An online aordance evaluation model for product design

Shih-Wen Hsiao, Chiao-Fei Hsu and Yin-Ting Lee, Department of Industrial Design, National Cheng Kung University, No.1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan This paper aims to establish an online aordance evaluation model for measuring aordance degree to evaluate the usability of a product. By using this model, designers could easily identify the appearance features of a product necessary to be revised and optimized. In addition, an online survey, which replaces the realized operational survey, is also recommended. This model includes three parts: rst, identifying the aordance properties and its correlative weights by using multidimensional scaling, K-means clustering and the Analytic Hierarchy Process; second, analyzing the users tasks and functional components of the product; third, constructing an evaluation model which provides the aordance degree. Finally, a case study with the steam iron GC2510 is performed to verify the eect of this model. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: product design, aordance, online evaluation model, user interface design, humanecomputer interaction

ith the progress of science and technology, newly-developed products with multiple powerful functions have come into existence. However, multiple functions are often accompanied by complex and dicult operations, which often cause unpleasant use experiences and mental frustrations to consumers (Moggridge, 2007). In the The Theory of Affordances, James Gibson (1977) presented an eective method to connect users and products. When a user perceives the aordance clues from the appearance features of a product, the user can correctly and intuitively operate the product to complete the operating tasks without any explanation or specication Gibson (1977, 1979/1986).

Corresponding author: Shih-Wen Hsiao swhsiao@mail.ncku. edu.tw

The theory of aordance was coined to explore the co-dependent relationship between environment and animal. Gibsons (1979) description of aordance is The aordances of the environment are what it oers the animal, what it provides or furnishes. For example, if an object which has a rigid, level, at and extended surface and it is about knee-high to human, then it aords sitting-on. If a human can detect visual information of the ve properties, the object can oer the aordance of sit-ability to the human. After that, aordance was
www.elsevier.com/locate/destud 0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 33 (2012) 126e159 doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.003 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

126

introduced and applied to the design eld by Norman, 1988. In Normans view, aordance is the properties of the thing that directs the user how the thing is to be used if it is perceived. Simply put, the user knows what to do just by looking (Norman, 1988). Norman also mentioned how aordance was used in computer systems, and then this concept was extended to the HCI (HumaneComputer Interaction) design by Gaver (1991). In product design, the concept of aordance provides a simplied and externalized framework to explain how the appearance features of a product can direct a specic users action; and it also helps designers to shift their focus from the users mind to their action, which suggests new possibilities for product design (You & Chen, 2007). Recently, the number of products claiming to be aordance-based has been growing considerably, and many designers have unanimously incorporated the aordance concept into their development processes (Stone, Wood, & Crawford, 2000). However, the concept of aordance is ambiguous and not easy to express in precise analytical terms. The wellintentioned aordance has become supercial, and whats worse, has been reduced to a design gimmick (McGrenere & Ho, 2000; Norman, 1999). Galvao and Sato (2005) proposed that while a product can be described by its function and its features, aordances can help users to accomplish their goals and familiarize themselves with appropriate manipulations. They try to establish a quantitative evaluating method (Function-Task Design Matrix) for evaluation of the aordance index of a product. This matrix constructs the relationship between technical functions and user tasks. These functions are important for product operation and can be the source of indirect aordances to complete the users tasks. By identifying the relationships between functions and tasks, an individual aordance index for each task of a product and a total aordance index for a product can be obtained. An eective evaluation method of aordance helps designers identify earlier the appearance features of a product necessary to be optimized, which also assists users to operate the product easily even when using a complex product for the rst time. Besides, with the advent of the Web, the Internet has evolved into a user participation medium capable of high speed, on demand information delivery (Lee & Chang, 2010). That being the case, much design information, such as marketing research, and consumers preferences and needs, has been surveyed with questionnaires via the Internet. Considering the traditional operational survey, we see that subjects must operate the realized product model and answer the questions pertaining to feeling or experience of operation and/or the shortcoming of the product. Compared to the online survey, the process of the traditional operational survey not only wastes labor and resources, but also limits the number of subjects. This paper is based on the aordance concept and Galvao and Satos research to propose an online aordance evaluation model for product design. With the

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

127

evaluation result, designers can easily identify earlier the appearance features of a product necessary to be optimized, and then the revised product can be evaluated again until the aordances are proven ideal; that is, the user knows what to do just by looking (Norman, 1988). This model also proposes an online evaluation model to replace the realized operational survey for usability of product, which can eectively save labor and time in the product developing processes. This study consists of three parts: rst, identifying the aordance properties and its correlative weights by using multidimensional scaling (MDS) (Kruskal, 1964; Schiman, Reynolds, & Young, 1981; Green, Carmone, & Smith, 1989), K-means clustering and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980; Hsiao, 2002); second, analyzing the product to obtain the users tasks and its functional components for aordance evaluation; third, constructing an online product aordance evaluation model which can specically quantify the level of aordance. The evaluation results of this model include the overall and individual aordance score for each property, each operational step, and each component. By analyzing the evaluation results, it can explicitly indicate how the unsatisfactory components should be improved. Furthermore, specic reference data are provided for the designer so that he/she may redesign and reevaluate the product. Finally, a practical case study is performed on Company Ps steam iron, the GC2510, in order to compare the aordance evaluation results before modication with those after modication. Also, a veried experiment for correlation of the evaluation result between online and realized evaluation mode was performed. The experimental results proved that this cost-ecient online aordance evaluation model is reliable enough to replace realized operational experiments.

1 Dening aordance 1.1 Gibsons aordance

The theory of aordance is meant to explore the co-dependent relationship between environment and animal. In the past, no specic term was used to describe this relationship until Gibson coined aordance by adding the noun sufx -ance to the verb aord. Gibsons (1979) rst description of aordance is deceptively simple: The aordances of the environment are what it oers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. What they aord the observer, after all, depends on their properties. This seems to imply that aordance is a resource that the environment oers the animal (observer) which has capabilities to perceive and use it. In other words, the environment of a given animal aords behaviors for that animal. If a gap in a wall has a certain size relative to the size of a person, the gap aords passage; if a surface is rigid relative to the weight of an animal, it aords stance and perhaps traversal. In Gibsons book (1979/1986), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Gibson further dened .the aordance of anything is a specic combination of the properties of its substance and its surfaces taken with reference to an

128

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

animal. For example, if an object has a rigid, level, at and extended surface and it is about knee-high to a human, then it aords sitting on. These ve properties, rigidity, levelness, atness, extendedness, and knee-height, are combined to yield for the human. If a human detects visual information of the ve properties, the aordance of sit-ability oered by object can be perceived (You & Chen, 2007); but the object may not provide support or perceived sit-ability for another human, perhaps because of a dierential in weight or size (McGrenere & Ho, 2000). According to his view, an aordance has three features (Galvao & Sato, 2005; McGrenere & Ho, 2000): 1. Aordance is the mutual relationship between environment and animal. This relationship only exists relative to a particular animal which can perceive it and use it. 2. Aordance is independent of the animals ability to perceive it, even without the animals interpretation or experience. 3. Aordance is a constant which does not change as the animals needs and goals do.

1.2

Further renement of aordance

Some literatures extended Gibsons aordance concept furthering the renement and formalization of aordance. Warren (1984) conducted an experiment on stair climbing, and formalized the concept of aordance by using ratios between the properties of environment and the properties of humans. He dened p numbers to represent the aordance of stair climb-ability between the height of stair (R) and the climbers leg length (L); (p R/L). He said, This approach seeks a lawful explanation for the successful visual control of action. In Warrens view, visual messages play an important role in determining animal behavior. Humans can intuitively perceive the property of an environment (stair-riser height), compare the perceived property with the intrinsic property (leg length), and then establish the judgment of climbable and unclimbable stairways. Consequently, dierent observers may have dierent perceptions of the same environment. Turvey (1992) dened aordances as being animal-relative properties of the environment that had signicance for the animals action. He also developed a formal denition of aordance: Let Wpq (e.g., a person-climbing-stairs system) j (Xp, Zq) be composed of dierent thing X (e.g., stairs) and Z (e.g., person). Let p be a property of X, and q be a property of Z. Then p is said to be an aordance of X, and q is the persons ability of Z. Turvey believed that aordances are dispositional properties of the environment and they must be complemented by properties of animals. For example, nothing is soluble if there are no solvents; an object can be edible only if there are animals that can eat and digest it. When properties of an animal couple with the right properties of the environment, dispositions are guaranteed to become manifest. The soluble solid sugar always dissolves in water. In addition, Turvey maintained that aordance is a capability which cannot be selected by or imposed on an animal. By contrast, Chemero (2001, 2003)

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

129

argued that aordance is the property of an environment, but it is the features of an environmental object. He also argued that aordance relates to the property of an animal in both Turveys and Warrens researches, but it is related to the ability of the animal. Assume there is an optimal ratio of height for stair climbing, and all the information determines the tallest step an individual could climb. For less exible older adults, the steps are dicult to climb; for exible older adults, they have better stair-climbing abilities, so from them, the stairs are easy to climb. Therefore, the ratio, which is the aspect of the environment perceived in determining climb-ability, is perceived in terms of ability.

1.3

Aordance and design

Norman (1988) introduced aordance concepts and applied them to the design eld through his book The Psychology of Everyday Things. He investigated the aordances of everyday things, such as doors, telephones, and doors, and indicated that the embodiment of these things provides strong clues as to how to operate. According to Norman, the term aordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used. The denition of aordance for Norman simply says that aordance is the properties of the thing, which directs the user how the thing to be used if it is perceived. A new viewpoint, perceived aordances, is recommended. Perceived aordances means the properties of the object are perceived and interpreted as information by the users mind which is based on his previous knowledge and experience. Compared with Gibsons aordances (real aordance in denition of Norman) and Normans aordance (perceived aordance), real aordance is the action possibility of objects with reference to physical characteristics of the object that allow its operation; that is, perceived aordance is the perceived information with reference to the mental and perceptual capabilities of the user. For instance, the computer system with its keyboard, display screen, pointing device and selection buttons (e.g., mouse buttons) aords touching, looking, pointing and clicking actions. Therefore, the computer system already has real aordance. The graphs in screen-based interfaces can provide only perceived affordance. While the user perceives that clicking on a graph (or object) is a meaningful, useful action with a known outcome, perceived aordance can exist in the graph/object and it is real used (Norman, 1999). Gaver (1991) was the rst pioneer to publish writings about applying aordance concepts to the HCI (HumaneComputer Interaction) process. He proposed, when aordances are perceptible, they oer a direct link between perception and action, and aordances per se are independent of perception. The relation between aordances and perceptual information was drawn in Figure 1. He explained that Separating aordances from the information available about them allows the distinction among correct rejections and perceived, hidden and false aordances.

130

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

Figure 1 Separating aordances from the that perceptual species

information aordances

Successful aordances are perceptible aordances, in which there is perceptual information available for an existing aordance. If there is no information for an existing aordance, the aordance is hidden and must be inferred from other clues. If information suggests a nonexistent aordance, a false aordance exists and may cause people may mistakenly try to act. Finally, correct rejection means that people do no action when there is no aordance or information. He also addresses two additional concepts about aordances. One is that the physical attributes of the thing to be acted upon are compatible with those of the actor. In other words, an object has the physical attributes, which conveys information to a compatible actor as to how to use it. For example, thin vertical door handles aord pulling, and at horizontal plates aord pushing. Another is that Complex actions can be understood in terms of groups of affordances that are sequential in time or nested in space. The actor can proceed through a series of actions naturally and continuously by perceiving sequential aordances; for example, the door handle shown in Figure 2. The rst aordance leads the actor to grasp the door handle and the second aordance indicates that it is to be turned.

Figure 2 Separating aordances

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

131

Galvao and Sato (2005) provided a quantitative evaluation method, FunctionTask Design Matrix (FTIM), to evaluate the degree of aordance for a given product. They believed that While a product can be described by its function and its features, and aordances could provide additional understanding of the relationships that take place between the product and the user during product use. Also, the applications of aordance conrmed that desirable product attributes, such as shape, color and material, can help users to accomplish their goals and familiarize users with appropriate manipulations. In the matrix (see Figure 3), the squares represent physical contact interactions and the circles represent cognitive interactions that utilize the output of technical functions (e.g. noise or heat) as a cue for interaction. The overall sum presents the relationships, as an aordance index, between the task and the function. For example, on the third column of FTIM, there are three interactions between Task 3 and Technical Functions b, c, and d, which describe the interdependence between each element. Function b oers one interaction to Task 3 based on the perceived signal from the energy or material ow. So, the aordance index for Task 3 is 4. Extending Gavers concepts of separating aordances from perceptual information, McGrenere & Ho (2000) further proposed an evaluation method for the degree of aordances, which can contribute a lot to the design of a graphical user interface (GUI). They suggested a two-dimensional space where one dimension describes the degree of aordance easily undertaken and the second dimension describes the degree of clear perceptual information. These two dimensions have a positive linear correlation. The goal of design is

Figure 3 An example of an FTIM

132

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

improvements in design that maximize both dimensions. For example, novices and experts have dierent necessary aordances. To respectively use a single button to toolbar and an alias to command-line (e.g. turning lpr-Pmyprinter into lmp) replaces the simultaneous pressing of multiple keys for a frequently used command, which makes an aordance easier to undertake for novices and experts. With an increasable degree of perceptual information, novices prefer visual information and mouse access, but the experts prefer using the commandline interfaces because visual information is clutter and the mouse access is a slow-down. You and Chen (2007) regarded aordance was one of the semantic dimensions describing operational meanings of objects. They modied Gavers theory and added the symbol concept derived from product semantics. The aordance, perceptual information, and symbol are used to construct a three-dimensional space that is applied to the design of product interfaces. In You and Chens view, symbol makes users note the aordances signicant to product functions and the overall purpose of the product. For example, a at surface of button leads users to push it, and the standardized symbol < above the button signies to users the play function. In recent years, utilizing the theory of aordances, the Japanese designer Naoto Fukasawa has elaborated his design philosophy named without thought (Naoto, Takeshi, & Masato, 2004). This phrase means returning to Gibsons original concepts of ecology and seeking design inspirations from human intuitive interactions with the environment in daily life.

Outline of the constructed model

This research includes the following steps: 1. Collecting and arranging the aordance properties to be evaluated. 2. Conducting similarity experiments on the aordance properties. Based on the experimental results, the typical properties of aordance are identied with the help of multidimensional scaling (MDS) and K-means clustering analysis. 3. Conducting the online questionnaire survey to determine the weights of the aordance properties. The results are analyzed through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to discover the correlative weights of these properties. 4. Establishing the aordance evaluation model. 5. Designing and implementing the interface of the online aordance evaluation model. 6. Applying the quantitative online aordance evaluation model to Company Ps steam iron, the GC2510. 7. Redesigning part of the steam iron GC2510 in accordance with the evaluation results. The evaluation scores before modication are compared with those after modication to verify the validity of this model. 8. Comparing the evaluation results of the online evaluation with those of the realized evaluation performed on the steam iron GC2510.

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

133

3 Implementation methods and procedures 3.1 Collecting and arranging the properties of aordance
to be evaluated
As the concept of aordance is ambiguous and not an easy to express, we try to identify the typical properties of aordance based on previous important research by collecting and synthesizing the description of aordance. First, we collected the important articles description of aordance and ltered out the inuential keywords as shown in Appendix A. Then these keywords are synthesized and digested into ten aordance properties for evaluation (see Appendix B). These include: hint, clear information, perceptibility, symbol, appearance features, easy operation, responsiveness, intuitiveness, proper action, and without thought. Also, the denition and example for each aordance property are presented in Appendix C.

3.2

Indentifying the typical aordance properties

The goal of this section is to sort out the typical aordance properties for evaluation purposes from the ten aordance properties mentioned in the preceding paragraph. A similarity experiment was conducted, and then the experimental results were analyzed with multidimensional scaling (MDS) and K-means clustering to identify the typical aordance properties displaying the essence of aordances.

3.2.1 Samples of aordance properties in the similarity experiment

Each of the ten aordance properties was separately put on a square card, its edge being 8 cm long, as is shown in Figure 4. Presented on each card was the denition of the aordance property and a practical example. In this way, when asked to judge the similarity between two aordance properties, the subjects were enabled to grasp the characteristics of each property. Appendix C shows the denitions of all aordance properties and their practical examples.

3.2.2

Similarity experiment on aordance properties

A total of 30 subjects (14 males and 16 females) with design backgrounds, who were between 21 and 27 years of age, participated in the similarity experiment on the ten aordance properties. Two cards were grouped into a pair and the similarity between the two properties was studied. The results of the

Figure 4 Two samples of aordance properties, hint

and clear information, in the similarity experiment

134

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

comparison were arranged in the following order: extreme dissimilarity, dissimilarity, medium, similarity, and extreme similarity. Then each of the ve ranks was given a score in sequence, with extreme dissimilarity getting the lowest score (1 point) and extreme similarity the highest score (5 points).

3.2.3

Sorting out typical aordance properties

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a non-attribute-based method that can convert the subjects judgments of similarity and preference into distances between points in multidimensional space, or the perceptual map (Kruskal, 1964; Schiman et al., 1981; Green et al., 1989; Hsiao & Chen, 1997). Through MDS, the data are transferred into coordinate points in multidimension space, and then these points are clustered into several groups by the K-means clustering method based on their distribution characteristics. After the clustering operation, the elements in the same group will have high homogeneity and the elements in the dierent group will have low homogeneity. This paper employs MDS to analyze the distributional relationship in multidimensional space between the ten aordance properties, and then K-means clustering is used to determine the cluster relationship between those properties. Afterwards, the aordance property that has the shortest Euclidean distance to the center of the cluster is chosen as the representative of the cluster, namely, the typical property. The procedure for determining the typical aordance property is as follows: rst, based on the experimental results of each of the 30 subjects, the similarity matrix of the aordance properties with 10 10 elements was constructed. Next, the geometric mean method was used to derive the mean similarity matrix. Since MDS takes the dissimilarity matrix as the entry, it is necessary to convert the score of similarity into that of dissimilarity. That is to say, if an aordance property scores 3.5 points in the similarity experiment, then its dissimilarity score is 1.5 points, which is obtained by subtracting the similarity score (3.5) from the maximum scale score (5). In this way, we transformed the similarity matrix into the dissimilarity matrix, and then SPSS statistical software was used to perform MDS analysis. To make a judgment of MDS operational eectiveness, the stress coecient is calculated in the iterative process of MDS. If the Kruskal stress coecient is less than 0.05 (good, with 0.025e0.05 being excellent), the data distribution in the n-dimensional perceptual space has a desirable judgmental value (Kruskal, 1964; Hsiao & Chen, 1997). With this method, we computed the stress coecients of dierent dimensions, as is shown in Table 1. The stress coecient in the fourth dimension, 0.03832, was the lowest. After MDS analysis was nished, the data about the ten aordance properties which had been changed into the coordinate points in the four-dimensional space were worked out. At the same time, SPSS software was employed to perform K-means cluster analysis. The ten aordance properties were divided

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

135

Table 1 The relationship between n-dimensional spaces and stress coecients

Dimensional Stress coecient

2 0.11052

3 0.04417

4 0.03832

into three clusters and then analyzed their clustering results are shown in q Table 2. Also, the Euclidean Distanced d Xi X2 Yi Y2 was used to gure out the distance between each property and the cluster center. The aordance property nearest to the cluster center was chosen as the typical sample of the cluster. In accordance with the analysis results in Table 2, the three typical aordance properties were appearance features (AA), responsiveness (AR) and clear information (AC); in consequence, a set of typical aordance properties to be evaluated was expressed by formula (1). AE fAA; AR; ACg 1

3.3

Correlative weights of aordance properties

To determine how much weight would be exerted by three aordance properties, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980; Hsiao, 2002) was employed to discover their correlative weights, with the results obtained below: WAA 0:27; WAR 0:36 and WAC 0:37 The consistency ratio (CR) was 0.0007, satisfying the requirement that CR should be less than 0.1; afterwards, the correlative weight set of the three properties was dened as formula (2) below: WAE fWAA ; WAR ; WAC g f0:27; 0:36; 0:37g 2 where WAA ; WAR and WAC represent the correlative weight of the aordance evaluation parameters, i.e., AA, AR, and AC, respectively.

Framework of aordance evaluation model

Based on the concept of aordance and the evaluation method of Galvao & Sato (2005), the functional components for each operational task are analyzed,
Table 2 The analysis results of the ten affordance properties through K-means clustering

Aordance property No. 1 3 5 9 2 4 8 10 6 7

Aordance property Hint Perceptibility Appearance features Proper action Clear information Symbol Intuitiveness Without thought Easy operation Responsiveness

Cluster 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2

The distance to the cluster center 0.753 1.204 0.507 1.224 1.255 2.127 1.316 1.459 1.061 1.016

136

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

and then the appearance feathers of each component are presented to a user for evaluation the aordance degree, which means the usability of a product. As is shown in Figure 5, the complete implementation process ow of the aordance evaluation model has been established so that any category of product may be evaluated through the model presented by this research. When a product to be evaluated is selected, an aordance evaluation model including ve steps can be constructed. The ve steps are presented below: Step 1: The functional components and operational tasks of the product are obtained by operational researching. Step 2: if there is only one component in one users task, this components correlative weights is 1. If there are more than two components in anyone users task, these components should be given individual correlative weights using the AHP method. Step 3: based on the denition of three typical properties of aordance (appearance features (AA), responsiveness (AR) and clear information (AC), their denition are presented in Appendix C), the evaluation questions for each functional component are designed by designers. Step 4: with steps 1w3 above and the correlative weights of three aordance properties (see Eq. (2)), the equations of aordance are established for calculating the aordance degree of the product. Step 5: by using the evaluation equations of aordance and the web design software, an online aordance evaluation model and its interface can be successfully established. Next, this model is applied by subjects in an online survey for the product. Then, the evaluation equations of aordances are utilized to obtain four kinds of evaluation results: the total aordance score (Vt ), the individual score of each aordance property (VAA ; VAR and VAC ), the individual aordance score of each functional component (Vf ), and the individual aordance score of each operational step (Vxi ). If the aordance values of a product are higher, it

Figure 5 The process ow of aordance evaluation model

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

137

represents the product has good usability. If the aordance values of the product are lower, these data will serve as the references for modications of a particular component for improving the usability of product.

Implementation process ow of aordance evaluation model

4.1

4.1.1

Operational research of the product

First, the product undergoing aordance evaluation is selected. If the product is decomposed into n operational steps and m functional components, then the i-th step involving the j-th component could be represented by xij. Now that all the operational steps and functional components are combined, their relationships can be expressed as a matrix, as is shown in formula (3) below: 2 3 2 3 x1 x11 x12 / x1m 6 x2 7 6 x21 x22 / x2m 7 6 7 6 7 X 6 x3 7 6 x31 x32 / x3m 7 3 6 7 6 7 4 5 4 5 xn xn1 xn2 / xnm

4.1.2 Analyzing components

correlative

weights

of

functional

In each of the operational steps, each of the functional components presents a dierent degree of importance to the user. Therefore, the AHP is used to determine the correlative weights of the functional components. If wxij represents the correlative weight of the functional component xij , then the correlative weights of all the operational steps and the functional components can be expressed as a matrix, as is shown in formula (4a) below: 2 3 2 3 wx11 wx12 / wx1j wx1 6 wx2 7 6 wx21 wx22 / wx2j 7 6 7 6 7 Wx 6 wx3 7 6 wx31 wx32 / wx3j 7 4a 6 7 6 7 4 5 4 5 wxi1 wxi2 / wxij wxi where m X wxij 1; i 1; 2; .n; j 1; 2; .m:
j1

4b

4.1.3 Designing the evaluation questions of aordance properties for each functional component
To avoid errors in the questionnaire results caused by the abstract aordance properties, each of the properties based on its denition is converted into a concrete operational instruction and operational question/answer choice, as is shown in Table 3. For each of the functional components, the operational questions about three typical aordance properties have to be answered. Then, the accuracy score of the operational question about each aordance property is calculated separately.

138

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

In Table 3, the operational instruction of the aordance property AA is to select the operational step of the functional component. With the handle of the steam iron GC2510 taken as an example, the subject faces the following question: what is the correct operational step of the handle? And there are ve possible answers to choose from: pushing, pulling, turning, pressing, and holding. As for the aordance property AR, its operational instruction is to match the operational step with the functional component. The subject is given the following prompt: indicate a designated functional component in the product; meanwhile, the choice of answers is to indicate the functional component in the product. Regarding the aordance property AC, it contains two operational instructions. When a single message symbol appears, either of the instructions can be chosen and responded to.

4.1.4

Calculating the results of aordance evaluation

To obtain the quantitative values of the aordance evaluation, a correct operation score is used in this study. If the total number of the subjects tested is Np, then the mean correct operation score for the i-th operational step involving the j-th component (xij) can be represented by eij , as is expressed in formulas (5a) and (5b) below: n X  exij 5a 100 rxij Np
Np1

& rxij 2:5t2 2:5t 5

t t; for t 6 t 6; for t > 6

5b

Table 3 Converting abstract affordance properties into concrete questions

Aordance property Appearance features of the object (AA)

Denition of aordance property Knowing the operational step simply by looking at the object

Operational instruction

Operational question/Answer choice

Choosing the operational Q: Can you choose the correct step of the functional operational step of the designated component functional component? A: The multiple operational choices of the functional component. Responsiveness (AR) Users response Matching the operational Q: Where is the designated to the object step with the functional functional component? component A: Indicate the functional component in the product. Clear information (AC) Providing suitable Indicating the message Q1: Where is the designated message information about symbol symbol? the operational step A1: Indicate the message symbol in the product. Q2: What is the correct meaning Choosing the meaning of the message symbol? represented by the A2: The multiple meaning choices message symbol of the message symbol.

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

139

where rxij means the erroneous operation rate of the functional component xij. rxij is the quadratic regression value, as is dened in formula (5b), obtained after the evaluation experiment. In the above formula, t is the number of operations performed to operate correctly. For instance, if the subject correctly operates the functional component after three attempts, then t is equal to 3. Therefore, after the subject nishes answering the operational questions about all the functional components (X) connected with the three typical aordance properties, namely, AA, AR, and AC, then three matrixes for the correct operation rates EAA ; EAR and EAC can be established, as is expressed in formulas x x x (6a), (6b), and (6c) respectively. 2 AA 3 2 AA 3 ex 1 ex11 eAA / eAA x12 x1m AA AA AA AA h i 6 ex2 7 6 ex21 ex22 / ex2m 7 6 7 6 7 6a EAA eAA 6 eAA 7 6 eAA AA eAA 7 xij x 6 x3 7 6 x31 e x3m 7 x32 / 4 5 4 5 eAA eAA / eAA eAA xn1 xn2 xnm xn 3 2 AR eAR ex11 eAR / eAR x12 x1m x1 AR 7 AR AR AR h i 6 ex2 7 6 ex21 ex22 / ex2m 6 6 AR AR AR 7 6 AR Ex exij 6 ex 7 6 ex eAR AR 6 3 x3m 4 5 4 31 ex32 / eAR eAR / eAR eAR xn1 xn2 xnm xn 3 2 AC ex11 eAC x1 AC AC h i 6 ex2 7 6 ex21 6 7 6 AC AC 6 eAC 7 6 eAC Ex exij 6 x 7 6 x 4 3 5 4 31 eAC eAC xn1 xn 2 eAC / eAC x12 x1m eAC / eAC x22 x2m eAC eAC / x3m x32 eAC / eAC xn2 xnm 2 3 7 7 7 7 5 3 7 7 7 7 5 6c 6b

This aordance evaluation model is capable of performing four types of evaluation: the individual score of each aordance property, the individual aordance score of each functional component, the individual aordance score of each operational step, and the total score of the aordance properties. The calculating equations as well as the variables used are shown in Table 4. From the individual score of each aordance property, we can know the average performance of the whole product in relation to properties AA, AR, and AC; in addition, the score points to the direction of modication. The individual aordance score of each functional component forms a matrix Vf with n m elements, describing its average correct operation rate. Likewise, the individual aordance score of each operational step forms a matrix Vxi with n 1 elements, describing its average score. Moreover, matrixes Vf and Vxi can help to locate the functional components and the operational steps that the subjects consider dicult, and then provide reference data about redesign. As for the total aordance score, it takes into consideration both the correlative weights of the functional components and the aordance properties,

140

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

An online aordance evaluation model for product design 141

Table 4 The calculating equations of the affordance evaluation

Type of Aordance Evaluation 1. Individual score of each aordance property AA VAA Pn Pm

i1

Abbreviation and Calculating formula

AA j1 exij wxij =Ns

Nomenclature eAA ; eAR ; eAC mean xij xij xij the average correct operation score of the functional component X in relation to the aordance properties AA, AR and, AC wxij means the correlative weight matrix of the functional component xij . Ns means the number of the operational steps involving the product.

AR VAR AC VAC

Pn Pm
i1

AR j1 exij wxij =Ns

Pn Pm
i1

AC j1 exij wxij =Ns

2. Individual aordance score of each functional component 3. Individual aordance score of each operational step 4. Total aordance score

Vf eAA eAR eAC =3 xij xij xij P  P  P 0 m m m AA exij wxij eAR wxij eAC wxij Vxi 3 j1 j1 xij j1 xij Pn Pm Vt
i1 AA j1 exij wxij

! $WAA

Pn Pm
i1

AR j1 exij wxij

! $WAR

Pn Pm
i1

AC j1 exij wxij

! $WAC

or Vt VAA $WAA VAR $WAR VAC $WAC

describing the overall performance of the product based on a maximum score of 100.

4.1.5 Designing the aordance evaluation interface and conducting the survey
In the product development stage, the online evaluation model enables the designer to immediately grasp the cognitive level of the user concerning the functionality of the product. It will eliminate the defects found in the realized operational survey, which are time-consuming and wasteful. Furthermore, by the mean of the online model, a large number of comments are oered by the web-subjects; as a result, the product is analyzed more objectively as far as the aordance properties are concerned. In this way, not only are resources conserved but the functionality of the product is enhanced. The evaluation model in question mainly consists of designing the evaluation interface and conducting surveys. The designer is expected to put data about the product under evaluation into the system, nish creating a webpage involving the evaluation system, and then publish the data on the Internet so that the subjects may participate in the aordance evaluation. The system receives the respondents answers as the input and generates the four types of evaluation results as the output. The interface of the evaluation model is divided into six sections, as is shown in Figure 6. The rst to sixth section therein represent one of the following categories respectively: the name of the product, the operational steps, product picture identication, operational questions, multiple answers, and the next question or the end of response. The operational procedure is illustrated as follows: (1) Name and Model number of the Product under Evaluation The designer should rst select the product to be evaluated under the online model, enter its name and model number in section 1 of Figure 6, or the upper left corner, and mark it specically so that the subjects can understand it well. (2) Operational Steps After selecting the product to be evaluated, the designer analyzes its operational steps and enters all the steps successively in section 2 of Figure 6. As a certain step is evaluated by the subject, it will be displayed in red letters so that the subject can recognize the progress of evaluation. (3) The Display Mode of Product Picture and Zooming In/Out The product picture section, or section 3 of Figure 6, is divided into upper and lower areas. In the upper area, there are three types of thumbnail pictures available: the left-view picture, the front-view picture, and the right-view picture. When a certain angle of view is chosen by clicking on it, the full-view picture

142

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

Figure 6 The operational interface of the online evaluation system

will be displayed in the lower area. Additionally, in the lower right corner of the product picture are the symbols and , which can be clicked to zoom in and out of the picture so that the subject can clearly see each functional component in the picture, as is shown in Figure 7. Also, a close-up of a given functional component can be displayed, as is shown in Figure 8, so that the subject can clearly ascertain the correct answer to the question or instruction. (4) Working out Questions and Oering Answers In accordance with Table 3, which converts the aordance property into the operational question or answer choice, a relevant question is worked out

Figure 7 Clicking on the picture of the designated

component

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

143

Figure 8 Displaying the picture of the designated component

concerning each operational step involving functional component X. When questions appear one at a time in the operational question section, the subject has to answer them in sequence. For example, if the question is: what is the handle in the product? The subject has to click on the handle directly in the product picture section (section 3 of Figure 6); in this way, the question is successfully answered. For another example, if the question is: which is the correct operational step for the handle? The multiple answer section (section 5 of Figure 6) will present ve possible answers: pushing, pulling, turning, pressing, and holding. If the subject chooses holding, the question is successfully solved. When a question is correctly answered, the subject has to press the key indicating the next question or the end to go on answering or to conclude that part of evaluation.

After the subject has nished answering the questions, the system immediately starts to calculate the following four types of evaluation results and display them in the proper places: the total aordance score (Figure 9a), the individual score of each aordance property (Figure 9d), the individual score of each functional component (Figure 9c), and the individual score of each operational step (Figure 9b). Additionally, the single-person icon indicates the evaluation results of the current subject, while the three-person icon indicates the average evaluation results of all the accumulated subjects Np.

Practical case study

To verify the feasibility of the quantitative online aordance evaluation model proposed by this paper, we used Company Ps steam, iron GC2510, to illustrate the evaluation process in detail.

144

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

Figure 9 The displayed sample results of online aordance evaluation

5.1 Constructing an online aordance evaluation model for steam iron GC2510
Step 1: Operational Research of Steam Iron GC2510 The operational steps of the steam iron GC2510 can be divided into ve major operational steps: setting the steam control to switch it o, lling the water tank, setting the temperature, plugging in and waiting for the desired temperature, and doing the ironing. The relationship between the operational steps and the functional components can be expressed in formula (7) below, in which 0 means that such a function is unavailable. 2 3 setting the steam control to switch it off 6 7 filling the water tank 6 7 7 X6 setting the temperature 6 7 4 plugging in and waiting for the desired temperature 5 doing the ironing 2 3 7 steam control 0 0 6 water filling opening 7 0 0 6 7 6 7 6 temperature dial 0 0 7 4 temperature light 5 0 0 handle steam button spray button

Step 2: Correlative Weights of Functional Components The fth operational step mentioned above doing the ironing includes three functional components: the handle, the steam button, and the spray

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

145

button. Therefore, it is necessary for these components to be analyzed their correlative weight through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). After ten subjects were surveyed concerning the importance of the handle, the steam button, and the spray button, the survey results and the correlative weights of the functional components were determined and are shown in Table 5. Moreover, the geometric mean method was employed to obtain the correlative weights of the three components, with that of the handle being 0.43, that of the steam button being 0.29, and that of the spray button being 0.28. The consistency measurement discovered that the consistency ratio (CR) was 0.0006 (less than 0.1), verifying that the correlative weights were valid data. After the results obtained in the above paragraph were put into formula (4a), the correlative weights of the functional components in all ve steps could be expressed as formula (8) below: 3 2 wx1 1 6 wx2 7 6 1 6 7 6 Wx 6 wx3 7 6 1 6 7 6 4 wx 5 4 1 4 wx5 0:43 2 3 0 0 7 7 0 7 7 0 5 0:28

0 0 0 0 0:29

As steps 1 through 4 involved only one component, the correlative weight was 1. By contrast, step 5 involved three components, and the correlative weight of the rst component, the handle, was 0.43 (wx51), that of the second component, the steam button, was 0.29 (wx52), and that of the third component, the spray button, was 0.28 (wx53). In addition, the total correlative weight satisP ed the requirement of formula (4b): m wxij 1. j1 Step 3: Designing Evaluation Questions Based on the operational research, the steam iron GC2510 was found to contain ve operational steps and seven functional components. Then, in accordance with the conversion table of aordance properties (Table 3), the concrete evaluation questions and their multiple choice answers were created.

Table 5 Analyzing the correlative weights of the functional components

Functional components In step 5 Handle (X51) Steam button (X52) Spray button (X53) Total

Handle (X51) 1.00 0.67 0.68

Steam button (X52) 1.49 1.00 0.93

Spray button (X53) 1.47 1.07 1.00

Mean correlative weight 1.32 0.91 0.87 3.10

Unied correlative weight 0.43 0.29 0.28 1.00

146

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

Step 4 and 5: Establish Aordance Evaluation Equation and Design Evaluation Interface Based on the formulas (5a) and (5b), formulas (6a), (6b) and (6c), and four types of aordance evaluation formulas (see Table 4), the evaluation equation for evaluating the aordance degree were established. Several examples for explaining the calculative procedures to obtain the aordance degree will be described in detail in next section (5.2 Section). After that, the evaluation question/answer data and the product picture were combined to create the online evaluation interface (Figures 6e8).

5.2 Online aordance evaluation surveys and the survey results

Five male and ve female subjects between 21 and 27 years of age, who had never used the steam iron, were engaged in the online aordance evaluation. As soon as they nished answering the questions, the correct operation rates were calculated through formulas (5a) and (5b), and the results were put into formulas (6a), (6b), and (6c). In consequence, in addition to the current subjects evaluation matrix, the mean evaluation matrixes of all ten subjects were obtained. Owing to the length limit of this paper, only the mean evaluation matrixes of all ten subjects, or EAA , EAR and EAC were expressed in x x x formula (9a), (9b), and (9c) below: 2 3 0 0 7 7 0 7 7 0 5 100:00

EAA x

94:00 h i 6 88:00 6 eAA 6 100:00 xij 6 4 88:00 100:00

0 0 0 0 100:00

9a

3 90:00 0 0 0 0 7 h i 6 82:00 6 7 AR AR 6 89:00 0 0 7 Ex exij 6 7 4 98:00 0 0 5 100:00 69:50 87:50 3 91:00 0 0 0 0 7 h i 6 69:00 6 7 AC AC 6 96:00 0 0 7 Ex exij 6 7 4 81:00 0 0 5 100:00 100:00 87:00 2

9b

9c

The correct operation matrix of each of the ten subjects was successively entered into the aordance evaluation equations (Table 4) to obtain the four types of evaluation results regarding the steam iron GC2510. The calculation

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

147

process and result of each aordance property evaluated are explained in detail as follows: Type 1: The Individual Score of Each Aordance Property With the help of the calculating equations in type 1 of Table 4, the individual score of each aordance property was obtained below: VAA Xn Xm
i1

eAA wxij =Ns j1 xij

470 94 5 10

VAR

Xn Xm
i1

eAR wxij =Ns j1 xij

446:66 89:33 5 433:36 86:67 5

VAC

Xn Xm
i1

eAC wxij =Ns j1 xij

The results obtained in the preceding paragraph and the correct operation rate of each functional component were grouped together and listed in Table 6. As is shown in the table, the steam iron GC2510 did best in the respect of appearance features (AA). On the other hand, it left something to be desired in the respect its responsiveness (AR) and clear information (AC), with the average score being 89.33 and 86.67, respectively. As for the responsiveness (AR) of the steam iron, the steam button got the lowest score, i.e., 69.50, indicating that it needed to be greatly improved. In the clear information category (AC) of the iron, the water-lling opening got the lowest score, 69.00. Type 2: Aordance Evaluation of Functional Components Through the aordance evaluation of the functional components, the overall performance of the seven components of the steam iron was discovered. By means of

Table 6 The evaluation results of typical affordance properties

Operational step

Relevant functional component

Correct operation score (AA) Current score Average score 94.00 88.00 100.00 88.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 94.00

Correct operation score (AR) Current score 100.00 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.00 Average score 90.00 82.00 89.00 98.00 100.00 69.50 87.50 89.33

Correct operation score (AC) Current subject 90.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.00 Average score 91.00 69.00 96.00 81.00 100.00 100.00 87.00 86.67

Steam control Water-lling opening Temperature dial Temperature light Handle Steam button Spray button Mean aordance score VAA ; VAR and VAC

1 2 3 4 5

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

148

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

Table 7 The results of affordance evaluation concerning the functional components

Operational step No.

Corresponding functional component

Aordance evaluation score of functional components (Vfi ) Current score Average score 91.67 79.67 95.00 89.00 100.00 89.83 91.50

1 2 3 4 5

Steam Control Water-lling opening Temperature dial Temperature light Handle Steam button Spray button

96.67 96.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

the equation in type 2 of Table 4 (see also formula (11)), the aordance scores of the functional components (Vf) were calculated and the results were listed in Table 7 2 3 0 0 7 7 0 7 7 0 5 91:50

91:67 6 79:67 .  6 Vf eAA eAR eAC 3 6 95:00 xij xij xij 6 4 89:00 100:00

0 0 0 0 89:83

11

As is shown by the results of aordance evaluation concerning the functional components in Table 7, the ten subjects found it very hard to operate the water-lling opening, giving it the lowest score, i.e., 79.67. Without a doubt, the water-lling opening was the component that most notably needed to be improved. It was followed by two other unsatisfactory components, the temperature light and the steam button, which got 89.00 and 89.83 points respectively. Type 3: Aordance Evaluation of Operational Steps The correct operation rates in formulas (9a), (9b), and (9c) as well as the correlative weights of the functional components in formula (8) were put into the equation in type 3 of Table 7 to calculate the aordance results of the ve operational steps (Vxi ): namely, setting the steam control to switch it o, lling the water tank, setting the temperature, plugging in and waiting for the desired temperature, and doing the ironing. For example, for the fth operational step (x5), i.e. doing the ironing, its aordance evaluation was expressed by formula (12). The aordance results of the other four operational steps, 1 through 5, were calculated with the same equation, with the results, shown in Table 8. From the table, it is clear that the subjects gave the lowest score, 79.67, to the water-lling step.

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

149

Table 8 The affordance score of the operational steps

Operational task Operational step 1 2 3 4 5 Operational description Setting the steam control to switch it off Filling the water tank Setting the temperature Plugging in and waiting for the desired temperature Doing the ironing.

Aordance evaluation score of operational steps (Vxi ) Current score 96.67 96.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 Average score 91.67 79.67 95.00 89.00 94.67

Vx 5

Xm

 Xm  Xm . 3 eAA wx5j eAR wx5j eAC wx5j j1 x5j j1 x5j j1 x5j

100 0:43 100 0:29 100 0:28 100 0:43 69:5 0:29 87:5 02:8 100 0:43 100 0:29 87 0:28=3 100 87:66 96:36=3 94:67 12

Type 4: Total Score of Aordance Evaluation Finally, the correlative weights of aordance properties (WAA, WAR and WAC) in formula (2), the correlative weights of functional components wx1 ; wx2 /wx5 in formula (8), and the correct operation rates of functional components EAA ; EAR and EAC in formulas (9a), (9b), and (9c) were put x x x into the equation in type 4 of Table 4 to obtain the total aordance evaluation result (Vt) of the ten subjects. Alternatively, the individual scores of aordance properties VAA ; VAR and VAC obtained previously in formula (10) could be used to calculate the average aordance evaluation result. The calculation process was expressed in formula (13) and the result in Table 9 below: Pn Pm AA ! Pn Pm AR ! i1 j1 exij wxij i1 j1 exij wxij $WAA $WAR Vt 3 3 Pn Pm
i1 AC j1 exij wxij

! $WAC

VAA $WAA VAR $WAR VAC $WAC 94:00 0:27 89:33 0:36 86:67 0:37 89:61 13

From the total aordance evaluation result (Vt) calculated above, the designer knew the level of the users satisfaction with the product. The aordance

150

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

Table 9 The total affordance evaluation result

Model number of the product

Total aordance evaluation score (Vt) Current score Average score 89.61

Steam iron GC2510

98.54

evaluation of operational steps (Vxi ) and the aordance evaluation of functional components (Vf) clearly indicated the wrong operational step and the component to be modied. In addition, based on the individual scores of affordance properties VAA ; VAR and VAC ; the system informed the designer how perceived aordance should be improved.

5.3 Redesigning the product after aordance evaluation and verifying the results of the new evaluation
According to the ten subjects evaluation, the steam iron GC2510 scored 89.61 points (full score being 100 points) in the respect of total aordance evaluation (see Table 9); in other words, their satisfaction level was close to 90 percent, which indicates this product is a well designed operational product with high aordance clues. If a designer would like to improve the aordance level of this product, he/she can reference the other three types of aordance evaluation data. With the aordance evaluation result of the functional components and the operational steps, a designer can determine precisely which component or step needs to be modied and improved. Then the aordance evaluation result of aordance properties (Table 6) and the denition of aordance properties (Table 3) should be consulted to direct the revision. Afterwards, the revised product will need to be evaluated again by using the online aordance model to prove that its operational usability is better than before the revision. By repeating the above process, the product will have the adequate aordance cues and its operational usability will be optimized. For example, among all the operational steps, step 2, water-lling, got a relatively low score with 79.67, which means that the subjects had much trouble in lling up the water tank. Referring to the evaluation result of functional components in Table 7, we discovered that the diculty involving waterlling was related to the component of the water-lling opening. As is shown by the score of the relevant aordance property (Table 6), the item clear information (AC) connected with the water-lling opening left much to be desired. In reference to the denition of aordance properties in Table 3, we see that the component of water-lling opening has insucient information for indicating the message symbol or grasping the meaning of the message symbol. Therefore, the symbol of this component must be modied to make it easily recognizable; the revised component is shown in the upper section of Figure 10.

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

151

Figure 10 The modied product compared with its original version

Moreover, the steam button got a very poor score when it was evaluated in the aspect of its functional component (see Table 7). Observing Table 6, the functional component of steam button got a low average aordance score (see Table 6) with 69.5 in aordance properties of Responsiveness (AR). Then, in reference to the denition of aordance properties in Table 3, the component of steam button is determined to have insucient responsiveness for responding to the object to match the operational step. This situation also implies that the users cant easily gure out the component of steam button, so the component must be modied to strengthen the connection between the component of steam button and the operational task of doing the ironing. We modied the representational pattern of steam and enlarged the size of the pattern to strengthen its identiably to strongly connect the component and the operational task. The revised component of steam button is presented in the bottom section of Figure 10.

Afterwards, the ten subjects were asked to make a second aordance evaluation of the revised steam iron. The two results are compared in Table 10. From this table, we can see that the evaluation scores for the revised product are much higher than those for the rst version as the total aordance score rose from 89.61 to 92.20. The average evaluation results of typical aordance properties with components of water-lling opening and steam button in the affordance properties of AC and AR are improved to reach 100% and 84%, respectively. In consequence, the online aordance evaluation model proposed renders valuable assistance to the designers in improving, redesigning, and enhancing the product, with focus set on some of the functional components and the aordance properties.

152

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

Table 10 The total affordance evaluation scores before and after modification, with focus on clear information, the steam button, and the spray button

Evaluated item Water-lling opening (clear information, AC) Steam button (responsiveness, AR) Total score

Evaluation score before modication 69.00 69.50 89.61

Evaluation score after modication 100.00 84.00 92.2

Verifying the eect of online evaluation model applied to product design

The online evaluation model is not only labor-saving and resource-saving, but also highly ecient. Therefore, this paper proposes replacing the realized aordance evaluation with online aordance evaluation. To verify that the online model really leads to the same result as the operational experiment conducted traditionally on realized objects, ten subjects were invited to participate in two kinds of evaluation. The subjects consisted of ve males and ve females between 21 and 27 years of age, none of whom had ever used the steam iron GC251. They carried out the designated evaluation as planned.

Then, we used Pearson correlation coecient to compare the similarity between the data obtained from the online model and the realized model, discovering the degree of linear dependence between the two groups of data. Generally, the value of Pearson correlation coecient is between 1 and 1. If the coecient is positive, it shows that the two variables are in the same direction, that is, positively correlated. On the contrary, if the correlation coefcient is negative, it means that the two variables are in opposite directions and are negatively correlated. As the absolute value of the coecient is closer to 1, the linear dependence between the two variables is stronger. Instead, if the absolute value of the coecient is closer to 0, the linear dependence between the

Table 11 Analyzing the correlation coefficient between the results of the online evaluation survey and the physical evaluation survey

Correlation coecient (R) Scores VAA of aordance property, appearance features, obtained from the online survey and the realized object survey Scores VAR of aordance property, responsiveness, obtained from the online survey and the realized object survey Scores VAC of aordance property, clear information, obtained from the online survey and the realized object survey Average 0.99 0.89 0.80 0.86

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

153

Figure 11 The results of the online survey compared with those of the physical survey

two variables is weaker. The equation of Pearson correlation coecient is expressed in formula (14) below: P P i j Ai A Bj B R qq 2 P P 2 i Ai A j Bj B

14

where R represents the correlation coecient between the results obtained from the online model and the realized model, Ai represents the i-th online evaluation data, and Bj represents the j-th realized evaluation data. Seven functional components underwent online evaluation and realized evaluation and their scores on the three aordance properties were represented by VAA ; VAR and VAC respectively. The correlation coecients of the above scores were analyzed, as is shown in Table 11 and Figure 11 below: It was discovered that, based on the two groups of scores obtained from the online and realized models, the average correlation coecient was 0.86, or approaching 1. Since the correlation coecient regarding aordance property, appearance features (AA), was as much as 0.99, the results of the two models proved to be very much alike. Therefore, we have proved that it is feasible to replace the realized evaluation model with the online model.

Conclusion

The progress of science and technology has constantly brought an increasing number of functions to products while more and more operations and applications have been added. As the performance of products has been enhanced, the intuitive operation has become an important factor on which the user

154

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

depends when deciding the quality of the product. The concept of aordance provides a good solution to link user and product. When a product has sucient aordances, the user can correctly and intuitively interact with the product to perform appropriate manipulations. The ideal aordance, simply put, is one in which the user knows what to do just by looking (Norman, 1988). However, because the concept of aordance is ambiguous and not easy to express in precise analytical terms, we identify the typical aordance properties by collecting and synthesizing the previous descriptions of aordance found in the literature. Consulting the aordance evaluation method purposed by Galvao and Sato, the product was analyzed to obtain its technical functions and its users tasks. If these functional components have aordance clues, it can direct users to operate the components and complete the users tasks. Based on the above, an online aordance evaluation model for the product was established that can rapidly and easily evaluate the usability of the product via web survey. By this method, designers can identify the appearance features of a product necessary to be revised and optimized based on the specic reference data provided by this model.

Additionally, this study provided an online method of operational survey to replace the realized operational survey. To verify that the online survey leads to the same result as a realized operational survey, a realized operational experiment was completed with ten subjects. Comparing the results of the online survey and the realized operational survey, it is observed that the data of these two methods are very much alike and the average correlation coecient reaches 0.86. The correlation coecient regarding aordance property, appearance features (AA), is as much as 0.99. Therefore, it is proved that it is feasible to replace the realized operation survey with the online survey. With this method on the Internet, the aordance evaluation of products can be researched much more easily and widely for varied subjects. The online evaluation method eliminates the waste of labor and resources resulting from the traditional evaluation method, rendering the task of evaluation more ecient.

This study presents a specic evaluation method through quantifying abstract aordance concepts. The evaluation results enable the designers to detect earlier the operational deciency of product components and to strive to revise the product to upgrade its usability. In addition, by following the steps of this study, this online aordance evaluation model can be adopted and applied across product categories enabling product development and design with optimal usability.

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the National Science Council of the Republic of China (gs1) for supporting this research under grant NSC95-2221-E-006-127.

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

155

Appendix A Important articles description of aordance

Article Gibson Description of aordance The aordances of the environment are what it oers the animal, what is provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. What they aord the observer, after all, depends on their properties. .the aordance of anything is a specic combination of the properties of its substance and its surfaces taken with reference to an animal. Aordance is independent of the animals ability to perceive without animals interpretation or experience. This approach seeks a lawful explanation for the successful visual control of action. Keywords U the properties of its substance and its surfaces U aord (provide or furnish) observer U without interpretation U animals ability U perceive

Warren

U U U U U U

visual action intuitively perceive property of environment animal property judgment of action

Humans can intuitively perceive the property of environment, compare the perceived property with the intrinsic property, and then establish the judgment of action. Turvey Affordances are animal-relative properties of the environment that had signicance to animals action. Aordances are dispositional properties of the environment and they must be complemented by properties of animals. Affordance is the features of an environmental object and relates the ability of animal. the term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used. Aordance is the properties of the thing, which directs the user how the thing to be used if it is perceived. Perceived aordance is the perceived information with reference to the mental and perceptual capabilities of the user. when affordances are perceptible, they offer a direct link between perception and action Aordances per se are independent of perception. Separating aordances from the information available about them allows the distinction among correct rejections and perceived, hidden and false aordances. the physical attributes of the thing to be acted upon are compatible with those of the actor. U animal-relative properties U signicance to animals action U dispositional properties of the environment U features of an environmental object U ability of animal U properties of the thing U how the thing could possibly be used U perceived aordance U perceived information

Chemero

Norman

Gaver

U perceptible U link between perception and action U direct action U perceived U perceptual information U physical attributes

156

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

(continued ) Article Galvao & Sato Description of aordance While a product can be described by its function and its features, and affordances could provide additional understanding of the relationships that take place between the product and the user during product use. The applications of aordance and conrmed that desirable product attributes, such as shape, color and material, can help users to accomplish their goals and familiarize users with appropriate manipulations. Keywords U functions U features U product attributes U appropriate manipulations

McGrenere They suggested a two-dimensional space where one dimension & Ho describes the degree of affordance easily undertaken and the second dimension describes the degree of clear perceptual information. The goal of design is improvements in design that maximize both dimensions. You and Chen Affordance was one of the semantic dimensions describing operational meanings of objects. Symbol also makes users note the aordances signicant to product functions and the overall purpose of the product.

U clear perceptual information U aordances easy undertaken U maximize both dimensions (clear perceptual information and aordances easy undertaken) U semantic U operational meanings of objects U symbol U product functions U the overall purpose of the product U without thinking U intuitive interactions

Naoto Fukasawa

The theory of affordances is utilized into the philosophy, named without thought. The design inspirations are sought from human intuitive interactions with the environment in daily life.

Appendix B Extraction aordance property form the keywords

Keyword U U U U U U U U U U U U U U operational meanings of objects the overall purpose of the product product functions functions perceptual information perceived information clear perceptual information perceive perceived aordance perceptible link between perception and action perceived semantic symbol Property of aordance Hint

Clear information

Perceptibility

Symbol (continued on next page)

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

157

(continued) Keyword U the properties of its substance and its surfaces U Visual U property of environment U dispositional properties of the environment U features of an environmental object properties of the thing physical attributes U features U product attributes U aordances easy undertaken U maximize both dimensions (clear perceptual information and aordances easy undertaken) U animals ability U animal property U animal-relative properties ability of animal U intuitively perceive intuitive interactions U action U aord (provide or furnish) observer U judgment of action U signicance to animals action U how the thing could possibly be used U direct action U appropriate manipulations U without interpretation U without thinking Property of aordance Appearance features

Easy operation

Responsiveness

Intuitiveness Proper action

Without thought

Appendix C Description and example of aordance property

No. 1 2 3 Aordance Property Hint Clear information Perceptibility Description The functional component itself gives clues to its operational steps. Enough messages are provided, indicating the operational steps. The operational steps of the component are perceptible. A symbol is used to represent the function of the component. The appearance features of the component give clues to its operational steps. The product is easy to operate, with nothing complicated. The user has ability to react to the object. The user operates the product intuitively. Example The spiral ridge means rotate. ON means turn on while OFF means turn off. With its surface made of slide-proof material, the component is the handle to be held with the hand. stands for the The symbol power supply. The round component has the slide-proof ridges which indicate it is to be turned, not to be pressed. The operational steps are very easy to learn. The user can nd out the component immediately intended for the present task. Without reading the manual, the user understands the correct operational steps.

4 5

Symbol Appearance features

6 7

Easy operation Responsiveness

Intuitiveness

158

Design Studies Vol 33 No. 2 March 2012

(continued ) No. 9 10 Aordance Property Proper action Without thought Description The user performs proper action on the functional component. Without extra learning or memorizing, the user knows how to operate the product. Example Instead of being turned, the button is pressed. On seeing the handle, the user knows it is to be held with the hand.

References
Chemero, A. (2001). What we perceive when we perceive aordances. Ecological Psychology, 13, 111e116. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of aordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181e195. Galvao, A.B., & Sato, K. (2005). Aordances in product architecture: linking technical functions and users tasks. Paper Presented at the ASME 2005 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference in USA, 5, 1e11. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology aordances. New York: ACM. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of aordances. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibson, J. J. (1979/1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Miin Company. Green, P. E., Carmone, F. J., & Smith, S. M. (1989). Multidimensional scaling concepts and applications (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hsiao, S. W. (2002). Concurrent design method for developing a new product. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29(1), 41e55. Hsiao, S. W., & Chen, C. H. (1997). A semantic and shape grammar based approach for product design. Design Studies, 18(3), 275e296. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of t to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1e27. Lee, J. H., & Chang, M. L. (2010). Stimulating designers creativity based on a creative evolutionary system and collective intelligence in product design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(3), 295e305. McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Aordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept. Paper presented at the Proccedings of Graphics interface 2000. Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Naoto, F., Takeshi, G., & Masato, S. (2004). The ecological approach to design. Tokyo: Tokyo Publishing Co. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Norman, D. A. (1999). Aordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38e43. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. NewYork: McGraw-Hill International Book Co. Schiman, M., Reynolds, L., & Young, F. W. (1981). Introduction to multidimensional scaling: Theory, methods and application. New York: Academic Press. Stone, R. B., Wood, K. L., & Crawford, R. H. (2000). A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies, 21(1), 5e31. Turvey, M. T. (1992). Aordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 173e187. Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving aordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 683. You, H., & Chen, K. (2007). Applications of aordance and semantics in product design. Design Studies, 28(1), 23e38.

An online aordance evaluation model for product design

159