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 &amp; 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