Digital prototypes (DPs) allow designers to communicate design concepts to users by rendering physical characteristics of the concepts. To enhance user understanding of the concepts, it is important that the users be able to make better estimates of the values of the characteristics. Correctness of the estimates can depend on two crucial factors: the ability of DPs to render the physical characteristics and the way the DPs are used to communicate the physical characteristics. However, little attention has been paid to the latter. A DP can be used in different ways, e.g., it can be projected on different backgrounds, or be manipulated using different input/output devices. Hence, it is important to identify an effective way of using DPs, via an assessment of the effectiveness of various ways. This paper introduces a methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of communication of physical characteristics to users using DPs. The methodology is used to assess the degree to which users can correctly and quickly estimate the values of the characteristics through interactions with DPs. Such assessments are then analyzed with statistical methods and hypothesis tests to reveal the effectiveness. To validate the proposed methodology, the size of hand-held electronic consumer products, such as smartphones, is considered in a case study. In the study, the effectiveness of two communication setups is evaluated. The same DP is used in both setups, while the environments and input devices are different. The experimental results show that the evaluated effectiveness can reflect how successful the setups are, and can help select the best way of using the DP, i.e., by providing a better environment, a better input device, or a combination of both.

References

References
1.
Henderson
,
M. R.
,
1993
, “
Representing Functionality and Design Intent in Product Models
,”
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications
(
SMA '93
), Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
ACM
,
New York
, pp.
387
396
.
2.
Desmet
,
P. M.
, and
Hekkert
,
P.
,
2007
, “
Framework of Product Experience
,”
Int. J. Des.
,
1
(
1
), pp.
57
66
.
3.
Maier
,
A. M.
,
2007
, “
A Grid-Based Assessment Method of Communication in Engineering Design
,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
4.
Crilly
,
N.
,
Maier
,
A. M.
, and
Clarkson
,
P. J.
,
2008
, “
Representing Artefacts as Media: Modelling the Relationship Between Designer Intent and Consumer Experience
,”
Int. J. Des.
,
2
(
3
), pp.
15
27
.
5.
Maier
,
A. M.
, and
Kleinsmann
,
M.
,
2013
, “
Studying and Supporting Design Communication
,”
Artif. Intell. Eng. Des., Anal. Manuf.
,
27
(02), pp.
87
90
.
6.
Agost
,
M.-J.
, and
Vergara
,
M.
,
2014
, “
Relationship Between Meanings, Emotions, Product Preferences and Personal Values. Application to Ceramic Tile Floorings
,”
Appl. Ergon.
,
45
(
4
), pp.
1076
1086
.
7.
Arastehfar
,
S.
,
Liu
,
Y.
, and
Lu
,
W. F.
, “
On Design Concept Validation Through Prototyping: Challenges and Opportunities
,”
19th International Conference on Engineering Design
(
ICED13
), Seoul Korea, Aug. 19–22, Design for Harmonies, Vol.
6
: Design Information and Knowledge,
U
.
Lindemann
,
S.
V, Yong Se Kim
,
S. W
.
Lee
,
J
.
Clarkson
, and
G
.
Cascini
, eds., The Design Society, Paper No. DS 75-6.
8.
Poirson
,
E.
,
Petiot
,
J.-F.
,
Boivin
,
L.
, and
Blumenthal
,
D.
,
2013
, “
Eliciting User Perceptions Using Assessment Tests Based on an Interactive Genetic Algorithm
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
135
(
3
), pp.
031004
031020
.
9.
Artacho
,
M. A.
,
Ballester
,
A.
, and
Alcántara
,
E.
,
2009
, “
Analysis of the Impact of Slight Changes in Product Formal Attributes on User's Emotions and Configuration of an Emotional Space for Successful Design
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
21
(
6
), pp.
693
705
.
10.
Reid
,
T. N.
,
MacDonald
,
E. F.
, and
Du
,
P.
,
2013
, “
Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
135
(
9
), pp.
091008
091020
.
11.
Crilly
,
N.
,
Moultrie
,
J.
, and
Clarkson
,
P. J.
,
2004
, “
Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design
,”
Des. Stud.
,
25
(
6
), pp.
547
577
.
12.
Arastehfar
,
S.
,
Liu
,
Y.
, and
Lu
,
W. F.
,
2014
, “
A Framework for Concept Validation in Product Design Using Digital Prototyping
,”
J. Ind. Prod. Eng.
,
31
(
5
), pp.
286
302
.
13.
Sylcott
,
B.
,
Cagan
,
J.
, and
Tabibnia
,
G.
,
2013
, “
Understanding Consumer Tradeoffs Between Form and Function Through Metaconjoint and Cognitive Neuroscience Analyses
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
135
(
10
), p.
101002
.
14.
Maropoulos
,
P. G.
, and
Ceglarek
,
D.
,
2010
, “
Design Verification and Validation in Product Lifecycle
,”
CIRP Ann.–Manuf. Technol.
,
59
(
2
), pp.
740
759
.
15.
Gironimo
,
G. D.
,
Lanzotti
,
A.
, and
Vanacore
,
A.
,
2006
, “
Concept Design for Quality in Virtual Environment
,”
Comput. Graph.
,
30
(
6
), pp.
1011
1019
.
16.
Şahin
,
A.
,
Bøe
,
M.
,
Terpenny
,
J.
, and
Bøhn
,
J. H.
,
2007
, “
A Study to Understand Perceptual Discrepancies Using Visual Illusions and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
129
(
7
), pp.
744
752
.
17.
Arastehfar
,
S.
,
2015
, “
A Framework for Concept Validation in Design Using Digital Prototyping
,”
Doctor of Philosophy
, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
18.
Virzi
,
R. A.
,
Sokolov
,
J. L.
, and
Karis
,
D.
,
1996
, “
Usability Problem Identification Using Both Low-and High-Fidelity Prototypes
,” Proceedings of the
SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
, Vancouver, Canada, Apr. 13–18,
ACM
,
New York
, pp.
236
243
.
19.
Thomke
,
S. H.
,
1997
, “
The Role of Flexibility in the Development of New Products: An Empirical Study
,”
Res. Policy
,
26
(
1
), pp.
105
119
.
20.
Sauer
,
J.
, and
Sonderegger
,
A.
,
2009
, “
The Influence of Prototype Fidelity and Aesthetics of Design in Usability Tests: Effects on User Behaviour, Subjective Evaluation and Emotion
,”
Appl. Ergon.
,
40
(
4
), pp.
670
677
.
21.
Zhang
,
Q.
,
Vonderembse
,
M. A.
, and
Cao
,
M.
,
2009
, “
Product Concept and Prototype Flexibility in Manufacturing: Implications for Customer Satisfaction
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
,
194
(
1
), pp.
143
154
.
22.
Barbieri
,
L.
,
Angilica
,
A.
,
Bruno
,
F.
, and
Muzzupappa
,
M.
,
2013
, “
Mixed Prototyping With Configurable Physical Archetype for Usability Evaluation of Product Interfaces
,”
Comput. Ind.
,
64
(
3
), pp.
310
323
.
23.
Tovares
,
N.
,
Boatwright
,
P.
, and
Cagan
,
J.
,
2014
, “
Experiential Conjoint Analysis: An Experience-Based Method for Eliciting, Capturing, and Modeling Consumer Preference
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
136
(
10
), pp.
101404
101416
.
24.
Kim
,
D. B.
, and
Lee
,
K. H.
,
2011
, “
Computer-Aided Appearance Design Based on BRDF Measurements
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
43
(
9
), pp.
1181
1193
.
25.
Artacho-Ramirez
,
M.
,
Diego-Mas
,
J.
, and
Alcaide-Marzal
,
J.
,
2008
, “
Influence of the Mode of Graphical Representation on the Perception of Product Aesthetic and Emotional Features: An Exploratory Study
,”
Int. J. Ind. Ergon.
,
38
(
11
), pp.
942
952
.
26.
Park
,
H.
,
Son
,
J.-S.
, and
Lee
,
K.-H.
,
2008
, “
Design Evaluation of Digital Consumer Products Using Virtual Reality-Based Functional Behaviour Simulation
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
19
(
4
), pp.
359
375
.
27.
Gyi
,
D.
,
Cain
,
R.
, and
Campbell
,
I.
,
2009
, “
The Value of Computer-Based Product Representations in Co-Designing With Older Users
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
21
(
2–3
), pp.
305
313
.
28.
Söderman
,
M.
,
2005
, “
Virtual Reality in Product Evaluations With Potential Customers: An Exploratory Study Comparing Virtual Reality With Conventional Product Representations
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
16
(
3
), pp.
311
328
.
29.
Iansiti
,
M.
, and
MacCormack
,
A.
,
1996
, “
Developing Products on Internet Time
,”
Harv. Bus. Rev.
,
75
(
5
), pp.
108
117
.
30.
Eisenhardt
,
K. M.
, and
Tabrizi
,
B. N.
,
1995
, “
Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry
,”
Administrative Sci. Q.
,
40
(
1
), pp.
84
110
.
31.
Takala
,
R.
,
2005
, “
Product Demonstrator: A System for Up-Front Testing of User-Related Product Features
,”
J. Eng. Des.
,
16
(
3
), pp.
329
336
.
32.
Ford
,
D. N.
, and
Sobek
,
D. K.
,
2005
, “
Adapting Real Options to New Product Development by Modeling the Second Toyota Paradox
,”
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.
,
52
(
2
), pp.
175
185
.
33.
Ren
,
Y.
, and
Papalambros
,
P. Y.
,
2011
, “
A Design Preference Elicitation Query as an Optimization Process
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
133
(
11
), pp.
111004
111013
.
34.
Gonzales
,
R. C.
, and
Woods
,
R.
,
2002
,
Digital Image Processing
,
Prentice Hall
,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
.
You do not currently have access to this content.