Perceived Quality Evaluation with the Use of Extended Reality

If designers want to communicate quality aspects of the product, there is a need to bring these characteristics into the measurable space of perceived quality (PQ) attributes. To illustrate the solution for designers' dilemma of the “best design choice” in this study we applied the PQ attributes importance ranking (PQAIR) method, with the example of a bread toaster. We choose for evaluation three PQ attributes which can significantly influence visual quality of a product: Gap, Flush and Parallelism. We performed the experiment measuring subjective preferences over the toaster designs of two respondent's groups - “Designers” and “Customers.” We used sequentially: (i) web-survey (still images); (ii) desktop system; and (iii) fully immersive head-mounted display system (Virtual Reality). Consequently, we conducted a post-experiment survey regarding subjective preferences, related to the PQ communication channels that have been implemented during the study. Our results indicate advantages and drawbacks for each PQ communication method that we applied in this experiment and encourage further research in the area of products' perceived quality assessment.

[1]  Rikard Söderberg,et al.  Defining perceived quality in the automotive industry: an engineering approach. , 2015 .

[2]  Rikard Söderberg,et al.  An Efficient Solution to the Discrete Least-Cost Tolerance Allocation Problem With General Loss Functions , 2005 .

[3]  Rikard Söderberg,et al.  Computer Aided Assembly Robustness Evaluation , 1999 .

[4]  Rikard Söderberg,et al.  Perception of gap and flush in virtual environments , 2007 .

[5]  Casper Wickman,et al.  A Framework for Non-nominal Visualization and Perceived Quality Evaluation , 2011 .

[6]  Søren Nygaard Pedersen.  Perceptual Robust Design , 2017 .

[7]  Robert Schmitt,et al.  Tolerancing subjective and uncertain customer requirements regarding perceived product quality , 2013 .

[8]  Mitchell M. Tseng,et al.  A framework of virtual design for product customization , 1997, 1997 IEEE 6th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation Proceedings, EFTA '97.

[9]  J. Louviere,et al.  Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .

[10]  Rikard Söderberg,et al.  Toward a Digital Twin for real-time geometry assurance in individualized production , 2017 .

[11]  C. Moorman,et al.  What is Quality? An Integrative Framework of Processes and States , 2012 .

[12]  Robert P. Smith,et al.  Virtual facility layout design: The value of an interactive three-dimensional representation , 1999 .

[13]  Carol Reeves,et al.  DEFINING QUALITY: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS , 1994 .

[14]  Giovanni Moroni,et al.  Tolerancing: Managing uncertainty from conceptual design to final product , 2018 .

[15]  Rikard Söderberg,et al.  Impacts of Geometrical Manufacturing Quality on the Visual Product Experience , 2013 .

[16]  R. Schmitt,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Consumer Perceived Value Deviation , 2016 .

[17]  J. Steenkamp.  Conceptual model of the quality perception process , 1990 .

[18]  Joseph K. Davidson,et al.  Navigating the Tolerance Analysis Maze , 2007 .

[19]  D. Ait-Kadi,et al.  Product reliability assessment using virtual samples , 2002, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[20]  Thomas Reuding,et al.  Predictive Value of Assessing Vehicle Interior Design Ergonomics in a Virtual Environment , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[21]  David A. Garvin,et al.  Product quality: An important strategic weapon , 1984 .

[22]  Peter M. Dew,et al.  A Virtual Environment for Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Flexible Assemblies in the Automotive Design Process , 2002 .