Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Abstract
This paper discusses an industrial designer’s approach to eliciting user perceptions and emotional responses to products through
visual evaluation and stimuli. Whilst the authors accept that product functionality is crucial for product success, the appearance, use
of materials, shape and form provide the most immediate product data for the user. Less tangible issues such as emotional bonding
of users with products, cultural perceptions and social value systems, provide valuable insights for the product developer to help
expand knowledge and understanding of the users’ need beyond the functional.
This paper presents product personality profiling as a new technique for design researchers/designers, and discusses it alongside
other emerging approaches such as mood boards and visual product evaluation. The authors have used these techniques during focus
group sessions with users to elicit individuals’ needs and aspirations towards products. Such a user-centred approach is fundamental
to applied ergonomics. Experiences, benefits, and limitations of these techniques are outlined as well as the opportunities for further
development. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Industrial design; Emotions; Product personality profiling; Product evaluation; Applied ergonomics
0003-6870/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 3 - 6 8 7 0 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - X
232 D. McDonagh et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 231–240
Dittmar (1992) suggested that this communicative Understanding intangible user needs may be proble-
aspect of material objects needs to be investigated in matic as users often find difficulty in expressing them
order to understand why it is important for people to and are not necessarily consciously aware of them.
convey the right messages about themselves through Identifying intangible aspirations towards products
their possessions and that such investigation may usually requires the collection of qualitative data. This
elucidate how we decipher other people based on their includes understanding of aspects such as emotional
material circumstances. Dittmar (1992) states that bonds with products, cultural contexts, and associa-
possessions symbolise not only the personal qualities tions, implications of lifestyles, social value systems and
of individuals, but also the groups they belong to and stereotyping, the underlying meanings of products,
their social standing. Fig. 1 represents this idea schema- fashion preferences, and attitudes towards product
tically. aesthetics. This paper illustrates three techniques that
Material possessions serve as symbolic expressions of have been used within focus group activities to support a
who we are. The clothes we wear, the household items we number of design projects (McDonagh-Philp, 1999;
buy, all enable us to express our personality, social Bruseberg and McDonagh-Philp, 2001). Product person-
standing and wealth. Fig. 1b shows the range of uses ality profiling taps into the users’ perceptions of who
material possessions may have. they feel particular products are aimed at. Mood boards
Even practical products, such as kitchen appliances, express emotions regarding products, tasks, or situa-
will have some symbolic significance. In choosing such tions through image collages. Visual product evaluation
products, consumers are likely to be influenced by the elicits initial reactions to products, based on product
messages they believe these objects convey and the appearance only, to simulate retail showroom scenarios,
extent to which their overall impression of the product mail order, and/or Internet purchasing.
matches the image they have of themselves. The authors advocate that the analysis of user needs
Manufacturers are becoming increasingly aware of and aspirations should be an integral part of design
the requirement to satisfy user needs beyond the activity (especially pre-concept generation stage) to
functional. This is highlighted by the vast choice of ensure the employment of user-centred designing
similar products available in the retail showrooms. The principles. Designers need to be directly involved in
customer/consumer is becoming more discerning. Man- the data collection processes, particularly when qualita-
ufacturers are keener than ever to distinguish their tive data are involved, thus feeding relevant information
products in the market place and are therefore exploring promptly into the designing process. Accordingly, the
new and innovative approaches to eliciting user data data retrieved from user studies should support the
relating to the symbolic dimensions of products. creative process of designers. The direct immersion into
the user data and the exposure to users’ perceptions
supports designers in exploring design problems, chan-
nels their efforts, and helps to reduce, or at best, avoid
design fixations (pre-conceived ideas and assumptions,
Material possessions
Self Others limiting the output of conceptual design (Jansson and
= symbols of identity
Smith, 1991)).
Emotional values may differ for different product
(a) types. For some product categories, they are more
Meanings of material possessions important than for others (for example comparing
jewellery with garden tools). The need to identify
‘customer delighters’ beyond functional values has been
Instrumental Symbolic
identified through research in the area of car design
Direct control over Expression of ‘who
environment, functional uses somebody is’
(Burns and Evans, 2000). The studies reported here have
concentrated on consumer products and playground
equipment, which are characterised by both functional
and soft-functional values. For this product area, a wide
consumer choice leads to fierce competition in the
Use related Self expressive Categorical
market and rapid changes in appearance and features of
Make possible an Symbolise personal Symbolise group
activity, symbolise qualities, values, membership,
products, but not necessarily satisfying the user.
an activity history, relationships social status This paper examines experiences of using visual
product evaluation techniques for eliciting user needs
(b) and aspirations beyond the basic utilitarian functional
Fig. 1. (a) Material possessions as symbols of identity (Dittmar, 1992), by discussing the employment of product personality
and (b) meanings of material possessions for identity (adapted from profiling, mood boards, and visual product evaluation.
Dittmar, 1992). All of these techniques have been used as activities
D. McDonagh et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 231–240 233
integrated within focus group sessions, and provided represent the profile of the wider population, the
additional stimuli for the group discussion. The authors mainstream user (Norman, 1990). Due to training,
outline the potential of the techniques by illustrating background, education, gender and age, it is unrealistic
how they have been introduced and developed, and how to expect (or accept) that designers are able to rely upon
they may be refined further. their own experience, knowledge and understanding
There are three distinct stages of product development alone, when designing for others.
that would benefit from employing these techniques. The concept of the empathic horizon (McDonagh–
They are at (i) the initial stage for capturing users’ Philp and Denton, 2000) has been developed, which
perceptions on existing products (pre-concept design); highlights the need for designers to immerse themselves
(ii) the requirements capture stage to elicit users’ ideas within the user experience to reduce (if not avoid) design
regarding their ideal products (early concept-design decision-making taking place which is based on unin-
stages); and (iii) the intermediate design stages to formed assumptions. The authors are not advocating
evaluate design concepts. that designers become market researchers but that they
integrate design research into their pre-designing pro-
cess(es).
2. Empathic design The conventional industrial/product designers’ toolkit
is evolving and expanding to incorporate (design)
In recent years, there has been a shift in conventional research methods and techniques. Design research skills
design training towards a more user-centred design are emerging as a key element in the training of
approach. This shift has been in direct response to the designers. This does not detract or devalue the work
increased awareness and recognition of the users of of market researchers (e.g. professional focus group
products as a potentially rich design resource to support moderators, market research surveys and question-
product development. Bird (1999) forecasts that the naires). Involving designers in the data collection
ever-increasing consumer culture will require designers processes to elicit design-related information from the
to ‘‘get under the skin of social, lifestyle and user needs’’ raw data ensures that design opportunities are not
(p. 36). missed or overlooked.
Creative activities are, to a large extent, based on a
deep immersion into the designing problem (Baxter,
1995; Cross, 1994). Pereira (1999) suggests that ‘‘origin- 3. Product personality profiling
ality may reside in the way we find problems and not in
the way we generate solutions’’ (p. 228), and emphasises Product personality profiling (PPP) is a projective
that ‘‘The creative act must be an immersion into the technique that has been adapted from market research.
situation of use, a truly felt empathy, not because we The use of projective techniques has a long-standing
voluntarily acknowledge the user but because we need tradition in psychology. Projective tests derive from the
that connection in order to create.’’ (p. 227) Incorporat- psychoanalytical approach to assessing personality
ing user research into designing activities has the characteristics. Projective tests are used by psycho-
potential of substantially enhancing designers’ creativity analysts who favour the richness of the information they
as well as facilitating effective ergonomic design. offer. Proponents of these techniques believe that the
Creativity has been defined as shared imagination qualitative data generated can offer valuable insights
(Dewulf and Baillie, 1999). Accepting that designers do into clients’ personalities.
not have a monopoly on creativity, it becomes increas- Variations of the product personality profiling tech-
ingly important to provide the opportunities and nique are currently employed by manufacturers (e.g.
environments that encourage users to express themselves Kenwood and Morphy Richards) to identify users’
in order to uncover, reveal and trigger effective problem perceptions of typical purchasers of products, but these
solving solutions. It would be na.ıve and inappropriate to are less formalised, and data capture is not as structured
assume (or expect) that users will provide a design/ as that presented within this paper. The technique
product solution. However, through creative and provides an insight into who the user perceives to be the
supportive contact and research methods such as those target consumer. Participants are asked to imagine a
mentioned within this discussion, design research can product as a person with a particular personality, and
begin to bridge the understanding of the designer with provide information regarding its character and lifestyle
the real life experiences, needs and aspirations of users (e.g. gender, age and occupation). The technique helps
(Sanders and William, 2002). to reveal social value systems and emotional responses
In Britain, design training tends to be conducted to products.
through undergraduate and postgraduate university The technique has been employed by asking partici-
design degree programmes. Therefore, the profile of pants to fill in questionnaires during a focus group
the average design graduate does not necessarily session. Participants are required to carry out the task in
234 D. McDonagh et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 231–240
a short space of time (2–3 min/product), to provide imagination of their ideal product—by asking them to
immediate gut responses. Fig. 1 shows an example with describe it as a person who is going to live in their home.
user responses. It is useful to compare the responses The authors have employed two versions of a PPP
during a subsequent group discussion to further under- questionnaire. Initially, users were presented with a
stand the motivations behind people’s choices. Users sheet in a tabular format, where users were asked to
tend to appreciate the opportunity to discuss their provide responses in several columns, where each
responses within the group. Failure by the moderator to represented a particular product (identified by a
enable this shared experience may lead to the group picture), to a range of criteria shown in rows on the
feeling unsettled. By discussing their actual perceptions left (similar to Table 1). This had two drawbacks.
of each product with each other, previously unexpressed Firstly, instructions had to be re-emphasised to prevent
views and feelings may be revealed. This sort of activity the user filling in the form by row (and therefore not
may also be used to warm-up users for focus group focusing on each product personality sufficiently).
discussions. Secondly, some users suffered from lack of imagination
Table 1 illustrates feedback obtained from a user for suitable examples (e.g. car models), even though they
whilst visually evaluating two products (coffee makers) were able to project a type of person onto the product.
by employing the PPP technique. Alongside the users’ This led to the development of a new form, as shown
own profile (column A) the product profiles (columns in Fig. 2. It shows only one product per page and
B1 and B2) can be reviewed. In this case, it would be provides a range of examples. The examples deliberately
considered highly unlikely for the user to actually cover a wide range of aspects and were collected using
purchase product B1 based on their own personal users’ responses, thus reflecting the users’ terminology.
profile, they are more likely to purchase product B2. Participants found it much easier to fill in this form. The
The technique may be employed during most stages of drawback is that users may simply choose one of the
product development. The most apparent application is examples and not really consider the task. The form
the evaluation of concepts regarding their suitability for shown in Fig. 2 can be further improved by moving the
a particular target group. Moreover, the technique can response column to the middle, thus taking the focus of
be useful during the stage of researching user needs prior the examples provided. When choosing which form to
to concept design. Existing products can be evaluated to use it has to be considered whether general categories
understand product associations with social value are the primary target, or the terminology and power of
systems. Given that consumers make social inferences imagination of the users.
about products, techniques such as PPP can be used to Another important factor is the extent to which
tap into this important source of information and use perceptions vary between individuals. The interpretation
the results to inform the designing process. Designers of the responses is not an exact science as it relies upon
can draw on typical responses to particular products subjective data and interpretation of feedback—all of
after averaging the responses from a range of users. The which are qualitative and culturally based. For example,
technique may also be used to retrieve participants’ gaining awareness and understanding of how users
Table 1
Example of user profile alongside user perception of two product profiles
A B1 B2
Actual profile of participant Profile of product (target user) Profile of product (target user)
represent an emotional response to a design brief 4.2. The creation of mood boards by users
(Garner and McDonagh-Philp, 2001). This technique
enables designers to communicate and express them- Mood boards are a powerful tool to communicate
selves beyond linguistic restrictions. Designers may use users’ emotions, experiences, aspirations, and percep-
this tool to communicate intangible and abstract tions to designers. Sanders (2000) uses similar techni-
emotions such as happiness, sadness, and calm. Equally, ques (image collages) as part of a broad toolkit to
this tool has been employed to enable users to identify the aspirations of everyday people rather than
communicate their emotional responses to products, customers or consumers—long before concrete product
tasks, and their experiences through abstract images. ideas have been developed.
This can also be an internal process for designers to Suitable images can be found in magazines and on-
support them in clarifying and interpreting their own line sources. Pre-selecting a wide range of sample images
understanding of the design brief and the wider reduces the time needed for assemblage, and provides
implications of the design project. suitably abstract images. Because the range of images
There are no prescribed formulae for mood board provided pre-determines the selection to some extent
creation. Abstract images provoke more emotional through availability, it is vital that a broad range of
responses than literal images, as this may be too specific images is being provided. It is useful to involve all
and restrict the idea generation process of designers. members of the design and research team in the image
Fig. 3 illustrates an example of a mood board. It allocation and selection to cover a wide range of ideas. It
represents the effective use of mood boards as a is also beneficial to create test mood boards by the
technique, by drawing on abstract rather than literal design research team members, if possible, to pre-judge
images, to communicate an emotional response. the suitability of the images and gain initial insights into
Beyond the use by designers, mood boards can be the topic and the formulation of the task.
used effectively to support users in communicating a A recent study was conducted by the authors that
range of emotions and attitudes to designers. Images can focused on the essence of play with regard to the design
convey powerful meanings. Hence, they are an ideal of playground equipment. The user sample included
method to unlock feelings that users may otherwise find children between 7–9 years of age (n ¼ 5), and parents
difficult to express. The technique can be used within of 5–9 year-olds (n ¼ 11). During a 3-hour participative
focus group sessions. Users may either be asked to workshop with the children, mood boards were gener-
create their own mood boards from their own images, or ated. The technique is very well suited to working with
may choose from a set of pre-selected images. children, as they are particularly imaginative when
Benefits
* Designers can use the results directly to stimulate Capturing users’ immediate visual evaluation of
thoughts and emotions. products (existing or conceptual) enables the design
* When incorporated within a range of diverse team to gain further insight into values that are being
activities (e.g. focus groups), it can offer researchers assigned and attributes that are recognised as valuable.
a valuable tool to promote and stimulate user A technique being developed called Visual Product
interaction. Evaluation simulates mail order or Internet purchasing
scenarios by restricting the data available to the user.
Within a relatively short space of time (5 min per
Limitations
product), users are requested to evaluate a product
based solely on the appearance from a two-dimensional
* One of the main drawbacks of mood boards is that
image (e.g. slide projection, photograph or rendering).
they are often misunderstood and images used can be
In contrast to focus group discussion, the users are
too literal.
required to complete this visual evaluation in a self-
* It requires the preparation/availability of suitable
contained way (e.g. no conversing with other users).
images.
Once the visual evaluation has taken place, it may be
* It relies upon abstract forms being presented and it
appropriate to allow the users to handle the products to
requires designers to be skilled in identifying non-
simulate a retail showroom scenario (see Bruseberg and
verbal communication.
McDonagh-Philp, 2001 for further details regarding
* Users may resist the technique due to unfamiliarity.
related techniques).
* They rely upon subjective interpretation.
Data capture in a form as illustrated in Fig. 6
provides a mechanism for comparing a range of users’
responses (e.g. what do you think of its colour?), whilst
5. Visual product evaluation also capturing their views and opinions through the
more closed questions (would you buy this product?).
With the advent of Internet shopping, mail order Rating scales ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very
catalogues, and television shopping channels, one key good) were used to quantify the feedback (Likert, 1932).
element that contributes to a product’s success is its However, the most useful information stems from the
visual impact. Visual evaluation of products takes place combination of the ratings with the comments made
initially within an extremely short space of time, and it is regarding the reasons for the selection (Dumas, 1998). It
often based on limited product data. The data that are is valuable to ask users for a brief comment regarding
relied upon include the product’s shape, form, the use of their selections. Likewise, it is useful to retrieve
materials, colour, product semantics and semiotics, etc. information regarding any previous knowledge or
Customers often may make purchasing decisions based experience they may have of the product, and feedback
on whether a product looks durable and functional, concerning the likelihood of the user purchasing the
beyond the consideration of the aesthetic attributes. product.
This highlights the importance of visual data, from both Two types of visual evaluation forms have been
the users’ and the product developer’s perspective. developed. The first one (refer to Fig. 6) retrieves initial
Table 2
The selection of mood board images for ironing, ironing products and environments
D. McDonagh et al. / Applied Ergonomics 33 (2002) 231–240 239
health care products, vehicles and technology-led Cross, N., 1994. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product
products. Design, 2nd Edition. Wiley, Chichester.
The techniques are generally highly flexible and well Dewulf, S., Baillie, C., 1999. How to Foster Creativity. Department for
Education and Employment, London.
received by the users. They support the design team in Dittmar, H., 1992. The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To
providing user data (evidence) on which to base design Have Is To Be. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead. ISBN 0-
decision-making during product development. They are 7450-0956-5
all particularly useful in the pre-concept and concept Dumas, J., 1998. Usability testing methods: subjective measures;
generation stages of the designing process. They are Part II—measuring attitudes and opinions. Common ground
(Newsletter of the Usability Professionals’ Association),
expanding the design teams’ understanding and em- October 1998, Vol. 8(4), http://www.upassoc.org/html/usabil-
pathy with the user need, desires, and aspirations. ity testing methods.html.
They are only tools and may not be appropriate for Garner, S., McDonagh-Philp, D., 2001. Problem interpretation and
each and every project. However, they will contribute to resolution via visual stimuli: the use of ‘mood boards’ in design
education. J. Art Des. Educ. 20 (1), 57–64.
the expanding toolkit of designers to support user-
Jansson, D.G., Smith, S.M., 1991. Design fixation. Des. Stud. 12 (1),
centred design research. It makes sound economic sense 3–11.
to invest in user research prior to concept generation, as Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitude. Arch.
any change to the product after this point based on Psychol. 140, 1–55.
research findings and user feedback, will prove expen- McCracken, G.D., 1988. Culture and Consumption: New Approaches
sive to implement. to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
McDonagh-Philp, D., 1999. User evaluation techniques applied to
small domestic appliances: a pilot study. In: Lindemann, U., et al.
Acknowledgements (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of Engineering
Design, Munich, August 1999, Technische Universitat Munchen,
The authors would like to thank the EPSRC, Nuffield Garching, Germany, pp. 1525–1546.
McDonagh-Philp, D., Lebbon, C., 2000. The emotional domain in
Foundation and the AHRB for funding the projects that product design. Des. J. 3(1), 31–43. ISSN-1460-6925.
have made this research possible. Norman, D.A., 1990. The Design of Everyday Things. MIT Press,
London.
Pereira, L.Q., 1999. Divergent thinking and the design process.
References IDATER Conference (International Conference of Design and
Technology Educational Curriculum Development), Loughbor-
ough, Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough
Baxter, M., 1995. Product Design: a Practical Guide to Systematic
University, pp. 224–229.
Methods of New Product Development. Chapman & Hall, Sanders, E.B.-N., 2000. Generative tools for co-designing. In:
London. Scrivener S.A.R., Ball, L.J., Woodcock, A. (Eds.), Collaborative
Bird, E., 1999. Brave new world—meeting the needs of society in the Design; Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000, UK, 11–13 September,
twenty first century, the role of design and design education.
Springer, London, pp. 3–12. ISBN 1-85233-341-3.
IDATER conference (International Conference of Design and Sanders, E.B.-N., William, C.T., 2002. Harnessing users’ creativity:
Technology Educational Curriculum Development), Loughbor- ideation and expression through visual communication. In:
ough, Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough Langford, J., McDonagh-Philp, D. (Eds.), Focus Groups: Sup-
University, pp. 35–38.
porting Effective Product Development. Taylor and Francis,
Bruseberg, A., McDonagh-Philp, D., 2001. New product development London, forthcoming.
by eliciting user experience and aspirations. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Solomon, M.R., 1983. The role of products as social stimuli: a
Stud., 55(4): 435–452. ISSN 1071–5819.
symbolic interactionism perspective. J. Consumer Res. 10 (3), 319–
Burns, A.D., Evans, S., 2000. Insights into customer delight. In: 329.
Scrivener, S.A.R., et al. (Eds.), Collaborative Design; Proceedings
of CoDesigning 2000, UK, 11–13 September, Springer, London,
pp. 195–203. ISBN 1-85233-341-3.