Advertisement

User Emotional Experience Evaluation on Bicycle Design from a Multi-sensory Perspective

  • Jo-Yu Kuo
  • Danni ChangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)

Abstract

It has been acknowledged that products providing better user emotional experience (UEX) have more chance to win in the market. Especially for sporting goods, the intensive user-product interaction evokes more complex user emotions. However, the research focusing on UEX is still deficient. Particularly, bicycles as the commonly used products in daily life have not been fully examined. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the UEX on bicycle design. For this end, two different bicycle saddles were chosen, a new semantic database was proposed, and three sets of experiments were conducted under different interaction types (i.e., vision, touch and cycling). Through the analysis of the experiment results, it can be found that different interaction types have an impact on the UEX of bicycle saddle designs; the visual appearance influences high- and low-involvement cyclists differently; and users’ riding postures (forward and upright) affect the emotional intensity of user experience on saddle designs.

Keywords

User emotional evaluation Multi-sensory approach Bicycle design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This Study was Sponsored by Shanghai Pujiang Program 17PJC054.

References

  1. 1.
    Cross, N.: Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seva, R.R., Duh, H.B.-L., Helander, M.G.: The marketing implications of affective product design. Appl. Ergon. 38, 723–731 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Debraux, P., Grappe, F., Manolova, A.V., Bertucci, W.: Aerodynamic drag in cycling: methods of assessment. Sports Biomech. 10(3), 197–218 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertucci, W.M., Rogier, S., Reiser, R.F.: Evaluation of aerodynamic and rolling resistances in mountain-bike field conditions. J. Sports Sci. 31(14), 1606–1613 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giubilato, F., Franch, V., Petrone, N.: Engineering evaluation of “reactivity” of racing bicycle wheels. Procedia Eng. 72, 489–495 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrone, N., Giubilato, F.: Development of a test method for the comparative analysis of bicycle saddle vibration transmissibility. Procedia Eng. 60, 288–293 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laios, L., Giannatsis, J.: Ergonomic evaluation and redesign of children bicycles based on anthropometric data. Appl. Ergon. 41(3), 428–435 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prati, G., Marín Puchades, V., De Angelis, M., Pietrantoni, L., Fraboni, F., Decarli, N., Guerra, A., Dardari, D.: Evaluation of user behavior and acceptance of an on-bike system. Transp. Rese. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 58, 145–155 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berger, M., Dörrzapf, L.: Sensing comfort in bicycling in addition to travel data. Transp. Res. Procedia 32, 524–534 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fenko, A., Schifferstein, H.N.J., Hekkert, P.: Shifts in sensory dominance between various stages of user–product interactions. Appl. Ergon. 41(1), 34–40 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spence, C., Zampini, M.: Auditory contributions to multisensory product perception. Acta Acust. United Acust. 92(6), 1009–1025 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kos, A., Milutinović, V., Umek, A.: Challenges in wireless communication for connected sensors and wearable devices used in sport biofeedback applications. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 92, 582–592 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mugge, R., Govers, P.C., Schoormans, J.P.: The development and testing of a product personality scale. Des. Stud. 30(3), 287–302 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh, A., Das, L.K.: A framework of biker-bike personality factors within the social culture of biking in India. Paper presented at the International Association of Societies of Design Research, Korea, 18–22 October 2009Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, X., Barnes, C.J., Childs, T.H.C., Henson, B., Shao, F.: Materials’ tactile testing and characterisation for consumer products’ affective packaging design. Mater. Des. 30(10), 4299–4310 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zaichkowsky, J.L.: The personal involvement inventory - reduction, revision, and application to advertising. J. Advert. 23(4), 59–70 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.School of DesignShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations