Influence of representations on shape-based design activities

  • Stefano FilippiEmail author
  • Daniela Barattin
Original Paper


Shape-based design activities analyse specific shapes to highlight functions that products shaped that way could implement. These design activities encompass a clearly interactive approach; designers have direct, personal confrontations with shapes. It is not to say that the effectiveness of these interactions depends on the way the shapes, along with the environments where their evaluations take place, are represented. Different representations may imply different interaction paradigms that, in turn, could be more or less suitable to highlight implicit problems to solve or foster innovative design solutions. The research described in this paper exploits an existing classification of representations to examine in depth the influence of representations on shape-based design activities. Metrics like quantity, novelty, variety, etc., are involved to analyse the results of these activities from the quantitative point of view. All of this confirms the existence of the influence and allows highlighting some direct relationships between representations and design results. These relationships, in turn, are available to select the best representations to lead design efforts towards specific targets time by time.


Interactive approaches to design Representations Shape-based design Augmented reality Virtual reality 



The authors would like to thank the students of the Mechanical Engineering courses at the University of Udine who took part in the tests.


  1. 1.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: Classification and selection of prototyping activities for interaction design. Intell. Inf. Manag. 4, 147–156 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fairen, M., Brunet, P., Techmann, T.: MiniVR: a portable virtual reality application. Comput. Graph. 28(2), 289–296 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Webb, P.A.: A review of rapid prototyping (RP) techniques in the medical and biomedical sector. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 24(4), 149–153 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yamabe, T., Nakajima, T.: Playful training with augmented reality games: case studies towards reality-oriented system design. Multimed. Tools Appl. 62(1), 259–286 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, R., Yan, L.: The design of a 3D flight simulation and monitoring platform. Adv. Mater. Res. 466–467, 971–975 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Starkey, E.M., McKay, A.S., Hunter, S.T., Miller, S.R.: Dissecting creativity: how dissection virtuality, analogical distance, and product complexity impact creativity and self-efficacy. In: Paper Presented at the Seventh International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, Chicago, USA, pp. 63–82 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maher, M.L., Lee, L., Gero, J., Yu, R., Clausner, T.:. Characterizing tangible interaction during a creative combination task. In: Paper Presented at the Seventh International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition—DCC16, Chicago, USA, pp. 43–62 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohler, T., Matzler, K., Fuller, J.: Avatar-based innovation: using virtual worlds for real-world innovation. Technovation 29, 395–407 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kan, H.Y., Duffy, V.G., Su, C.: An internet virtual reality collaborative environment for effective product design. Comput. Ind. 45(2), 197–213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Song, I.H., Chung, S.C.: Synthesis of the digital mock-up system for heterogeneous CAD assembly. Comput. Ind. 60(5), 285–295 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fusion 360 by AutoDesk: (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Blender by Blender Foundation: (2018) Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  14. 14.
    Maya by AutoDesk: (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  15. 15.
    HTC Vive by HTC: (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  16. 16.
    Oculus Rift by Facebook: (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  17. 17.
    Lee, D., Baek, K., Lee, J., Lim, H.: A development of virtual reality game utilizing kinect, oculus rift and smartphone. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 11(2), 829–833 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi, S.H., Chan, A.M.M.: A virtual prototyping application for rapid product development. Comput. Aid. Des. 36(5), 401–412 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matsas, E., Vosniakos, G.C.: Design of a virtual reality training system for human–robot collaboration in manufacturing tasks. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 11(2), 139–153 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rogers, C., Lau, J., Huynh, D., Albertson, S., Beem, J., Qian, E.: Capturing the perceived phantom limb through virtual reality. Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2016, 1–6 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sveistrup, H., McComas, J., Thornton, M., Marshall, S., Finestone, H., McCormick, A., Babulic, K., Mayhew, A.: Experimental studies of virtual reality-delivered compared to conventional exercise programs for rehabilitation. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 6(3), 245–249 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E77-D(12), 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albert, A., Hallowell, M.R., Kleiner, B., Chen, A., Golparvar-Fard, M.: Enhancing construction hazard recognition with high-fidelity augmented virtuality. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140(7), 1–11 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Azuma, R.T.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 6(4), 355–385 (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Katiyar, A., Kalra, K., Garg, C.: Marker based augmented reality. Adv. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2(5), 441–445 (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kang, Y., Han, S.: An alternative method for smartphone input using AR markers. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 1(3), 153–160 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meta: (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  28. 28.
    HoloLens by Microsoft: (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  29. 29.
    Papagiannakis, G., Schertenleib, S., O’Kennedy, B.: Mixing virtual and real scenes in the sites of ancient Pompeii. Comput. Anim. Virtual World 16(1), 11–24 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Henderson, S., Feiner, S.: Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 17(10), 1355–1368 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alce, G., Wallergård, M., Hermodsson, K.: WozARd: a wizard of oz method for wearable augmented reality interaction—a pilot study. Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2015, 1–10 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Microsoft HoloLens - Volvo Cars UK: (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  33. 33.
    Salloum, T., Anselmetti, B., Mawussi, K.: Design and manufacturing of parts for functional prototypes on five- axis milling machines. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 45(7–8), 666–678 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gao, W., Zhang, Y., Ramanujan, D., Ramani, K., Chen, Y., Williams, C.B., Wang, C.C.L., Shin, Y.C., Zhang, S., Zavattieri, P.D.: The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput. Aided Des. 69(C), 65–89 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Melchels, F.P.W., Feijen, J., Grijpma, D.W.: A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering. Biomater 31(24), 6121–6130 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yao, X., Moon, S.K., Bi, G.: Multidisciplinary design optimization to identify additive manufacturing resources in customized product development. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 4, 131–142 (2017)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tamura, H., Yamamoto, H., Katayama, A.: Mixed reality: future dreams seen at the border between real and virtual worlds. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21(6), 64–70 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bordegoni, M., Cugini, U., Caruso, G., Polistena, S.: Mixed prototyping for product assessment: a reference framework. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 3(3), 177–187 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Filippi, S., Barattin, D.: Involving Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affected people in design. In: Paper Presented at the Joint Conference of ADM, INGEGRAF and AIP-PRIMECA - JCM2016, Catania, Italy, pp. 373–383 (2016)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mikkonen, J., Hsieh, Y.T.: Prototyping with experience workshop. In: Paper Presented at the 15th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, DUXU 2013, Las Vegas, USA, pp. 564–572 (2013)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Alessi: The Italian factory of industrial design. (2018). Accessed 12 Oct 2018
  42. 42.
    Shah, J.J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., Smith, S.M.: Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des. Stud. 25, 111–134 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sarkar, P., Chakrabarti, A.: Assessing design creativity. Des. Stud. 32, 348–383 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ultimaker 2+ by Ultimaker: (2018). Accessed 05 June 2018
  45. 45.
    Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C.: Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Benasciutti, D., Srnec Novak, J., Moro, L., De Bona, F., Stanojevic, A.: Experimental characterisation of a CuAg alloy for thermo-mechanical applications. Part 1: Identifying parameters of non-linear plasticity models. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 41(6), 1364–1377 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DPIA Department, Product Innovation Research Group (PIRG)University of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations