Computer graphics images are characterised by both object information and emotive 2mplications. To promote proper interpretation, it is important to convey incomplete or approximate object information in conceptual design, as well as emotive expressiveness, via the graphics interface. This paper presents a study of user perception and emotional responses to different rendering styles using Kansei Engineering. The investigation involved a sample comprising of 61 students and faculty, and 30 different rendering styles representing existing photorealistic (PR), non-photorealistic (NPR) and new vague rendering (VR) styles. The study has shown that VR styles are able to affect viewers of images in a different way than PR and NPR styles. That is, VR styles are most effective for conveying affective and functional content, PR styles for affective content, and NPR styles for affective, motivational and cognitive content.


Computer Graphic Emotive Expressiveness Semantic Differential Scale Affective Content Line Style 
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. Barnard, PJ and May, J: 1993, Cognitive Modelling for User Requirements in Computers, Communication and Usability: Design issues, research and methods for integrated services, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 101–145.Google Scholar
  2. Burns, KJ: 2001, Mental models of line drawings, Perception 30(10): 1249–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coolican, H: 2004, Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, Hodder and Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
  4. Curtis, CJ, Anderson, SE, Seims, JE, Fleischer, KW, and Salesin, DH: 1997, Computer generated water colour, Computer Graphics 31: 421–430.Google Scholar
  5. Dooley, D and Cohen, MF: 1990, Automatic illustration of 3D geometric models: Surfaces, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 13(2): 307–314.Google Scholar
  6. Duke, DJ, Barnard, PJ, Duce DA, and May J: 1999, Syndetic modelling, Human Computer Interaction 13(4): 93–158.Google Scholar
  7. Duke, DJ, Barnard, PJ, Halper, N, and Mellin, M: 2003, Rendering and affect, Computer Graphics Forum 22(3): 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erwig, M and Schneider, M: 1997, Vague regions, 5th International Symposium on Advances in Spatial Databases (SSD’97), pp.Google Scholar
  9. Ferwada, J: 2003, Three varieties of realism in Computer Graphics, Proceedings of SPIE Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, pp.Google Scholar
  10. George, G and Mallery, P: 2005, SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 12.0 Update, Pearson Education, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Gooch, A, Gooch, B, Sherley, P, and Cohen, E: 1998, A non-photorealistic lighting model for automatic technical illustration, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp.Google Scholar
  12. Guan, X, MacCallum, KJ, and Duffy, A: 1996, Classification of geometric design information and manipulation for vague geometric modelling, Workshop on Knowledge Intensive CAD, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA, pp.Google Scholar
  13. Guan, X, Duffy, A, and MacCallum KJ: 1997, Prototype system for supporting the incremental modelling of vague geometric configurations, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 11: 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halper, N, Mellin, M, Herrmann, CS, Linneweber, V, and Strothotte T: 2003, Towards an understanding of psychology of non-photorealistic rendering, Proceedings of Workshop on Computational Visualistics, Media Informatics and Virtual Communities, Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, pp.Google Scholar
  15. Heckbert, PS: 1990, Adaptive radiosity textures for bidirectional ray tracing, Computer Graphics (ACM SIGGRAPH’90 Conference Proceedings), New York 24, pp.Google Scholar
  16. Herman, I, and Duke, DJ: 2001, Minimal graphics, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21(6): 18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horvath, I, Rusak, Z, Vergeest, JSM, and Kuczogi, G: 2000, Vague modelling for conceptual design, Proceedings of the Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, Delft University Press, Delft, pp.Google Scholar
  18. Howitt, D and Cramer, D: 2003, A Guide to Computing with SPSS 11 for Windows, Pearson Higher Education, Essex, England.Google Scholar
  19. Howitt, D and Cramer, D: 2005, Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology, Pearson Education, Essex, England.Google Scholar
  20. Hsu, SC, Lee, IHH, and Wiseman, NE: 1993, Skeletal strokes, Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Atlanta, ACM Press, New York, USA, pp.Google Scholar
  21. Ishihara, S, Ishihara, K, Nagamachi, M, and Matsubara, Y: 1997, An analysis of Kansei structure on shoes using self-organizing neural networks, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 19: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kajiya, JT: 1986, The Rendering Equation, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, ACM Press, New York, USA, pp.Google Scholar
  23. Kuczogi, G, Rusak, Z, and Horvath, I: 2000, Towards a natural user interface for comprehensive support of conceptual shape design, UkrObraz2000 5th All-Ukrainian International Conference on Signal/Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, pp.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, S, Harada, A, and Stappers, PJ: 2000, Pleasure with products: Design based on Kansei, Proceedings of the Pleasure-Based Human Factors seminar, Taylor and Francis, Copenhagen, pp.Google Scholar
  25. Lim, S: 2002, An Approach to Design Sketch Modelling, PhD Thesis, CAD Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  26. Litwinowicz, P: 1997, Processing images and video for an impressionist effect, Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, ACM Press, New York, pp.Google Scholar
  27. McDonagh, D, Bruseberg, A, and Haslam, C: 2002, Visual evaluation: Exploring users’ emotional relationships with products, Applied ergonomics: Human Factors in Technology and Society 33(3): 237–246.Google Scholar
  28. Meier, BM: 1996, Painterly rendering for animation, International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, ACM Press, New York, pp. 477–484Google Scholar
  29. Nagamachi, M: 1995, Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer oriented technology for product development, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osgood, CE, Suci, GJ, and Tannenbaum, PH: 1957, The Measurement of Meaning, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  31. Paterson, G: 1986, An investigation of the presentation of graphical approximations, Technical Note, CAD Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  32. Purcell, AT and Gero, JS: 1998, Drawings and the design process, Design Studies 19: 389–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rusak, Z, Horvath, I, Kuczogi, G, and Vergeest, JSM: 2000, Techniques for generating shape instances from domain distributed vague models, Proceedings of UkrObraz, pp.Google Scholar
  34. Saito, T and Takahashi, T: 1990, Comprehensible rendering of 3-D shapes, Computer Graphics 24(4): 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salisbury, M, Wong, MT, Hughes, JF, and Salesin, DH: 1997, Orientable textures for image based pen-and-ink Illustration, Computer Graphics, SIGGRAPH’97 Proceedings Issue, Addison Wesley, pp.Google Scholar
  36. Schofield, S: 1994, Non-photorealistic Rendering: A Critical Examination and Proposed System, PhD Thesis, School of Art and Design, Middlesex University, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  37. Schumann, J, Strothotte,T, Raab, A, and Laser, S: 1996, Assessing the effect of non-photo realistic rendered images in CAD, Proceedings of CHI’96 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp.Google Scholar
  38. Sillion, FX: 1994, Radiosity and Global Illumination, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  39. Smithers, T: 1998, Towards a knowledge level theory of design process, Artificial Intelligence in Design, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  40. Stevenson, DA, Guan, X, MacCallum, KJ, and Duffy, A: 1996 Sketching on the back of the computational envelope…and then posting it? AID’96 Workshop on Visual Presentation, Reasoning and Interaction in Design, Stanford University, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Strothotte, T, Preim, B, Raab, A, Schumann, J, and Forsey, DR: 1994, How to Render Frames and Influence People, Computer Graphics Forum, Proceedings of EuroGraphics 13(3): 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tenneti, R and Duffy, A: 2005, Identifying requirements for rendering in conceptual design, International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’05), Melbourne.Google Scholar
  43. Willows, DM and Houghton, HA: 1987, The Psychology of Illustration, Berlin-Heidelberg-Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Winkenbach, G and Salesin, DH: 1994, Computer generated pen-and-ink illustrations, Computer Graphics, SIGGRAPH’94 Proceedings Issue 28(4): 91–100.Google Scholar
  45. Yamaguchi, Y, Nakamura, H, and Kimura, F: 1992, Probabilistic solid modelling: A new approach for handling uncertain shapes, Geometric Modelling for Product Realisation, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 95–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
    • 1
  1. 1.University of StrathclydeUK

Personalised recommendations