Understandable by Design: How Can Products be Designed to Align with User Experience?

  • A. MieczakowskiEmail author
  • P. M. Langdon
  • R. H. Bracewell
  • J. J. Patmore
  • P. J. Clarkson
Conference paper


Understanding users increases the likelihood that the final designed product will meet the needs of heterogeneous people (Kouprie and Sleeswijk Visser, 2009). However, the process of learning to understand users and their experiences requires qualitative research (Mattelmäki and Battarbee, 2002) and a structured investment of time that can be achieved through the development of a manageable design plan in the early stages of design (Yang and Epstein, 2005). Although the fields of accessibility and usability have made significant advances in the last decade in facilitating the design of products and services that satisfy the needs of different users and are easy to use, the majority of design companies still fail to acknowledge users’ needs early on in the design process (Gulliksen et al., 2003). This is because of, among other things, tight schedules and a limited budget (Dong, 2005).


Mental Model Designer Model User Model Dual Functionality Water Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andreasen MM (1994) Modelling: the language of the designer. J Eng Des 5(2):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aurisicchio M, Bracewell RH (2009) Engineering design by integrated diagrams. In: Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, Stanford, CA, USGoogle Scholar
  3. Benktzon M (1993) Designing for our future selves: the Swedish experience. Appl Ergon 24(1):19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chamberlain M, Esquivel J, Miller F, Patmore J (2011) BT’s adoption of customer centric design. Appl Ergon Special Issue (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Craik KJW (1943) The nature of explanation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Dong H (2005) Barriers to inclusive design in the UK. PhD Thesis, Cambridge Engineering Design Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldsmith TE, Davenport DM (1990) Assessing structural similarity of graphs. In: Schvaneveldt RW (ed) Pathfinder associative networks. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Gulliksen J, Goransson B, Boivie I, Blomkvist S, Persson J, Cajander A (2003) Key principles for user-centered systems design. Behav Inf Technol 22(6):397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hewer S, James L (1998) Realising potential: two complementary views from the RSA, London. In: Placencia-Porrero I, Ballabio E (eds) Improving the quality of life for the European citizen: technology for inclusive design and equality. IOS Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson-Laird PN (1983) Mental models. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Keates S, Clarkson PJ (2003) Countering design exclusion: an introduction to inclusive design. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klimoski R, Mohammed S (1994) Team mental model: construct or metaphor? J Manag 20(2):403–437Google Scholar
  13. Kolbitsch J, Maurer H (2006) Transclusions in an HTML-based environment. J Comput Inf Technol 14(2):161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kouprie M, Sleeswijk Visser F (2009) A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user’s life. J Eng Des 20(5):437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langdon PM, Lewis T, Clarkson PJ (2007) The effects of prior experience on the use of consumer products. Univ Access Inf Soc 9:209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langdon P, Thimbleby H (2010) Inclusion and interaction: designing interaction for inclusive populations. Interact Comput 22(6):439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mattelmäki T, Battarbee K (2002) Empathy probes. In: Proceedings of the participatory design conference, Palo Alto, CA, USGoogle Scholar
  18. Norman DA (2002) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Payne SJ (2008) Mental models in human-computer interaction. In: Jacko JA, Sears A (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. Taylor & Francis, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Ricability (2001) Inclusive design: products that are easy for everyone to use. Disability Rights Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang MC, Epstein DJ (2005) Study of prototypes, design activity and design outcome. Des Stud 26(6):649–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Mieczakowski
    • 1
    Email author
  • P. M. Langdon
    • 1
  • R. H. Bracewell
    • 1
  • J. J. Patmore
    • 2
  • P. J. Clarkson
    • 1
  1. 1.Engineering Design Centre, Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Member of Pembroke CollegeUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations