Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:49:20.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interplay of Subjective Quality Evaluation, Prototyping Technologies and the User's Technology Acceptance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

T. Buker ,
F. Endress ,
J. Miehling  and
S. Wartzack
T. Buker*
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
F. Endress
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany TUM School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Germany
J. Miehling
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
S. Wartzack
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
*
[email protected]

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.

Subjective product quality is a fundamental aspect to maintain a high level of user acceptance and to provide a good user experience. Prototypes can be used to evaluate subjective product quality in early design phases. We conducted an empirical study to examine the influence of different (re)presentations of prototypes determined by the chosen technology (2D image, VR, AR, 3D print) and the user's technology acceptance. Based on the results we recommend 2D images as most reliable for evaluating subjective product quality.

Keywords

empirical studiesemotional engineeringprototypingsubjective qualitytechnology acceptance
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2077 - 2086
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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

Asch, S.E. (1946), “Forming impressions of personality”, The Journal of Abnormal und Social Psychology, No. 3, pp. 258–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canuto da Silva, G. and Kaminski, P.C. (2016), “Selection of virtual and physical prototypes in the product development process”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 84, pp. 1513–1530.Google Scholar
Carbon, C.-C. and Leder, H. (2005), “The Repeated Evaluation Technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, No. 5, pp. 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asch, S.E. (1946), “Forming impressions of personality”, The Journal of Abnormal und Social Psychology, No. 3, pp. 258–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
da Silva, Canuto, and Kaminski, G., P.C. (2016), “Selection of virtual and physical prototypes in the product development process”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 84, pp. 1513–1530.Google Scholar
Carbon, C.-C. and Leder, H. (2005), “The Repeated Evaluation Technique (RET). A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, No. 5, pp. 587–601.Google Scholar
Castronovo, F., Nikolic, D., Liu, Y. and Messner, J.I. (2013), “An evaluation of immersive virtual reality systems for design reviews”, in Dawood, N. and Kassem, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, 30.-31.10.2013, London, Teesside University.Google Scholar
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2004), “Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design”, Design Studies, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 547–577.Google Scholar
Desmet, P.M.A. and Pohlmeyer, A.E. (2013), “Positive Design: An Introduction to Design for Subjective Well-Being”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 5–19.Google Scholar
Dethloff, C. (2004), Akzeptanz und Nicht-Akzeptanz von technischen Produktinnovationen, Beiträge zur Wirtschaftspsychologie, Vol. 6, Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich.Google Scholar
Diefenbach, S., Chien, W.-C., Lenz, E. and Hassenzahl, M. (2013), “Prototypen auf dem Prüfstand. Bedeutsamkeit der Repräsentationsform im Rahmen der Konzeptevaluation”, icom, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp.53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieter, G.E. and Schmidt, L.C. (2013), Engineering design, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Hekkert, P. (2010), “Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user-product interactions”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 34–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R.L. (1995), “Task-technology fit and individual performance”, MIS quarterly, No. 19, pp. 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M. and Koller, F. (2003), “AttrakDiff. Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität”, in Szwillus, G. and Ziegler, J. (Eds.), Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung, Vol. 57, Teubner, Stuttgart, pp. 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, L.S., Öskil, A.G. and Mortensen, N.H. (2016), “Prototypes in engineering design: definitions and strategies”, 16.-19.05.2016, Dubrovnik, Croatia.Google Scholar
Kang, H.J., Shin, J. and Ponto, K. (2020), “How 3D Virtual Reality Stores Can Shape Consumer Purchase Decisions: The Roles of Informativeness and Playfulness”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 70–85.Google Scholar
Kollmann, T. (1998), Akzeptanz innovativer Nutzungsgüter und -systeme: Konsequenzen für die Einführung von Telekommunikations- und Multimediasystemen, Gabler, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Kurosu, M. (2015), “Usability, Quality in Use and the Model of Quality Characteristics”, in Kurosu, M. (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Evaluation: 17th International Conference, HCI International, 02.-07.08.2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 227–237.Google Scholar
Minge, M., Thüring, M., Wagner, I. and Kuhr, C.V. (2016), “The meCUE Questionnaire: A Modular Tool for Measuring User Experience”, in Soares, M., Falcão, C. and Ahram, T.Z. (Eds.), Advances in Ergonomics Modeling, Usability & Special Populations, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 486, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 115–128.Google Scholar
Nagamachi, M. and Lokman, A.M. (2011), Innovations of Kansei engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J. and Grote, K.-H. (2007), Engineering Design, Springer, London.Google Scholar
Pontonnier, C., Dumont, G., Samani, A., Madeleine, P. and Badawi, M. (2014), “Designing and evaluating a workstation in real and virtual environment: toward virtual reality based ergonomic design sessions”, Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, A. (2000), Sensorische Produktforschung im Innovationsprozess, Betriebswirtschaftliche Abhandlungen, Vol. 117, Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Schlohmann, K. (2012), Innovatorenorientierte Akzeptanzforschung bei innovativen Medientechnologien, Gabler, Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, S. (2020), Die Akzeptanz von Augmented-Reality-Anwendungen im Handel, Gabler, Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröppel, T., Diepold, T., Miehling, J. and Wartzack, S. (2019), “A Concept for Physiological User Description in the Context of Dual User Integration”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3791–3800.Google Scholar
Schröppel, T. and Wartzack, S. (2018), “Making a difference: Integrating physiological and psychological needs in user description”, in Ekströmer, P., Schütte, S. and Ölvander, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of NordDesign 2018, 14.-17.08.2018, Linköping, Schweden, LiU Tryck, Linköping, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Smith, S.M. and Albaum, G.S. (2005), Fundamentals of marketing research, SAGE, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Stylidis, K., Dagman, A., Almius, H., Gong, L. and Söderberg, R. (2019), “Perceived Quality Evaluation with the Use of Extended Reality”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1993–2002.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2007), Product design and development, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.R., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view”, MIS quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodworth, R.S. (1929), Psychology, Holt, New York.Google Scholar
Zöller, S.G. and Wartzack, S. (2017), “Considering Users’ Emotions in Product Development Processes and the Need to Design for Attitudes”, in Fukuda, S. (Ed.), Emotional Engineering, 5th ed., Springer, Cham, pp. 69–97.Google Scholar