Designed Objects

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 3

The International Journal of

Designed Objects __________________________________________________________________________

Sensory Perception in Materials Selection for Industrial/Product Design ANTHONY DAVID HOPE, MARK JONES, AND HENGFENG ZUO

designprinciplesandpractices.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS www.designprinciplesandpractices.com First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com ISSN: 2325-1379 © 2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected]. The International Journal of Designed Objects is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterionreferenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

Sensory Perception in Materials Selection for Industrial/Product Design Anthony David Hope, Southampton Solent University, UK Mark Jones, Southampton Solent University, UK Hengfeng Zuo, Tsinghua University, China Abstract: A major concern of designers of consumer products is how their products will be perceived in the market place. The materials used in the manufacture of these products become the media by which the interface between the consumer and the designed product is perceived. The consumer perception of these products will be strongly influenced by their sensory interaction with the materials through both visual and non-visual means. Hence, the selection of a material for a manufactured product is influenced not only by the physical properties but also by the user’s perception of the material based on sensory properties such as colour, texture, smell and taste. In addition to addressing material perception within the sensory domain, this research project also focuses on the cultural domain, including understanding the relationships between sensory responses and culture. An interdisciplinary research approach has been adopted which draws on expertise from design and engineering, social science, and arts and humanities. This combines a study of cultural memory, as well as associative values attached to materials and objects, perception and physical properties of materials. This paper discusses the initial results of controlled experimental tests undertaken in both Southampton and Beijing using specially prepared samples of leather. Participants were asked to perceive the texture of the samples via senses such as vision, touch, or a combination of both vision and touch. This was followed by completing a questionnaire, consisting of both quantitative and qualitative questions. Two additional tests were also included, a blindfold and sighted smell test and a visual colour assessment. Statistical software was used to analyse the correlations between the subjective data obtained. Keywords: Design, Materials, Sensory Perception, Aesthetics

Introduction

E

ngineering design is systematic and follows well-established and widely accepted procedures. The selection of suitable materials is based mainly on the physical properties and other factors, such as cost and density, meeting the design specification. Methods for the selection of materials are well documented (Ashby 2011, Farag 2008) and a number of software aids to material selection are now available (e.g. http://www.matweb.com, http://www.matdata.net). Ashby and Johnson (2003, pp. 24-35) argued that contemporary product design is achieved through an integration of good technical design to provide functionality, proper consideration of the needs of the user in the design of the interface, and imaginative industrial design to create a product that will appeal to the consumers at whom it is aimed. The overall character of a product is a combination of its functionality, usability, and its personality. Product personality can be defined as a combination of aesthetics, associations, and perceptions that the product carries (Ashby and Johnson 2010). Hence the selection of a material in the design for a manufactured product is influenced greatly by the user’s perception of the material based on sensory properties such as colour, texture, smell and taste. Prior scholarship is relatively limited with regard to information about the sensory and aesthetic characteristics of materials. A recent paper (Karana et al. 2010) published in Materials and Design described the development of a new materials selection tool which considers certain aspects such as product personality, user-interaction, meanings and emotions. A second paper (Sonderegger and Sauer 2010) examined the effects of product aesthetics on several outcome variables in usability tests. Using a computer simulation of a mobile phone, 60 adolescents (1417 years old) were asked to complete a number of typical tasks of mobile phone users. Two The International Journal of Designed Objects Volume 6, 2013, www.designprinciplesandpractices.com, ISSN 2325-1379 © Common Ground, Anthony David Hope, Mark Jones, Hengfeng Zuo All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DESIGNED OBJECTS

functionally identical mobile phones were manipulated with regard to their visual appearance (appealing versus not appealing) to determine the influence of appearance on perceived usability, performance measures and perceived attractiveness. The results showed that participants using the highly appealing phone rated their appliance as being more usable than participants operating the unappealing model. The aim of a study reported by Vergara et al. (2011, pp. 652-664) was to determine the influence of multisensory (visual-haptic) interaction and the level of interaction (seeing photographs, seeing the actual product, touching it and using it) on the perception of products, including perceived ergonomics. The product selected for the experiment was a hammer and the results suggested that commercial products are sensitive to emotional design studies and that multisensory integration enhances the perception of factors that are linked with physical interaction between users and tools. An industrial designer’s approach to eliciting user perceptions and emotional responses to products through visual evaluation and stimuli was discussed in a paper by McDonagh et al. (2002, pp. 231-240). This paper presented product personality profiling as a new technique for designers and discussed it alongside other approaches such as mood boards and visual product evaluation. Crilly et al. (2004, pp. 547-577) investigated consumer response to product visual form within the context of an integrated conceptual framework. In this paper emphasis was placed on the aesthetic, semantic and symbolic aspects on cognitive response to design and the accompanying affective and behavioural responses together with the interaction between cognitive and affective response was considered. The role of external visual references was examined and the effects of moderating influences at each stage in the process of communication, particularly the personal, situational and cultural factors that moderate response were considered. A fundamental interaction between a user and a product is physical touch and a significant amount of the perceived value of a product results from the initial touch experienced by the potential customer. The effect of material properties on the judgment of consumer products via the sense of touch was recently reported (Chen et al., 2009). People’s sensorial or psychophysical judgments by touch of the roughness, softness, slipperiness and warmth of 37 samples was reported as well as their affective judgments, such as how pleasurable, exciting, indulgent, the samples felt. In another paper published in the same year by Darden and Schwartz (2009, pp. 1289-1294) it was argued that progress has been hindered by difficulties in drawing correlations between human sensory outcomes (e.g. softness, smoothness, etc.) and quantitative physical properties (e.g. friction coefficient, elastic modulus, etc.). This paper proposed a framework to address this issue with regards to polymer fabrics. The feasibility of using objective measures to predict subjective feeling of worsted fabrics was demonstrated in a paper published in Design Studies (Boztepe 2007). The study showed that perceptive perceptions of fabric softness and warmth of touch could be predicted using objective measures of geometrical surface roughness. The relationship between surface finish and touch was investigated by sliding a finger tip over a rough glass surface (Barnes et al. 2004). The main conclusion from this work was that when a surface is less rough than a finger tip it generates desirable feelings but when it is rougher than a finger tip it generates undesirable ones. Further work on tactile perception using finger friction and surface roughness measurements was undertaken in 2011 (Skedung et al.). The study examined the relationship between the measured friction coefficients and surface roughness to the perceived coarseness of a series of printing papers. It was found that both roughness and finger friction can be related to perceived coarseness. Previous research undertaken by the authors has concentrated mainly on subjective response to a material texture (Zuo et al. 2001). Controlled experimental investigation was focussed on the

18

HOPE ET AL.: SENSORY PERCEPTION IN MATERIALS SELECTION FOR INDUSTRIAL/PRODUCT DESIGN

relationship between the material sensory properties (texture) and human subjective response via the sensation of touch. By carrying out controlled experimental research on texture, it has been possible to identify a way in which people subjectively describe a material texture by touch using a system of dimensions and texture lexicons. Texture lexicons are pairs of texture descriptive words, where each pair of words has bipolar meanings, e.g. warm – cold. It was proposed that subjective responses to a material texture can be described using the following four dimensions: • Geometrical dimension: this dimension describes the subjective response to the geometrical configuration of a material surface. High-frequency lexicons used in this dimension include: smooth – rough, fine – coarse, plain – bumpy, regular – irregular, linear – nonlinear, etc. • Physical-chemical dimension: this dimension describes the subjective response to the physical and/or chemical attributes of a material surface. High-frequency lexicons used in this dimension include: warm – cold, hard – soft, moist – dry, shiny – non-shiny, sticky – non-sticky, etc. • Emotional dimension: this dimension describes the affective, hedonic, valued feelings that are evoked by touching the material surface. High-frequency lexicons in this dimension include: comfortable – uncomfortable, lively/cheerful – dull, elegant – ugly, modern – traditional, etc. • Associative dimension: this dimension describes the subjective association derived from touching the material, based on a comparison of the texture with existing examples in the perceiver’s experience. This description is beyond the description of geometrical and physical-chemical characteristics, and is much more individualdependent. Therefore the lexicons in this dimension are random and have low frequency, for example plastic-like (the material in fact may not be plastic), mattlike, rubber-like, tree bark-like, animal skin-like, honeycomb-like, dimple-like, icelike, etc. The above dimensions and the lexicons within each dimension were developed by controlled experimental research, using isolated material samples of steel, thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) thermoplastic copolymer.

Methodology The work reported in this paper addresses material perception within the sensory domain and focuses on the user’s perception of the material based on sensory properties such as colour, texture, smell and taste. This project also considers the cultural domain, including understanding the relationships between sensory responses and culture. Controlled experimental tests are being undertaken in both Southampton, U.K. and Beijing using specially prepared samples of culturally rich materials, bamboo and leather, based on the consideration that these materials are extensively used in China and hold particular cultural references. This paper presents the results of controlled experimental tests on specially prepared samples of natural and simulated leather. Leather was selected as it is generally regarded as a key material used in luxury products and brands. Real leather is a natural product and in the UK the basis of the leather industry is mainly cattle and sheep, which are reared specifically for the production of meat, wool and dairy products. When choosing leather products, there is a trade-off between natural appearance and ease of care and some typical samples of leather classification by type are shown in Figure 1. • Aniline leather is defined as leather that has not received any coating of pigmented finish. The finish is transparent, so that the original grain surface can be seen

19


• •

through the finish, completely unhindered by any pigment particles. It is the most natural looking but is less resistant to soiling. Pigmented leather is leather whose surface has a finish containing pigment particles that render the finish completely opaque. It is the most durable but is less natural in appearance. Semi-aniline leather is defined as leather which has been aniline dyed or stained, incorporating a small amount of pigment but not so much as to conceal the natural characteristics of the hide. In terms of natural appearance and durability it is somewhere in between on both counts.

Figure 1: Leather Sample Classification by Type Participants were asked to perceive the texture of the prepared leather samples (which included aniline, semi-aniline and pigmented leathers) via senses such as vision, touch, or a combination of both vision and touch. This was followed by completing a questionnaire, consisting of both quantitative and qualitative questions. Statistical software was used to analyse the correlations between the subjective data obtained. Volunteers, consisting of university students and staff, were recruited to take part in the evaluation tests. Participants washed and dried their hands before the tests which lasted for about one hour and were held under controlled conditions of light and temperature. The tests were designed to include touch (static and dynamic) and sight. Details of the tests are as follows.

Static Touch Test The participant was asked to assess the perceived texture of a number of samples mounted on a flat MDF board using three fingers (index, middle and fourth). This test was carried out under both blindfold and sighted conditions (see Figure 2).

20


Figure 2: Photographs of Static Touch Tests

Dynamic Touch Test In this test a leather sample was picked up and the perceived texture assessed by gently rubbing the sample between the thumb and the index finger. Again this test was carried out under both blindfold and sighted conditions. A total of ten real leather samples, three simulated leather samples and three molded plastic samples (with a chemically etched surface pattern to simulate a leather finish) were mounted on a flat MDT board for static touch testing. Additional free-standing samples of the ten real leathers and 3 simulated leathers were also available for the dynamic touch tests and smell tests. During the tests the participants were asked to complete a questionnaire based on the four dimensions defined previously and 13 texture lexicons, which are listed as follows. • Geometrical Dimension: smooth-rough. • Physical-Chemical Dimension: warm-cold, moist-dry, hard-soft, sticky-nonsticky, shiny-nonshiny, slippery-resistant. • Emotional Dimension: uncomfortable-comfortable, dull/depressinglively/cheerful, ugly-elegant, traditional-modern, unsafe-safe, plus dislike-like as an overall preference. Each of the 13 texture lexicons above had a pair of adjectives standing at the two ends of a measuring scale (see Table 1 below) and the participants were asked to give a subjective scaled evaluation of material texture based on the 13 lexicons. For example comfort is assessed on a scale of very uncomfortable (0) to very comfortable (10). A benchmark (the surface of the MDF mounting board) was used as a reference for assessing texture within the geometrical and the physical-chemical dimensions (subjective roughness to subjective grip in Table 1) and was set up at the middle position on the scale (5). Within the emotional dimension it was considered that unnecessary constraints should be removed from the questionnaire and hence the benchmark was not used (comfort to choice/preference in Table 1).

21


Lexicon Comfort Mood Beauty Modern/Traditional Security Choice /Preference Subjective Roughness Subjective Warmth Subjective Hardness Subjective Moisture Subjective Shininess Subjective Stickiness Subjective Grip ♦

Table 1: Lexicons and Evaluation Scales High End of Scale Low End of Scale Comfortable - 10 Uncomfortable - 0 Lively /Cheerful - 10 Dull/Depressing - 0 Elegant - 10 Ugly - 0 Modern - 10 Traditional - 0 Safe - 10 Unsafe - 0 Like - 10 Dislike - 0 Rough - 10 Smooth - 0 Warm - 10 Cold - 0 Hard - 10 Soft - 0 Moist - 10 Dry - 0 Shiny - 10 Nonshiny - 0 Sticky - 10 Nonsticky - 0 Resistant/Firmhold - 10 Slippery -0

Associative Dimension: no lexicons are available as this dimension description is material related. This was left blank on the questionnaire to enable the participants to express themselves freely and provide a brief description of their perceived texture.

Results and Discussion An example of the average scores from 20 participants (university students and staff at Southampton Solent University, U.K.) recorded in static sighted tactile tests for five real leather samples (L1 to L5), one simulated leather sample (S1) and one molded plastic sample with a chemically etched surface pattern to simulate a leather finish (C1), are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Scores Recorded for Static Sighted Tactile Tests Average scores for static sighted tactile tests Test Comfort Mood Beauty Mod/Trad Security Choice Rough Warmth Hardness Moisture Shininess Stickiness Grip L1 8.5 5.1875 7.25 6.4375 6.875 7.125 3.1875 6.75 3.0625 3.3125 2.9375 3.6875 5.5 L2 7.5 5.375 6.6875 6.6875 6.5625 6.5 4.3125 6.75 3.1875 3.625 3.0625 4.0625 5.3125 L3 4.9375 4.9375 5 5 6.125 5.0625 6.75 4.8125 5.625 3.9375 3.5 5.3125 4.9375 L4 5.4375 3.75 4.625 4.5 6.75 5.25 7.125 5.625 5.3125 5.1875 5 6.9375 6.5625 L5 5.625 4.8125 4.625 6.5625 4.8125 3.375 4.5625 5.5 4.625 4.5625 4.5 6.3125 5.5625 S1 4.1875 5 3.625 5.5 5.25 3.125 6.4375 4.9375 6.3125 4.6875 6.25 6.3125 6 C1 3.9375 5.625 3.8125 5.25 5.3125 4 5.1875 4.3125 6.9375 5.75 6.875 6.625 5.1875

The results shown in Table 2 are plotted in Figure 3. The equivalent results for the static blindfold results are also shown plotted in Figure 4.

22


9 8 7

L1

6

L2

5

L3

4

L4

3

L5

2

S1

1

C1

0

Figure 3: Samples L1-L5, S1+C1 Static Sighted Tactile Test UK

9 8 7

L1

6

L2

5

L3

4

L4

3

L5

2

S1

1

C1

0

Figure 4: Samples L1-L5, S1 and C1 Static Blindfold Tactile Test UK

23


By studying Figures 3 and 4 it can be seen that there is quite reasonable agreement between the basic sighted and blindfold trends for all the materials tested. This would indicate that the differences between the static sighted and blindfold results may not be particularly significant. In order to assess the significance of blindfold versus sighted results and also the significance of static versus dynamic tests individual plots for each material sample were obtained. Figure 5 shows an example for leather sample L1 where the average scores for each of the 13 lexicon pairs are plotted for both static and dynamic tests (blindfold and sighted). 9 8 7 6 5

S - blind

4

S - sight D - blind

3

D - Sight

2 1 0

Figure 5: Sample L1 Static versus Dynamic Averages UK It can be seen that the similarity between the trends for all four tests shown in Figure 5 (static-blindfold, static-sighted, dynamic-blindfold, dynamic-sighted) is remarkably good. Similar results are obtained for other materials and Figure 6 shows a second example for material L3. Although the results for material L3 are not quite so good as for material L1 it can be clearly seen that the trends are again very similar for all four tests. These initial results indicate that for further testing it may not be necessary to carry out blindfold and dynamic testing. This would greatly reduce the test loading to static sighted testing only. This would have enormous advantages in reducing the testing times by a factor of approximately four, but this would need to be verified by further testing.

24


8 7 6 5 S - blind

4

S - sight

3

D - blind

2

D - Sight

1 0

Figure 6: Sample L3 Static versus Dynamic Averages UK The average scores for the same samples (L1-L5, S1) recorded in China were plotted against the scores recorded in the UK and similar trends were observed in all cases. Figure 7 shows an example of the UK and China scores for leather sample L1 and it can be clearly seen that the trends are very similar suggesting that the effect due to culture may not be very significant. It should be noted, however, that although the trends are very similar the total overall spread of average scores was greater for the Chinese test results than the UK test results. Similar results can be plotted for all the other material samples tested but it was noted that in all cases the overall spread of the Chinese scores was greater than the equivalent UK scores. This is also illustrated in Figure 8 which shows the sighted static test results for both UK and China for the natural leather sample L1 and the simulated leather sample S1. Here it can be clearly seen that the L1 results for both UK and China show very similar trends. Although the profile of average scores is quite different for the simulated leather sample (S1) the UK and China results follow a very similar pattern. Note again that in both cases the overall spread of scores awarded in China is greater than in the UK.

25


9 8 7 6 5 4

L1-sighted UK

3

L1 - sighted China

2 1 0

Figure 7: Sample L1 – Sighted Comparison of UK versus China Averages 9 8 7 6 5

L1- sighted UK

4

L1 - sighted China

3

S1- sighted UK

2

S1- sighted China

1 0

Figure 8: Samples L1 And S1 – Static Sighted Results for UK and China The individual results for the static sighted tactile tests of all UK participants (average scores plotted in Figure 3) based on their subjective scores for all 13 texture descriptive lexicons were entered into the statistical analysis software PASW Statistics. The relationship between subjective responses was investigated using Pearson correlation analysis and the preliminary results are listed in Table 3. Correlation coefficients highlighted in yellow denote high

26


correlation, |r| ≥ 0.5, and coefficients highlighted in grey denote medium correlation, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5. Table 3: Pearson Correlation Coefficients (R) between 13 Texture Descriptive Lexicons for Visual Touch on Leather Samples. ComfortableUncomfortable

Lively/ cheerfulDull/ depressing

Elegantugly

Modern Traditional

Safeunsafe

Likedislike

Comfort ableUncomf ortable Lively/c heerfulDull/dep ressing

1.000

0.069

1.000

Elegantugly ModernTradition al Safeunsafe

0.689

0.171

1.000

0.341

-0.054

0.458

1.000

0.245

0.034

0.337

0.063

1.000

Likedislike

0.668

0.123

0.827

0.323

0.388

1.000

Roughsmooth

-0.396

-0.252

-0.205

0.352

-0.045

0.381 0.343

-0.162

Warmcold

0.117

0.316

0.292 0.367

Hardsoft

-0.547

-0.100

-0.297

-0.248

0.111

-0.004

-0.115

Shinynonshiny

-0.309

0.197

-0.038

-0.161

Stickynonstick y Resistant -slippery

-0.387

-0.223

0.540 0.114 0.125 0.352

-0.226

Moistdry

-0.022

-0.002

0.046

-0.068

0.069

-0.114

0.005

0.493 0.110 0.124 0.261 0.041

Rough smooth

Warmcold

Hardsoft

Moistdry

Shinynonshiny

Stickynonsticky

Resistant slippery

1.000 0.125 0.426 0.010 0.107 0.386 0.183

1.000 0.423 0.251 0.361 0.109

1.000

0.283

0.132

1.000

0.296

0.151

1.000

0.312

0.203

0.209

1.000

0.005

0.078

0.161

0.144

1.000

It can be seen from Table 3 that there is a high correlation between comfort, beauty and subjective softness. This would indicate that leathers that are perceived as comfortable to the touch are perceived as elegant, soft and generally liked. Leathers perceived as uncomfortable are perceived as hard, ugly and generally disliked. The medium correlation coefficients would suggest that leathers perceived as comfortable are also perceived as soft, modern, smooth, warm, non-shiny and non-sticky. Hard leathers are perceived as rough, cold and are generally disliked. Therefore, the results drawn from this research, under the controlled experimental conditions, would indicate that an optimal leather texture for touch corresponding to positive emotional feelings, particularly comfort, elegance and overall preference, would be a ‘soft, smooth, warm, non-shiny and non-sticky’ surface.

Conclusions •

•

The average scores recorded in the UK for static and dynamic tactile test results (both blindfold and sighted) showed excellent agreement. This indicated that there was little difference between static and dynamic test results for the natural leather samples tested. Hence it is proposed that the dynamic test will not be included in further work. The average scores recorded in the UK for blindfold test results and sighted test results (both static and dynamic) showed excellent agreement. This indicated that there is little difference between blindfold test results and sighted test results and it is suggested that blindfold testing may not be required for further work.

27


•

• •

• • •

•

•

28

Average scores obtained in the UK for static tactile sighted tests were compared with those recorded in China for the same material samples (5 natural leather samples and one synthetic leather sample) and in all cases showed remarkable similarity. This would indicate that any differences in perceived texture due to culture are likely to be minimal. The overall spread of average scores for static sighted tactile tests was greater for the Chinese test results than the UK test results for all samples tested (five natural leathers and one synthetic leather). The UK results for both static and dynamic tactile tests indicated that natural leather samples which were perceived as comfortable were also perceived as elegant, soft and were generally liked by the test participants. The Chinese results also showed similar trends. Medium correlations from the UK and Chinese static and dynamic test results indicated that leather samples perceived as comfortable were also perceived as modern, warm, smooth, non-shiny and non-sticky. There was also an indication that leather samples perceived as rough were also perceived as hard and sticky. The results presented in this paper are the preliminary results of pilot testing using samples of natural and simulated leathers. Extensive further testing is required to fully validate the results. To date the sample population of 20 participants consisted of both male and female university staff and students within the age range 18-65. Further testing will need to investigate the possible effects of both age and gender on the results. Although the tests carried out in China indicated that the effect of culture may be minimal it was noticed that the range of average scores for the Chinese participants was greater than those for the UK participants in all cases. Hence further testing in China will be undertaken to fully investigate possible effects of culture. It is appreciated that the possible effects of culture are likely to be clarified via the associative dimension. As discussed earlier in the paper no lexicons are available in this dimension and participants were asked to express themselves freely and provide a brief description of their perceived texture. The initial results obtained within the associative dimension have not been reported in this paper and further work is required to undertake an analysis of responses received within the associative dimension and fully explore the effect of any cultural differences between the UK and China. As discussed earlier in the paper, compared with the engineering properties of materials, sensory properties, perceived images, meanings and values of a material in the humanproduct interface, referred to as the ‘material representation’, are far from systematically investigated. Experimental research with leather samples has revealed correlations between various subjective responses within texture perception dimensions. Understanding of these correlations will assist in the selection of an optimal material texture. In parallel the quantitative relationships between subjective response to texture and the objective physical parameters of materials are also under investigation. The theoretical analysis and the experimental findings relating to leather will contribute to the development of a new database which will make it possible for designers and engineers, through innovative treatment and application of existing and emerging materials, to create artefacts more effectively by matching human perceptual, sensory and emotional expectation. Initially the leather results will be included in a ‘toolkit’, which can be accessed by designers and engineers. This ‘toolkit’ will incorporate a number of popular materials, including metals, natural materials, woods, glasses, ceramics, fabrics, polymers and elastomers.


Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful advice and support provided by Rachel Garward of the British School of Leather Technology, University of Northampton.

29


REFERENCES Ashby, M.F., 2011. Materials selection in mechanical design. 4th ed. Burlington, Mass.; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ashby, M.F. and Johnson, K., 2003. The art of materials selection. Materials Today, Volume 6, Issue 12, pp. 24-35. Ashby, M.F. and Johnson, K., 2010. Materials and design: the art and science of materials selection in product design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Barnes, C.J., et al., 2004. Surface finish and touch: a case study in a new human factors tribology. Wear, Volume 257, Issues 7-8, pp. 740-750. Boztepe, S., 2007. Objective measures for perceived touch of worsted fabrics. Design Studies, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp. 513-533. Chen, X. et al., 2009. Material’s tactile testing and characterization for consumer products’ affective packaging design. Materials and Design, Volume 30, Issue 10, pp. 4299-4310. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J., 2004. Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp. 547-577. Darden, M.A. and Schwartz C.J., 2009. Investigation of skin tribology and its effects on the tactile attributes of polymer fabrics. Wear, Volume 267, Issues 5-8, pp. 1289-1294. Farag M.M., 2008. Materials and process selection for engineering design. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. Karana, E., Hekkert, P. and Kandachar, P., 2010. A tool for meaning driven materials selection. Materials and Design, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp. 2932-2941. Matdata, search engine for professional materials information, http://www.matdata.net Matweb, on-line database of engineering materials, http://www.matweb.com McDonagh, D., Bruseberg, A. and Haslam, C., 2002. Visual product evaluation: exploring user’s emotional relationships with products. Applied Ergonomics, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp. 231-240. Skedung, L. et al., 2011. Tactile perception: finger friction, surface roughness and perceived coarseness. Tribology International, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp. 505-512. Sonderegger, A. and Sauer, J., 2010. The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied Ergonomics, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp. 403-410. Vergara, M. et al., 2011. Perception of products by progressive multisensory integration: a study on hammers. Applied Ergonomics, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp. 652-664. Zuo, H. et al., 2001. An investigation into the sensory properties of materials. Proceedings of the international conference on affective human factors design. London: Asian Academic Press, pp. 500-507.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Prof. Anthony David Hope: Tony Hope is a Professor in the Creative Industries Research Group, Faculty of Technology, Southampton Solent University, UK. He has many years research experience in materials related topics and has published many papers in refereed international journals and conferences. His current research is concerned with sensory perception of materials, particularly via vision and touch, and the influence of this on the selection of appropriate materials in the design of consumer products. He and his colleague at Southampton, Mark Jones, are collaborating on this work with researchers at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China.

30


Mr. Mark Jones: Mark Jones is the Programme Group Leader for Animation Arts and Product Design, Faculty of Creative Industries and Society, Southampton Solent University, UK. He has over 25 years' experience as a design consultant, as well as lecturing in the area of product design. He established the research programme at Solent in 2004 to investigate the sensory properties of materials and to explore the influence of culture within the design aesthetic. He has published many papers and products that integrate this research into his practice. Dr. Hengfeng Zuo: Hengfeng Zuo is Associate Professor of Industrial Design at Academy of Arts and Design, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. Apart from design teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, he is currently leading the research in the area of colour, materials and surface finish (CMF) for Art and Design, with a special emphasis on material sensory perception and material selection resources and tools. Hengfeng is a partner of Piccinato Design (Italian design consultancy), a member of Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3, UK) and a member of Desgn Research Society. He is also a Visiting Fellow at Southampton Solent University, UK.

31

The International Journal of Designed Objects is one of six thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support the Design Principles and Practices knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community. The journal examines the nature and form of the objects of design, including industrial design, fashion, interior design, and other design practices. As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites presentations of practice—including documentation of designed objects together with exegeses analyzing design purposes, purposes and effects. The International Journal of Designed Objects is a peerreviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2325-1379