A Method to Improve Human-Computer Interaction for Shape Design, Based on Empirical Data

Abstract:

Human-computer interaction is often mainly based on the requirements of the software. However, for optimal communication between computer software and its users, the interaction should also fit to the way people work best. To be able to improve interaction with shape modeling software, a study was performed to investigate how people describe shape. The goal is to use the results of the study to adapt the interaction of shape modeling software in such a way that it better connects to the way people think and speak about shape. The study investigates which terms people use to describe shapes and shape operations. Furthermore, it investigates the differences and similarities among subjects who name shapes and shape operations. The study was done among Chinese bachelor students. For this research, a list was composed, containing descriptions of shapes and shape operations. All items in the list were then presented in pictures. The subjects had to name the shapes and shape operations that were depicted by the pictures. The paper describes the research method and shows how the results are analyzed. Furthermore, some first results are shown. Finally, possible implications for future human-computer interaction are discussed.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 44-47)
• Pages: 1407-1411
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.44-47.1407
• Online since: December 2010
• Authors: Tjamme Wiegers, Chen Sheng Wang, Joris S.M. Vergeest
• Keywords: Empirical Data, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Intuitive Interaction, Shape Design, Shape Thinking

References

[1] C. Eastman: New Directions in Design Cognition: Studies on Representation and Recall, in Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, edited by C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken & W. C. Newstetter, (pp.79-103). Amsterdam: Elsevier (2001).

DOI: 10.1016/b978-008043868-9/50001-2

[2] E. Y. Do: Drawing marks, acts, and reacts: Toward a computational sketching interface for architectural design, in: AIEDAM, Vol. 16, p.149–171 (2002).

DOI: 10.1017/s0890060402163037

[3] G. Podehl 2002: Terms and Measures for Styling Properties, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp.879-886 (2002).

[4] V. Cheteut et al.: Preserving car stylists' design intent through an ontology, in: Int J Interact Des Manuf 2 p.9–16, (2008).

DOI: 10.1007/s12008-007-0031-3

[5] P.R. Wilson, M.J. Pratt: A taxonomy of features for solid modelling. In: Geometric Modelling for CAD Applications, pages 125-136, edited by J. Wozny, H.W. McLaughlin, J.L. Encarnacao . North-Holland, IFIP conference (1988).

[6] Y. Song, J.S.M. Vergeest, T. Wiegers, A. Kooijman: The framework of a freeform shape indexing system, in: Proceedings of CAID&CD, (2009).

[7] G. Brunetti, S. Grimm: Feature ontologies for the explicit representation of shape semantics, Int. Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. 23, Nrs. 2-4, pp.192-202 (2005).

DOI: 10.1504/ijcat.2005.006481

[8] T. DeMartino, M. Fontana, F. Giannini, M. Meirana: A free form feature taxonomy, Istitutio per la matematica applicata - C.N.R., Rapporto Tecnico IMA - n. 8 (1998).

[9] C.K. Au, M.M.F. Yuen: A semantic feature language for sculptured object modelling, Computer-Aided Design Vol. 32, pp, 63–74 (2000).

DOI: 10.1016/s0010-4485(99)00085-8

[10] F. Giannini, M. Monti, G. Podehl: Aesthetic-driven tools for industrial design, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.193-215.

DOI: 10.1080/09544820500275396

[11] J.J. Beljon: Zo doe je dat - grondbeginselen van vormgeving, Wetenschappelijke uitgeverij, Amsterdam, (in Dutch) ISBN 906287233 (1980).

[12] T. Wiegers, C. Wang, J.S.M. Vergeest: Shape terms in different languages, in: Int. Conference on Natural Computing, Tianjin, China (2009).

DOI: 10.1109/icnc.2009.714

[13] L.B. Kara, K. Shimada, S.D. Marmalefsky: An evaluation of user experience with a sketch-based 3D modeling system, Computers & Graphics Vol. 31 p.580–597 (2007).

DOI: 10.1016/j.cag.2007.04.004