Heimrich Kanis

Usage centred research for everyday product design.

Prospective users of a new design in the area of everyday products offer innumerable opportunities for measurement and observation, in view of both the diversity in user populations and the freedom of where and how to use a product. In this paper, the relevance of human data is assessed for their impact in meeting functional imperatives in a design. On the basis of empirical studies, the significance of the observation/registration of user activities, including perceptual and cognitive activities, and the use of actions actually carried out is demonstrated. For everyday products, these activities are found to be only loosely related to human characteristics such as sensory capacities, body dimensions and exertable forces. Such characteristics seem to combine a limited relevance for usage centred design with relatively easy measurability. In contrast, observation of user activities may be evasive and is often laborious. User trialling is seen as an obvious way to enable designers to accommodate prospective user activities in everyday product design.

Risk perception in consumer product use.

In the literature, at least two distinct connotations of risk can be found: so called objective risk, defined as the ratio of a particular number of accidents and a measure of exposure, and subjective risk, defined as the perception and awareness of risks by the person(s) involved. This article explores the significance of risk perception and awareness in understanding and clarifying how and why accidents involving consumer products occur. Based on empirical evidence from video-recorded reconstructions of accidents with consumer products, the risk perception and awareness of users in relation to featural and functional product characteristics, and their influence on actual product use culminating in an accident, is addressed. In contrast with what is usually assumed in the literature, the findings show that the majority of the subjects had no idea that they were running any risk of injuring themselves while they operated the product. In several accidents, the product either offered functionalities not anticipated in the design or did not adequately reflect its condition. The implications of the findings for design practice as well as for risk research are discussed.

Reliability and validity of findings in ergonomics research

Evaluation of findings in ergonomics/human factors (E/HF) research suffers from misconceived assessments in terms of reliability and validity. Evaluation of E/HF studies published after 2000 confirms these observations. With an eye on these misconceived assessments, the present paper focuses on the consequences of various types of human involvement in (co-)shaping the phenomena to be evaluated. Issues addressed include the questionability of the inter-individual equivalence of findings, the defectiveness of the reliability coefficient as dispersion measure and the elusiveness of intended/presumed measurement as a validity criterion. These deficiencies are at odds with the zeal of E/HF authors to flag their findings as ‘reliable’ and ‘valid’. In particular, positive evaluations of findings may show off as rhetoric. An evaluation procedure of consecutive constituents in a flowchart is proposed as an aid for appropriate evaluations. Various conditions are discussed that may encourage the adoption of correct procedures.

MEANING IN PRODUCT USE: A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE

Publisher Summary Users create the meanings of products in use. The design of products contributes something to that situation of use. People’s use of products could be quite different from the expectations of designers, technologists, and organizations. The users act in ways unexpected. So, rather than trying to help and guide a certain model user, a machine should be built to communicate their state and to allow users to make sense of a situation. People are being disabled or discouraged from accessing and using commodities and public services in several ways. Sometimes people are disabled by the physical dimensions of their environments, or products might be stigmatizing their users. Or people may simply be unable to make sense of things. This chapter discusses the meaning of product use from a design perspective. It focuses on the way people make sense of things in use, particularly on instrumental or denotative meaning in product use. It can no longer be assumed that it is possible to force correct usage of products onto consumers. There is great variation, and indeed creativity, in the ways that people make sense of things. Design is the exclusive domain of professionals. Design is also in the way people use things. This chapter proposes that designers can integrate the users’ attribution of meaning in product use into their design process. It reviews some of the concepts that are discussed in relation to meaning in product use. It also discusses two important concepts: product semantics and affordances. Furthermore, it points out some of the successes and shortcomings of each concept in informing design.

Questioning validity in the area of ergonomics/human factors

This paper focuses on the analysis of deviation in findings within ergonomics/human factors (E/HF) research. The current terms used to address the analysis of deviation in empirical research revolve around the notion of validity. In E/HF research papers, ‘validity’ is widely interpreted and includes its common parlance usage. More importantly, analysis frequently limits ‘validation’ to the equivalent of ‘verification’, eventually resulting in ‘validity’ as a label of little significance. To clarify the analysis of deviation, ‘investigative syntaxes’ are introduced to show what exactly should or can be questioned when deviation is observed, i.e. either empirical findings or propositions, and how this questioning can be structured. The possibility is discussed that, with or without the help of these syntaxes, validation may become a method of inquiry; a productive means of generating significant theoretical questions which bear directly on empirical work.

Research into accidents as a design tool

Product liability legislation presses to gain more insight into the occurrence of accidents with consumer products, to the benefit of both producers and consumers. In this paper research is presented that was carried out in order to provide this insight. The research consisted of recording the reconstruction of accidents by the victims. The design relevance of the comprehensive data was assessed by a panel of industrial designers. The results are discussed in view of the development of a method that is actually applicable by industrial designers, in order to anticipate possible ways of use that might result in accidents. It is argued that the availability and the application of such a method would not only contribute to the prevention of accidents, but might also positively affect the marketing position of a product.

Redesigned use, a designer's dilemma

In this study the marketing of a new design for a current product turns out to be problematic. The product concerned is a one-serve coffeecreamer cup. The novelty of the design concerns the method of use: the new method design is meant to prevent the frequently experienced spilling of coffee milk. However, existing user habits appear to be strongly adhered to, with the result that familiar actions spoil the benefits aimed at. The less familiar people are with the use of coffeecreamer cups the more receptive they seem to be to the new design. These effects appear to be completely overlooked by the designers. Thus the redesign unintentionally addresses a group of users that is not particularly interesting from a marketing point of view. Here conflicting requirements boil down to a designers dilemma: close resemblance of a new design to existing products can completely ruin improvements in product-use, whilst dissimilarity with the products that are intended to be replaced may heavily frustrate a successful...

Risks in product use: observations compared to accident statistics

This paper addresses two observational studies, of the use of a blender and a chip pan, and a study of the accident statistics regarding these two types of products. The aim is to understand risk in product use and the process of risk perception as displayed by product users. Consideration is given to the way information from both observational studies and accident statistics can support design in order to improve the safety of product users.

Barriers to and Enablers of Usability in Electronic Consumer Product Development: A Multiple Case Study

This study identified practitioner-reported barriers to and enablers of usability in the development of electronic consumer products. Barriers and enablers are properties, situations, or conditions in the product development process, team, or context that negatively or positively influence the usability of a product. Based on a review of literature on user-centered design and exploratory expert interview, central concepts for studying usability in practice were identified. This was used as input for the case study, which was conducted at 5 product development groups in large multinationals, making (a) portable audio/video players, (b) personal navigation devices, (c) cell phones, (d) laundry care products, and (e) home control products. Data were primarily collected through interviews with 31 product development practitioners. Based on the data collected, case descriptions were created and more than 1,500 barriers and enablers were identified, categorized, and analyzed. The results of the study are 23 sets of barriers and enablers, of which it is indicated in which of the cases they occur, and accompanied with illustrative quotations from the interviewees. In barriers and enablers, a predominantly “outside–in” relation was observed, from the more external properties of companies (market, company organization) to the more internal (process, team, project). This seems to indicate that the user-centeredness of a product development process is highly influenced by the context in which it is executed. The results also lead to the conclusion that if the goal is to make usable products, one cannot only address activities that are generally considered typical of user-centered design, such as conducting user research and user testing. One also has to take into account how these activities are integrated with and supported by the rest of the product development process, which in turn has to be supported by the product development organization.

Reliability and validity revisited

We wish to express our appreciation for the efforts by the three reviewers in the discussion on reliability and validity. This discussion was initiated through the target paper Reliability and validity of findings in ergonomics research (Kanis 2013). This target paper addresses a large number of issues concerning reliability and validity in the field of ergonomics/human factors (E/HF). These issues range from