VISUAL CONJOINT – FROM DISCRETE TO CONTINUOUS

One goal of designers is to find what users most likely appreciate and translate that into successful product designs. Over the past 15 years, the efficacy of visual conjoint analysis as a means to assess the visual preference of users has been explored and has demonstrated immense potential for product development and aesthetic design. Visual conjoint started within marketing but was adopted by engineering design due to its ability to map visual product attributes to quantifiable mathematical representations. Conjoint studies initially presented only discrete verbal options, which severely limited types of feedback that designers could acquire. As conjoint evolved and was adopted by engineering design, it began to include discrete imagery with verbal representations. This provided more information without requiring more cognitive processing by respondents. Engineering design then realized the advantage of having purely visual conjoint studies in that mathematically represented images could contain immense amounts of information in simple representations. Continuous visual conjoint leverages imagery that represents mathematical models of continuously variable design attributes.

[1]  Jean-François Petiot,et al.  Preference-oriented form design: application to cars’ headlights , 2009 .

[2]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Measurement of Headlight Form Preference Using a Choice Based Conjoint Analysis , 2007, DAC 2007.

[3]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Towards Understanding the Role of Interaction Effects in Visual Conjoint Analysis , 2013, DAC 2013.

[4]  Peter H. Bloch Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response , 1995 .

[5]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Linking Marketing and Engineering Product Design Decisions via Analytical Target Cascading , 2005 .

[6]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Identifying product shape relationships using principal component analysis , 2008 .

[7]  Morris B. Holbrook,et al.  Feature Interactions in Consumer Judgments of Verbal Versus Pictorial Presentations , 1981 .

[8]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decision Analysis with Multiple Conflicting Objectives, Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1975 .

[9]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Form Function Fidelity , 2011 .

[10]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[11]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[12]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Experiential Conjoint Analysis: An Experience-Based Method for Eliciting, Capturing, and Modeling Consumer Preference , 2014 .

[13]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Incorporating user shape preference in engineering design optimisation , 2011 .

[14]  E. Dahan,et al.  The predictive power of internet-based product concept testing using visual depiction and animation , 2000 .

[15]  Seth Orsborn,et al.  CAPTURING INTERACTIONS IN DESIGN PREFERENCES: A COLORFUL STUDY , 2011 .

[16]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Product semantics and wine portfolio optimisation , 2009 .

[17]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[18]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Multiagent Shape Grammar Implementation: Automatically Generating Form Concepts According to a Preference Function , 2009 .

[19]  Hsin-Hsi Lai,et al.  A robust design approach for enhancing the feeling quality of a product: a car profile case study , 2005 .

[20]  Marvin Berkowitz,et al.  Product shape as a design innovation strategy , 1987 .

[21]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Understanding Consumer Tradeoffs Between Form and Function Through Metaconjoint and Cognitive Neuroscience Analyses , 2013 .

[22]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The Impact of Sustainability on Consumer Preference Judgments of Product Attributes , 2015 .

[23]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[24]  Maria C. Yang,et al.  The Role of Sketch Finish and Style in User Responses to Early Stage Design Concepts , 2011 .

[25]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function , 2008 .

[26]  Erin F. MacDonald,et al.  Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment , 2013 .

[27]  Antoine Dagher,et al.  Elicitation and Modeling of Customers’ Preferences in Industrial Design: A Comparative Study on Vehicle Front End , 2008, DAC 2008.

[28]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Quantification of perceived environmental friendliness for vehicle silhouette design , 2010 .

[29]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Modeling Product Form Preference Using Gestalt Principles, Semantic Space, and Kansei , 2012 .

[30]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes , 1991 .