Abstract
Desired affordances and appropriate product semantics are important when considering products that are easy to use and easy to understand. Despite affordances and product semantics being taught in some design educations, many designers in industry do not explicitly consider affordances nor product semantics during the design process. This is partly due to the lack of a framework that supports the considerations for affordances and product semantics during the design process. As a consequence, many designers rely on their own intuition, and this can be problematic. To avoid the potential negative effects of relying on intuition, we designed a framework to support the designer in explicitly considering affordances and applying product semantics during product design. This framework was used by undergraduate students in product design engineering during a 12-week product design assignment. In this paper we present the framework, examples of how it was used and how it was evaluated by the students. We finally discuss the findings within the context of design for meaning and project-based learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrandt Dahlgren, M. (2003). PBL through the looking-glass: Comparing applications in computer engineering, psychology and physiotherapy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(5), 672–681.
Ashby, M. F. (2017). Materials selection in mechanical design (5th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Boess, S. U. (2008). Meaning in product use: which terms do designers use in their work? In Proceedings of DeSForM (pp. 20–27), Offenbach.
Boess, S. U. (2009). Experiencing product use in product design. In Proceedings of ICED’09, the 17th international conference on engineering design, Human Behavior in Design (Vol. 9, pp. 311–322). Palo Alto, CA
Brown, D. C., & Maier, J. R. A. (2015). Affordances in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 29(3), 231–234.
Burlamaqui, L., & Dong, A. (2015). The use and misuse of the concept of affordance. In J. Gero & S. Hanna (Eds.), Design computing and cognition’14 (pp. 295–311). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Chua, K. J., Yang, W. M., & Leo, H. L. (2014). Enhanced and conventional project-based learning in an engineering design module. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(4), 437–458.
Crilly, N., Good, D., Matravers, D., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008a). Design as communication: Exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation. Design Studies, 29(5), 425–457.
Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, P. J. (2008b). Representing artefacts as media: Modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design, 2(3), 15–27.
Cross, N., & Clayburn Cross, A. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16(2), 143–170.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22–39.
Dumas, J. S., & Redish, J. C. (1999). A practical guide to usability testing (Revised ed.). Exeter: Intellect books.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.
Faiola, A., & Matei, S. A. (2010). Enhancing human-computer interaction design education: Teaching affordance design for emerging mobile devices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(3), 239–254.
Frank, M., Lavy, I., & Elata, D. (2003). Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 273–288.
Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin.
Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 717–732.
Kannengiesser, U., & Gero, J. S. (2012). A process framework of affordances in design. Design Issues, 28(1), 50–62.
Kazmierczak, E. T. (2003). Design as meaning making: From making things to the design of thinking. Design Issues, 19(2), 45–59.
Krippendorff, K. (1989). Product semantics: A triangulation and four design theories. In Product semantic’89. University of Industrial Arts Helsinki.
Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1984). Product semantics: Exploring the symbolic qualities of form. Innovation, 3(2), 4–9.
Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (1993). Where meanings escape functions. Design Management Journal, 4(2), 30–37.
Krippendorff, K., & Butter, R. (2007). Semantics: Meanings and contexts of artifacts. In H. N. J. Schifferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Product Experience (pp. 353–376). New York: Elsevier.
Lu, J., & Cheng, L. (2013). Perceiving and interacting affordances: A new model of human—Affordance interactions. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47(1), 142–155.
Maier, J. R. A., & Fadel, G. M. (2009). Affordance based design: A relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 13–27.
Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Norman, D. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and (expanded ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Embodiment design. In K. Wallace & L. Blessing (Eds.), Engineering design (3rd ed., pp. 227–438). London: Springer.
Parmentier, D. D., Van Acker, B. B., Detand, J., & Saldien, J. (2019). Design for assembly meaning: A framework for designers to design products that support operator cognition during the assembly process. Cognition, Technology & Work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00588-x.
Pols, A. J. K. (2012). Characterising affordances: The descriptions-of-affordances-model. Design Studies, 33(2), 113–125.
Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2000). Towards design-based learning. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Parmentier, D.D., Van Acker, B.B., Saldien, J. et al. A framework to design for meaning: insights on use, practicality and added value within a project-based learning context. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 815–838 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09575-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09575-0