Designer Integration in CIM: A Motivational Approach

An important movement in the area of design and manufacture is the incorporation of CAD and CAM to create a computer integrated manufacturing system. Within this system it is essential that interaction is straightforward for the designer. Research in this area has indicated that no simple way of defining user requirements exists and that probably the most difficult task is not programming the computer, but matching the computer to users' requirements. The present research has focussed upon user requirements at the initial design stage via an investigation of the Designer in action. Attention has been given to the design process (what the designer does) and the design products (what the designer produces). The approach has differed from earlier work, first, by its reliance upon the methods of applied psychology and secondly, by its adoption of a theoretical framework derived from motivation theory.

[1]  H. Day.  Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity , 1967 .

[2]  Wojciech Tarnowski,et al.  The Structure of the Design Process , 1986 .

[3]  S. Kaplan.  Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition , 1987 .

[4]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[5]  James L Olds,et al.  Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain. , 1954, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[6]  Ahmet Cakir.  Towards an ergonomic design of software , 1986 .

[7]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Arousal and Reinforcement , 1967 .

[8]  T. Whitfield,et al.  Predicting preference for familiar, everyday objects: An experimental confrontation between two theories of aesthetic behaviour , 1983 .

[9]  Sheue-Ling Hwang,et al.  Integration of humans and computers in the operation and control of flexible manufacturing systems , 1984 .

[10]  D. Berlyne.  Curiosity and exploration. , 1966, Science.

[11]  D. Berlyne.  The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  T. W. Maver,et al.  Appraisal in the Building Design Process , 1970 .

[13]  J. C. Ogilvie,et al.  The dimensionality of visual complexity, interestingness, and pleasingness. , 1968, Canadian journal of psychology.

[14]  Jane Darke,et al.  The primary Generator and the Design Process , 1979 .

[15]  D D Dorfman,et al.  Pattern preference as a function of pattern uncertainty. , 1966, Canadian journal of psychology.

[16]  Tomas Berns.  The integration of ergonomics into design—A review , 1984 .

[17]  B. Shackel,et al.  Information technology—a challenge to ergonomics and design , 1984 .

[18]  N. Miller,et al.  Learning motivated by electrical stimulation of the brain. , 1954, The American journal of physiology.

[19]  Bruce T. Leckart,et al.  Looking time: The effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity , 1966 .

[20]  P. Vitz.  Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. , 1966, Behavioral science.

[21]  Richard M. Nicki,et al.  Preference for non-representational art as a function of various measures of complexity. , 1975 .

[22]  D. Berlyne.  Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value , 1970 .

[23]  T. Whitfield,et al.  The effects of categorization and prototypicality on aesthetic choice in a furniture selection task. , 1979 .