Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp 1729–1741 | Cite as

The gap between design intent and user response: identifying typical and novel car design elements among car brands for evaluating visual significance

  • Kyung Hoon Hyun
  • Ji-Hyun Lee
  • Minki Kim


This paper identifies correlations of design intent and user response to stylistic recognition of 23 car brands, with an emphasis on visual aesthetics. By evaluating car exterior designs based on shape similarities, it is possible to find the distributions of the typical design elements and novel design elements. These can then be compared with looking probabilities on design elements observed from eye tracking experiments to conduct a Design Intent Analysis. We have identified that the participants’ viewing patterns are related to the degree of shape similarities of particular design elements such as the front bumper, side silhouette, and side front fender. We observed no significance in regard to subjects’ looking probabilities in relation to design intent of the other 16 design elements. Thus, the design intent of the car brands does not correlate with the user responses. The contribution of this paper is twofold: providing systematic measures and promoting practical possibilities for design quantification. The design field relies heavily on expert knowledge; an empirical understanding of designer intent and user response therefore can provide quantifiable insight to automobile companies. Based on our findings, companies could investigate how creating unique designs may not always be good strategies for improving design qualities, brand recognition or even purchase intent. Companies can efficiently and strategically manage design costs, which are directly related to the manufacturing cost.


Product aesthetics Design intent  Brand identity  Visual significance Design strategy  Design management 


  1. Blijlevens, J., Hekkert, P., & Thurgood, C. (2014). The joint effect of typicality and novelty on aesthetic pleasure for product designs: Influences of safety and risk. In Proceedings of the 23rd Biennial congress of the international association of empirical aesthetics, New York, USA, August 22–24, 2014. IAEA.Google Scholar
  2. Burgess, S. C., & King, A. M. (2004). The application of animal forms in automotive styling. The Design Journal, 7(3), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan, C.-S. (2000). Can style be measured? Design studies, 21(3), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheutet, F. (2007). 2D semantic sketcher for a car aesthetic design. Proceedings of CPI.Google Scholar
  5. Cluzel, F., Yannou, B., & Dihlmann, M. (2012). Using evolutionary design to interactively sketch car silhouettes and stimulate designer’s creativity. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(7), 1413–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2004). Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25(6), 547–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Shaping things: Intended consumer response and the other determinants of product form. Design Studies, 30(3), 224–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Da Silva, O., Crilly, N., & Hekkert, P. (2014). Can a light switch be beautiful? Aesthetic appreciation of products as means. In K. Niedderer & Y.-K. Lim (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference of the design research society (pp. 1691–1692). Umeå, Sweden: Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  9. Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., & Tullis, T. (2011). Visual hierarchy and viewing behavior: An eye tracking study. In J. A. Julie (Ed.), Human–computer interaction. Design and development approaches, pp. 331–340. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Forslund, K., & Soderberg, R. (2010). Aesthetic consequences of making car exteriors visually robust to geometrical variation. Journal of Design Research, 8(3), 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guan, Z., & Cutrell, E. (2007). An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on web search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 417–420). New York: ACM.
  12. Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., & Wieringen, P. C. (2003). ‘Most advanced, yet acceptable’: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hyun, K. H., & Lee, J.-H. (2014). Identifying unique car design elements among car brands for evaluating visual significance. In Paper presented at the design engineering workshop (DEWS 2014): Design meets engineering. Songshan Cultural and Creative Park, Taipei, Taiwan, November 20–22, 2014.Google Scholar
  14. Hyun, K. H., Lee, J.-H., Kim, M., & Cho, S. (2015). Style synthesis and analysis of car designs for style quantification based on product appearance similarities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29(3), 483–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karjalainen, T.-M. (2003). Strategic brand identity and symbolic design cues. In 6th Asian design conference.Google Scholar
  17. Karjalainen, T.-M. (2007). It looks like a Toyota: Educational approaches to designing for visual brand recognition. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 67–81.Google Scholar
  18. Ludden, G. D., Schifferstein, H. N., & Hekkert, P. (2008). Surprise as a design strategy. Design Issues, 24(2), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCormack, J. P., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. M. (2004). Speaking the Buick language: Capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars. Design Studies, 25(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGarva, J., & Mullineux, G. (1993). Harmonic representation of closed curves. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 17(4), 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McHorney, C. A., War, J. E., Jr., Lu, J. R., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Medical care, 32(1), 40–66.Google Scholar
  22. Orsborn, S., Cagan, J., Pawlicki, R., & Smith, R. C. (2006). Creating cross-over vehicles: Defining and combining vehicle classes using shape grammars. AIE EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing, 20(03), 217–246.Google Scholar
  23. Person, O., Schoormans, J., Snelders, D., & Karjalainen, T.-M. (2008). Should new products look similar or different? The influence of the market environment on strategic product styling. Design Studies, 29(1), 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poole, A., Ball, L. J., & Phillips, P. (2005). In search of salience: A response-time and eye-movement analysis of bookmark recognition. In S. Fincher, P. Markopoulos, D. Moore, & R. Ruddle (Eds)., People and computers XVIII—Design for life (pp. 363–378). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Porter, S. S., & Claycomb, C. (1997). The influence of brand recognition on retail store image. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(6), 373–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pugliese, M. J., & Cagan, J. (2002). Capturing a rebel: Modeling the Harley–Davidson brand through a motorcycle shape grammar. Research in Engineering Design, 13(3), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye-tracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51(4), 524–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shrestha, S., & Lenz, K. (2007). Eye gaze patterns while searching vs. browsing a Website. Usability News, 9(1).
  29. Stiny, G., & Mitchell, W. J. (1978). The palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B, 5(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wickman, C. (2005). Visualising the effect of geometrical variation in assembled products. Predicting visual quality appearance. Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Culture TechnologyKAISTDaejeonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.College of BusinessKAISTSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations