Investigating Shape Comparison Tools for Benchmarking Differences in Product Appearance During Product Styling

  • Charlie RanscombeEmail author
  • Philip Kinsella
  • Paul R. Stoddart
  • Gavin Melles
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 34)


Product appearance is known to significantly influence market success of a product. Guidelines exist to direct designers as to whether a product should have a more similar or different appearance, in order to fit different marketing strategies. These guidelines are subjective and as such can be difficult for designers to apply when evaluating similarity/difference in the context of specific products being designed. This paper reports an exploratory study of the use of shape descriptors (previously used to search/match 3D digital models), to provide objective measures (benchmarks) for product shape in terms of similarity and difference. Following a case study of beer bottle shapes, it was shown that such descriptors can be used to provide measures for typical deviation in shape for certain product categories. Therefore these measures may form benchmarks for styling of new designs and communicating degree of difference in appearance.


Product styling Measuring appearance Shape descriptors Measures for similarity in appearance 


  1. 1.
    Bloch, P.H.: Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. J. Mark. 59(3), 16–29 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J.: Seeing things: consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Des. Stud. 25(6), 547–577 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moulson, T., Sproles, G.: Styling strategy. Bus. Horiz. 43(5), 45–52 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Person, O., et al.: Complementing intuition: insights on styling as a strategic tool. J. Mark. Manage. 23(9–10), 901–916 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCormack, J.P., Cagan, J., Vogel, C.M.: Speaking the Buick language: capturing, understanding, and exploring brand identity with shape grammars. Des. Stud. 25(1), 1–29 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Warell, A.: Towards a theory-based method for evaluation of visual form syntactics. In: Xirouchakis, H. (ed.) TMCE, Tools and Methods for Competitive Engineering. Millpress, Lausanne (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kazmi, I.K., Lihua, Y., Jian Jun, Z.: A survey of 2D and 3D shape descriptors. In: 10th International Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualization (CGIV 2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Osada, R., et al.: Matching 3D models with shape distributions. In: International Conference on Shape Modeling and Applications (SMI 2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, D.-Y., et al.: On visual similarity based 3D model retrieval. Comput. Graph. Forum 22(3), 223–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ranscombe, C., Hicks, B., Mullineux, G.: A method for exploring similarities and visual references to brand in the appearance of mature mass-market products. Des. Stud. 33(5), 496–520 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pugliese, M., Cagan, J.: Capturing a rebel: modeling the Harley-Davidson brand through a motorcycle shape grammar. Res. Eng. Design 13(3), 139–156 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stiny, G.: Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ. Plan. 7(3), 9 (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charlie Ranscombe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philip Kinsella
    • 2
  • Paul R. Stoddart
    • 2
  • Gavin Melles
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Health, Arts and DesignSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Science, Engineering and TechnologySwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations