No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Evaluation of an Affordance-Based Requirements Generation Tool for Speech And Language Therapeutic Toys
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 May 2022
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Task clarification poses various challenges to designers as they need to understand the different needs of users before translating the requirements into specifications and aptly conceiving product concepts in the subsequent design stage. This paper presents a descriptive study for the evaluation of a framework and its implementation as a computer-based prototype tool, proposed to assist designers in generating and understanding affordance-based requirements for speech and language therapeutic toys. Results show that early design support is beneficial to both experienced and novice designers.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2022.
References
Askland, H.H., Ostwald, M. and Williams, A. (2010), “Changing Conceptualisations of Creativity in Design”, Proceedings of the 1st DESIRE Network Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design, No. August, pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
Balzan, E., Farrugia, P. and Casha, O. (2021), “A User-Centred Design Framework for the Development of Speech and Language Therapeutic Toys”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 1 No. August, pp. 303–312.Google Scholar
Berkovich, M., Leimeister, J.M. and Krcmar, H. (2011), “Requirements engineering for product service systems: A state of the art analysis”, Business and Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 6, pp. 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blessing, L. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009a), “DRM: A Design Reseach Methodology”, Springer London, No. September, pp. 13–42.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009b), “DRM, a Design Research Methodology”, p. 397.Google Scholar
Brace, W. and Cheutet, V. (2012), “A framework to support requirements analysis in engineering design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 876–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwo, G.S.M., Marek, M.W. and Wu, W.C.V. (2018), “Meta-analysis of MALL research and design”, System, Vol. 74 No. 1018, pp. 62–72.Google Scholar
Cormier, P. and Lewis, K. (2015), “An affordance-based approach for generating user-specific design specifications”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormier, P. and Olewnik, A. (2014), “Toward a formalization of affordance modeling for engineering design”, No. January 2016, available at: 10.1007/s00163-014-0179-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlington, M.J. and Culley, S.J. (2002), “Current research in the engineering design requirement”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 216 No. 3, pp. 375–388.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2004), “On the Problem of Design Problems - problem solving and design expertise”, J. of Design Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, p. 0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, A.H.B. and O'Donnell, F.J. (1998), “A design research approach”, Aid, Vol. 98 No. July, pp. 20–27.Google Scholar
Fikar, P., Güldenpfennig, F. and Ganhör, R. (2018), “The Use(fulness) of Therapeutic Toys”, Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018 - DIS ’18, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K.M. and Lee, K.P. (2010), “Two types of design approaches regarding industrial design and engineering design in product design”, 11th International Design Conference, DESIGN 2010, pp. 1795–1806.Google Scholar
Leonard, L.B. (2014), Children with Specific Language Impairment, Second Edi., Vol. 1, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Maier, J.R.A. and Fadel, G.M. (2007), “Identifying affordances”, Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. DS 42 No. August, pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
Morse, J.M. (2000), “Determining Sample Size”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, P., Schulz, F. and Stark, R. (2010), “Guideline to elicit requirements on industrial product-service systems”, CIRP IPS2 Conference 2010, No. December, pp. 109–116.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.-H. (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, edited by Wallace, K. and Blessing, L., Third Edit., Springer, available at: 10.4324/9780203967461.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D. and Yang, M.C. (2020), Product Design and Development, Seventh Ed., McGraw-Hill Education, New York.Google Scholar
Wang, M. and Zeng, Y. (2009), “Asking the right questions to elicit product requirements”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, available at: 10.1080/09511920802232902.Google Scholar
Youmans, R.J. and Arciszewski, T. (2014), “Design fixation: Classifications and modern methods of prevention”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129–137.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access