That Said, This Present Research – Gold Coast (Magazine)

Appearance attributes of designed products noted in toliterature often reflect what designers themselves perceive in a product design.

Additionally, toattributes were validated across different product categories and are thus generalizable and not product category specific.

Descriptions of appearance were generated by consumers in a free categorization task. With that said, this present research, however, provides knowledge on how consumers perceive product appearance by identifying appearance attributes that consumers use to distinguish toappearances of durable products. These attributes were confirmed in a separate rating task performed by a second group of consumers. Knowledge of what appearance attributes are perceived by consumers in a product design can Basically the appearance attributes identified in this research provide knowledge of what consumers see in durable product appearance. Then again, toattributes proved stable across different groups of consumers indicating that they are universal. Descriptions were classified as toattributes Modernity, Simplicity and Playfulness. Then again, tomeaning toappearance of a product communicates helps consumers to assess toproduct on functional, aesthetic, symbolic or ergonomic motives.

These motives play a role in tooverall product appraisal.

When a product looks modern, it has a positive effect on product appraisal when consumers are motivated to assess a product on its aesthetics.

Companies that are able to communicate a certain meaning through toappearance of a product design can create a competitive advantage in tomarket and increase toproduct’s chance of success. He will have difficulty assessing toproduct and will appreciate toproduct less, when toproduct meaning that is communicated ain’t clear to toconsumer. In practice, designers often face todifficulty of how to incorporate an intended meaning in a product design. And so it’s valuable to provide designers with guidelines that can be used during briefings at first pace of todesign process or in product evaluation studies at a later stage of this process.

Whenever in consonance with Krippendorf, toproducts of design may be understandable or meaningful to someone.

Attributes are considered to be more abstract than separate physical aspects.

Second, certain combinations of colors, materials and similar physical aspects give a product a look that can be described by a certain appearance attribute. Nonetheless, further, they are more actionable and informative than physical properties for designers to use in briefings or product evaluation studies. Seriously. So appearance attributes together provide toconsumer with an overall impression of toproduct. In product evaluation studies, it can be assessed whether consumers do actually perceive tomeanings that todesigner intended to design in toproduct using appearance attributes. When consumers see a product appearance, consumers perceive certain physical properties that together make up todesign of toproduct. DVD player that is angular, ‘metalliclooking’ and is made of a smooth material is perceived as modern.

That process in which a meaning is derived from a product appearance can be summarized in two steps.

In briefings, these attributes can be a way of making clear to designers what actually was expected from them.

Refrigerators are rectangular and have a smooth, shiny white surface. Tools have even been developed to guide designers in objectifying attributes in their product appearances. A well-known fact that is.

Since toattributes mentioned in toliterature are mainly drawn from toaesthetic and industrial design literature, namely, toattributes reflect how designers perceive product appearance and not how toconsumer perceives it. On top of that, toattributes described in toliterature provide knowledge on what attributes are derived from product appearance. In identical fashion, it can be questioned whether consumers will derive quite similar product attributes from product appearance as designers.

Proportion, typicality; massiveness, naturalness and delicateness, Appearance attributes that are mentioned in toliterature include harmony, unity.

Indeed a possible difference between designers and consumers can be assumed given toextended literature on differences between non professionals and experts in toperception and evaluation of a variety of stimuli.

Ellis’s. Major issue isn’t covered. Out of tomany appearance attributes described in toliterature, most possibly only a number are also perceived and used by consumers in toevaluation of product design. Empirically based consumer appearance attributes are not found in todesign literature. Now this limits toapplicability of these attributes mentioned in toliterature in testing designs with consumers. However, tocontributions of this current research include adding ‘consumer based’, empirically grounded appearance attributes to toliterature. Though it might be found that consumers use toappearance attributes from toliterature as well as their own appearance attributes, toappearance attributes generated on their own will form a valuable addition to toattributes that are already described in toliterature and will look, there’s at least one study in todesign literature showing that these differences do exist between consumers and designers. Appearance attributes that are described in toliterature so todesigners to be toexperts, one can conclude that consumers have less or qualitatively different knowledge of design than designers, when one considers consumers to be tononprofessionals in design. Experts, therefore, can mention more abstract attributes of objects. a lot of attributes found in this research that are used by consumers may overlap those used by designers. Additionally, ‘nonprofessionals’ distinguish fewer attributes than experts, that indicates further that consumers have less knowledge. Previous research done into objectifying attributes into product appearances involved product specific attributes.

In tofirst part, appearance attributes may be identified on tobasis of appearance description that consumers generate in a categorization task.

Tounderlying attributes are also validated across different groups of consumers and different groups of products for generalization purposes.

Our validation of toresults in tosecond part assures that tofindings are general instead of situation or product category specific. In tosecond part, these results are confirmed using a Structural Equation Modeling process that provides togenerally used appearance attributes and shows their relationships with toseparate appearance descriptions. With that said, this step is important, as in experimental research one runs torisk that results are applicable in totested situation only. This is where it starts getting interesting, right? Toresearch process of identifying toproduct appearance attributes that consumers use for distinguishing products is divided into two parts. These attributes used may be generated by consumers as they will provide additional knowledge on what meanings are derived from product appearance, because we can assume there’re categorization task was designed to generate toappearance attributes, as people naturally categorize objects they see to make anticipation of them to a variety of consumer durable products were included that are generally assessed and bought for different motives, tointention to generate these attributes. Motives can influence perception. Categorization of these objects should not differ between them, if experts and ‘non professionals’ derive really similar meanings from an object of interest.

‘nonprofessionals’ are found to make fewer categories than experts, that suggests they have less related knowledge.

Product appearance can appeal to aesthetic or symbolic motives as it may provide sensory appeal and pleasure and convey information about toowner and suggesting they have a more shallow knowledge of design vocabulary. When attributes are formed when a consumer is only motivated to assess toproduct on its aesthetics, as such appearance attributes appealing to functional motives are possibly neglected. Durable products can also be approached with tomotivation to assess it on its functionality or easeofuse. Of course, in any categorization process, groups are made depending on perceived similarities and differences between objects. It’s an interesting fact that the wide range of products used in this study must facilitate toinclusion of tofull range of attributes that will arise due to different motives in toassessment of real durable product appearances.

Dutch university and received a small fee for participation.

Todifferent buying motives are also apparent within categories.

Stimuli consisted of 80 laminated, equalsized photographs. Desk lamps have a lot of chances to be bought for aesthetic reasons, whereas for vacuum cleaners tofunctional motives are considered more important. While a plain, a flowery, colorful clock because of ergonomic reasons. You can find more info about this stuff on this website. Toproduct categories used were ‘CD players’, bathroom scales, desk lamps, wall clocks, microwaves, vacuum cleaners, cell phones and chairs. Also, for generalization purposes, these products were selected to guarantee that tofull range of possible buying motives was taken into account. I know that the participants were instructed to form groups that consisted of products out of at least two product categories so that attributes should not be product specific.

It’s a well-known fact that the experiment leader was present in toroom toentire time, and totask was performed without time constraints.

Following tofree categorization task, toexperimenter interviewed toparticipants asking them to describe similarities in product appearance for any group they formed.

During this task, participants were requested to categorize toset of stimuli into as many groups as they liked on the basis of similarity in product appearance. Basically, all participants received instruction informing them of totask, and later a practice task was introduced that asked participants to categorize photographs of houses on the basis of appearance. Lots of info can be found online. Following that, toexperiment leader provided toparticipant with tototal set of stimuli and asked toparticipant to perform a free categorization task depending on product appearance. This link http://topwebdesignny.com might be a good solution. Accordingly the interview was recorded and transcribed for further analysis. Participants were individually invited to an interviewing room.

Appearance attributes were extracted from todescriptions that were ascribed to togroups that were formed, after toindividual tasks.

This conservative criterion was chosen primarily as long as this part of toresearch is exploratory.

Our criterion of 10percent is quite conservative. Needless to say, even when roundedness plays a role for consumers. Whenever resulting in 130 different descriptions in total, on average, consumers made eight groups with approximately two descriptions ascribed to every group. They have been discarded also since toaim of toresearch is to obtain attributes that are commonly used to provide a general overview of consumer perception, and such idiosyncratic attributes would only contribute to a low degree. Therefore, a round colored frilly product is seen by consumers as playful. Final step in narrowing down our appearance attributes out of toremaining descriptions was to omit todescriptions round, rectangular, oval, colored and frilly since they are physical properties of a product.

Whenever, todescriptions mentioned by at least 10percent of toparticipants were included in toanalysis.

Participants’ descriptions of togroups they made were collected.

To identify toappearance attributes a couple of steps were taken. Generally, second, a selection was made among all descriptions that were mentioned. Using tofour attribute model in toconfirmatory phase of Part 2 of this research would automatically lead to rejection of that whole attribute. Did you know that the factor loadings of todescriptions are shown in Table 1. For example, tofourth attribute to be taken as input for Part 2 would then only exist in todescription ‘sleek’. Simplicity, Modernity and Playful explaining 61 dot 484 of tototal variance. Accordingly the next step was to perform a Principal Components Analysis with a Varimax rotation to identify tounderlying attributes of toappearance descriptions. Procedure was performed on a Product x Description frequency table in which every cell counted the general amount of times a certain product was described with a certain product description. That said, this data proved suitable for factor analysis. Therefore, this threeattribute solution showed a better fit than tofour attribute solution. Ultimately, three attributes were identified underlying toproduct descriptions generated by consumers in Part 1 of toresearch.

Additionally, with tofourth attribute Timeless, todescription ‘minimalistic’ had a very low explaining variance, and todescription ‘timeless’ had a loading below 4, that is below toconventional ‘cut off’ for inclusion in a confirmatory analysis.

In Part 2 of this research, tothree attribute solution from Part 1 is tested on a second and larger sample of participants and a second group of product categories, intention to do so.

Tothree appearance attributes Modernity, Simplicity and Playfulness which were identified in tofirst part of toresearch, were confirmed by tosecond part of this research. Also, additionally, to validate togenerality of toattributes, Undoubtedly it’s assessed whether these same attributes are used by different groups of consumers and applicable for different product categories. That said, this step was necessary to assure togenerality of toappearance attributes. All products differed from toproducts used in Part 1 of toresearch.

Did you know that a range of products were selected to guarantee that tofull range of possible consumer motives was taken into account, as in Part 1. Stimuli consisted of ‘equalsized’ pictures of 30 durable products with five products from six product categories. They have been after that, presented with pictures of all five one products product category at very similar time and were given time to look at toproducts. Any participant judged only one product category to avoid totask becoming questionnaire took approximately fifteen minutes to complete. All participants received instruction informing them of totask. Participants were asked to rate to which degree they judged toremaining sixteen product descriptions generated in Part 1 to be true descriptions of toappearance of products on a 5 point rating scale, after that. Anyways, participants were assigned to among to questionnaires balanced on age and gender. Participants received one of two a versions internet questionnaire differing in tosequence of descriptions to diminish possible order effects.

Every product was rated on all sixteen descriptions before tonext product was introduced. Structural Equation Modeling was used to assess if the input model was structurally confirmed with toresults of tosample of Part really similar appearance attributes should underlie todescriptions of tosecond sample as in toinput model on the basis of tosample of Part The threeattribute model from Part 1 was used to test todata obtained in tosecond part by means of totwostep approach of Structural Equation Modeling described by Anderson and Gerbing. Basically the output file generated through Structural Equation Modeling performed by AMOS provided fit measures and suggested that is an acceptable range. All descriptions have statistically significant loadings on their attributes that vary between 65 and 88 which is consistent with tothree attribute model taken as input from Part 1 of toresearch. It is composite reliability of toattributes was assessed with toFornell and Larcker criterion.

Now look, an adjusted goodness of fit of 95; normed fit index of 97; and a comparative fit index of Additionally, toroot mean square error of approximation shows an acceptable fit, Theoretically, that said, this threeattribute model depicts appearance perception of consumers, that is confirmed by togoodness of fit measure of 98.

All attribute reliability measures were high.

Toaverage variance extracted for every attribute is higher than 5. Additionally, tothreeattribute model’s discriminate validity is good since a chi square test between tomodel in which toattribute correlations were constrained to be 0 and tounconstraint model proved to be significant. Just keep reading! These ‘cross validations’ indicate that tothree product appearance attributes identified in this research are generalizeable to different groups of consumers and different product categories. Notice, Simplicity is composed of todescriptions simple, plain and minimalistic; and Playfulness contains todescriptions of funny and playful, Modernity is composed of todescriptions modern, oldish and futuristic.

For different age groups, there’s also a fit.

Additional analyses showed that todifferences in ratings of tostimuli were not influenced by gender or age.

So a group comparison was done for all six product categories together and an ideal model fit was again indicated for all groups. Certainly, this indicates that, generally, our three attribute model is used by all consumers to differentiate between different product appearances. Therefore this means that one can get an insight of, for sake of example, togeneral degree of Modernity of a product appearance by getting toproduct rated on tothree descriptions modern, oldish and futuristic. Ok, and now one of tomost important parts. I know that the fact that Modernity and Playfulness are negatively correlated. By the way, the stimuli rated as tomost or least playful, modern or simple by tofemale or younger participants were also rated tomost or least playful, modern or simple by tomale or older participants.

Three attribute model contains toexpected attributes Modernity, Simplicity and Playfulness, as can be seen in Table 2.

Tothree attributes provide a general view on how consumers perceive durable product appearances and differentiate between different appearances.

In this research, toattributes Modernity, Simplicity and Playfulness were identified as toappearance attributes that consumers mostly use to distinguish between different product appearances. Remember, they form a valuable addition to toattributes described in toliterature that are more expert based and as such contribute to an overall view on product appearance perception. Also, these attributes underlie product appearance descriptions that consumers themselves use to describe product appearances. However, toproduct appearance descriptions being generated by consumers and tounderlying attributes being validated for different groups of consumers guarantee that we’re talking about indeed toattributes that consumers themselves generally use to distinguish product appearances. Keep reading. Complexity is a design attribute that is used by designers toattribute Simplicity identified in this research. Consequently, this can be toresult of tofact that designers are able to see more differences in products than consumers. Two of toattributes that consumers use are similar to attributes mentioned in toliterature. We can conclude from this that consumers and designers show communality in what attributes they perceive from product appearance.

Attribute Playfulness serves as an addition to toattributes described in toliterature.

In future research, it should be interesting to look at tocategorization processes used by designers and users to gain insight into how todifferences in product attributes that are generated by designers and consumers originate.

This research now provides empirical evidence that these two attributes that are used by designers are indeed also used by consumers. Modernity is also described by designers in toliterature as an important appearance attribute upon which product appraisal is based. Besides, because of toresearch approach we used, we were able to identify toattributes that consumers themselves use to distinguish different product appearances. http://topwebdesignny.com

While indicating that designers may be in tomethod of this research that was set out to produce generic appearance attributes that could easily be put into practice in briefings or product evaluation studies. It’s an interesting fact that the products used reflect tovariety on tomarket place and thus a broad range of motives that consumers use. In toliterature, toattributes that are used as guidelines for incorporating meaning into a product appearance are assumed to be applicable for different product categories. As far as we know, now this assumption has no empirical basis until now. Accordingly the use of many different product groups in tofirst part of toresearch and tovalidation with different groups of products in tosecond part assures that toattributes found in this research are not product specific and therefore informative on toappearance of many sorts of product categories actually. Additionally, just because consumers were asked to categorize a variety of product categories, toattributes described in this research are of an abstract nature.

Ratings on toproduct appearance attributes can be gathered, in order tointention to assess tovalue of a product appearance to consumers.

Attributes defined in this research give toopportunity to more validly assess consumer reactions to product designs and can give a company a competitive edge, as design is an important source of differentiation from other products in tomarket place.

Tointended product appearance can thence be compared to toassessed one, and toattributes on which tointended and actual appearances differ can be identified. So that’s more actionable for product designers than just knowing which one of a couple of concepts appeals tomost to consumers, as in this way look, there’s some indication of how to improve toappearance to make it better aligned to target consumers’ preferences. Eventually, toattributes attached to a company’s brand values and product specific attributes, can be used to assess todegree in which a specific product appearance suits totastes and wants of totarget group of consumers or toattributes a company wishes to communicate to toconsumers. It gives a generic overview of what consumers perceive which enables researchers to focus on translating these attributes into guidelines for designers to attune product appearances to consumer preferences.

That said, this approach makes toattributes less easy to physically objectify as designers may wish.

We submit that toattributes identified in this research are a valuable addition and must also be taken into account when designing a product’s appearance.

It is commonly known that consumers appreciate appearances that are unified, in balance and harmonized. Our three attribute model shouldn’t replace toattributes already mentioned in toliterature. These attributes can be used in briefings to gain a better understanding of what meaning a brand new product design should express. I’m sure you heard about this. These attributes shouldn’t be neglected in designing a product. While now organic forms are more contemporary, in to1980’s angular products were modern. Since current trends and fashion influence views on toattributes, contrarily todirect relationship between toattributes and tophysical properties will change over time which will make toapplicability of these relationships unstable over time. Physical properties underlie toappearance attributes. That way a designer that, let’s say, wishes to adapt a product to look more simplified to consumers will have a better idea of how to achieve this type of a result. That is interesting. Toattributes attained proved stable across different groups of consumers indicating that they are universal.

Aim of this research was to provide knowledge on toconsumer perception of product appearances by identifying appearance attributes that consumers use to distinguish durable product appearances.

Toattributes Modernity, Simplicity and Playfulness provide insights into what consumers perceive when assessing product appearance as opposed to toappearance attributes described in toliterature that are mostly expertbased and generated with artificial stimuli.

Tothree attributes were generated by consumers and were depending on durable product appearances. These attributes shouldn’t be regarded as replacing toattributes described in toliterature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *