressure towards the pelvis rather than distributing it evenly along the thighs
as well as hurting the knees. The aim of the researcher is to design an outdoor chair with
the correct seat height: when seated, the hips and knees should be at right angles whilst
the feet are flat on the floor. Most high seat chair ergonomists have a range of chairs
with a seat height between 34.5 – 52.8 centimetres (Please refer to Table 5.1).
According to Cranz (1998, p. 102), the standard seat height for a normal chair with a
flat seat is 18 inches (or 45.72 centimetres) from the floor. If the chair is too high, it cuts
under the knee and presses the thigh muscles from below.
In relation to the seat depth, the seat needs to be deep enough to support the full
length of the thighs. If too deep, the seat may cause the user’s bottom to slide forwards
in the chair, providing support for the shoulders and may cause them to slump in the
chair. If it is too shallow, the user’s thighs will not be supported properly and after a
while they may be uncomfortable. A simple measure to calculate the correct depth is to
measure the distance from the back of the hips, along the thighs to approximately 3
centimetres behind the back of the knees. In simple words, when seated, people should
be able to place two fingers together between the edge of the seat and the back of the
knee. Table 5.1 indicates ideal dimensions of seat depth ranging from 30.5 to 40.6
centimetres. The degree of backrest angle is also an important characteristic in chair
design. The backrest should be angled slightly backwards. If it is too upright, it can be
tiring with the user trying not to lean forwards. However, if it slopes too far back, it may
force the user to slide forwards on the seat. It is recommended for the backrest to have
at least 95° to 115° of angle.
109
Table 5.1 illustrates the chair measurements cited in five different studies11 12 13 14 15 (Panero & Zeinik (1979, pp. 127). These guidelines provide a great help for
researchers to establish personal best-measurement for ideal outdoor chair dimensions
corresponding to the rules and restrictions that are appropriate for safety regulations.
The dimensions of the proposed prototype do not replicate any existing chair dimension;
however, they offer an opportunity to shorten the time of further ergonomic and
anthropometric 16 investigation.
Table 5.1: Basic measurement of chair dimension, which have been taken from Panero
and Zeinik (1979, pp. 127)
11 John Croney, Anthropometrics for Designers, p.147 12 Niels Diffrient et al., Human scale, guide 2B 13 Henry Dreyfuss, The Measure of man, sheet O, Dwg. 2 14 Etienne Grandjean, Ergonomics of the Home, pp.126, 127 15 Julius Panereo & Martin Zelnik, Human Dimension and Interior Space, pp.127 16 Anthropometric is a term to describe the measurement of the human body to determine differences in individuals and groups of people. The impact of human body dimensions on the design can be divided into two categories; structural and functional. Structural dimensions, sometimes called ‘static dimensions’, include measurements of the head, torso, and limbs in standard positions. Functional dimensions, or ‘dynamic dimensions’ are taken during the movement associated with the task performance (Panero & Zelnik, 1979).
Source
Seat
wid
th
Seat
dep
th
Seat
hei
ght
Cen
tre li
ne o
f ba
ckre
st he
ight
fr
om se
at su
rfac
e
Bac
kres
t hei
ght
Ang
le o
f tilt
of
seat
surfa
ce
Ang
le o
f ba
ckre
st
cm cm cm Cm cm Degree Degree
Croney 43.2 33.6-38.1 35.6-48.2 12.7- 19 10.2-20.3 0°-5° or
3°-5°
95°-115°
Diffrient 40.6 38.1-40.6 34.5-52.3 22.0-25.4 15.2-22.9 0°-5° 95°
Dreyfuss 38.1 30.5-38.1 38.1-45.7 17.8-27.9 12.9-20.3 0°-5° 95°-105°
Grandjean 40 40 37.8-52.8 N/A 20-30 3°-5° N/A
Panero-Zelnik 43.2-48.3 39.4-40.6 35.6-50.8 19.2-25.4 15.2-22.9 0°-5° 95°-105°
110
5.4. Sitting and positioning
Figure 5.4: The diagram of human seating in various postures
Figure 5.4 illustrates a variety of seating positions encountered in everyday life.
This diagram was prepared by the researcher to compare and contrast when determining
the optimal seated position; the user’s hips and knees are stiff and painful if seated on
badly designed chairs, as shown in pictures A, B, D and E. In the act of assuming a
good seating position, it is important to ensure that the torso is erect and the legs bent
with the body supported on the buttocks in a comfortable and relaxed position. Thus,
position C represents a good sitting position. The researcher aims to design the outdoor
chair to conform with this idea; although it is just a rough line drawing it has
successfully guided the researcher to find a right-angle seated posture in which the feet
are able to rest fully on the floor (refer to Figure 5.4 (c)).
A good chair position is when a person leans backward into the chair backrest,
which initiates both a backward and downward force. The downward force pushes the
pelvis forward. If the chair is designed with the correct seat angle, it will be
comfortable for the user while sitting on it. In contrast, if someone sits up straight
perched on the front edge of the chair without any back support, it will contribute to a
tired condition and may cause more serious injury, such as muscle damage. The seated
position shown in image C is the chosen preference for sitting, and is based on the
assumption that people associate sitting on outdoor chairs with relaxing and with leisure
activities.
The seat is reasonably good height and feet able to rest fully on the floor
111
Table 5.2 shows the fundamental dimensions of Prototypes 1, 2 and 3. These
sizes are the basic dimensions that have been applied to the prototype design. The rules
of thumb for the ergonomic general guidelines for Prototypes 1, 2 and 3 are followed,
such that the back should be straight and shoulders relaxed. The user should sit back in
the chair and have good back support, and the feet can be placed flat on the floor or on a
footrest.
Figure 5.5 illustrates the side and front elevations of the general drawings for
Prototypes 1, 2 and 3. The dimensions of these prototypes followed the basic guidelines
of common chair design, as shown in table 5.1.
Table 5.2: General measurements of Prototypes 1, 2 and 3
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Seat width 45 cm 42 cm 41.5 cm
Seat depth 44.5 cm 39 cm 38.5 cm
Seat height 44.5cm 44.5 cm 44.8 cm
Centre line of backrest height from seat surface
- 29.8 cm 23.4 mm
Backrest height
- 13.5 cm 14.5 mm
Angle of tilt of seat surface
2° 5° 1°
Angle of backrest
98° 103.7° 100°
112
General drawing: Prototype 1
General drawing: Prototype 2
General drawing: Prototype 3
Figure 5.5: Side and front elevation of general drawings for Prototypes 1, 2 and 3
113
As reported by The Measure of Man and Woman, page 44 by Henry Dreyfuss
Association (Tilley, 2002) it was suggested that the seat depth should not exceed 40.5
centimetres and the width should not be less than 40.5 centimetres. These guidelines
actually refer to the general dimensions of office chairs. However, to design an outdoor
chair may require a slight difference in the dimensions (through observation of
commercial outdoor furniture) as an outdoor chair is usually associated with a big and
bulky size in order to provide a maximum comfort level to the end users. Hence, to
measure comfort is difficult and often ergonomists/practitioners give up on the scientific
method.
In respect of the seat surface, it should also be level and the lumbar area should
be supported, and a hip angle of 90° - 95° or 0° - 5° angle of tilt of the seat surface
should be maintained. The centre of lumbar support is 24 centimetres above the seat and
the lumbar area height is 23 centimetres and its width is 33 centimetres minimum
(Tilley, 2002). The availability of basic chair measurements assists the researcher in
establishing base dimensions in the initial design phase that conform to human size and
proportion.
5.5 Anticipated prototypes for the semantic differential assessments
Three prototypes have been built in this study. Prototype 1 functions as a
benchmark chair developed prior to proceeding to the second and third designs.
Prototype 1 was created based on the researcher’s creativity and experience in furniture
design.
The second prototype was based on the design modifications that were carried
out based on the Design and User Group feedback in phase 1. The second prototype is
called Prototype 2, which has changed substantially compared to previous designs
(Prototype 1). The transformation in terms of aesthetics and ergonomics was
implemented according to the positive outcomes of analysis of the feedback from the
test Semantic differential session (Refer to Chapter 7, data analysis).
Prototype 3 was also modified as a result of the suggestions and feedback from
the User and Design Groups, where, at this point, a positive consensus was followed.
Prototype 3 focused more on styling and had no design connection to previous designs.
114
A vital reason for designing prototype 3 with a fresh and new appearance was to
discover how successful earlier feedback enhanced the researcher’s creativity, and
investigate whether form, aesthetics and utility really influences the users’ preferences.
Figures 5.6 and 5.7 are photographic images of Prototypes 1, 2 and 3. The
prototype-making technique changed significantly with each prototype.
Figure 5.6: Full size model of Prototype 1
115
Full size model of Prototype 2 (re-design)
Full size model of Prototype 3 ( new design)
Figure 5.7: Photographic images of Prototype 2 and 3
116
Clearly, Prototype 1 is slightly bigger compared to Prototype 2 and Prototype 3,
with an overall size of 45 centimetres (wide) x 45.5 centimetres (depth) x 73
centimetres (height). Prototype 1 is made from wood and painted white. The backrest of
Prototype 1 is quite thin and curvy in design. The centre line of the backrest height from
the seat surface is 30 centimetres (Refer to Figure 5.11). An enhanced seat pattern is
designed to add value to the chair design. Furniture design specifications and prototype
concept designs are not restricted by the participants’ perceptions and suggestions but
guided by the designer’s own creativity and inspiration.
Meanwhile, Prototype 2 is designed based on the re-briefing idea and concept
from Prototype 1. The prototype size, proportion and dimension changed from big and
bulky size to a sleek shape that is considered stylistically simple, as required from the
feedback of the first questionnaire. The colour of the chair was also transformed from
white painted to an elegant natural Karri17 stain. All joints were carefully crafted for
durable assurance and there were no nails, screws or metal brackets applied in the
design. The simplicity of the seat pattern is suggested from the opinion and feedback of
the majority of the participants.
The third chair is known as Prototype 3. This prototype is designed to
accommodate participants’ requirements in which the majority of them obviously
preferred a modern and contemporary design concept and idea. Mixed materials of
Karri and acrylic were used to construct the prototype. Karri is used to build the chair
structure, and acrylic is mainly for the backrest and seat. A decorative pattern is etched
on the acrylic seat and backrest, and a natural finish to the timber frames is applied in
order to make the overall chair look attractive.
17 Eucalyptus diversicolor: Native to Western Australia South West coast forest area.
117
5.6 Design parameters of prototype designs
The design parameters are used for general guidelines to determine the design
direction and design development through the design development process. The
researcher divided the design parameters into three considerations, namely, users,
production and market considerations. The prototypes proposed must communicate and
provide certain meaning to participants. The parameters of prototype design are aimed
to fit not only the functional purposes but also fulfil the emotions and desires of the
consumers. Table 5.3 illustrates the design parameters of the prototype conception
before executing it in the tangible prototype.
Table 5.3: Design parameters before executing the prototype design
DESIGN PARAMETERS
User considerations
The chair must function as an outdoor chair. It is an advantage if it can be placed in outdoor and indoor
environments. Intended to be a modern, attractive object and to have commercial
value. This chair is targeted for medium-high income people
Production considerations
High quality outdoor finishes and durable construction are appropriate for everyday use.
Versatility in form, good proportion and size, especially should be able to fit small to big sized users.
Strength and durability of the chair are of primary concern because consumers will use it frequently.
The timber material will be exploited as much as possible in the design; however, complementary materials can be used as well.
Innovative joining systems will probably require various non-traditional component shapes
Market considerations
The furniture will be distributor-assembled and not buyer assembled.
The cost of the chair must be competitive within the existing furniture ranges available.
Furniture life-span will be determined by market trends; however, according to the nature of outdoor furniture it should be expected to last at least five years.
118
5.7 Prototype making
Local hardwoods, such as Karri (botanical name is eucalyptus diversicolor) are
applied in the prototypes. These timbers are native to the South-west of Western
Australia. The major advantage of using local hardwoods is related to the design and
promotional opportunities, which a) create unique forms with great strength, such as
thinner sections of legs that are obviously difficult to emulate if using softer timbers, b)
the basic properties of Karri are its red-brownish colour, its straight grain and
moderately close texture, and c) Karri is also a durable and fire-resistant material.
In the second part of the research activities, Karri timber is fully utilized in both
prototypes; for example, Prototype 2 used 100 percent Karri timber and Prototype 3
applied approximately 50 per cent for its design. This timber allows for a modern and
contemporary design touch, which means that most chair parts are slender and delicate,
hence, the strength properties of the timber are an advantageous component or quality of
the design process.
5.7.1 Chair legs
The chair legs provide basic support for the seat and elevate it off the ground. A
slender square leg design is applied to Prototypes 1, 2 and 3. The front legs of
Prototypes 1, 2 and 3 were designed with square plain form and have a slight taper in
order to reflect dynamic looks with modern and contemporary profiles. All upper parts
of the front legs have been designed relatively longer than the lower parts because the
upper parts will be joined together with the seat frame later. If the upper parts are too
slim, it might provide a weak point, especially when the front legs and seat frame are
connected with mortise and tenon joints. The length of the front legs of Prototype 1 is
40.5 centimetres, and Prototypes 2 and 3 are 42 centimetres. The slenderness of the
front legs, especially for Prototypes 2 and 3, has added new feature benefits to the visual
appeal, which can be suited either to outdoor or indoor environments (Refer to Figure
5.8 and 5.9).
119
Prototype 1
Prototype 2
Prototype 3
Figure 5.8: Side elevation of chair leg shapes
Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Figure 5.9: Slim leg shape of Prototypes 2 and 3
The design form of the back legs and frame of the backrest is a one piece design.
These shapes are easy to cut and the cost of manufacture can be kept to a minimum
without compromising the aesthetic appearance. The overall height of the back legs and
backrest frame for Prototype 1 is 73 centimetres, and Prototypes 2 and 3 are 77
centimetres. The angle of the backrest is designed and calculated carefully using manual
and conventional shaping techniques until an ideal angle and dimension are obtained.
The angles of all prototypes range from 98° to 103.7°, which form a comfortable
backrest position relative to the seat angle of each chair.
120
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Figure 5.10: Image of front and back legs of Prototypes 1, 2 and 3
The shape of the chair leg is crucial, especially when considering that the body
weight is transferred down to the sitting position through the legs; thus, each leg must
be capable of resisting the static and dynamic load of the body when stationary and
when sitting. For example, the chair legs need to support a body weight of at least 35
kilograms to 100 kilograms (All chairs have been tested and sat on by many participants
with body weights ranging from 45 kilograms to 115 kilograms). However, there was
no further testing of the seat drop impact test (to evaluate the ability of a chair to
withstand heavy impact forces on the seat) and the back durability test (to evaluate the
ability of a chair to withstand the stresses caused by the user exerting a rearward force
on the backrest of the chair), because the aim of this study is to investigate and discover
human perceptions rather than in calculating the chair strength.
121
5.7.2 Backrest
The backrest consists of a splat, or an upright flat panel that functions as a back
support. Figure 5.11 illustrates backrest designs in which a splat is attached to the
backrest frame, which happens to be the back leg components. Splats have many types
of design style from solid form to curved, pierced and carved.
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Figure 5.11: The splat of a chair is the upright flat panel that serves as a backrest
The ideal angle of backrest is important for the creation of a comfortable sitting
position. The backrest angle should not exceed 115° otherwise it can create a problem
for the neck and head, if the head, the heaviest part of the human body by volume, is
projected beyond the line of the centre of gravity of the chair. If the seat angle is too
pronounced, people will not be able to get up from a seated position without gathering
some momentum before lunging out of the chair. All three chairs are in compliance with
the right-angle seated posture and provide back support and comfort to the end users.
Figure 5.12 shows the seat and backrest angles of all prototypes; the angle of backrest
for Prototype 1 is 97° and the angle of tilt of the seat surface is 2°; the backrest angle of
prototype 2 is 103.7° and the angle of tilt of the seat surface is 5°, finally the angle of
the backrest for Prototype 3 is 97° and the seat surface is flat with no slope design.
Figure 5.12 shows a side elevation drawing of the backrest angles for each prototype in
which the tilt of the seat surface is less than 5°.
122
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Figure 5.12: An ergonomic consensus: Level of ideal backrest support is 5° and less
5.7.3 Chair seats
The chair seat is a space reserved for sitting. Scientifically, it is designed to
distribute the pressure from the weight of the body over a large surface area. For this
study, a variety of materials and techniques of application were used to create a sense of
durability, comfort and be capable of withstanding any weather conditions.
Seat dimensions (Width x Depth)
Prototype 1: 45cm x 44.5cm Prototype 2: 42mm x 38.6cm Prototype 3: 41.5cm x 38.5cm
Figure 5.13: The diagram of human seating positions in various postures
123
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Figure 5. 14: Seat design of Prototype 1, 2 and 3
The seat-top shapes for all three prototypes are square with a small degree of
slope except for Prototype 3. The general dimensions of the top-seat(s) are: Prototype 1
is 45 centimetres x 44.5 centimetres; Prototype 2 is 42 centimetres x 39 centimetres; and
Prototype 3 is 41.5 centimetres x 38.5 centimetres. If the seat-top is too narrow from
front to back, it will create pressure behind the thighs, especially when sitting on the
chair for long periods of time. None of the prototypes are designed to have cushions to
add extra comfort to the seat; the seat designs have a slope of between 0° and 5° from
the front to the back, which also serves to prevent the user from sliding forward (Cranz,
1998).
The seat pattern of Prototype 2 is derived and developed from the idea of
Prototype 1. The restyling pattern and re-briefing process has changed the idea from an
intricate pattern to a simple and basic one. According to feedback from the first
questionnaire, the majority of participants were not interested in complicated seat
patterns but preferred something simple and straight forward. As a result, the researcher
proposed a slatted hardwood with the slats positioned parallel to each other instead of
remaining with the thin rectangular battens as in the enhanced seat pattern.
124
Figure 5.15: Prototype 2 used a slatted hardwood for its top-seat design
For Prototype 3, 6.5 millimetres transparent black acrylic and cross-headed screws with
cup washers are used to attach the top-seat to the seat frames. These combinations not
only function as a design feature but provide a strong bond between the seat top and the
seat frame.
Figure 5.16: Chair No. 3 used 6.5 mm transparent acrylic for the design of the top-seat
In relation to the finish techniques, various methods are applied to each
particular design. For example, Prototype 1 is coated with white paint of four layers of
undercoated are used to ensure a long lasting and deep finish with modern looking
image. Prototype 2 has a naturally beautiful timber colour and is coated with furniture
oil that gives it durable properties. Six layers of non-toxic and water based furniture oil
(Karri effect) are applied to enhance the beauty of timber textures. Finally, the seat of
Prototype 3 is made from 6.5 millimetre transparent black acrylic, and an ornamental
125
pattern design is etched on the seat surface to create a modern and contemporary
concept. Figure 5.17 illustrates the final design and finishes for Prototype 1, Prototype 2
and Prototype 3.
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Figure 5.17: Varieties of finish for the prototype design
5.7.4 Stretcher
The chair’s stretcher functions to reinforce the elements of the chair legs. It
connects, braces, and strengthens the legs for extra stability and strength. This
fundamental element effectively creates a structural truss at the top of the side sections
for the chair frame. Furthermore, legs braced with slats or rails are more firm, and less
prone to loosen at the frame joint. The stretchers of Prototype 1 and 2 were placed
slightly higher from the ground to ensure that they were out of the way of the users’
feet. The stretcher of Prototype 3 is positioned slightly closer to the middle to create a
better sense of balance.
All stretchers are arranged diagonally and parallel from one leg to another; for
example, from the front leg to the back leg, a wooden slat connects each front leg with
the leg immediately behind it. If a crosspiece of these is viewed from the side, the form
of an ‘H’ can be seen, which is sometimes known as an H-Stretcher (Figure 5.18,
Prototypes 2 and 3). All prototypes have four wooden slats in which two slats are used
to connect the front and back legs and another two wooden slats are connected side by
side to the legs (front left and front right, and left rear and right rear). Mortise and tenon
joints are used to join the wooden slats to the chair legs.
126
Prototype 1 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Figure 5.18: Line drawings of stretcher positions for outdoor chairs
5.7.5 Chair joints and fixings A) Prototype 1
There is no unique joint and fixing established in the design. However, the
accuracy and quality of workmanship are emphasized to bring beauty to the practical
and functional forms of the chair designs. Figure 5.19 illustrates the completed joints
drawing of Prototype 1. Mortise and tenon joints are widely applied in this prototype,
for instance to join between the stretchers and the legs (images B and E), and the
upright flat panel to the back support frame (Image F). This type of joint can create a
strong assembly when the horizontal stretchers meet the vertical stiles or legs.
H-Stretcher
127
Figure 5.19: Joint details of Prototype 1
The commonly used fixing technique, such as the fine nailing method is only
applied to Prototype 1. An angled nailing technique is used to give greater holding
power to the rectangular stick and seat frame (Refer to Figure 5-19, (Image D).
The dowel joint is used to attach the top-seat to the back leg. Then, the polyvinyl
acetate glue is applied to the dowel pins and the joints, then brought together and
clamped until the glue has dried. This technique can create durable joining; however,
over a period of time, the dowels may shrink and become loose, which can cause the
joint to flex, although it may not fall apart. Due to this circumstance, the researcher
would like to highlight that this study is not focusing on the jointing study per se but
focusing on the perception assessment through the prototype design. The dowel joint is
acceptable because participants may not judge the joints because they are hidden, or no
Through-housing + PVA glue
Mortise and tenon
Dowel joint + PVA glue
A pin butt joint + PVA glue
Mortise and tenon
Mortise and tenon
Mortise and tenon
128
physical joint is detected. Image A of Figure 5.19 demonstrates a top-seat pattern
assembled to the front frame by inserting wooden sticks into a housing that has been cut
approximately 1 millimetre x 0.6 millimetre. Then, this assembly is also glued with
polyvinyl acetate (PVA) to lock it in place.
B) Prototype 2
A dovetail joint is only applied to Prototype 2. The dovetail joint has the double
benefit of being strong and looking attractive. This joint technique is considered the
hallmark of fine woodworking (Bridgewater & Bridgewater, 2007) and is used to show
off the workmanship of the chair maker. Figure 5.20 illustrates how a dovetail joint
joins the back leg to the seat frame, where the seat frame with a dovetail pin is the pin
piece, and the back leg in the tailpiece is called the tail. Polyvinyl acetate glue is used to
make the dovetail joint difficult to pull apart when the glue has reached maximum
strength.
Figure 5.20: Dovetail joint of Prototype 2
Back leg
Seat frame DOVETAIL JOINT
129
Figure 5.21: Dowel joint is applied to connect the seat-top to the seat frame
The dowel joint is used to connect the seat panel on the seat-top to the seat
frame, as shown in Figure 5.21. The top seat is connected to the seat frame, which uses
a reinforced butt joint. The butt joint is a joint formed by two abutting surfaces placed
squarely together, and strengthened by dowel pins and glue for aesthetic reasons. The
same joint practice is also applied to the backrest (Figure 5.22 of Figure F), however, a
reinforced half lap is applied. Both joints provide reasonable holding strength and assist
with alignment during gluing up. The dowels may offer holding strength even after the
glue has deteriorated. Mortise and tenon joints are widely used for Prototype 2. Refer
exploded view image of Figure 5.22 (Image A, B, C and E) to view how mortise and
tenon applied to prototype 2.
Reinforced butt joint (Connect Part A and B)
A
B
Wooden pins are used to join part A and B
130
Figure 5.22 Joint details of Prototype 2
Mortise and tenon
Mortise
and tenon
Mortise
and tenon
Mortise and tenon
Dovetail joint
Half-lap and dowel joint
Lap and dowel joint
131
C) Prototype 3
Prototype 3 also used mortise and tenon joints for connecting the chair parts.
Figure 5-19 shows the joint details of the mortise and tenon in Prototype 3. These joints
were used to join stretchers (legs and slats, as shown in Figure 5.22 (Images C and E),
backrest frames (Image F), and front legs and horizontal wooden slats of seat frames
(Image B).
The joining between the top seat and seat frame uses a mechanical fixing, such
as screws and washer. The brass screw and stainless steel washer is chosen for aesthetic
reasons as well as being functional as a design feature. The acrylic backrest and its
frame are also joined using screws; however, a different type of screw and washer is
used, in this case a raised cross-headed screw and cup washer. The cup washer is ideal
for use when the screw-head needs to be concealed and there is a need to increase the
bearing area beneath the screw head and present it as a design feature. Figure 5.23
(Images A and G) shows the screw joints positioned on the acrylic seats and backrests.
132
Figure 5.23: Joint details of Prototype 3
Screw and flat washer
Mortise and Tenon
Mortise and Tenon
Mortise and Tenon
Rebate shiplap and dowel joint
Mortise and Tenon
Raise head screw with cup washer
133
5.8 Design development activities of Prototypes 1, 2 and 3
Furniture is not only a product of everyday use but also a form of decorative art
(Fiell & Fiell, 2005; Karl, 1979). For this study, the design development of the chair
was started and initiated from Prototype 1, which explored the practical and functional
aspects of the form, shape, aesthetics and dimensions. Prototype 1 works as a
benchmark chair, which was designed as a reference object while continuing to design a
second and third prototype. Figure 5.24 illustrates some thumbnail sketches, which
were done quickly and serve as foundation pieces for the final works. These thumbnails
have the ability to formulate a clear, tangible and simple association of process that
involves the relationship with the design development process through creating clear
and detailed drawings.
Figure 5.24: Thumbnail sketches of Prototype 1
134
Figure 5.25: Computer assisted drawing program is used to generate ideas and develop design form for Prototype 1
Figure 5.25 draws the idea development of Prototype 1 from one drawing to
another drawing. How the designs change and develop depends upon the personal
creativity of the designer in which the more experience and skill they have the more
practical and useful the drawings and ideas become. In this study, the drawings changed
from one form to another form because it was vital for the researcher to suggest the best
design proposition for the final design. However, the whole process in terms of shape,
form and appearance must meet with the furniture design specifications (Refer Table
5.3) and design statement (Refer Figure 4.4). The drawing must also show something
new that has value (Refer chapter 4.2.1, Design brief). Figure 5.25 shows some of the
drawing options of Prototype 1 for the internal assessment purposes. Drawing number 1
was chosen as a final design to be developed. The pre-screened idea evaluation
technique was used to identify the best idea to be further developed by the researcher
(Refer Table 5.4). At this stage, the researcher only examined his own drawings without
any interference from third parties. Explicit criteria were used to examine ideas to be
developed using the decision matrix below to rate the design against the specified
selection criteria. This technique is considered a practical process for choosing the best
4
2 3 1
5 6
135
idea by the researcher. Table 5.4 illustrates the design evaluation results and criteria that
were used in order to evaluate the various proposals. Design 1 received the highest
score and was considered to have potential for further development. Pre-assessment
criteria were still restricted to the researcher’s study theme (form, aesthetics and utility)
and were designed to fulfil some specific needs and considerations according to the
research objectives. The element and principles of design components are also used as a
benchmark criteria of assessment.
Table 5.4: Assessment matrix is used to evaluate the drawings in discovering the best idea and concept for Prototype 1
What do you think about the idea and concept of this drawing? 1 = Very unlikely 2 = Unlikely 3 = Not sure 4 = Likely 5 = Very likely CRITERIA DESIGN
1 2 3 4 5 6 FORM Comfort 4 4 4 4 3 4 Material 4 2 3 4 4 3 Weight 3 3 3 4 3 3 Size 4 3 3 4 3 4 Durability 4 3 3 3 3 3 Flat pack 3 2 2 3 2 3 UTILITY Safety 4 3 4 3 3 3 Ergonomics 5 3 3 3 3 3 Brand identity 4 5 3 4 4 4 Structure stability 4 3 3 3 3 4 Designers’ signature design 4 4 2 4 4 3 AESTHETICS Appearance 4 4 2 4 3 4 Functional 4 3 4 4 3 4 Practicality 4 3 3 3 3 3 Image 3 3 1 4 4 3 Design concept 4 3 3 4 3 4 ELEMENTS OF DESIGN Line 4 4 2 4 3 5 Shape 4 4 3 4 3 4 Size 4 4 3 4 4 4 Texture 4 3 2 5 3 4 PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN Proportion 5 3 4 4 3 4 Harmony 4 4 3 4 3 4 Repetition 4 3 2 4 4 4 Unity 4 3 3 4 3 4 Balance 5 3 3 4 3 4 TOTAL RANK 104 82 70 98 80 92 PERCENTAGE (%) 83.2 65.6 56 78.4 64 73.6
136
Figure 5.26 illustrates the design development of Prototype 2 using the computer
assisted drawing program. The idea and concept of the design for Prototype 2 is more in
control because, at this stage, feedback from Questionnaire-1 was utilized as the
guideline for the respondents’ perceptions. Drawing number 4 was selected for further
design developing and drawing number 5 is one example of the chair anatomy for
further detailed drawing studies. Further information as to how cues can serve as a
design guideline for design development is explained in the next sub-topic – design
development process through design cues analysis.
Figure 5.26: Computer assisted drawing program helps the researcher to further develop creative ideas for developing Prototype 2
1 2
3
4
5
137
Figure 5.27 shows some idea development drawings of Prototype 3. Prototype 3
is a new chair design with a new design concept and yet still follows the design
suggestions from the respondents’ feedback, which was generated from Questionnaire-
1. In order to differentiate Prototypes 2 and 3, the researcher decided to apply different
materials. For example, Prototype 2 used hardwood as the core material and Prototype 3
used mixed material, with a combination of hardwood and acrylic or thermoplastic
acrylic resin – Perspex. In addition, the design development of Prototype 3 focused
upon and was influenced by the functional specifications from which the shape of the
design could be easily manufactured.
Figure 5.27: Idea development of Prototype 3
5.8.1 Design development process through design cues analysis This study clearly shows that cues from feedback are able to guide attention to
important information about consumer preferences. The collection of valid cues, which
was derived and analysed from participants’ feedback from Questionnaire-1, was able to
assist the researcher in predicting exactly what consumers require and need in the
design. However, the cues are presented in text format, which may create some
difficulties for the lay person in translating them into visual mode. Thus, the researcher
is expected to have the ability to understand, translate and interpret the cues so that they
can be visualized in a tangible form.
138
Figure 5.28: Design development of outdoor chair according to feedback from semantic differential Questionnaire-1
Figure 5.28 demonstrates the transformation of the chair characteristics, form
and size from Prototype 1 to Prototype 2 and Prototype 3. Respondents’ feedback from
the semantic differential Questionnaire-1 assisted the researcher to develop the idea,
concept and design of Prototype 2 and Prototype 3. Results of the feedback were
examined and analysed according to a bipolar scale from 1 to 7, and significant
generalization gradients of the result were established through percentage and frequency
mode analysis (Refer Chapter 7, data analysis). The general results were filtered and
clustered according to the theme before the interpretation process took place to build a
cue or stimulus of the subject evaluation.
139
Feedback from the first survey of Prototype 1 can be summarized as the
prototype is a large size chair with typical (depicted) outdoor chair dimensions to reflect
an outdoor image and durability. Prototype 1 is also associated with a bulky and heavy
chair because of its size and proportions. The surplus chair dimension creates a feeling
of satisfaction and security to the participants and led them to feel that Prototype 1 was
a practical chair and was able to function better as an outdoor chair. The seat pattern of
prototype 1, although simple in appearance, was able to change the chairs’ appearance
from something perceived as bland to something more engaging and appealing.
However, overall design is reflected a common design chair appearance and has not
portrayed a clear image identity. Hence, the image of Prototype 1 is not able to
externalize a designer image in its design. Those collective responds and cues can
inspire and assisted researcher to develop more creative ideas and concept for the next
prototype design.
Figure 5.29 shows a list of cues obtained from the first questionnaires. These
cues were used as keywords in describing participants’ feelings that are subconsciously
or consciously incorporated into the aesthetic make-up of a prototype and enhance their
interest and emotions. It is essential to select and embed some of the keywords into a
new chair design via manipulating a diverse range of design prompts into a new design
recommendation, which will lead into a new form and style of design direction. The
feedback of the second questionnaires showed some evidence that the Prototype 2 and 3
were more creative and trendy, comfortable and durable especially when sitting, and
also has a pleasing overall appearance compare to the first prototype.
140
Figure 5. 29: The design development cues of design and user group of participants in respect to feedback of experience-perception of chair samples
The feeling of looking at and sitting on Prototypes 2 and 3 successfully embrace
unfamiliar directions in this design process since the design approach relies on
consumer or participants’ perceptions to stimulate the direction of the design. The
participants agreed that both Prototypes 2 and 3 are sleek in design and lighter in
appearance due to their slender size, and that the scale and proportion of the chair
appear to be closer to indoor dimensions than those for outdoor chairs.
Prototype 3 (new design)
New cues possibly created soon after analyzing of the second questionnaire
Prototype 1
Prototype 2 (redesign)
Apply some cues to Prototype 2 and 3
141
The characteristics of the design of the prototypes can be expressed in different
moods and meanings. In terms of form, each chair or prototype is perceived differently
by each user. Clearly, small changes to the design can have a considerable influence on
how users feel and perceive the chairs, particularly the seat design.
Figure 5.30 illustrates how cues were able to provide ideas and inspiration for the
researcher to design the seat of the chair. The cues, such as contemporary and modern
style of design, trendy and creative, and nice appearance, to name a few, provide
important information when designing a chair. These cues are valid as they have been
obtained from the statistical analysis of the participants’ feedback using the semantic
differential questionnaire approach. The valid cues not only provide ideas and
inspiration but are capable of giving more impact by putting ideas into practice to
modify an existing idea into something more practical, and formulating new ideas rather
than depending on old references. Figure 5.30 shows the power of keywords or cues that
enable the researcher to translate these ideas visually.
Figure 5.30: The cues of the design and user groups of participants’ perceptions have been translated into several formats including drawings, mock-ups and prototypes.
142
The lists of cues are presented in plain English as adjectives, verbs, syntax, and
function as descriptors of the subject evaluation. The researcher elaborated and clarified
these words into something meaningful that can easily be understood. It is essential to
highlight that the development of the design does not merely depend on the cues but is
equally supported from the designers’ creative and intuitive thinking in creating the new
ideas and concepts that are constantly dictating the direction of the chair. A
misinterpretation of the cues would obviously inadvertently contribute to an
inappropriate message that would undermine the essence of the object. Therefore, a
thorough discussion with peers and supervisor is vital in interpreting the feedback
revealed from the questionnaire.
The application of the cues runs parallel to the typical design process of
drawing, technical drawing, mock-up and prototype. For example when the researcher
initiates a drawing or makes a mock-up, the cues, better known as descriptors, need to
be visualized or envisioned into something that is visible or capable of being
apprehended visually (Refer Figure 5.30 and 5.31). If participants preferred a chair with
a fashionable image, then the researcher should be able to imagine or visualize that
something fashionable can be associated with an ornamented pattern, trendy image,
elegant taste, and be aligned with product design specifications in the context of
feasibility for manufacturing. The imagination is an effort of the mind in formulating a
concept that is already there with the help of such cues, to develop results for a new way
of thinking through various mediums, such as drawing and prototyping. Some
psychologists prefer to describe this process as imaging or imagery in which imagined
images are seen with the mind’s eye or the ability for visualization and to see things
with the mind.
143
Figure 5.31: Cues help researchers to visualize and translate ideas, concepts and form through
drawings, mock-ups and models
The researcher discovered that the design development process is not a linear
process but is considered as an iterative process when the process of designing is more
about reworking and refining, than adding new features and design specifications
incrementally. The researcher believes that the iterative design process of this study is
about do – learn – rework and refine and then do again until there is new information or
input introduced to the design process. The iterative process allows the researcher to
make changes to the design and respond to the drawing process, mock-up and
prototyping, which must be aligned with the feedback from the survey.
5.9 Conclusion
In conclusion, creating prototypes is an important step in the design process, and
allows designers to test how a design works and how to market it to potential clients. In
the research context, a prototype design permits researchers to establish market
preference tests, evaluate the design, clarify production issues and improve any glitches
in the design. The prototyping approach offers the opportunity to achieve favourable
user attitudes towards the design process and the information system. Furthermore, it
144
facilitates a fast response to users’ needs, allows clarification of users’ requirements,
and offers an opportunity for experimentation.
The researcher has built all the prototypes from the beginning, starting as
drawings, through to mock-ups, and, finally, executed as full scale prototypes. The
design building process allows for detailed diagnosis of potential design problems,
which also permits the user to evaluate or sit on and later able to provide a non-bias
response at questionnaires. This design process also permitted the researcher to specify
the spatial relationship of each element of the chair design from its structure to the
quality of workmanship.
145
CHAPTER 6 THE QUESTIONNAIRES
Chapter six presents a complete discussion about the
formulation of the semantic differential questionnaire
and strategies for recruiting the respondents. Two sets
of questionnaires were designed in two different
phases of the research study. Questionnaire-2 increased
the number of the main topic questions after
examination of the feedback from responses to the first
questionnaire. The target respondents for this study are
the participants from the Design group and the User
group.
146
6.0 Introduction of semantic differential questionnaires
The basic application of the semantic differential method is to measure and
assess the connotative meanings, which include the usability and functionality of the
object, the physical and characteristic values of an object and concepts through
descriptive scale. The usefulness of this method is well practiced in consumer research
by investigating peoples’ opinions, expectations, and human perceptions through
preselected group samples (Garland, 1990). The results and feedback of peoples’
opinions and perceptions can be obtained through the questionnaire by analysing the
image-words or descriptors of polar opposite adjectives, for example, beautiful-ugly,
heavy-light, and simple-complex. The image-word or descriptors in the semantic
differential questionnaire function as adjectival scales that indicate the connotative
meaning of the concept of the object. The versatility of the bipolar descriptors (nouns,
adjectives, syntax and phrases) provide a simple scheme for participants to understand
the question, and make it ideal for use as a questionnaire for consumers (Al-Hindawe;
Garland, 1990).
6.1 Semantic differential scale
The semantic differential scale is an indirect measure standard that can be used
to assess user emotion and reaction to the artefact or object through stimuli known as
adjectives, nouns, and syntax or a set of phrases to describe the meaning of the object
samples. The stimuli function to distinguish the design attributes and specifications of
the subject, and sometimes to recognize it as a descriptor. The descriptor is an image-
word or referent, which is used when the object is being rated on the bipolar adjectives
scale. When a list of paired opposite adjectives on a continuum (of several points) is
constructed, the respondents will indicate and mark the place on the scale or continuum
between the adjectives that best expresses their perceptions, attitudes, feelings,
preferences and desires according to a series of more specific questions.
The researcher has selected a seven-point bipolar rating scale for the scaling
range of adjectival opposites. The seven-point bipolar scale provides a finer grade of
judgment in comparison to the five-point scale. The nine-point scale would deliver an
even finer scale of judgment, but it becomes more difficult to grade and relocate
opinions if the scale range is too finely detailed. The researcher decided not to use the
147
six-point scale because by having an even number there is no neutral 18 choice;
therefore, it may force the participants to place an answer in either the positive or
negative extremities. The seven-point rating scale is a wise choice and offers advantages
of allowing neutrality, while offering enough gradation to supply meaningful
information. (Refer table 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3).
Table 6.1: The six-point rating scale – no option for neutral
Sad (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Happy
Table 6.2: The seven-point rating scale – suitable for supplying meaningful opinion
Complex (2) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Simple
Table 6. 3: The nine-point rating scale – the scale range is too finely detailed
Dull (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Sharp
The semantic differential scale of the seven-point rating scale has the advantage
of being able to identify whether the respondent judges the subject evaluation to be
extremely positive or vice versa. If the participant is impressed or unimpressed with the
subject of evaluation they are only required to mark their opinion based on a scale of 1
to 7. If the participant is not giving any answer, it can still provide an opinion through
marking scale 4 (refer table 6.4). This procedure is relatively easy to implement, and it
is not a complicated task for lay people to understand.
18 A neutral response can lead participants’ to choose undecided feedback.
148
Table 6.4: A snap shot of survey questions of Questionnaire-2 answered by participant No. 43 from among the user participants
B2. How do you feel about the AESTHETIC values of each chair?
1. Physical appearance Unimpressive Impressive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 1 X
DESIGN 2 X
DESIGN 3 X
DESIGN 4 X
2. Decorative level of chair design Plain Fussy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 1 X
DESIGN 2 X
DESIGN 3 X
DESIGN 4 X
3. Functions Complicated Uncomplicated
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 1 X
DESIGN 2 X
DESIGN 3 X
DESIGN 4 X
149
6.2 The construction of the questionnaires
Two sets of questionnaire were constructed based on the semantic differential
approach. Both questionnaires were designed in two different phases of the research
design. The first set of questions or Questionnaire-1 was created in the early phase of
the study. While, the second set of questions or Questionnaire-2 was formulated in the
second phase of the design framework, and was applied as an assessment tool in the
final stage of the research design. The full set questions of Questionnaire-1 and
Questionnaire-2 can be found in the appendixes.
Table 6.5 indicates a general description of the question topics for
Questionnaire-1 and Questionnaire-2. Most of the topic questions ask for an answer on a
seven-point bipolar scale of opinion except for the demographic questions, which only
require a tick for the appropriate answers. Questionnaire-1 offered 72 sub-questions and
had three separate sections. Questionnaire-2 provided five separate sections with 52
sub-questions. A further description of the questionnaires can be found in Section 6.2.1
(Questionnaire-1) and 6.2.2 (Questionnaire-2).
Table 6.5: Main topics of Questionnaire-1 and Questionnaire-2
TOPIC
QUESTIONNAIRE-1
QUESTIONNAIRE-2
MAIN TOPIC OF THE QUESTIONS
MAIN TOPIC OF THE QUESTIONS
Section 1 General information on aesthetic
and physical values of prototype
design
The emotional response to furniture
appearance, based on four chair
samples
Section 2 Specific information on subject
evaluation of form, utility and
aesthetic values.
Considered response or detailed
response to the chair designs
Section 3 Demographic study Elements and principles of design
Section 4 - Chair components
Section 5 - Demographic study
150
6.2.1 The Questionnaire-1
The first part of Questionnaire-1 was projected to seek participants’ general
knowledge concerning the aesthetic values and physical characteristics of Prototype 1.
People may provide a different opinion when accessing the aesthetic and physical
values of the chair. The scope of the aesthetic values in this study was viewed as the
philosophical branch of inquiry concerned with beauty, design and perception. The
researcher decided to explore respondents’ perceptions in respect of the chair’s
appearance, functions, practicality, standard of finishes, colour, design image and
concept, to name a few.
It is important to highlight that the list of attributes in the final Questionnaire-1
were discussed and agreed with supervisors, peers and the researcher before
disseminating to respondents. These attributes are highly suitable for the interrogation
of the actual aesthetic quality of the prototype. Figure 6.1 shows a list of aesthetic
attributes that have been used for the construction of the questionnaire. By having a
concisely constructed the questionnaire with accurate attributes or cues, the researcher
was confident of receiving non-biased feedback from the participants. The researcher
also believes that well-written survey questions can lead the participants to answer the
questions based on the knowledge or understanding of the characteristics of the
prototype rather than on past experience.
151
Figure 6.1: List of attributes that can generate questions about the aesthetic values of the product
The second part of Section A of Questionnaire-1 invited participants to respond
to the affective and cognitive qualities of the prototype. These questions were
constructed to invite respondents to give an opinion of how important the physical
appearance of the chair is in influencing the decision before purchasing the chair. The
attributes involved in this section include the comfort, weight, size, durability, flat pack
design or ready-made design (refer Figure 6.2). By embedding this attribute in the
question(s), the researcher aims to understand how important physical values (which
belong to the utility category) are in affecting the participants decision when selecting a
chair for its values rather than its looks. Although the list of attributes was limited, it can
still be used as a utility factor in eliciting the participants feeling when looking at
outdoor furniture. The last question of section A, investigates whether the respondents
understand the concept of elements and principles of design. The researcher referred to
line, colour, shape, size, texture, space, proportion, harmony, repetition, unity and
balance to investigate the participants’ basic design knowledge so they could visually
express their perceptions through answering the questionnaire (refer Figure 6.2).
How do you feel about AESTHETIC VALUES
of the chair?
How important are the AESTHETIC VALUES in
your decision making before purchasing outdoor
furniture?
152
Figure 6.2 : List of attributes used to generate questions on physical values and ‘elements and principles of design’ of the product
In section B of Questionnaire-1, a total number of five topics with 33 sub-
questions were arranged. The questions were formulated based on useful quotes and
expressions of how chairs make the respondents feel and whether the chair they sit on
could fulfil the functions for them.
The first question in Section B was designed to measure participants’ feeling
about the form or shape of Prototype 1. The researcher decided to explore the
participants’ opinions via reflecting on their perception in terms of design form, comfort
level when sitting on the chair, feeling of safety and stability when using the prototype
and, level of feeling excited when sitting on the chair (refer Figure 6.3). If we can
discover such emotional feeling accurately, the feedback can be applied as a kick start
in designing a good chair without facing to many complications.
Have you thought carefully about ELEMENTS &
PRINCIPLES OF DESGN before
purchasing outdoor furniture?
How important are the Physical values
in your decision making before
purchasing outdoor furniture?
153
The next question was designed to identify the feeling of the respondents about
the aesthetic values of the prototype in respect of the originality of the concept, material
selection, design and image impression and, level of design – whether it is exaggerated
or overdone. How people perceive a chair, and, in particular, how the chair is presented
has a big impact on its perceived value.
In section B of question three, the researcher formulated the survey question by
asking the respondents whether they agreed or disagreed that the elements and
principles of design are extensively applied in Prototype 1. The items or attributes of the
elements and principles of design are still the same as the list of the elements and
principles of design in section A (refer Figure 6.2 and 6.3). The researcher decided to
disseminate this question because it is crucial to receive an accurate answer, which
should not be influenced by other chairs that the participants have had experience of in
the past, or may be drawn from other sources rather than focussing on the subject matter
only.
The need to understand the emotional appeal when evaluating the prototype of
the Design and User Groups participants is essential. Therefore, there is a critical need
to investigate what sort of emotional appeal will be perceived by them. In order to
further understand the emotional appeal of the participants, a set of attributes, such as
exclusive, trendy, pleasant, practical, secure, creative and comfort, are used to describe
the respondents’ feelings and perceptions (Refer Figure 6.3). If participants want to
relax, the chair has to look comfortable, pleasant and trendy; if they want to work, the
chair they choose should look exclusive and practical. These perceptions do not refer to
any research finding but are based on the researcher assumptions only. From the
analogy of the abovementioned statement; the participants are able to provide
significant information by describing their feeling through the text form (Hsiao, 1997;
Krippendorff & Butter, 1984).
The final section of Questionnaire-1 focuses on the demographic information of
the participants of the Design and User Groups. The demographic data are essential
because they will provide a significant correlation between the opinions and the
respondents’ profiles. The demographic profiles include gender, highest education
attainment, hobbies and interests, favourite styles of design and consideration factors
before purchasing the furniture. Further explanation about the demographic factors can
154
be found in Chapter 7, data analysis. In conclusion, Figure 6.3 summarises some of the
specific questions in respect of form, aesthetics and utility themes.
Figure 6.3: List of attributes used to generate specific questions in respect of form, aesthetics and utility themes
6.2.2 Questionnaire-2
The number of the main topic questions in Questionnaire-2 was increased after
scrutinising the feedback from the responses to the first questionnaire. Questionnaire-1
functioned as a benchmark questionnaire and had experienced some deficiency in the
questions that needed to be improved to suit the research objectives and filled some key
information gaps. There were two types of observation activity conducted in
Questionnaire-2. For example, section A sought the participants response to the
questionnaire based on a quick observation. Sections B, C and D, were a ‘considered
response’ or detailed observation of the prototypes. The detailed observation allowed
participants to touch and sit on the prototypes. They were also able to compare each of
the chair samples in terms of material selection, standard of finish, jointing system, size
and much more. Hence, the considered response procedure gives the opportunity to
respondents to directly examine the furniture samples so they can give accurate
responses and reactions to the evaluation of the objects.
What do you feel about FORM / SHAPE of this
chair?
How would you describe the EMOTIONAL APPEAL
when evaluating this chair?
Do you agree that the ELEMENTS &
PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN are applied in this chair?
155
In Section A, the participants of the Design and User Groups were urged to
respond to the questions with a quick observation and they were not allowed to sit in or
compare each of the chairs. The participants were asked to describe their perceptions of
the emotional appearance of the furniture through a quick glimpse at the four chair
samples, so that a genuine and unbiased response of emotional appeal to each of the
samples without comparing them could be obtained. There were nine cues or attributes
applied to this particular question – exclusive design, trendy image, pleasant outlook,
practical design chair, feeling of safety, creative design, comfort in use, easy to match to
any surroundings and feeling of interest to buy (refer Figure 6.4). The list of cues
obviously includes more varieties in this section compared to Questionnaire-1. The
researcher also has the advantage of reusing the previous questionnaire contents by
identifying and making use of the important area already identified in Questionnaire-1
rather than start from scratch.
Figure 6.4: List of attributes to describe emotional appeal in the evaluation on the prototypes
How would you describe EMOTIONAL APPEAL in
the evaluation of this subject?
156
There were three major topics in section B (Figure 6.5). In addition, they were
also allowed to sit in and perform a rigorous observation of each chair. The topics in
section B are more focused and offered straight forward question content compared to
Questionnaire-1. Questionnaire-1 only projected a survey strategy for one particular
sample, whereas Questionnaire-2 investigated the participants’ emotional feeling
pertaining to four furniture samples. However, as the research contents in
Questionnaire-1 were still aligned with form, aesthetics and utility studies, the
researcher decided to reapply and reuse some of the previous questions by determining
specific factors or priority ideas. Figure 6.5 shows a list of the attributes utilized to
distinguish the furniture values of the prototypes. These attributes function as internal
control for obtaining accurate information. The main concerned was to get the picture
how do they feel about form, aesthetic and utility values to each of the design.
Figure 6.5: List of attributes to describe the emotional appeal of the four subjects under
evaluation
157
In respect to Section C of Questionnaire-2, the quantifiable questions
concentrated on the elements and principles of design to measure the level of
understanding concerning whether these factors are successfully applied in the design of
the subject under evaluation or vice versa. The content of the questions remained similar
to the previous questionnaire, the only difference being the format. Section C provides
two sub-questions for examples, (i) Do you think the elements of design are applied on
the subject under evaluation and, (ii) do you think the principles of design are applied
on the subject under evaluation, instead of combining these questions.
It is important to investigate and identify which component of the chair has a
significant impact on the participants. Hence, for section D, the researcher designed a
question to seek the opinion of participants by asking; On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is
unfavourable and 7 is favourable, which part of the subject under evaluation do you like
most? Some alternative attributes were offered for participants to choose, such as
backrest, seat, legs, overall construction and other.
Finally, the last section was a study of the participants’ demographic profile. The
content and format of the questions is more or less the same as the previous questions in
Questionnaire-1.
6.3 Obstacles in constructing the questionnaire
In the earlier stage of constructing the questionnaire, the topics and sub-topics
were discussed with supervisors and postgraduate students before setting up for a trial
assessment. The postgraduate students voluntarily tested the questions and left
comments if any ambiguous questions were identified. Positive responses were
received, and a few changes were made, especially in the use of words to avoid
ambiguity. The range of adjectives (pairs) is based in their direct relevance to the
information that is needed, but also is chosen with consideration of the background and
expected knowledge of two groups of participants – the Design Group and the general
User Group. Problems may arise when the term used have different meanings on
connotations for the Design Group and User Group. The Design Group may perceive
the image-words based on the perspective of design language, while the user group may
comprehend the meaning of image-words as a general meaning of normal language
usage.
158
Concisely, the design language is a set of abstractions of designers’ language
that are used to highlight the structure of an idea and concept of objects. The designer
constantly uses elements and principles of design jargon, such as line, texture, form,
utility, balance, harmony, composition and many more, to communicate and convey
information about their creation or design. One way to acknowledge how both groups of
participants, particularly the User Group, perceive these image-words is through
informal interviews. This session occurred soon after the participants completed
Questionnaire-1 and the researcher immediately approached the participants to ask
about the level of difficulty in understanding the questionnaire.
In conclusion, both questionnaires were designed to measure the perceptions of
the Designer and User Groups in respect of form, aesthetics and utility through the
medium of chair design. Questionnaire-1 was designed to evaluate Prototype 1 and
Questionnaire-2 was constructed to measure Prototype 2 and Prototype 3 including the
competing chairs. The format of the questions for both questionnaires remained in the
same format, however the contents differed slightly from one to the other.
159
CHAPTER 7 DATA ANALYSIS
This chapter presents information about the overall
findings and data analysis from two survey
questionnaires that were completed by two categories
of respondents – the Design and User Groups. This
chapter consists of three sections of analysis; Section
7.1 and Section 7.2 are a compilation of the feedback
from Questionnaire-1 and Questionnaire-2,
respectively. Section 7.3 is a comparative study using
both questionnaires and examines differences in the
evaluation of a chair between the participants of the
Design Group and User Group.
160
7.0 Reliability analysis of questionnaire design
In this study, two separate semantic differential questionnaires were designed
and distributed in two different design research phases. The questionnaires were
designed to obtain information relevant to the study with maximal reliability. To assess
the reliability of the questionnaires, the Cronbach’s alpha analysis was performed. This
analysis is commonly used when there are multiple choice questions in a questionnaire
that form a scale and the researcher wishes to determine if the scale is reliable.
According to article by Institute for Digital Research and Education, UCLA, the use of
Cronbach’s alpha provides an indicator of the internal consistency of a scale based on
the average inter-item correlation19.
Questionnaires-1 and 2 are functionally reliable for application to the Design
and User Group participants. Both questionnaires demonstrated good internal
consistency, which is supported through significant results from Questionnaire-1 in
which α = 0.878, and for Questionnaire-2 α= 0.982. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0 to
1 with values above 0.8 considered to be a good level of reliability for an exploratory
study.
Table 7.1 shows an example of an itemized score of the reliability test for
Questionnaire-2, which is considered an important tool or instrument to measure the
perceptions of the Design and User Group participants. The majority of the itemized
components delivered a high score, and, therefore, are reasonably reliable for use in this
study.
19 Institure for Digital Research and Education UCLA. (n.d.). What does Crombach’s alpha mean?. Retrieved from www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/spss/faq/alpha.html
161
Table 7.1: Detailed results of reliability analysis – Cronbach’s alpha to Questionnaire-2
RELIABILITY TEST OF QUESTIONNAIRE-2
Questions category Alpha-Cronbach’s (α)
Emotional responses to each chair design 0.907
Considered response to chair design: FORM 0.888
Considered response to chair design: AESTHETIC 0.854
Considered response to chair design: UTILITY 0.909
Considered response to chair design:
ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES of DESIGN
0.960
Chair’s components 0.935
Overall reliability result of questionnaire-2 0.982
7.1 Compilation of feedback for Questionnaire-1: The first survey
The first survey asked participants to view a prototype chair and answer a set of
questions. There were two categories of respondents involved in this study, the Design
Group and the User Group. The level of knowledge, expertise and design competency
varied between the two groups. As a consequence, the groups provided dissimilar
feedback and perceptions concerning the chair design in their subject evaluations. A
total number of 32 individuals who observed the object completed the first semantic
differential Questionnaire. Of the initial cohort of 32 participants, 84.4 per cent who
contributed were from the User Group and 15.6 per cent were from the Design Group.
Although more than 50 sets of Questionnaire-1 were distributed to the User Group or
general participants, only 60 per cent were answered and returned. Thus, the overall
response to the first questionnaire was moderate. A total of five respondents from the
162
Design Group were involved, which included a freelance designer, design consultant
and full time designers. One designer answered the questionnaire without viewing the
prototype, however, detailed full photo images from multiple perspectives were
provided.
Table 7.2: Percentage of participants involved in the first phase of the research survey
Group Number Per cent Cumulative Per cent
User 27 84.4 84.4
Design 5 15.6 100.0
Questionnaire-1 was distributed in the first phase of the study and involved a
small number of participants. This was a preliminary study and considered a feasibility
survey. A small number of participants were asked to respond in order to improve the
quality of the survey for the second phase of the study. Although, only a small number
of participants responded to Questionnaire-1, the feedback received provided useful
information regarding the nature of the questionnaire. Feedback was received, which
led to vital changes to the questionnaire. An improved version of the prototype
questionnaire was later developed in the next phase of the study following this
preliminary trial.
163
7.1.1 The demographic study
The demographic study aimed to examine the participants’ preferred hobbies
and interests, furniture preferences in style and design, and components for
consideration before purchasing furniture. The results of this study are presented in
percentages and frequency mode.
There were six options for the hobbies and interests question. These were arts
and design, buy and sell, home, music, sport, and computer. A frequency analysis was
performed and it was found that the majority of participants chose arts and design
(78.1%) as their main choice followed by sports (46.9%) and music (37.5%). However,
only a few participants selected computer (six people), and buying and selling (one
participant) (Refer Figure 7.1).
Frequency 25 1 6 12 15 6
Figure 7.1: Questionnaire-1: The demographic study of design and user group of participants’ hobbies and interests
78.1 %
3.1 %
18.8 %
37.5 %
46.9 %
18.8 %
Arts &Design
Buy & Sell Home Music Sport Computer
HOBBIES AND INTERESTS
PER
CE
NT
AG
E
164
Figure 7.2 presents the percentage and preliminary frequency analysis of
participants’ preference in style and design before purchasing any furniture. The use of
the phrase style and design in this context referred to an expression of individual design
trend in relation to popular taste and a general direction or trend that many people are
beginning to follow. There were six options involved in this section which were classic,
modern, retro, contemporary, futuristic and crafty. As shown in bar chart 7-2, the
majority of participants’ preferred to purchase furniture with contemporary style
(56.3%) followed by modern (37.5%), retro (25%), and classic (18.8%). Unfortunately,
futuristic and craft based designs were less preferred with only four people selecting
each category.
Frequency 6 12 8 18 4 4
Figure 7.2: Questionnaire-1: The demographic study on participants’ preference in style and design of furniture design
The Design and User groups were also asked to consider the factors that
influenced their decision to purchase an outdoor chair. This question was intended to
investigate the pre-conceived ideas and factors that both groups of participants
considered before purchasing furniture and included factors, such as brand, design,
18.8 %
37.5 %
25 %
56.3 %
12.5 % 12.5 %
Classic Modern Retro Contemporary Futuristic Crafty
PER
CE
NT
AG
E
STYLE AND DESIGN OF OUTDOOR FURNITURE
165
price, style, trend and ergonomics. As shown in figure 7.3, more than 17 participants
from both groups stated that design (53.1%) was the most important factor considered
before purchasing any furniture. The second preference was price (46.6%), followed by
style (34.4%), and ergonomics (31.3%). Other components, such as brand (6.3%) and
trend of the chair (3.1%) were less considered. This piece of useful information can be
excogitated in the second phase of the design study.
Frequency 2 17 13 11 1 10
Figure 7.3: Questionnaire-1: Participants conceived consideration
when purchasing an outdoor chair
In respect of the demographic survey, the researcher also asked about the highest
educational attainment and average income per month of the participants. However, the
results of these questions will not be discussed because they did not have any high
impact or influence on the study. In contrast, three questions (Refer to figures 7.1, 7.2
and 7.3) were discussed because they will contribute substantially to developing an
understanding of the tastes, desires and priorities of the participants in the survey. This
information has been used and applied in the next design development of the next
research phase including the developing of the second questionnaire. For instance, the
furniture must demonstrate contemporary and modern aesthetic characteristics and both
groups of participants believed that design, price and style were the main factors for
consideration before purchase of any furniture.
6.3 %
53.1 %
40.6 % 34.4 %
3.1 %
31.3 %
Brand Design Price Style Trend Ergonomics
PER
CE
NT
AG
E
FACTOR INFLUENCING PURCHASING
166
7.1.2. Section A: General knowledge on physical characteristics of outdoor chairs
Section A was designed to elicit general knowledge concerning the physical
characteristics of outdoor chairs, and was arranged with four sub-topics. The first sub-
topic sought answers concerning how aesthetic values affect participants’ decision
making. The second sub-topic investigated how much the physical values influence
participants’ decision making before buying outdoor furniture. The third sub-topic
explored how utility values affect participants’ perception before purchasing outdoor
furniture. Finally, the fourth sub-topic examined whether elements and principles of
design have a significant impact on participants decision making.
The analysis of this section mainly focused on the mean value of particular
subjects, which are used to indicate the central tendency of the subject evaluation or
attributes of the subject. The sum of overall values for each case is divided by the
number of participants. If a particular group of participants score below 4.0 (median
value) then it can be considered that they have less preference for the attributes
suggested. An indicator of data presentation can be summarized as follows; 4.0 is a
median value, which is regarded as a numerical value of the middle case or the case
lying on the 50th percentile rank ordered from highest to lowest. Mean values above 4.0
are associated with a positive perception and indicate agreement. Mean values lower
than 4.0 suggest that participants dislike the preference suggested or the proposed
furniture attributes.
Figure 7.4 displays the findings regarding how important the influence of
different aesthetic values are in the decision making process before purchasing outdoor
chairs. There are seven attributes for aesthetic values – appearance, function,
practicality, standard of finishes, colour, image, and design concept. All attributes have
their own semantic differential rating scale. For example, Not Impressive – Outstanding
was used to measure physical appearance of the object, Unsatisfied – Satisfied was used
to describe the standard of finishes of the chair. All the ratings for the semantic
differential adjectives for each attribute are available in the appendix of the
questionnaire samples.
167
The interesting finding of this particular question is that the Design and User
Group participants delivered a similar hierarchy of response, with the Design Group
generally only scoring a slightly higher priority number for the various characteristics.
For instance, the Design Group scored both practicality and functionality at 6.6, the
highest value, whereas the User Group accorded a score of 6.22 for each attribute. The
next highest score attribute was appearance with the Design Group assigning a score of
6.4 and the User Group, 5.67. Image (Design Group, 6.0, and User Group, 4.89) is
almost as important as function, practicality and appearance. The lowest scores were
accorded to design concept, standard of finishes, and colour (Design Group, 5.6, 5.6 and
5.6, and User group, 4.7, 4.74 and 4.96, respectively); however, all scores were well
above the median of 4.0. The outcome of this survey demonstrates that aesthetic values
are of substantial importance in the decision making process before purchasing outdoor
furniture.
Figure 7.4: The important aesthetic values that influence participants’ decision making before purchasing outdoor furniture
5.67 6.22 6.22
4.74 4.96 4.89 4.7
6.4 6.6 6.6 5.6 5.6 6 5.6
01234567
Appearance Functions Practicality Standardfinishes
Color Image Designconcept
User group Design group
Median
AESTHETIC VALUES
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
168
Questions were also formulated about how attributes of physical values can act
and inform the participants’ decision making before purchasing outdoor furniture. There
were eight attributes identified in this particular question, which included comfort,
safety, material, weight, size, durability, flat-pack design, and ready-made design. As
shown in Figure 7.5, the majority of the participants agreed that all physical attributes
listed were important in the process of reaching a decision. The Design group provided
positive responses for the majority of the outcomes, with mean values greater than 5.0
for the elements of safety (6.8), material (6.4), comfort (6.4) size (6.2), and weight (5.6).
The same positive response was received from the User Group participants with several
mean values greater than 5.0 including attributes of comfort (6.48), durability (5.74),
material (5.3), and safety (5.19). The researcher decided that attributes with a score of
5.0 and above would be considered as a design specification for design development
criteria for the next design level in the process. This implementation of design
specifications in the prototype(s) development can be observed at the design portfolio in
the appendix section. Attributes with a lower mean value ranging from 4.0 were not
discarded but retained for further study and were maintained in the product design
development process through sketches, drawings and prototypes.
Figure 7.5: The important physical values that affect participants’ decision making before purchasing outdoor furniture
6.48 5.19 5.3
4.3 5 5.74
2.81 3.56
6.4 6.8 6.4 5.6 6.2 4.8 4 4.2
02468
Comfort Safety Material Weight Size Durability Flat pack Readymade
User group Design groupPHYSICAL VALUES
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
169
In investigating how utility values influence decision making, participants were
asked to rate five major attributes of price, ergonomics, brand identity, product life span
and designer’s signature design. The overall results to this question are summarized in
Figure 7.6. It was found that the User Group reported price (5.52), ergonomics (6.6),
and product life span (5.15) to be important factors to consider before buying furniture.
Brand identity (2.85) and designer’s signature design (2.52) were not considered to be
important when considering purchasing furniture as both attributes had a mean value
less than 4.0. The majority of the Design Group responded to this question with very
positive feedback. For example, ergonomic factors (6.6), furniture life span (6.2), price
(5.4) and brand identity of the product (4.0) were found to dramatically influence the
decision making process before purchasing a piece of furniture. In conclusion, it was
found that the utility attributes of price, ergonomics, and furniture life span are vital
components of utility, which should remain as part of the design attributes for the next
chair design. More important still, attributes with lower mean values, such as brand
identity and designers’ signature design image were not completely ignored but will
provide a clue or cue that these elements should be emphasized more in the next level of
design. The clues and cues of these attributes can be translated in a drawing and
presented in a tangible form (Refer to design portfolio in the appendix section)
Figure 7.6: The important utility values that contribute to participant decision making before purchasing outdoor furniture
5.52 5.41
2.85
5.15
2.52
5.4
6.6
4
6.2
3.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Price Ergonomics Brand identity Life span Signaturedesign
User group Design groupUTILITY VALUES
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
170
The final question in Section A asks participants to rate whether the elements
and principles of design are considered before purchasing furniture. It is believed that
awareness of the elements and principles of design is an early step in selecting the
successful aesthetic and physical composition of the product. The Design Group
provided significant positive responses to indicate that the elements and principles of
design were essential factors to be considered prior to purchasing new furniture. The
majority of the Design Group provided positive feedback. The highest response was for
proportion (6.6), balance (6.4), harmony (6.2) texture (6), space (6), repetition (6) and
unity (6). The User Group also believed that the elements and principles of design
played an important role before purchasing new furniture. This was reflected in their
feedback by giving a higher mean scores for elements of shape (5.63), proportion
(5.56), balance (5.37), colour (5.33) and many more.
Figure 7.7: Did you think carefully about the ‘elements and principles of design’ before purchasing outdoor furniture?
4
5.33 5.63
5.15 5.3 4.93
5.56 5.3
4.15 4.67
5.37 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.8 6 6
6.6 6.2 6 6
6.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
User Group Design Group
Median
ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
171
7.1.3 Section B: Participants specific evaluation procedure of the form, aesthetics and utility
In section B, the mode of survey seeks information of a highly subjective nature
through investigating personal impressions of the attributes of form, aesthetics and
utility of the prototype design. Participants were asked to answer questions based on
comprehensive observations, which allowed them to touch, lift and sit on the chair.
Figure 7.8 shows participants’ emotional responses to the form or the shape of the
prototypes. These responses were amalgamated and then recorded numerically and
presented for analysis in graphical form, allowing an objective reading of the outcomes
to be undertaken.
The User Group found the first prototype looks nice because its shape reflects
good design form (4.78) and is capable of portraying a stable design image (4.22).
However, at the same time they felt less excited to sit on it (3.93) because they sensed
that the prototype is not so comfortable (3.78) and less safe (3.78). On the other hand,
the Design Group observed Chair No. 1 differently. Only one attribute scored a mean
value above 4.0 (feeling of safety, 4.40). The remaining attributes were rated less
favourably and suggested that the Design group thought the prototype failed to show
good design form (3.6), stability (3.6), excitement to sit on it (3.4), and was less
comfortable (3.2).
Figure 7.8: Response to question B1 of Questionnaire-1: “How did you feel about the form/shape of this chair?”
4.78
3.78 3.78 3.93 4.22 3.6
3.2
4.4
3.4 3.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Good designform
Comfort Safety Excited Stability
User group Design groupEXPRESSION OF CHAIRS’ FORM
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
172
Figure 7.9 illustrates the feeling of the participants in evaluating the aesthetic
values of Prototype 1. There are four attributes to describe the aesthetic values, which
are identified as originality of design concept, material, image impression and
exaggeration of design form. The Design and User Group of participants responded
with positive feedback for form or shape of Prototype 1, which was viewed as a bit
overdone (User Group, 4.59, and Design Group, 5.60), does not follow a familiar design
form, and does not depict a typical design trend. The User Group was impressed by the
image of Prototype 1 (4.44), which, to them, succeeded in representing originality in the
design concept (4.41). The Design Group also rated positive feedback for material
selection (5.0), and originality of concept (4.40). However, it was a surprise when the
Design Group marked the image of Prototype 1 as less impressive (3.4). This reaction
may be a direct reaction to the material selection (3.89) which they think is not suitable
and relatively difficult to implement for mass production purposes.
Figure 7.9: Response to question B2 of Questionnaire-1: “How do you feel about the aesthetic values of this chair?”
Figure 7.10 illustrates the perceptions of the participants of the elements and principles
of design concerning whether or not it has been implemented successfully in Prototype
1. The analysis revealed that the User Group agreed that all elements and principles of
design were successfully employed in the design. However, the Design Group reacted
differently, stating that approximately 50 percent of the design elements and principles
were not achieved in the design of Prototype 1 (mean values less than the medium value
of 4.0).
4.41 3.89
4.44 4.59 4.4 5
3.4
5.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Originality ofconcept
Material Image impression Exaggerate /overdone
User group Design group
Median
EXPRESSION OF AESTHETIC VALUES
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
173
These contradictory opinions may potentially be explained by a lack of
understanding of the design language used in the questionnaire, particularly in respect
of the User Group. For instance, the Design Group will understand some of the
categories or attributes, such as line, colour, shape, size, texture, space, proportion,
harmony, repetition, unity and balance from a professional point of view, whereas the
User Group are more likely to take the term at face value, and offer a subjective
evaluation that could easily be at odds with the professional interpretation and
evaluation. In fact, the User Group scored the potentially abstract attributes with the
elements and principles of design substantially higher than the median value. Whereas
in this category, the Design Group scored well below the median for these questions
(shape, 3.0, proportion, 3.3, balance 3.4, and shape 3.8).
Figure 7.10: Response to question B3 of Questionnaire-1: “Do you think the elements and principles of design are successfully applied in the subject under evaluation?”
The next question investigated the emotional appeal of the prototype. In this
study, the emotional appeal attributes comprise eight specific terms. These were
exclusive, trendy, pleasant, practical, secure, creative, comfort, and cost. Figure 7.11
displays the results to this question. The majority of the Design and User Groups’
participants provided consistent positive responses. Most of the mean scores for each
5.3
4.37
4.93 4.48 4.37 4.48 4.67 4.7
5.41 4.93
4.52 4.4
5
4.2
5.2 5 5
3.2 3
4 3.8 3.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
User Group Design GroupELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
174
attribute were above 4.0. Based on perceptual experience and detailed observation
among the User Group of participants, they interpreted Prototype 1 as creative (4.85),
trendy (4.67), having a pleasant appearance (4.52), exclusive (4.33), and practical
(4.26). However, the Design Group of participants presented a different set of outcomes
in which the results show that Chair No. 1 looks safe (4.8), creative (4.6), appears
comfortable (4.6), and practical (4.2) as seating. Unfortunately, the Design Group
believed Chair No. 1 does not reflect an exclusive image (3.6), is less trendy and is
unfashionable (4.0), and looks expensive (3.41). It is assumed that the perception of the
Design Group, was genuine which may be based on personal-experience and strong
opinion. Unlike the User Group of participants, they give opinions based on their
capability as design people and always consider these issues from the professional
therefore critical stand point.
Figure 7.11: Responses to question B4 of Questionnaire-1: “How do you rate the emotional appeal when evaluating this subject”?
4.33 4.67 4.52
4.26 4.26
4.85
3.74
3.41 3.6
4 4.2 4.4 4.8 4.6 4.6
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Exclusive Trendy Pleasant Practical Secure Creative Comfort Cost
User group Design groupEMOTIONAL APPEAL
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
175
Identifying the physical components of Prototype 1 that are most appealing to
participants is crucial (Figure 7.12). According to the responses of the User Group, the
chair legs (4.37) are the most admired component followed by the seat (4.37) and
backrest (3.11). However the Design Group selected the seat of the chair (4.4) as the
first preference, followed by the chair legs (3.0). Those components with a mean value
of less than 4.0 are considered less preferred and will be improved in terms of stylistic
appearance in the design development of the next prototype. The results obtained
function as an indicator and a significant intimation about which components should be
emphasized more and will need critical attention when developing the next prototypes
(Prototype 2 and 3).
Figure 7.12: Responses to question B5 of Questionnaire-1: which part of the chair do you like most?
0.07
3.11
4.37 4.37
0
1.4
4.4
3
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
5
Head rest Back rest Seat Leg
User group Design group
Median
CHAIR COMPONENTS
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
176
Overall conclusions in relation to Prototype 1; the semantic differential has
advantages for measuring human perception and is capable of conveying a
comprehensive picture of the chair’s meaning and personality. The participants
interpreted the meaning and the character of the chair based on predefined attributes,
which consist of semantic differential adjectives and syntaxes. The participants of the
Design and User Groups believed that function, practicality of design, and physical
appearance are important factors that influence them before purchasing the furniture.
The dissimilarity of perception and opinion may be attributed to many factors. The
Design Group may have responded to the questions based on their design experience
and knowledge of design that is proposed to meet consumer needs and desires, while the
user group gave feedback based on personal experience and judgment, which relates to
what they know and gives benefit to them only. The researcher also believes that the
designer language used in the questionnaire may contribute to ambiguity in
understanding some basic terminology in respect of the visual language. Hence, in the
next research phase, the researcher will briefly explain any term or visual language
vocabulary that may confuse the participant before answering the questions.
7.2 Compilation of the feedback from Questionnaire-2
A total of 51 individuals answered Questionnaire-2, in which 84.3 per cent of
the respondents were from the User Group and 15.7 per cent from the Design Group;
45.1 per cent were male, 49 per cent were female and 3.1 per cent of participants did not
indicate their gender. In terms of higher educational attainment, a total of 25 individuals
had completed postgraduate study (49%) while 37.3 per cent of participants had
completed or are still studying for their undergraduate degree, while approximately 7.8
per cent hold a diploma certificate.
In this study, the Design and User groups were asked to respond to four chairs
simultaneously. Viewing of the four chairs’ as well as the administration of
Questionnaire-2 took place in several venues in Perth, Western Australia. These
included the Furniture Seminar Series organized by Advanced Timber Concepts
Research Centre, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts at The University
177
of Western Australia 20 on 19th October 2010, in the Cullity gallery 21 and at the
Academic Coffee Session organized by the Malaysian Postgraduate Students’
Association of Western Australia22 in December 2010 at Curtin University23.
Figure 7.13: Participants answered the semantic differential questionnaire and observed outdoor chairs in different time space and location
Figure 7.15 shows two units of outdoor chairs, which were developed for the
project (Prototypes 2 and 3) and were exhibited together with two units of competing
chairs (Samples 1 and 2). The competing chairs were sourced through local retail
outlets. In Questionnaire-2 some questions required participants to sit on the chair.
Depending on the type of question, participants were either instructed to sit on the
chairs before evaluation, or were instructed to make their evaluation without or before
sitting on the chairs.
20 Advanced Timber Concepts Research Centre, Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts at The University of Western Australia - http://www.atcwa.org/
21 Cullity gallery is located on the ground floor of the School of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts, The University of Western Australia, Australia.
22 Malaysian Postgraduate Students’ Association Western Australia - http://www.mypsa-wa.org/
23 The Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, www.curtin.edu.au
178
Figure 7.14: Four units of outdoor chairs: The subject samples for the second part of the design assessment
7.2.1 The demographic study
Descriptive statistics were used to explore, summarize and describe the data
collected. Descriptive statistics are particularly useful in making general observations
about the data. Three main measures of mode, median and mean are frequently used in
this section. An advanced detailed analysis is presented in Section 7.3.
Bar chart 7.15 illustrates the detailed percentage of both participants groups’
hobbies and interests in respect of arts and design, buying and selling, home and
lifestyle, music and entertainment, sport and leisure, and computer and gaming. The
results show that music and entertainment (39.2%) was the most popular attribute of the
hobby and interest category. This was followed by arts and design, home and lifestyle,
and sports and leisure, all which had a frequency of 37.3 per cent.
179
Frequency 19 5 19 20 19 7
Figure 7.15: Questionnaire-2: The demographic study on hobbies and interests
The terms for preference of style and design included the following six options;
classic, modern, retro, contemporary, futuristic and crafty design. Bar chart 7.16 shows
that both respondent groups cited modern design (51%) as their preferred style,
followed by contemporary (43.1%) and classic design (35.3%). Furniture design with
retro, futuristic and crafty design was less preferable and less popular.
Frequency 18 26 11 22 6 5
Figure 7.16: Questionnaire-2: Preference of style and design
37.3 %
9.8 %
37.3 % 39.2 % 37.3 %
13.7 %
Arts & Design Buying &Selling
Home &Lifestyles
Music &Entertainments
Sport & Leisure Computer &Gaming
35.3 %
51 %
21.6 %
43.1 %
11.8 % 9.8 %
Classic Modern Retro Contemporary Futuristic Crafty
HOBBIES AND INTERESTS
PER
CE
NT
AG
E
STYLE AND DESIGN
PER
CE
NT
AG
E
Home & Lifestyle
Music & Entertainment
180
The next demographic question was formulated to investigate contributing
factors that influence furniture buying. Six factors were involved in this question –
brand, design, price, style, trend and ergonomics. Most of the respondents claimed that
the design (66.7%) factor would be the primary motivation for outdoor furniture. Other
factors that could influence the purchase of furniture were price (60.8%) and ergonomic
factors (37.8%). However, both groups of participants were less concerned about style
(31.4%), brand (13.7%) and trend (5.9%) when anticipating buying a piece of furniture.
Frequency 7 34 31 16 3 19
Figure 7.17: Questionnaire-2: Conceived consideration before purchasing outdoor chair
In summary, the demographic investigation showed that both groups of
participants’ hobbies and interests were centred on the areas of music and
entertainment, and arts and design. The Design and User Groups also reported that
modern and contemporary design was always the dominant factor or benchmark before
purchasing furniture. Participants were mostly concerned about the physical appearance
of the product, followed by the price and ergonomics when considering purchasing
furniture. The finding was gathered based on a personal design interest and preferences
without referring to any specific prototypes or samples of the study.
13.7 %
66.7 % 60.8 %
31.4 %
5.9 %
37.3 %
Brand Design Price Style Trend Ergonomics
INFLUENCE OF PURCHASING FACTOR
PER
CE
NT
AG
E
181
7.2.2 Section A: The emotional response to the appearance of the furniture
Section A consisted of ten questions which sought to evaluate the participants’
emotional perceptions of each chair. Participants were asked to provide a quick
response to each question and were not allowed to sit on the chairs or compare them.
The researcher needed both groups to reply to the questions with no bias of feeling and
not favouring any of the chairs displayed while answering the question, as this
procedure was exploring genuine feedback of the understanding responding to
perception, as shown in Figures 7.18 and 7.19.
Both groups of participants were given an option to vote on attributes using a
seven-point bipolar scale. The attributes included exclusive design, trendy image,
pleasant appearance, ease of use, appearance of safety, originality of design, appearance
of comfort, ease of matching, interest in purchasing, and indoor/outdoor design with the
intention of the investigating participants’ emotional responses.
182
Figure 7.18: Response to question A1, Questionnaire-2: “What is your emotional response to each chair?”
As shown in Figure 7.18, the technique of logical analysis is based on mean
value analysis, in which if a score is above 4.0, it indicates a positive response. In
answering the question about exclusive design, the responses of both the Design and
User Groups were in agreement (4.25 and 4.95, respectively) that Prototype 3 does
reflect the qualities of exclusive design.
Both groups of participants also rated Prototype 3 to be the most trendy in
appearance (Design Group, 4.63 and User Group, 5.35). Sample 1 was found to be the
least trendy, with both groups giving it a lower mean score of 3.13 (Design group) and
3.63 (User group). This may be because Sample 1 has the typical characteristics of an
outdoor chair, with all the common design form and without innovation or new features
in its design, thus this design looks outdated and less trendy.
2.13 3
4.13 4.25
3.13 3.5
4.5 4.63
4
3.37
4.88 4.13 4.63 4.5 4.75
4 4.25
5.25
3.75
3 3.09
4.09
3.51
4.95
3.63 4.47
3.53
5.35
4.44
5.02
4.09
4.63
5.58 5.33 4.91
4.4 4.56
5.91
4.12
3.21
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Exclusive design Trendy image Pleasantappearance
Ease to use Appearance ofsafety
User Group Design GroupEMOTIONAL RESPONSES
Median Se
man
tic D
iffer
entia
l Val
ue
Chair No.
183
Further discussion between the two groups of respondents is evidenced in the
outcomes of the question concerning pleasant appearance in which the Design Group
rated Prototype 2 with a high mean value (4.88) while the User Group rated only 4.09.
This chair is a one-off or exclusive design that has been generated in part through the
application of this methodology to the design process. In this category the total score for
pleasant appearance for Sample 2 is slightly lower than for Prototype 2, with the User
Group scoring it as 5.02 and the Design Group rating it at 3.37.
The same chair (Sample 2), perhaps unsurprisingly, scored highest in appearance
of safety (Design Group, 5.25, and User Group, 5.91) because this chair is an iconic
chair, familiar to all participants in one of its many manifestations, and, as such, may
generally be perceived to be more trustworthy. The same trend of familiarity with an
image gathering a high score applies in the category for ease of use, where
Sample/Chair No. 1 and No. 2 both score 5.38 and 5.33, respectively, against 4.4 and
4.91 for the User Group evaluation of the two designs of unfamiliar chairs.
Figure 7.19: Response to question A1, Questionnaire-2: “What is your emotional response to each chair?”
3.74 4.42 4.53
5.33 4.98
6.09
4.02 3.7
5.6 5.07 5.09
3.77 4.51
5.16
3.49 3.49
5.77 5.77
4.14
3.07
1.75
2.38
4 4.25 3.88 4.88
2.63 2
4.63 3.75
4.25
2.63 2.88 2.75
4.88
3
5.75
4.75
3.13 2.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Originality ofdesign
Appearance ofcomfort
Ease to match Interested topurchase
Indoor-outdoor
User Group Design Group
Median
EMOTIONAL RESPONSES
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Chair No.
184
Figure 7.19 displays the participants’ emotional response to each chair design,
which is continued from Question A1 of Questionnaire-2. In respect of the comfort of
each chair design, both groups perceived Sample 2 as having a high standard of comfort
(Design Group, 4.88 and User Group, 6.09). Both groups also agreed that Prototype 3
appeared to be the least comfortable, potentially because it has a slender leg design and
looks smaller compared to the other samples (Design Group, 2.0, and User Group, 3.7).
Concerning originality of the design, both groups surveyed attributed a higher mean
value to Prototype 3 (Design Group, 4.25, and user group, 5.33).
In terms of practicality of the design, which refers to ease of use; the Design
Group agreed that Prototype 2 appeared more practical (4.75), while the User Group
voted for Sample 1 (5.58). Interestingly, the Design and User Groups of participants
consistently agreed that Prototype 3 was the least practical with each individual group
scoring a lower mean value of 2.63 and 3.77, respectively.
In summary, the Design Group clearly expressed that they would be most likely
to purchase Prototype 2 due to its practicality, pleasant appearance and flexibility
allowing for use either in outdoor or indoor environments. In contrast, the User Group
preferred Sample 2 because of its strong image as an outdoor furniture piece, qualities
of safety and pleasant appearance. Both groups of participants also agreed that
Prototype 3 has originality in its design and most successfully reflected a trendy and
exclusive image.
7.2.3 Section B: Considered response to furniture design
For section B, participants were required to observe the samples and discover
the details through examining the features, characteristics and physical appearances of
the four chairs. The design and User Group participants were instructed to sit on the
chairs and compare each of them. Three sub-questions were posed to participants; the
first section asked participants to interpret the form of the chairs. The second section
investigated participants’ feelings in respect of the aesthetic values of the chairs, and the
third section examined participants’ perception of the utility of each chair.
185
7.2.3.1 Section B1
The mean values that were obtained from the descriptive statistical analysis are
presented in a graphical format. This allows the data to be organized with classes or
groups of values that describe the characteristics of the data of the chairs. This approach
allows not only the presentation of particular data or value, but also allows for or shows
the disparity of how the chairs were perceived by the two groups of participants.
The same four chairs were presented for evaluation and both groups of
participants were required to sit, observe in detail, and compare them fairly. Bar chart 7-
21 describes the participants’ emotional perception of the form or shape of the chairs.
The Design Group reported that Prototype 2 (4.75) portrayed the most splendid design
form compared to other chairs. However, the User Group of participants collectively
agreed that Sample 2 appeared to exhibit good design form (5.53).
Figure 7.20: Question B1 (1): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to the design shape of the chair
5.25 5.53
4.51 4.53
3.5 3.75
4.75 4.13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
S1 S2 P2 P3
Feeling about chair's form
User Group Design Group
FEELING ABOUT THE FORM OF EACH CHAIR SHAPE
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Chair No.
186
The next question investigated participants’ perception of which chair was the
most inviting to sit on. The majority agreed that Sample 2 (Design Group, 5.75 and
User Group, 6.16) has the quality and ability to attract them to sit on it; Prototype 3,
with a lower mean value did not attract or draw the attention of other people to sit on it
(Design Group, 3.63 and User Group, 3.7). The researcher attributes this to the acrylic
seat of the chair, and the slender shape of the leg design, which might suggest an
unstable chair design, although in actuality this chair is sturdy and can support people
weighing up to 120 kilograms.
Figure 7.21: Question B1 (2): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to interest in the feeling to sit on it
4.86
6.16
4.19 3.7 4.38
5.75 4.63
3.63
01234567
S1 S2 P2 P3
Interested in sitting
User Group Design Group
INTERESTED IN SITTING
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Chair No.
187
Figure 7.22 illustrates the feedback of participants’ feelings about each chair in
relation to the appearance of stability and durability of the design form. The analysis of
this question revealed that Sample 2 is considered the favourite or preferred chair
sample. The Design Group and the User Group of participants agreed that Sample 2 is
adequate to portray the essential quality of stability (6.0, 6.3, respectively) and
durability (5.5, 5.95, respectively). However, Prototype 3 was perceived as being less
stable and less durable because the results of the analysis from both groups of
participants show a lower mean value.
Figure 7.22: Question B1 (Questions 3 & 4): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to the appearance of stability and durability of the design form
5.23
6.3
4.56
3.53
5.42 5.95
4.28 3.58
4.5
6
3.75
2.5
4.75
5.5
3.62
3.13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Appearance of stability Appearance of Durability
User Group Design Group
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
APPEARANCE OF STABILITY APPEARANCE OF DURABILITY
Chair No.
188
Other factors contributing to the selection of Sample 2 as the most preferred,
included the appearance of the size or the physical shape of the design (Design Group,
5.5 and User Group, 5.88) and heaviness of the chair (Design Group, 5.75 and User
Group, 5.81). Similarly, Sample 2 was also rated as having a higher appearance of
comfort compared to the other chairs (Refer figure 7.23).
Figure 7.23: Question B1 (Questions 5 & 6): Participants feeling about the form of each chair in relation to appearance of heaviness and size of the furniture
4
5.81
3.14 2.95
4.3
5.88
3.33 2.84
4.25
5.75
2.13 1.88
4
5.5
2.25 2.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Heavy Big size
User Group Design Group
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Chair No.
HEAVY BIG SIZE
189
7.2.3.2 Section B2
Section B2 comprised six questions, and asked both groups of participants to
provide a detailed observation of each chair. They were asked to examine the four
chairs paying particular attention to the aesthetic attributes of each, such as physical
appearance, decorative level, functions, satisfaction of standard finish, degree of
stylistic coherence, and originality of design concept.
An assessment of the physical appearance of the chair, was carried out to rate
and distinguish the outstanding and the not impressive aspects of the chair. The
decorative level of the chairs was assessed by observing the decorative pattern and
cosmetic elements, whether it was overdone or balanced. Participants were also asked to
rate the chair’s function whether the overall design was complicated or represented
straight forward functionality. The participants were also asked to investigate the
standard of the finishes of the samples concerning whether or not the design had bad
finishes. In respect of the stylistic coherence factor, the participants were asked to rate
whether all four chairs represented an ambiguous design or a well executed design.
Last but not least, the perception of originality of the design was also investigated to
measure whether the design concept was original or not original.
Figure 7.24 demonstrates the participants’ feedback about physical appearance,
decorative level and chair functions. The Design Group of participants perceived that
Prototype 2 demonstrates an aesthetically pleasing physical appearance (5.25), while the
User Group considered Prototype 2 (3.81) to be less impressive. Both groups of
participants indicated that Prototype 3 (Design Group, 5.0 and User Group, 5.12)
successfully portrays a good example of a high decorative level in its design. The basic
function of the chair is mainly for sitting and both groups of participants perceived that
Prototype 2 has the most straight forward functions, and, consequently, it scored a high
mean value in the Design Group, 4.63, and 4.95 in the User Group.
190
Figure 7.24: Question B2 (1): Feedback on participants’ feelings about the aesthetic values of each chair in relation to physical appearance, decorative level and functionality of the chair
4.26
5.02
3.81
5.05
3.56
4.33
3.47
5.12 4.88 4.95 4.98 4.74
3 3.25
5.25
4
2.38 2.75
5 5 4.63
4.25 4.63 4.13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Physical appearance Decorative level Functions
User Group Design Group
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
DECORATIVE LEVEL
FUNCTIONS PHYSICAL APPEARANCE
Chair No.
191
Table 7.3: Question B2 (1): Participants feedback on the aesthetic values of each chair in relation to satisfactory standards of finish, degree of stylistic coherence and originality of the
design concept of the chair
Label
Standard of finish Stylistic coherence
Originality of design concept
Chair No. S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 Design Group
Mean 5.13 4.75 5.25 4.63 4.00 3.13 5.00 3.50 2.13 3.00 3.88 4.50
User Group
Mean 5.21 5.58 4.84 4.77 4.51 5.28 4.12 5.44 3.42 4.53 4.12 5.44
Mean 5.20 5.45 4.90 4.75 4.43 4.94 4.25 5.14 3.22 4.29 4.08 5.29
Table 7.3 revealed that participants perceived the originality of the design
concept to be most evident in Prototype 3. In relation to satisfactory standards of
finishes, Sample 2 had the highest mean value with a total mean value of 5.45. In
respect of the stylistic coherence of the overall design, the highest mean score was for
Prototype 3. Prototype 3 was not only thought to have consistency in aesthetic
appearance but also in the originality of its design.
192
7.2.3.3 Section B3
In Section B3, seven questions were formulated to investigate the participants’
perceptions in relation to the utility of the four chairs. The participants were asked to
rate each chair on a seven-point bipolar rating scale of adjectival opposites through 1 to
7, with 1 being extremely poor and 7 being excellent. The utility dimensions assessed
were ergonomics, image identity, product maintenance, life span expectation, image of
designer’s signature design, material and expected price.
Figure 7.25: Question B3: Feedback on Participants feelings about the Utility value of each chair in relation to ergonomics, image identity, product maintenance and expectation of life
span
As shown in Figure 7.25, the User Group reported that the elements of
ergonomics and image identity were clearly reflected in Sample 2 (5.79, 5.35
respectively). However, the personal opinions from the Design Group participants were
that Prototype 2 showed substantial quality for its image identity (5.38) and ergonomics
(4.48) in comparison to the other chairs. The participants of the Design and User Groups
also perceived Prototype 2 to be the most practical in terms of ease of maintenance
(5.13, 5.37, respectively), especially for cleaning and repairing. Prototype 2 was made
5.07 5.79
4.07 3.79
4.79 5.35
4.42 4.84 5.09 5.14 5.28 5.37 5.35 5.35
4.72 4.09
3.75 3.25
4.48
3.38 4.25 4.38 5.38
4.38 4 3.38
5.13 4.5 4.63 4.13 3.75 3.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Ergonomics Image Identity Ease of maintenance Life span expectation
User Group Design Group
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
ERGONOMICS IMAGE IDENTITY
EASE OF MAINTENANCE
LIFE SPAN EXPECTATION
Chair No.
193
from wood in a simple design form with less intricate design characters and was
considered to be easier to maintain compared to the other chair designs.
Figure 7.26: Question B3: Feedback on Participants feelings about the Utility value of each chair in relation to the image of the designer’s signature design, material and expected price of
the chairs
Figure 7.26 summarizes the participants’ perception of the utility attributes of
reflecting the designer’s signature design, material, and expected sale price. The
majority of the User Group agreed that Prototype 3 (5.07) succeeded in reflecting
designer looks in its overall appearance. However, the Design Group reported that
Sample 2 and Prototype 2 were most successful in embodying a designer signature look
in the designs. These differences may be due to the Design Group observing the
existence of the outdoor chair based on the current furniture trend, practicality of
furniture construction techniques, and the uniqueness of the design appearance.
However, the User Group most likely associated designer looking furniture with
uniqueness and the quality of being one of a kind among its category.
3.95 4.79
4.14
5.07 5.05 5.02 4.7 4.37 4.14
4.98 3.98
4.91
3.75 4 4 3.25
4.88
3.75
4.88
4.13 4.13 3.88 3.63
5.37
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Reflects designer's image Material / sustainability expected sale price
User Group Design Group
Median
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Chair No. REFLECTS
DESIGNER’S IMAGE MATERIAL/
SUSTAINABILITY EXPECTED SALE PRICE
194
The sustainability of material is also considered as an aspect of the utility of a
furniture piece. Both the Design and User Groups agreed that Sample 1 (4.88, 5.05,
respectively) succeeded in utilizing their material without compromising the quality.
Correct material selection enhances the overall beauty of the design. Sample 1 is a
mass-produced outdoor folding chair, made of wood, and can be bought at any furniture
market at an affordable price. Due to its inexpensive price and the fact that it is made of
100 per cent wood, it is likely that participants think Sample 1 is successful in the
utilization of timber resources. The irony here is that most of these chairs are made in
Asia-Pacific countries from illegally logged rainforest timber.24 25
The next section examined participants’ judgmental opinions in respect of the
expected selling price; the Design Group believed that Prototype 2 could be sold at a
higher price (5.37), while the User Group selected Sample 2 (4.98). Both groups agreed
that the expected selling price for Prototype 2 would be high or expensive with a total
mean value of 9.35. In contrast, both groups expected that Sample 1 could be sold with
a cheap price (total mean value is 8.27). These outcomes may be due to the fact that,
historically, Sample 2 is an inexpensive outdoor chair and has been imported from
Southeast Asia into the Australian furniture market with average quality of finishes and
participants have seen it everywhere. Thus, this is a good sign that both groups of
participants are capable of associating the image product with its price.
24 Retrieved information from internet on 17 October 2012. OpenAustralia: http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-08-16.20.2&m=3
25 Retrieved information from internet on 17 October 2012. Tropical ecologist: Australia must follow US and EU in banning illegally logged wood: http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0209-hance_australia_illegallogging.html
195
7.2.4 Section C: Elements and principles of design
Section C examined the elements and principles of chair design. The elements
and principles of design are the parts of furniture design that are obviously isolated or
not easily distinguished by lay person, and are clearly characterized in design features or
works of art. The following attributes of chair design were examined – line, colour,
shape, size and texture. Meanwhile, the pre-selected components for chair design
principles included proportion, harmony, repetition, unity and balance.
Figure 7.27: Question C1: “Please rate the degree to which each of the following elements of design has been successfully applied”
As seen in figure 7.27, the Design Group participants provided varying
evaluations of the design elements of all chair samples. The majority of prototypes
received a mean value below 5.0 apart from Prototype 2 (Line, 5.0, Colour, 5.5, and
Shape 5.0). The Design Group believed that the elements of design were still
moderately implemented in its design because the mean value was still above the
5.09 4.88 4.98
4.72 4.84
5.44 5.09
5.67 5.14
5.56
4.58 4.53 4.86 5.19
4.6 4.28
4.98 5.4
4.77 4.53
3.87 3
5
3.63 4.5 4.5
5.5 4.75
4.13 3.25
5 4.5
4.88 3.63
3.88 3.5
4.38 4.13 4.63
3.38
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Line Color Shape Size Texture
User Group Designer Group
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Median
TEXTURE SIZE SHAPE COLOUR LINE Chair No.
ELEMENTS OF DESIGN
196
median (4.0). However, the elements of line and size were thought to still need
improvement in all chair designs because the majority of scores were still below 4.0.
In contrast, the majority of User Group participants provided positive feedback
to all elements of design, such as line, colour, shape, size and texture, which were
considered to be successfully implemented in all designs. However, both groups
believed that the element of colour was successfully executed in all designs. Both
groups also perceived that the element of shape was well executed in all designs except
for Sample 2, for which the Design Group assigned a lower score of 3.25.
In relation to the element of size, the User Group of participants reported that
this was successfully applied in all chairs. The most successful implementation
appeared to be Sample 2 followed by Sample 1 (5.19, 4.85, respectively). However, the
Design Group of participants preferred Sample 1 (4.88) in terms of size in its design,
while indicating that the rest of the chairs failed to implement size correctly in their
design. In relation to the element of texture in the prototype designs, both groups of
participants considered this to be successfully implemented in all chairs.
In summary, the User Group reported that the majority of design elements were
well implemented in all designs with a mean value of 4.0 and above for all the design
elements for each chair. However, the Design Group believed that the design elements
were only moderately well implemented in all four samples, except for colour, which
had a mean value above the median or scored more than 3.5 on the rating scale. This
may be because the Design Group was able to understand, interpret and relate the
elements and principles of design in chair design, while the User Group may interpret
the meaning of elements and principles of design as general English terminology rather
than digest the meaning as designer language, and thus are more generous in their
evaluations.
197
Figure 7.28: Question C2: “Please rate the degree to which each of the following principles of design has been successfully applied”
Figure 7.28 is a summary of the participants’ perceptions regarding design
principles, which include proportion, harmony, repetition, utility, and balance. Design
principles are the concepts that are used to coordinate or arrange the structural elements
of the design. For example, the principles of harmony and the design of seat pattern
have been arranged symmetrically and repetitively in order to create a harmonious
mood. The majority of respondents felt that the design principles of proportion and
balance were successfully implemented in all designs as evident from the above median
mean value for each chair.
In respect of the attribute of harmony, the majority of the User Group provided a
positive response suggesting that each chair design shows a good sense of a harmonious
design. However, the Design Group only provided positive feedback for prototype 2
(5.5) and No. 1 (4.63). The User Group also found that the principles of design, such as
repetition and unity have been successfully implemented in all chair designs. This fact is
true in that all objects of evaluation have shown fairly consistent results ranging from
5 5.47
4.21 4
5.12 5.26 4.7 4.72
4.91 4.86 4.88
4.65 5 5.19
4.91 4.7 5.05
5.56
4.51 4.3
5 4.13
5 4.13 4.63
3.5
5.5
3.38
5.5
3.75 4.75
4.13 4.75 3.25
5.13
3.12
4.5 4.38 4.38 4.25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Proportion Harmony Repetition Unity Balance
User Group Design Group
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Median
PROPORTION HARMONY REPETITION UNITY BALANCE Chair No.
PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN
198
4.65 to 5.56. In conclusion, the User Group of participants believed the principles of
design are successfully implemented in all designs. However, the Design Group of
participants perceived that the principles of design have only partly been successfully
implemented in all chair samples.
7.2.5 Section D: Chair components
Figure 7.29: Section D, Questionnaire-2: Rate the degree to which each of the following elements is successful
In this section, the Design and User Group participants were asked to rate which
part of each chair’s components was designed successfully and to identify which
physical components of the prototype they like most and vice versa (Refer figure 7.29).
In relation to the backrest design, the majority of the Design and User Groups agreed
that Sample 2 has a good design of backrest (4.88, 6.0, respectively). In terms of bad
backrest design, the Design and User Groups rated Prototype 3 as having the lowest
mean values of 2.25 and 3.79, respectively.
5.44 6
3.88 3.79
5.16
5.93
4.63 4.02
5.16 5.44
4.84 4.81 5.14 5.35 4.74 4.49
5.28 5.7
4.74 4.37
4.63 4.88 2.88 2.25
5 5.38 3.88
3.13 3.5
4
3 2.88 3.5 3.87
3 3.13 4.13 4.25 4.25 3.38
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3 S1 S2 P2 P3
Back rest Seat Front legs Back legs Overallconstruction
User Group Design Group
Sem
antic
Diff
eren
tial V
alue
Median
BACK REST SEAT FRONT LEGS OVERALL CONSTRUCTION
BACK LEGS Chair No.
CHAIR COMPONENTS
199
In respect of the seat design, both groups agreed that Sample 1 and Sample 2
showed good quality in seat design (all mean values greater than 5.0). However, the
Design Group believed that seat design of Prototype 2 and 3 did not successfully reflect
good seat design (3.13, 3.88, respectively). The Design Group responded negatively to
the leg design in all chair samples, with the majority of mean values being lower than
4.0.
In conclusion, although the feedback on the components of the four chairs varied
significantly, the majority of the participants of the Design and User Groups still
believed that the overall construction of the chair components was successfully
implemented. This is evident in the User Group scores for Samples 1 and 2, and
Prototypes 2 and 3 with positive mean values (5.28, 5.7, 4.37 and 4.74, respectively).
The Design Group also perceived that all chair samples had good design components
(overall construction) except for Prototype 3 (3.38).
200
7.3 Section C: Analytical comparative study between both questionnaires The following section presents information about the overall perception between
the Design Group and User Group in respect of the form, aesthetics and utility themes
for the four chair designs. Univariate analysis was used for the comparative study
between the two groups of participants and statistically proved that the attributes of each
theme were evidently unique, and could result in different perceptions and requirements
when selecting their favourite chair. This analysis also demonstrated that the semantic
differential questionnaire was able to confirm the veracity, authenticity or accuracy of
the proceeding.
7.3.1 Univariate analysis
A univariate analysis was performed to examine any differences between the
perceptions of the Design Group and the User Group concerning form, aesthetics and
unity across the four chair designs. The form, aesthetics and utility were the dependent
values, while the fixed variables were the participant group (Design and User Groups)
and the chair numbers (Samples 1 and 2, and Prototypes 2 and 3). A p-value < 0.05 is
considered to be statistically significant and indicates that there are differences in the
preferences and perceptions in respect of each chair. However, a p-value > 0.05 is
considered to be non-significant and indicates that there are no differences in the
perceptions for each chair. The aim of this analysis was to examine whether the Design
and User Groups differed in their evaluation of the four chair designs.
7.3.2 Difference in form evaluation of chair designs between the Design and User
Groups
Figure 7.31 shows a profile plot of the Design and User Groups evaluation of
form for the four chair designs. The form factor included consideration of the shape,
interest in sitting, appearance of stability, appearance of durability, appearance of
heaviness, size of furniture and appearance of comfort of each chair. There was no
statistically significant difference in the perception of form for the four chair designs
between the two groups (p = 0.993).
201
The profile plot (refer Figure 7.30) shows that each line indicates a different type
of chair sample, for example, the blue line represents Sample 1, the green line is for
Sample 2, the purple line is for Prototype 2 and the grey line depicts Prototype 3. The
number(s) appearing at the end of the lines were automatically calculated according to
the mean score for each form factor gathered from the participants’ feedback. Details of
how the mathematical notation is calculated is not provided because the computation for
univariate analysis is exercised via commercial statistical analysis software, and is
considered to be outside the scope of the research.
Although the User Group consistently gave higher scores than the Design Group
for each chair, the order of design preference was the same for both groups. That is,
Sample 2 (green line) was the most preferable in terms of form, while prototype 3 (grey
line) was the least preferred. In conclusion, there was no significant difference between
the participants of the Design and User Groups in rating the form of each chair.
Figure 7.30: Profile plot of ‘Form’ scores between the chair designs and Design and User Group of participants
1 2
Label
20
25
30
35
40
45
Estim
ated
Mar
gina
l Mea
ns
29.5
37.6
20.2
23.8
33.9
42
24.6
28.1
Design1234
Estimated Marginal Means of FORM
Sample 1 Sample 2 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Design Group User Group
202
7.3.3 Difference in aesthetic evaluation of chair designs between the Design and
User Groups
The aesthetic factors for the univariate analysis of participants’ evaluation
includes physical appearance, decorative level of chair design, functions, satisfaction of
standard finish, degree of stylistic coherence, and originality of design concept of the
four chairs. There was a statistically significant difference in the evaluations of the
aesthetic value of the four chairs between the Design and User Groups (p = <0.001).
The aesthetic profile plot in Table 7.31 indicates that the Design Group reported
Prototype 2 (purple line) to be the most preferred sample, with a slightly higher
estimated marginal mean (29.0) compared to the User Group (25.33). The second most
preferred sample for Design Group is Prototype 3 (grey line) followed by Sample 2
(green line) and Sample 1 (blue line). Meanwhile, the User Group preferred Prototype 3
(Grey line) followed by Sample 2 (green line), Sample 1 (blue line) then Prototype 2
(purple line) in terms of the aesthetic factor.
Figure 7.31: Profile plot of ‘Aesthetic’ scores between the chair designs and design and user group of participants
1 2
Label
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Estim
ated
Mar
gina
l Mea
ns
21.25
21.12
25.75
29
25.84
29.7
30.56
25.33
Estimated Marginal Means of AESTHETIC
Design1234
Sample 1 Sample 2 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Design Group User Group
203
7.3.4 Differences in utility evaluation of chair designs between the Design and User
Groups
The utility factor included participants’ evaluation of the ergonomics, brand or
image identity, ease of maintenance, furniture life span expectation, reflect designers
look, sustainability of material, and expected sale price of the four chairs. A statistically
significant result was found (p = 0.043). This indicates that the Design and User Groups
are significantly different in their evaluation of the chairs’ utility. As seen in Figure
7.32, the Design Group chose Prototype 2 (purple line) as the most preferred design in
terms of utility followed by Sample 1 (blue line), Sample 2 (green line) then Prototype 3
(grey line). Meanwhile, the User Group rated the design of Sample 2 (green line) to be
of most utility followed by Sample 1 (blue line), Prototype 3 (grey line), and, finally,
Prototype 2 (purple line).
Figure 7.32: Profile plot of ‘Utility’ scores between the chair designs and design and user group of participants
1 2
Label
26
28
30
32
34
36
Estim
ated
Mar
gina
l Mea
ns
29.38
26.75
26.75
33.38 33.37
35.7
32.21
31.4
Design1234
Estimated Marginal Means of UTILITY
Sample 1 Sample 2 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
Design Group User Group
204
In summary, three univariate analyses were conducted to explore any differences
between the Design and User Groups’ evaluation of four chairs in terms of form,
aesthetics and utility. These analyses revealed that the Design and User Groups
significantly differed in their evaluations of the aesthetics and utility of the four chairs.
The Design Group rated Prototype 2 as having the most aesthetic value, while the User
Group preferred Prototype 3. In terms of utility, the Design Group perceived prototype
2 to have the highest utility value, while the User Group preferred Sample 2. Although
both groups’ preferences were distinct in category, it may in some contexts be a useful
idealization to treat choices as fully determined by preferences. The choices from
preferences were needed to be yielded reasonable outcome for all preference relation. It
is axiomatically characterized and is shown to compare favourably due to personal
perception when assessing the subject samples. There was also no significant difference
between the Design and User Groups’ evaluations of the four chairs in terms of form,
however, there was scientific evidence showing that Sample 2 is the most preferred
sample followed by Sample 1, Prototype 2, and, finally, Prototype 3.
7.4 Summary
This chapter presented the results from the findings and data analysis from two
different sets of semantic differential questionnaires that were filled out by participants
in the Design Group and User Group. Both questionnaires were functionally reliable for
both groups of respondents and relevant to the study with maximal reliability. The
evaluation of the visual appearance of the samples focused on the topics of form,
aesthetics and utility.
The preference and perception relationships found between the Design Group
and User Group were the groundwork for establishing conceptual principles that are
applicable to the design development and the design process. To bring the principles
that are relevant to the design, it is essential to identify and understand what sort of
important attributes can be implemented in the design. This is explained as part of the
critical discussion and significant findings, which are presented in Chapter 8,
discussion.
205
CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION
This chapter presents a critical discussion of the survey
questionnaires which were delivered to two groups of
respondents; a group of people who identified
themselves as design professionals – Design Group,
and a group of users on non-design professionals. The
focus of the discussion is based on an examination of
the visual appearance of the chair concentrating on the
topics of aesthetics, form and utility. The findings of
the design process experiment for each stage in the
evolution of the project are extrapolated from the data
gathered and processed through a variety of statistical
methods. This is then referenced to the semantic
differential methodology for consideration of its
effectiveness in refining the design process for the
consumer product. The discussion will touch on the
suitability of the semantic differential method for
evaluating subjective criteria, the values of ratings and
rankings, the exclusive nature of design language and
the consequences of design preferences.
206
8.1 Discussion
The discussion and preference scores were analysed primarily with reference to
the second questionnaire, while the first questionnaire, although proven statistically
reliable, was used as a background reference. Only four outdoor chairs in the second
part of the design assessment were used in the discussion (Refer figure 8.1). Samples 1
and 2 served as competing chairs, and were selected and purchased from a commercial
furniture warehouse and a specialized furniture shop. Prototype 3 was a new chair
design and also functioned in the process as a competing chair. Prototype 2 was an
improved version of the original chair (Prototype 1), which was used throughout the
project or process and was incrementally revised and refined following the outcomes of
the first questionnaire. Finally, the findings of the first design assessment of the first
prototype experiment were used to compare and contrast with the second semantic
differential assessment.
Two different sets of semantic differential questionnaires were rigorously
applied to this study in three separate research phases. The first research phase
established the design brief and initiated the design concept for the first prototype. A
full scale working prototype was created and the semantic differential Questionnaire-1
was composed. The second research phase involved a re-design and a new chair design.
Both chairs followed the feedback and recommendations from the first questionnaire
and design suggestions from peers and supervisors.
The third research phase was the final stage of the chair design circle in which
both re-designed chairs and new chairs were evaluated together with two competing
chairs or reference chairs. Four chairs were assessed by the Design and the User Group
participants and an improved version of the semantic differential questionnaire was
given to both groups of participants during the assessment (Refer Chapter 3 and Figure
3.6, Furniture design frameworks).
The first questionnaire served as a pilot-study to seek the understanding of
respondents in interpreting the questions, and to see how the participants reacted and
responded to the form, aesthetics and utility attributes or cues of the chair. The feedback
from Questionnaire-1 was analysed and used in composing the second questionnaire.
An improved version of the questions was developed in the second phase of the study
207
after it had been tested in the first assessment. Thus, in Questionnaire-2 there was an
increased number of main topic questions, which successfully elicited affirmative
responses from participants about the modified chair design.
Sample 1 (commercial source) Sample 2 (commercial source)
Prototype 2 (re-design chair) Prototype 3 (A new design chair)
Figure 8.1: Two samples of outdoor chairs and two final prototypes in the semantic differential assessment of Questionnaire-2
208
Figure 8 2: The first prototype, which was used for object evaluation in Questionnaire-1
209
8.2 Rating and ranking of outdoor chairs
According to the analysis of the results of questionnaire-2, the findings revealed
that two groups of participants were significantly different in their perceptions of the
four outdoor chairs. The preferred outdoor chair for the Design Group was Prototype 2,
while the user group selected Sample 2 as the preferred sample. Figures 8.3 and 8.4
illustrate the significant results of the respondents’ perception of the preferred samples.
Figure 8.3: Design Group’s preferred samples
Figure 8.4: User group’s preferred samples
As shown in Figure 8.3 the pattern or ranking of the Design Group in selecting
the best chair design that suited their emotional preferences was clearly Prototype 2.
However, there was no second, third or fourth rank because all the other chairs were
equally ranked with the same average scores. However, Figure 8.4 shows that the user
group selected Sample 2 as the favourite design followed by Prototype 3, Sample 1 and
Prototype 2. This unique pattern clearly shows that the responses of both groups of
participants reflect individual taste and evidently indicate a difference of opinion in
judging the physical appearance of the chairs. The User Group ranking clearly
differentiates each chair, whereas the Design Group has one clear preference, which
possibly reflect the more highly trained eye of the professional group, which,
consequently, may be expected to exert a more rigorous actual appraisal than the User
Group. The User Group results reflect a broader set of opinions, likes and dislikes, and
represent the commercial common value for design products.
Sample 1 Sample 2 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Fourth Choice
Sample 1 Sample 2 Prototype 2 Prototype 3
First Choice Second Choice
210
The Design Group ranked Prototype 2 among the best in design appearance,
while, in contrast, the User Group voted Prototype 2 as the least favoured chair of all.
This is clear evidence that the application of the semantic differential techniques can be
used to distinguish design preferences among participants, and can be usefully applied
in the design process. It is important to emphasize the fact that although this research
provides a general validity of the process for the design of an outdoor chair, the
proposed methodology can be applied to other products as well as furniture. The
feedback obtained was adequate to represent direct communication from real
consumers, and, in this context, potentially offers a new, brighter prospect for furniture
development that is closely aligned with consumer desires. The possibilities from
exploring new horizons through implementing this method in the design process in
comparing a product with a reference target are substantial. In other words, the
intervention of the semantic differential approach in the product design development
process can assist in gaining a better understanding of client preferences, rather than
designing a product based on the designer’s concept and personalized ideas alone.
8.3 Individual taste and preferences
The findings show that the participants of the Design and User Groups are aware
and understand product differentiation, especially when working with a set of clearly
defined attributes, in this case form, aesthetics and utility. The outcome of the
questionnaire indicates that each group can give clear statements of preference in
response to their pre-conceived ideas about chairs in general or about the attitude and
character of a chair. The ability to think conceptually and apply personal experience and
feelings allow them to promote clear interaction with the prototypes and to be able to
intuitively read the language of a product without any unnecessary complications. It is
acknowledged here that the initial design investigations were limited in scopes for
example, the number of respondents. However, sound statistical results were attained
and tested for validity. This feedback based on the cognitive and behaviour perceptions
of the study group has statistical validity and provides a guide for this kind of study in
the design process.
211
The participants of the Design and User Groups may understand and interpret
the product form from a personal point of view and position it within an existing
category of pre-set attributes that have been given in the questionnaire. However, if the
product is different and unusual in shape and form from the existing typical product,
they may have difficulty understanding or appreciating the design, and, most probably,
they will end up giving a score with either lower or generally a negative score. In other
words, a new chair design, which they are not familiar with will be judged based on
spontaneous experience, and, if a particular chair failed to fulfil their preferences or
expectations, a lower score will be given and vice versa. This condition or behaviour is
reflected in the findings of other researchers working in this field. This finding is
parallel with the theoretical perspective of dealing with products, brands and services,
which have explicitly stated that the consumer who is aware and familiar with certain
products, brands and services will influence the judgment and choice, and provide easily
accessible measures of goal progress (Puligadda, Ross, & Grewal, 2012), This finding
also supports other literature, which shows that the recognition of the visual appearance
of a product is capable of influencing and having an impact on consumer product
evaluations (Bloch, 1995; Veryzer, 1993).
Participants from the User Group or non-professional group will endeavour to
match or to compare a new object that is presented to them with an object of the same
family (function, form, type) with which they are familiar in order to establish criteria to
respond and support their opinion, fitting the new object within a known or understood
category. The Design Group will use their professional knowledge and experience of
precedent and process to evaluate the new object through an analytical process centred
on the new object itself (Bloch, 1995; Chamorro Koc, et al., 2008; Norman & Ortony,
2003). They can then assign a value to the particular thematic question that is posed
about the design. However, the evaluation process is carried out by the User participants
or the Design participants, for which it is understood that the final judgment is a
personalized judgment that is relevant to the needs of the group. Therefore, it will be
aligned with their lifestyle preferences, and, in turn, marks a clearer statement about
their purchasing intention.
212
The relevance to the needs of each group will colour their judgment. For
instance the Design Group will probably consider their perception of the needs of the
public (User Group) as well as their own in arriving at their evaluation. This is normal
professional behaviour, and, thus, the evaluation, while personalized, will have a
different cast of objectivity to that of the User Group, for whom it may be assumed,
have only personal experience for their judgment to be based upon. As far as reliability
is concerned, the latter group are subject to more rapid change of opinion as their
experience in the world evolves, while the professional group or Design Group are
likely to change or modify their opinion less rapidly. The Design Group of participants
stimulates reaction to the chair samples through their design appearance and practicality
and how well they serve the consumer. The Design Group is more concerned about how
the product can fit comfortably to the consumer rather than to personal interests.
However, the participants in the User Group perceive and discover the existence
of the chair through experience, and must become familiar with the general product,
features and use, which may differ from the designers’ experience. The Design Group
provides opinions and responses to features that are not only based on past experience
but also their perceive of the appearance and functioning of the product on behalf of the
end users direct observation with an articulate need through a process of interpretation
that relates to how the product performs for users. The design group on designers might
develop emotional and critical responses to the chair design, and understand the
relationship between what users feel and promptly carry out a quick mental review of
the hypothesis they have formal about the product. An example of this might be have
the end user might be able to match or relate the product to an outdoor setting or sites
and evaluate whether the material it is made from is suitable for extreme weather
conditions, or if it is more suited to a protected environment.
213
The point of view of the Design Group in comparison to the User Group is quite
different because the experience that has been generated through professional activity is
generally unseen by the researcher, other than in scribbled notes in the margin of the
participants questionnaire The design group may have mentally performed a
performance evaluation activity, such as a SWOT analysis26 (Strength, Weaknesses,
Opportunity, and Threat) or Product analyses 27 before arriving at their conclusion,
whereas the User Group has probably made the assessment based upon personal history,
long or short according to age, and an instinctive or spontaneous on the spot evaluation.
Although there is no direct evidence from the feedback mentioning that the Design
Group participants applied a performance evaluation before coming to their conclusion.
It is clear that the general feedback from the Design Group has shown consistent in
which most of the outdoor chairs performed more or less the same except for Prototype
2. The survey data shows that Prototype 2 was the first choice among the Design Group
because of its added value in design, its unique physical appearance, its highly
decorative appearance, its high standard of finish and its originality and image identity
in design, and overall stylistic coherence. All the other chairs were ranked equally.
However, the User Group ranked the chair in a sequence of preference from 1 – 4. It is
proposed that this is because they were judging from a more subjective and spontaneous
position. Their reaction to and perception of the prototypes results from the limited
experience in trying to match a rationale about design through stimulus of the
questionnaire and make the selection based on some familiarity of the general features
of the chairs and the product’s general context of use.
26 SWOT analysis is a strategic planning method that is used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses/Limitations, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or in a business venture (Wikipedia, 2011). This method is a simple framework for generating strategic alternatives from a situation analysis. It concentrates on the issues that potentially have the most impact, the SWOT analysis is useful when a very limited amount of time is available to address a complex strategic situation (NetMBA, 2012).
27 Product design analysis is a method for studying how well a product does its job. This involves answering the following questions: i) How does the product use shape, form, color, texture and decoration? ii) What materials and components are used to make the product? iii) How well does the product do its job compared with other similar products? A designer must make sure the product meets the product specification. The product specification should be directly influenced by the analysis of research. This will ensure the quality of design and that the end product is fit for its purpose (BBC, 2012).
214
8.4 How participants use their visual experience when they take part in the evaluation or answer the questions.
The prior knowledge of the participants of the Design and User Groups of chair
samples affects their understanding of the product form and characteristics. The level of
interpretation and understanding of the chair samples differ widely and depend on the
experience and context in which the participants developed their experience with the
class or type of object. The participants of the Design and User Groups obviously have
different design knowledge, which may lead to different opinions, perceptions and
preferences. The positive or/and negative perceptions of the participants of the Design
and User Groups are important for identifying and exploring the relevant information
about the samples, which can be amalgamated and reconciled in a bottom-up process.
This is because the knowledge about design is certainly not exclusive to the
professionals. According to Cross (2007), although the professional designer might
naturally be expected to have highly developed design abilities, it is also clear that non-
designers also possess at least some aspects, or lower levels of design ability and critical
consideration.
In Questionnaire-2, for example, the User Group participants recorded that the
appearance of stability, durability, size and weight of the chair were important, which is
evident by their voting for these attributes for Sample 2. The opinion from the User
Group is considered the first-hand experience of consumer needs and the professional
designers must integrate into the design process in order to position the design concept
to become a practical and attractive proposition for consumers.
In this research, the researcher assumed that the Design Group would understand
that the chair samples must match with the consumer requirements and should have
clear identity on image in order to compete aggressively with other products. They also
take advantage of using cognitive and behavioural responses when evaluating the chair
samples.
The user group judge the chair samples based on emotion or affective and
behavioural responses, which evaluate the product based on on the spot events from
their interaction with the products and their environment of use. Figure 8.5 summarises
the level of interpreting chair samples from the points of view of the participants of the
Design and User Groups.
215
Figure 8.5: Participants of the Design and User Groups provide different level of interpretation when evaluating the chair samples
The pattern of preference in the participant responses offers insights into the way
in which individuals and groups react emotionally and intellectually to a product. Such
an explanatory approach to analysing the data delves further into the world-views of the
participants and provides the researcher a congruent view or insights into the products,
and, by association, to the brands or designers other products.
This finding reflects to previous research (Chamorro Koc, et al., 2008) and can
be further supported by other studies in which the majority agree that human experience
in product perception and level of understanding can be identified through consumer-
product interaction by assessing product usability as well as by engaging with or using
the product. Both groups of participants assessed the chairs and engaged with the
context-of-use of the product, which led to the direct or indirect use of the product; the
Design Group preferred Chair No. 4 and the User Group selected Chair No. 2. The
User Group participants experienced the product based on cognitive, affective and
behavioural responses. However, the Design Group participants used experience as a
source of knowledge when interpreting and evaluating the product (Chamorro Koc,
2007; Norman, 1988).
Level of interpreting the chair
Design Group
User group
Any design selection must match with consumer requirements.
Use cognitive and behavioural responses when evaluating product
Use affective and behavioural responses when evaluating product
216
8.5 Semantic differential approach of furniture study is suitable for subjective criteria
This research demonstrates that subject evaluations that deal with subjective
criteria are suitable to be employed and implemented using the semantic differential
approach. This process can be recommended for the study of human perception in
relation to product aesthetics generally, and can enhance the understanding of people’s
preferences. Figure 8.6 demonstrates in flowchart form, the overall process of
participant interaction with an object through the medium of the semantic differential
questionnaire. Perceptual feedback from the participants of the Design and User
Groups is essential in understanding the users’ experience and expectations, especially
in designing the right product/features for the market. Through this process, the
researcher obtained promising results, which enable the capturing of people’s genuine
perceptions in the feedback, and, later, to integrate all the feedback into concise
conclusions and interpretations in respect of the development of furniture design.
Figure 8.6: Flowchart of participants’ perception process
In this study, the subjective criteria that are applied through the semantic
differential approach generate outcomes that are derived or linked directly to the
thinking subject, the individual, with their own opinion or perceptions, rather than
generating outcomes that are factual responses limited to the chairs as an object, the
object of thought. The semantic differential outcomes are based on feelings,
interpretations, prejudices and in different kinds of knowledge (cognitive, affirmative
and behavioural). The reliability of these semantic differential outcomes can be
CHAIR X Multidimensional characteristic of
CHAIR X
FORM
AESTHETICS
UTILITY
Semantic Differential
Questionnaire
Design Group
User Group
Design & User Group perceptions
217
evaluated through an analysis of the inter-rater reliability 28 for a given descriptor or set
of descriptors. In this study the researcher has applied the refining process in order to
accomplish a high inter-rater reliability, which is something akin to an objective result.
The way in which people assess furniture features or characteristics is almost
always subjective. When discussing size or proportion, a chair is said to be small or
large not 400 millimetres wide rather than 450 millimetres, or 700 millimetres high and
not 800 millimetres. By asking questions in the form of a sliding scale (small, smaller,
smallest; the small to large is rated through the scale of 0 to 7) the semantic differential
method is able to take information that is given as if from my point of view, and give it
statistical relevance when assembled in conjunction with a range of responses to the
same object, on a range of topics that can cover relatively abstract topics, such as
sensations, feelings, emotions, opinions and so on.
By using the semantic differential process, participants can focus and assess the
object of thought according to a range of subjective and objective criteria that are
relevant to the time, history, culture and context (for example, a questionnaire that is
deemed suitable for Perth, Australia, may not be appropriate for use in Sarawak,
Malaysia). Whenever they are executed and in whatever context, with appropriate
consideration given to the design of the product, the subjective criteria examined can be
presented in a logical, coherent and grounded framework for the specification and
assessment of subjective evaluations. It can therefore serve as a valid design process
attribute, which can be enriched according to a new project as long as it is tailored and
the questions address uses, qualities and other data the researcher requires feedback on
prima facie information about.
28 In statistics, inter-rater reliability is the degree of agreement among raters. It gives a score of how much homogeneity, or consensus, there is in the ratings given by participants. It is useful in refining the tools given to the participants, for example by determining if a particular scale is appropriate for measuring a particular variable. If various raters do not agree, either the scale is defective or the raters need to be re-trained. Further information can be assessed at: Research method knowledge base. Types of reliability. (2006, October, 26). Retrieved from www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.php
218
8.6 Consequences of design language
The findings also reveal that the design language may have some impact on the
whole process of answering the questionnaire. The design language is not an invention
but is the description used in the profession where meanings are attributed to everyday
vocabulary, which has a particular meaning within the professional sub-group. This
meaning is often established through repeated association with a topic that is difficult to
describe in conventional linguistic terms, and, thus, is not necessarily readily understood
or which is only partially understood outside that professional sub-group.
For example, the term contemporary can carry a wide range of interpretations.
The professional sub-group will probably understand this or mean something that has
been designed and created since the Second World War (1945), as distinct from the
term Modern, which refers to a range of innovative designs that appeared in Europe in
the first 30 odd years of the twentieth-century. Rolled into the current term
contemporary is a wide range of particular qualities that have more to do with the
durability, comfort level, and lack of ornamentation of the product then appearance
alone. For the non-professional groups, the term contemporary often simply refers to
furniture that is of the moment, a part of today’s popular culture, and, as a product,
represents this point in time.
In this study the researcher is not able to measure the competence or the
participants familiarity and understanding of the design language, particularly when
describing the family of physical attributes associated with the design samples. For
example, the utility of a chair can be associated with the elements and principles of
design, such as colour, shape, line, harmony, balance, repetition and so on, and, in this
context, could be quite erroneously evaluated or associated. The lay person might be
asking, isn’t utility not just about using something, and what is the relevance of colour,
or harmony to this? The use of these terms can allow for and can generate unforeseen
possibilities in the questions, for example ‘Do you think the elements and principles of
design are successfully applied in the subject evaluation?’ The User Group or the non-
professional participants may behave differently in discriminating here between
elements and principles of design and thus will not necessarily show consistent
preferences in their assessment or judgment. According to Hsu, Chuang and Chang
219
(2000), there are many differences in perception that exist between the Design and User
Groups when interpreting the same descriptor or image words of product samples. The
User Group may not understand the meaning of image words, and is only concerned
about the product’s appearance, and they potentially respond to product samples with a
middle scale score. Therefore, the Design Group is more sensitive and more
discriminating when evaluating the product samples (Hsu, et al., 2000). However, in
this study, verbal explanation was given in Questionnaire-2 before the participants
responded to the questionnaire. The final finding of this study also showed that the
majority of the feedback was valid (through Cronbach’s alpha analysis) and could be
used as a source of future reference for furniture designers.
The researcher believes that the divergence in the feedback and perception in
this survey has resulted from the design language competency or lack of competency.
The User Group may simply have interpreted the questions with a different caste to the
professional group, and, therefore, such inconsistency should be acknowledged and
allowed for in the final evaluation documents. Short of offering a definition for the
purpose of the survey the researcher has no choice but to accept the likely fuzziness of
the responses. It should be noted that this fuzziness does not invalidate the findings of
the semantic differential questionnaire but rather potentially enriches the outcomes.
According to Gautvik (2001), the way people observe and react to any product design is
based on personal interpretation of a sensorial perception, and the language they use to
interpret the product is highly subjective, and actually belongs to their own
understanding. People generalize and systemize the way they perceive and define
objects in order to reach a common basic communication and understanding (Gautvik,
2001). Therefore, the design professional generalizes and systemizes the way they
perceive the product design through a specific class or group with a certain product
identity, property or characteristic rather than use an agreed product language.
In summary, the analysis showed that the discrepancy in understanding of the
design language between the Design Group and the User Group was evident but not
significant. There is no huge gap in the understanding of the design language between
the two groups. This was demonstrated through the use of the Cronbach’s Alpha
analysis in this research to seek the validity and consistency of the questionnaire(s) in
order to ascertain the trustworthiness of the results. The researcher suspected there
might be some misinterpretation of the questions when a few members of the User
220
Group directly contacted the researcher requiring further explanation of certain terms.
Words, such as what is the principle of balance in chair design? What is contemporary
design? What is the element of line in chair design?. The researcher was able to describe
the unknown design terms precisely because there were a set of chair samples that could
be referred to since the explanation might involve technical information. The confusion
of certain terms in the design language was solved while answering the questionnaire(s).
8.7 The design preferences
The results of these studies have identified that participants’ design preferences
do exist and that it is possible to measure them. The Design Group and the User group
have their own differing design preferences and when they are analysed and presented,
the information does generate or will generate useful and positive information for
guidance for the designer in refining and developing the design.
For example, in this study, the semantic differential approach is capable of
providing valuable data of a general perception nature, which successfully describes and
distinguishes between furniture features and specifications that resonate with consumers
taste and preferences. The taste rating for the Design and User Groups were captured
through open-ended questionnaires and was fully supported by four chair samples as a
point of reference; thus genuine and sincere feedback was collected. This method may
encourage the respondents to react spontaneously to the questions and the set of
samples, and yet still follows their cognitive, affirmative and behavioural responses
when expressing their feeling and opinions about design preference. The similarities and
dissimilarities of stylistic preference and then overall feeling of satisfaction may be
partially due to the personal design awareness among those who have experience and
knowledge of the design principles.
The research findings revealed that stylistic preference is able to influence the
decision of the participants in choosing the chair. The stylistic preference derives from
aesthetics, form and shape and degree of satisfaction on the design features. According
to Bloch (1995), the shape of the product is capable of attracting attention. Any
particular component of the product that is able to attract a consumer’s attention is
really dependent on the attractiveness of the part. According to the feedback of the
participants, a seat design is one of the essential elements that attract people’s attention
221
and become a focal point rather than the backrest design and other chair components of
the chair.
The participants of the Design and User Groups also preferred a modern style
design followed by contemporary image before proceeding to purchase. In addition, the
majority of participants’ also believed that a good chair form is an important factor in
influencing consumers to purchase the furniture followed by price and ergonomic
factors. From this study, the researcher concludes that the appearance of stability and
durability can be added to the range of meaningful aesthetic attributes when selecting
the chair. Both groups also preferred to choose a chair that can be easily matched to a
wide range of exterior and interior conditions.
The researcher also discovered that the preferences of chair design are integrated
between the ergonomic and aesthetic design elements. This research finding is parallel
with Liu’s (2003) study, which mentioned that the concept of ergo-aesthetic was crucial
when selecting and buying new furniture. Both groups of participants agreed that the
chair must show satisfactory articulate functionality, quality finishes and stylistic
coherence in all chair parts, and that a straight forward function of the chair was an
advantage.
The research findings indicated that chair designs that offer easy maintenance
and clearly defined image are more likely to be preferred and favoured. Both groups of
participants were also concerned about durability on a chair’s life span. If the chairs
could be maintained and used for a longer period of time, it would be a fundamental
factor in their purchase. This study produced results that corroborate the findings of a
great deal of the previous work and is consistent with Berkowitz (1987) and Bloch
(1995), Chang & Wu (2007) who found that attributes, such as image identity, straight
forward function and ergonomic factors are able to influence consumer decision making
in purchasing the furniture.
In summary, an experiment which is based on a comparative evaluation of a product
properties and qualities raises the awareness or consciousness of the participants. This
then leads them on to reliable to make decisions about the properties that have made a
lasting impression on them. The feedback from this study highlighted the need for the
chair to response to the users emotional response to the design, and in particular must
take into consideration as a priority the following factors: (i) the chair must be versatile
222
such that it can be used indoor and outdoor (ii) a chair must has straightforward function
especially in its design (iii) the chair must be easily matched to a variety of
setting/contexts both inside and outside, and must have a pleasant appearance, and,
finally, (iv) the design project an appearance of safety and durability.
8.8 The capabilities of the semantic differential procedure to refine the design process
The semantic differential approach to the construction of the questionnaire is
generally associated with work that requires creative methodologies and techniques. It
has been used in a wide variety of problem-solving activities (Mayerberg & Bean, 1978;
Osgood, et al., 1957). The results of the study in this project reveal that the semantic
differential method can be used with success in refining the design process, especially
when a clear correspondence is achieved between the participants of the design and user
groups and the market for any given piece of furniture.
The researcher prepared two sets of semantic differential questionnaires and
distributed them on two separate research occasions. The first questionnaire was given
as a test-kit to identify whether the subjectively selective scales consisting of
adjective/descriptor, syntax or phrases were relevant for the users in term of a specific
concept. The feedback on Questionnaire-1 showed that some of the questions were not
relevant and sometimes provided ambiguous answers to certain critical issues. The
second questionnaire was an improved edition, which demonstrated better quality
outcomes in terms of the validity of the questions.
The question that must constantly be considered is that of how to connect or
embed and apply the outcomes of that feedback to the design process. It is important to
highlight that the feedback from both groups of participants in this study in respect of
the design preferences for the use and application of the process was valuable,
especially for product development. In the design practice, the product developer,
designers and researchers can further improve product appearance so that it can
communicate with consumers more successfully and better fulfil consumer desires in
respect to their usability and meaning in use.
223
The new circle of the design process begins with designing the semantic
differential questionnaire, distributing the questionnaire, receiving participants’
feedback, analysing and validating this data and interpreting the data to formulate
design cues and design recommendations (refer Figure 8.9). This logical sequence of
activities can be interjected into any conventional design development activity and
design planning process. These additional processes will provide great input for product
developers, designers and researchers for improving the productivity of knowledge
about the design process, by generating factual and valid steps and publishing pertinent
findings. It is important to highlight that although different designers manage design in
different ways, the design processes applied by most designers are found to have
striking similarities, shared approaches and follow the same basic process.
In this following section the researcher will demonstrate one way of adding the
semantic differential approach into the design process. Figure 8.7 demonstrates a
conventional product planning process or design development activity from the start,
establishing the design from a concept design, followed by drawings, idea development,
technical model, assembly drawing, mock-up, prototype and finally testing, or
evaluation or production, depending on the ultimate need for the product (Slack, 2006,
p.p 30).
The researcher suggests that the semantic differential cycle can be inserted into
the conventional design process. Figure 8.8 shows details of the process for an
additional process in the design development activity. The additional activity involved
in the evaluation stage after completion of the prototype. An extra process, such as the
constructing of a semantic differential questionnaires, data analysis from image text
through medium of prototype, data validation and data interpretation of the feedback is
developed. Once we are able to create a cue or proposed design suggestion, then we
could apply those cues as a design keyword or design suggestion for the next design
development phase.
224
Figure 8.7: The activities from start establishing the design until receiving the final values
Figure 8.8: Details of the process including the new steps of the additional process in the design planning activity
What we can learn from this process is that these micro steps are linked to one
another. The value or consumer satisfaction attached to the product cannot be achieved
without a process of validation. The validation process of the consumer satisfaction is
conducted through human intervention, which refers to any strategies, methods or
procedures that are used to evaluate the product values and responses. In this context,
the researcher has applied a unique semantic differential approach (the questionnaire) in
order to assign a final agreed value to the product. This process provides an opportunity
225
to interpret and understand the end users taste and preferences, which later can be
applied as part of the furniture design statement and furniture design specifications.
Again, it is obvious that the design process is not a linear sequence of events that has a
start and end point but it is a dynamic sequence of activities, which sometimes needs to
go backwards as well as forwards as new information comes to light.
226
CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 9 offers a summary of the research project. This
chapter also revisits the research objectives and the
theoretical framework of the study. This is then followed
by a synthesis of the key findings of the study, and,
briefly, concludes with the limitations of the research and
opportunities for further research.
227
9.1 Summary of the thesis
The main objectives of this study were to investigate and determine if the
semantic differential techniques could be used to measure and evaluate human
perceptions through the medium of chair design. The behavioural, cognitive and
affective reactions to furniture design are able to supply valuable information to
designers about how people perceive furniture, and the quality and expectations they
wish and aspire to find therein. In this study, the semantic differential approach is used
to examine outdoor chairs with two types of respondent, namely, a Design Group and a
User Group of participants. The implications of differences and similarities in
preferences and the relationship between literal design elements and image-word
(language) descriptions for the two subject groups formed the basis of the questionnaire.
Later, the feedback from the questionnaire, which led to a better understanding of
consumer taste and preferences was applied in the work of design.
In this research, two different sets of semantic differential questionnaires were
designed. These questionnaires were disseminated in two separate design phases in the
design research although there are a total of three phases in the design research for this
project. The first phase comprised the establishment of the design brief and the design
concept of the outdoor chair. Once this step was done, the researcher started
constructing a prototype chair, and, simultaneously, the semantic differential
questionnaire was formulated. After that, this questionnaire was distributed to
participants, and a full scale prototype concurrently exhibited. The simultaneous actions
of circulating the questionnaire and exhibiting the prototype are crucial, because
respondents can gain confidence and understanding when reading the questions and
observing the prototype before responding. This technique helped to produce precise
feedback for the next stage in the design development.
The second phase of the research involved the redesign and re-briefing of the
first prototype. A redesigned chair not only projected and followed some suggestions
and preferences from Questionnaire-1 but reflected the respondents’ tastes and needs.
Improvements to Questionnaire-1 were also carried out in making up the second
questionnaire. Questionnaire-2 increased the number of the main topic questions after
scrutiny of the feedback from responses to the first questionnaire. The original
questionnaire was channelled as a benchmark for the researcher to explain and expand
228
new, creative topics that had been previously missed from the current body of
knowledge. Finally, the third research phase, or last interactive phase, brings the
original redesigned chair full circle. The redesigned chair, the evaluated model from the
original briefing, and a new chair design, are assessed simultaneously by sourcing two
chairs on the market. The final four chairs were evaluated for their form, aesthetics and
utility by the design and user groups of participants.
9.1 Synthesis of key findings
The semantic differential framework is an exceptional procedure that is used to
measure human perceptions in assessing an object, and is capable of providing
suggestions about consumer taste and preferences. The unique pattern of ranking and
rating of outdoor chairs (refer Chapter 8; Figures 8.3 and 8.4) clearly demonstrates how
respondents reflected personal taste and style in judging the physical appearance of the
design with reference to the characteristics of form, aesthetics and utility. The results
and feedback provides enormous potential for design in terms of understanding
consumer taste and may change the perception of consumers about product image and
change the way they observed the object through its elements, form and features.
Significant patterns of preferences are clearly depicted when they reflect individual taste
in judging the physical appearance of the chairs.
The key findings of this research effectively extend the findings of McDonagh,
Bruseberg & Haslam (2002) who determined that the semantic differential techniques
process is flexible and well received by the participants. These findings also support
some of the semantic differential method literature concerning this procedure for
improving systems, such as the product development process. It provides a better match
with the more concrete affective responses of end users by providing insights into the
correspondence between product form and the mental feelings and assumptions (Ming
C. Chuang, Chang, & Hsu, 2001; Ming Chuen. Chuang & Ma, 2001; Mondragón, et al.,
2005). The results gained from the survey can serve as useful directional indicators for
further and more intensive assessment. For example, they are useful in deciding on the
possible design plan for spotting weak areas, which might need to be strengthened or
strong areas that might need to be further emphasized.
229
The semantic differential method maintains the distinction of being flexible and
practical to use, and has been applied in a wide range of disciplines. The application of
semantic differential procedures has also have been explored in diverse design research
items including telephones (Hsu, et al., 2000), support systems for office chairs (Jindo,
et al., 1995), emotional assessment for housing designs (Llinares & Page, 2007a),
micro-electronic products (Ming Chuen. Chuang & Ma, 2001), image and brand
perceptions (Nagashima, 1977). This raises the possibility that there is an opportunity
for, and benefits to be gained from, exploring and inquiring into the ways in which
designers could increase their potentiality for conducting user based research. The
semantic differential scale is easy to employ and administer, especially when forming it
in questions that require a simple grading scale. This semantic differential questionnaire
also becomes advantageous for participants to answer since the requirement for the
feedback is only circling a number on the scale. The scaling tool is reasonably reliable
for measuring respondents’ feedback, which leads to a clarification of similarities and
differences in preferences.
The semantic differential technique is capable of generating valid information
about respondents’ preferences. The quantitative data show that some significant
difference exists between the participants of the Design and the User Groups in
visualizing or perceiving the form of the chair. The chair form and shape gives both
groups of respondents a different impression. The same assessment terms, such as the
image-words used and the adjectives used, may have a different meaning for the Design
and for the User group. In this situation, the design group is most probably familiar with
the terms while the user group may not be clear about the precise meaning of image-
words, such as elements and principles of design (line, texture, proportion, unity). The
perception and views are significantly different regarding the chair samples as well as
the interpretation of evaluation adjectives. The different connection between image-
words and design elements for the two groups may cause a variation in preferences.
The final findings indicate that emotional reactions to outdoor chair designs by
different people often vary across educational background, design awareness and
lifestyles. However, there are still common elements that attract people to select and
purchase. A quick response assessment executed through a semantic differential
questionnaire reveals that the Design Group participants liked Prototype 3 better than
the other chairs. They preferred Prototype 3 due to its trendy image, pleasing
230
appearance and its exclusive look. However for the User Group of participants, Sample
2 is their ultimate choice because it is capable of portraying a trendy image, pleasant
appearance, is easy to use and has an impression of safety. There is already a significant
gap between the designs of Sample 2 and Prototype 3 in terms of design concept and
image appearance. However, it is essential to highlight that both chairs still share a
similarity in design in which Sample 2 represents a designer’s chair, and Prototype 3
was designed to depict a designer image. Although the form and the design of the
Sample 2 and Prototype 3 are different, in theory, both groups still preferred a chair that
demonstrates a designer image with trendy and exclusive features.
Sample 2 Prototype 3
Figure 9.1: Both chairs demonstrate a designer image with
trendy and exclusive features
The semantic differential approach is sufficient to establish design preference
patterns among the participants of the Design and User Groups. Based on the quick
response assessment, both groups of participants ended up selecting Sample 2 and
Prototype 3. However, through meticulous assessment and careful reflection
comparison and contrasting of the designs, respondents ended up preferring different
chairs. The Design Group was happy with Prototype 2, and the User Group still
231
preferred Sample 2. The participants of the User Group held fast to their opinion while
the participants in the professional Design Group changed their preference. The
researcher can conclude that this situation is popular because the User Group only
observed and reflected on designs for personal use or consumption, while those in the
Design Group viewed the object from a different perspective through which they
consider whether any design they create fulfils the user demands, is easy to manufacture
and is able to stay in the commercial market for a long period of time. Consumers seek
value in a product to suit their needs, and designers can support this by giving them
what they desire (Slutsky, Creveling, & Antis, 2003).
Sample 2 Prototype 2
Figure 9.2: Chair preferences after detailed observation
In conclusion, the semantic differential approach is able to provide a logical,
consistent and grounded frame for the product to be evaluated in terms of its
specification and particular characteristics of the physical form of the object. It requires
time and patience in order to complete the tests because not many participants are
willing to spend time answering the questions. The researcher may be tempted to ignore
the data due to the massive amount of information that can be generated from lengthy
questionnaires and many sample objects. Fortunately, through the use of computer
technology and the availability of statistical software to manage the enormous amount
of quantitative data, this process has become easier and more usable in practice. This
232
evaluation procedure is particularly suitable for group sessions, and can be (re)used if
the necessity arises to compare the data.
9.2 Research limitations and future research opportunities
In generating a reliable database of the preferences and demands of the
participants of the Design and User Groups, it will be necessary to carry out a larger
scale of subjective evaluations in the future. The huge number of subjective evaluations
allowed for provides choice and is an alternative for selecting accurate data when
describing users’ feelings and behaviour referents. Having a wide range of image-words
in the system could provide better correspondence to the positive affective responses of
end users. Furthermore, the profiles of product images could also be gathered and
manipulated as part of the subjective evaluation terms in order to ascertain the target
users’ accurate perception.
It is necessary to emphasize that there are respective restrictions in the
implementation of this study that limits its overall generalization. The results of this
study are drawn from a limited geographic region (City of Perth, Australia), and the
number of participants should be increased in order to obtain fairer results. However, in
this study, there is real evidence that the semantic differential concept is reliable and can
be adapted to further studies, especially for those who are involved professionally with
consumer research. The large number of different racial groups in the profile could be a
key factor in influencing the overall response. The multi-cultural people in Perth could
be a reason to generate a new research project in cross cultural studies in respect of
arriving at a more culturally generalized perception of the consumer population and also
to potentially generate more successful product designs.
233
REFERENCES
Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: loved objects and consumers' identity
narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 171-184. Al-Hindawe, J. Consideration when constructing a semantic differential scale.
[Linguistic seminar series, University of La Trobe, Australia]. Alcántara, E., Artacho, M. A., Gonzáles, J. C., & Garcia, A. C. (August 2005).
Application of product semantics to footwear design. Part 1- identification of footware semantic space applying differential semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(8), 713-725.
Athavankar, u. (2009). From product semantics to generative methods. Paper presented at the International Association of Societies of Design Research 2009, Seoul, Korea.
BBC. (2012). Design and technology: Product analysis and design. Bitesize Retrieved 10 February, 2012, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/ design/resistantmaterials/designanalysisevaluationrev1.shtml
Berkowitz, M. (1987). Product shape as a design innovation strategy. Journal of Product Innov. Manag., 4, 278-283.
Blijlevens, J., Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2009). How consumers perceive product appearance: The identification of three product appearance attributes. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 27-35.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the idea form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Product Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement. The Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551-565.
Bowe, S. A., & Bumgardner, M. S. (2004). Consumer perceptions and knowledge of common furniture woods. Paper presented at the 14th Central Hardwood Forest Wooster Ohio, USA.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59.
Bridgewater, A., & Bridgewater, G. (2007). Encyclopedia of Woodworking: New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd.
Carter, R. F., Ruggels, W. L., & Chaffee, S. H. (1968). The Semantic Differential in Opinion Measurement. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(4), 666-674.
Chamorro Koc, M. (2007). Experience context-of-use and design of product usability. Queensland University of Technology.
Chamorro Koc, M., Popovic, V., & Emmison, M. (2008). Using visual representation of concepts to explore users and designers' concepts of everyday products. Design Studies, 29(2), 142-159.
Chandler, K., & Hyatt, K. (2003). Costomer-centered design. A new approach to web usability: Prentice Hall, Inc, New Jersey.
Chang, C. C., & Hsu, S. H. (2001). Perceptual factors underlying user preferences toward product form of mobile phones. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27, 247-258.
234
Chang, C. C., & Shih, Y. y. (2003). A differential study on the product form perception of different age group users. Paper presented at the 6th Asian Design International Conference, Japan.
Chang, W. C., & Van, Y. T. (2003). Researching design trends for the redesign of product form. Design Studies, 24, 173-180.
Chang, W. C., & Wu, T. W. (2007). Exploring Types and Characteristics of Product Forms. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 3-14.
Charlotte, & Fiell, P. (1993). Modern Chair: Benedikt Raschen Verlag GmbH. Chitturi, R. (2009). Emotions by design: A consumer perspective. International Journal
of Design, 3(2), 7-17. Chuang, M.-C., & Shiau, K.-A. (1998). A study of style recognition and operation of
products in which Ming-style chairs are used as examples. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 25, 837-848.
Chuang, M. C., Chang, C. C., & Hsu, S. H. (2001). Perceptual factors underlying user preferences toward product form of mobile phones. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(4), 247-258.
Chuang, M. C., & Ma, Y. C. (2001). Expressing the expected product images in product design of micro-electronic products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27, 233-245.
Cranz, G. (1998). The Chair: Rethinking culture, body and design: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Quantitative and qualitative approaches: SAGE Publications.
Creusen, M. E. H., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). The different roles of product appearnce in consumer choice. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 63-81.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547-577.
Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology: John Wiley & sons. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing: Springer-Verlag, London. Demetrios, E., & Fehlbaum, R. (2007). The furniture of Chairles and Ray Eames: Vitra,
Weil am Rhein (D). Don, N. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions, 9(4), 36-
42. Dossenbach, T. (2002). The furniture industry down under: Part 1- Australia's
challanges. Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/channel-marketing/408677-1.html
Dul, J., & Weerdmeester, B. (2008). Ergonomics for Beginners. A Quick Reference Guide (Third Edition ed.): Taylor & Francis Group.
Eronen, L. (2004). User centered design of new and novel product: Case digital television. Helsinki university of Technology.
Fiell, C., & Fiell, P. (2005). 1000 chairs (Taschen 25) Taschen. Gabrielsen, G., Kristensen, T., & Zarchkowsky, J. L. (2010). Whose design is it
anyway? Priming designer and shifting preferences. International journal of Marketing Research, 52(1).
Gautvik, K. H. L. (2001). Towards a product language: Theories and methodologies regarding aesthetic analysis of design process (Postgraduate research report).
Gibbons, A. S., Botturi, L., Boot, E., & Nelson, J. (2007). Design languages, in Ch. Reigeluth (ed.) (forthcoming). Instructional-Design Theories and Models, 3.
235
Hassenzahl, M., Beu, A., & Burmester, M. (2001). Engineering joy. IBM Journal of research and development, 18(1), 70-76.
Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48(2), 157-172.
Hillebrand, B., & Biemans, W. G. (2004). Links between Internal and External Cooperation in Product Development: An Exploratory Study*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(2), 110-122.
Hsiao, S. W. (1997). A semantic and shape grammar based approach for product design. Design Studies, 18, 275-296.
Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers' and users' product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375-391.
Hung, T.-F., & Nieh, C.-K. (2009). Application of semantic differential technique to evaluate kansei image in architecture design. Paper presented at the International association of sociaties of design research, Seoul, Korea.
Jindo, T., Hirasago, K., & Nagamachi, M. (1995). Development of a design support system for office chairs using 3-D graphics. international Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15 49-62.
Karl, M. (Ed.). (1979). History of Modern Furniture. Translated by John William Gabrial: Academic Editions, Great Britain.
Karlsson, B. S. A., Aronsson, N., & Svensson, K. A. (2003). Using semantic environment description as a tool to evaluate car interiors. Ergonomics, 46(13/14), 1408-1422.
Kim, J., Lee, J., & Choi, D. (2003). Designing emotionally evocative homepages: an empirical study of the quantitative relations between design factor and emotional dimensions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(2003), 899-940.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn. A foundation for design: Taylor and Francis group.
Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1984). Exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation, 3(2), 4-9.
Lance, G., & Elivio, B. (2002). The development of a suite of design methods appropriate for teaching product design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 6(1).
Landon, E. L., Jr. (1974). Self Concept, Ideal Self Concept, and Consumer Purchase Intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 44-51.
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think. The design process demystified (3 ed.): Architectural Press.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butter, R. (2003). Universal principles of design. 100 ways to enhance usability, perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design: Rockport Publishers, Inc.
Liu, Y.-x., & Li, J. (November 2006). The furniture design and research based on the concept of appeal. Paper presented at the 7th International conference on computer-aided Industrial design and conceptual design.
Ljungberg, L. Y., & Edwards, K. L. (2003). Design, materials selection and marketing of successful products. Materials & Design, 24(7), 519-529.
Llinares, C., & Page, A. (2007a). Application of product differential semantic to quantify purchaser perceptions in housing assessment. Building and Environment, 42(2007)(2488-2498).
236
Llinares, C., & Page, A. (2007b). Application of product differential semantics to quantify purchaser perceptions in housing assessment. Building and Environment(42), 2488 - 2497.
Luppold, W. G. (1987). Material usage trends in the wood household furniture industy: NE-RP-600. Broomall PA: U.S. Department of Argriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment, 10p.
Mackenzie, D., Cooper, T., & Garnett, K. (2010). Can durability provide a strong marketing platform? In T. Cooper (Ed.), Longer lasting products. Alternatives to the throwaway sociaty: Gower Publishing Limited.
Malhotra, N. K. (1988). Self concept and product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(1), 1-28.
Margolin, V. (1997). Getting to know the user. Design Studies, 18, 227-236. Mather, G. (2009). Foundation of sensation and perception (Second edition ed.):
Psychology Press. Mayerberg, C. K., & Bean, A. G. (1978). Two types of factors in the analysis of
semantic differential attitude data Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(October), 469-480.
McCormack, J. P., & Cagan, J. (January, 2004). Speaking the Buick language: capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars. Design Studies, 25(1), 1-29.
McDonagh, D., Bruseberg, A., & Haslam, C. (2002). Visual product evaluation: exploring users' emotional relationships with products. Applied Ergonomics, 33, 231-240.
McDonagh, D., Hekkert, P., Erp, J. v., & Gyi, D. (2004). Design and emotion. The experience of everyday things: Taylor & Francis.
Mondragón, S., Company, P., & Vergara, M. (2005). Semantic Differential applied to the evaluation of machine tool design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(11), 1021-1029.
Mugge, R., Govers, P. C. M., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2009). The development and testing of a product personality scale. Design Studies, 30(3), 287-302.
Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei Engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. international Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 3-11.
Nagashima, A. (1977). A comparative "made in" product image survey among Japanese businessmen. The Journal of Marketing, 41(3), 95-100.
Nakada, K. (1997). Kansei engineering research on the design of construction machinery. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19(2), 129-146.
NetMBA, B. K. C. (2012). SWOT Analysis. Retrieved 10 February 2012, from http://www.netmba.com/strategy/swot/
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everything things: A member of the Perseus books group.
Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion and attractive. interactions, Norman, D. A., & Ortony, A. ( 2003). Designers and users: Two perspectives on
emotion and design. Paper presented at the Foundations of Interaction Design. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning:
University of Illinois Press. Panero, J., & Zelnik, M. (1979). Human dimension and interior space. A source book of
design reference standards: Whitney Library of Design an imprint of Watson-Guptill Publications, New York.
237
Parr, J. W. (2003). Aesthetic Intention in Product Design: Market driven or alternative form (Phd Report).
Petiot, J. F., & Bernard, Y. (2003). Measuring consumer perceptions for a better comprehension, specification and assessment of product semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 33 (2004), 507-525.
Pinson, C. (1986). An implicit product theory approach to consumers' inferential judgments about products. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 3(1), 19-38.
Puligadda, S., Ross, W., & Grewal, R. (2012). Individual preferences in brand schematically. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 115-130.
Ricardo, P. G. c. (2008). Consumer Behavior: Product
Characteristics and Quality Perception. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Schutte, S., & Eklund, J. (2001). An approach to Kansei engineering - Methods and a
case study on design identity. Sengpiel, F., & Hubener, M. (1999). Visual Perception: Spotlight on the primary visual
cortex. Current Biology, 9(9), Pages R318 - R321. Sevener, Z. (2003). A semantic differential study of the influence of aesthetic properties
on product pleasure. Paper presented at the DPPI 03, Pennslyvania, USA. Shanat, M., & Beale, P. (2010). Furniture design: Application of the semantic
differential technique to measure and evaluate consumer perception 2nd International Conference on Design Education.
Shin-Wen Hsiao, & Ching-Hai Chen. (1997). A semantic and Shape grammar based approach for product design. Design Studies, 18, 275-296.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of consumer Research, Inc., 9(3), 287-300.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., & Mangleburg, T. (2000). Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail patronage: an integrative model and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 127-138.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. J., Park, J.-o., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C. B., et al. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science, 25(3), 229-241.
Skrandies, W. (1998). Evoked potential correlates of semantic meaning—A brain mapping study. Cognitive Brain Research, 6(3), 173-183.
Slack, L. (2006). What is product design?. Essential design handbooks: RotoVision. Slutsky, J., Creveling, C. M., & Antis, d. (2003). Design for six sigma: In technology
and product development: Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Snider, J. G., & Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semantic Differential Technique: Aldine
Publishing Company, Chicago. Stone, T. L. (2010). Managing the deign process - concept development: An essential
for the working designer: Rockport publishers, Inc. Thompson, J. A. A., & David, L. L. (June 1988). Furniture design decision-making
constructs. Home Economics Research Journal, 16(4). Tilley, A. R. (2002). The measure of man and woman. Human factor in design.
(Revised ed.): John Wiley and Sons, New York. Veryzer, R. W. J. (1993). Aesthetic Response and the Influence of Design Principles on
Product Preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 224-228. Vidal, J., Lama, M., Bugarín, A., & Barro, S. (2003). Problem-Solving Analysis for the
Budgeting Task in Furniture Industry
238
Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems. In V. Palade, R. Howlett & L. Jain (Eds.), (Vol. 2774, pp. 1307-1313): Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. The Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 44-50.
Weinreich, U. (1969). Travels through semantic spaces Semantic differential techniques (pp. 116-129): Aldine publishing company, Chicago.
Wikipedia, t. f. e. (2011). SWOT analysis. Retrieved 2012, 10 FZebruary, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis
Wu, J. (2009). Focus on lifestyle and seek the innovative point of furniture design. Paper presented at the 10th International conference on Computer-aided industrial design & Conceptual design.
239
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET
This is to confirm that Musdi Shanat is a bona fide student taking Doctoral Studies at
the School of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts, University of Western Australia.
His PhD research entitled: Furniture design: Application of semantic differential
techniques to measure and evaluate design and user groups’ perceptions of aesthetic,
form and utility through the medium of chair design.
Research Objectives:
This study will investigate the differences in the perception of chair design in
terms of form, utility and aesthetic between Design and User Groups of
participants.
To examine a chair for its visual appearances that evokes particular consumer
taste. The data collected will be applied to the design (re)briefing process.
To enhance the understanding of users’ needs and preferences of the furniture
design.
What your participation in the study will involve
You will be requested to fill in the attached questionnaire which should take
approximately 15 to 20 minutes, please remember to complete all the questions. Once
you have completed the questionnaire please return it to the researcher.
Consent to participant
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you have the right to withdraw
at any time. Your decision to withdraw or to not participate in this study may be made
freely and will not affect your rights, nor will it negate the responsibilities of the
researcher.
240
Confidentiality
Your responses will remain entirely anonymous and confidential, and only used for this
present study. I do not require you to give your name and the data collected will be
treated confidentially at all times.
For further details
Should you require any further details about this study at any time, you may contact
Musdi Shanat at +61 430212179 or shanam01@student.uwa.edu.au.
If you have any complaint regarding the manner, in which a research project is
conducted, do not hesitate to report to the Secretary, Human Research Ethics
Committee, Registrar’s Office, University Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, WA
6009 or contact on +61 8 6488 3703 (Project No: RA/4/1/2311).
If you should wish to discuss any aspect of your participation, or aspects of the study
with someone not directly involved in the study you may contact Simon Anderson on
+61 8 6488 2589 or simon.anderson@uwa.edu.au
Thank you kindly for taking the time to read this information sheet, your
participations and your interest in the study is greatly appreciated.
241
Appendix 2 PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
Please make sure you agree with these points clearly before starting the questionnaire:
• I understand the purpose and procedures of the study.
• I have been provided with the participant information sheet.
• I understand that completing the questionnaire itself may not benefit me.
• I understand that my involvement is voluntary.
• I understand that no personal identifying information like my name and address will
be used and that all information will be securely stored for 4 years before being
destroyed.
• I understand that all of my responses are anonymous and will be kept in strict
confidentiality by the researcher.
• I agree to participate in the study outlined to me.
Signature: __________________________ Date: __________________
242
Appendix 3 QUESTIONNAIRE 1
SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION ON AESTHETIC AND PHYSICAL VALUES OF CHAIR DESIGN (Check one)
A1 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “not at all important” and 7 is “very important”, how important AESTHETIC values effect your decision making before purchase outdoor furniture?
Not at all important Very important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Appearance
2. Functional
3. Practicality
4. Standard finish
5. Colour
6. Image (modern, classical, contemporary, retro etc.)
7. Design concept
A2 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “not at all
important” and 7 is “very important”, how important PHYSICAL values effect your decision making before purchase outdoor furniture?
Not at all important Very important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Comfort
2. Safety
3. Material
4. Weight
5. Size
6. Durability
7. Flat pack
8. Ready made
A3 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “not at all
important” and 7 is “very important”, how important UTILITY values effect your decision making before purchase outdoor furniture?
Not at all important Very important
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Price
243
2. Ergonomics
3. Brand identity
4. Furniture life span
5. Designers’ signature design
A4 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “not at all
consider” and 7 is “strongly consider”, have you think carefully on the ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN foundations before purchase outdoor furniture.
Not at all consider Strongly consider
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Elements of design
1. Line
2. Colour
3. Shape
4. Size
5. Texture
6. Space
Principles of design
1. Proportion
2. Harmony
3. Repetition
4. Unity
5. Balance
244
SECTION B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT SUBJECT EVALUATION IN RESPECT TO THE FORM, UTILITY AND AESTHETIC VALUES (Check one).
You may sit on the chair while observe it.
B1 How did you feel about the form/shape of this chair?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not Good Very Good
1. Good design form
Not comfortable Very comfortable
2. Comfort in use
Not safe Very safe
3. Feeling of safety
Not excited Very excited
4. Excited to sit
Note stable Very stable
5. Feeling of stability
B2 How did you feel about the aesthetic value of
this chair?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Not original Very original
1. Originality of concept
Not good choice Very good choice
2. Good material selection
Not impressive Very impressive
3. Impressive by the design/image
Overdone Normal
4. Exaggerate/ overdone
B3 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “totally disagree”
and 7 is “strongly agree”, do you think the ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN are applied on subject evaluation.
Totally disagree Strongly agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Elements of design
1. Line
2. Colour
3. Shape
4. Size
245
5. Texture
6. Space
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Principles of design
1. Proportion
2. Harmony
3. Repetition
4. Unity
5. Balance
B4 How did you describe emotional appeal when
evaluating this subject?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Common Rare 1. Exclusive
Unfashionable Fashionable 2. Trendy
No design taste Good design taste 3. Pleasant
Difficult to use Easy to use 4. Practical
Not safe Safe 5. Secure
Unoriginal Original 6. Creative
Uncomfortable Comfortable 7. Comfort
Cheap Expensive 8. Cost
B5 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “Unfavourable” and 7 is “Favourable which part of the subject evaluation you like most?
Unfavourable Favourable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Head rest
2. Back rest
3. Arm rest
4. Seat
5. Legs
6. Other, (please specify)
246
SECTION C: DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY (Tick all applicable)
A. Sex
Male
Female
B. Education: What is your highest education attainment?
Postgraduate
Diploma
Primary
University degree
High school
Others
C. What is your hobby and interest?
Arts and Design
Buying & Selling
Home & lifestyles
Music & Entertainments
Sport & leisure
Computer & gaming
Other, please specify __________________________
D. What is your average income per month (nett-income)?
Less than 500
500-1500
1501-2500
2501-3500
3501-4500
4501 and above
E. What is your favourite style of design?
Classic
Modern
Retro
Contemporary
Futuristic
Craft
Other, please specify __________________________
F. What is your main consideration before purchasing?
Brand
Design
Price
Style
Trend
Ergonomics
Other, please specify __________________________
G. Do you intend to buy outdoor furniture (chair) in the near future and why?
Yes
No
Not sure
Reason: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
247
Appendix 4 QUESTIONNAIRE 2
SECTION A: EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO FURNITURE’S APPEARANCE (Check one) Please answer section A with a QUICK observation. Please DON’T sit on the chairs or compare them. A1 What is your emotional response to each chair?
1. Exclusive design Common Rare DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Trendy image Unfashionable Fashionable DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Pleasant outlook No design taste Good design taste DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Practical design Difficult to use Easy to use DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Sense of safety Not safe Safe DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Creative design Unoriginal Original DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Comfortable Uncomfortable Comfortable DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Easy to match to any surroundings Difficult Easy DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Interest in buying Unexcited Excited DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
248
SECTION B: QUICK RESPONSE TO FURNITURE DESIGN (Check one) Please answer section A with a QUICK observation. Please DON’T sit on the chairs or compare them.
B1 How do you feel about the FORM of each chair?
10. Design Bad Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Excited to try Not excited Very excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Stability Fragile Very stable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Durability Weak construction Strong construction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Weight proportion Not balanced Balanced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Size Disproportionate Proportionate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Comfort Uncomfortable Comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
249
SECTION B: CONSIDERED RESPONSE TO FURNITURE DESIGN (Check one) Please answer section B with the DETAILED observation of each chair. You may sit on and compare the chairs.
B2 How do you feel about the AESTHETIC values each chair?
17. Physical appearance Not impressive Outstanding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Decorative level of chair design Overdone Balanced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Functions Complicated Straight forward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Finish Bad Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Image appearance (modern, classic,
contemporary etc.) Ambiguous Well executed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Originality Not original Very original 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
250
PERCEPTIONS IN FURNITURE DESIGN VALUES (Check one) Please answer section B with the DETAILED observation of each chair. You may sit on and compare the chairs.
B3 How do you feel about the UTILITY of each chair?
23. Ergonomic values Poorly executed Well executed DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Brand identity Not clear Achieved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Maintenance (cleaning, repairing) Complicated Easy to maintain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Life span Not long lasting Long lasting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Reflects designers’ signature Not achieved Achieved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Materials Not cost effective Cost effective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Selling price Cheap Expensive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
251
SECTION C: ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN (Check one) C1 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “totally disagree”
and 7 is “strongly agree”, to what extent are the following ELEMENTS OF DESIGN are applicable to each chair?
Totally disagree Strongly agree
30. Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Colour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Texture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C2 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “totally disagree”
and 7 is “strongly agree”, to what extent are the following PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN are applicable to each chair?
Totally disagree Strongly agree
36. Proportion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Harmony 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Repetition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. Unity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
252
DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40. Balance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SECTION D: PERSONAL PREFERENCE (Check one) D1 On a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is “Unfavourable” and 7 is
“Favourable What do you like most?
Unfavourable Favourable
41. Back rest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. Seat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. Legs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. Overall design Construction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Other, (please specify
…………..………………………………………….) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DESIGN 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DESIGN 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
253
SECTION F: Demographic study. (Check all applicable)
A. Sex
Male Female
B. Education: What is your highest education attainment? Postgraduate University degree Diploma High school Primary Others
C. What are your hobbies and interests?
Arts and Design Buying & Selling Home & lifestyles Music & Entertainments Sport & leisure Computer & gaming Other, please specify __________________________
D. What is your average income per month (nett-income)? Less than 500 501-1500 1501-2500 2501-3500 3501-4500 More than 4500
E. What is your favorite style of design? Classic Modern Retro Contemporary Futuristic Crafty Other, please specify __________________________
F. What is your main consideration when purchasing? Brand Design Price Style Trend Ergonomics Other, please specify __________________________
THANK YOU
Recommended