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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  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.

  2. Burgess, S. C., & King, A. M. (2004). The application of animal forms in automotive styling. The Design Journal, 7(3), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chan, C.-S. (2000). Can style be measured? Design studies, 21(3), 277–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheutet, F. (2007). 2D semantic sketcher for a car aesthetic design. Proceedings of CPI.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240691 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8(4), 441–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Karjalainen, T.-M. (2003). Strategic brand identity and symbolic design cues. In 6th Asian design conference.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. McGarva, J., & Mullineux, G. (1993). Harmonic representation of closed curves. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 17(4), 213–218.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shrestha, S., & Lenz, K. (2007). Eye gaze patterns while searching vs. browsing a Website. Usability News, 9(1). http://usabilitynews.org/eye-gaze-patterns-while-searching-vs-browsing-a-website/

  29. Stiny, G., & Mitchell, W. J. (1978). The palladian grammar. Environment and Planning B, 5(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ji-Hyun Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hyun, K.H., Lee, JH. & Kim, M. The gap between design intent and user response: identifying typical and novel car design elements among car brands for evaluating visual significance. J Intell Manuf 28, 1729–1741 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1176-8

Download citation

Keywords

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