Consumer to Creator (CHI 2017 presentation)
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•125 views
CHI 2017 Paper Presentation reference: Bokyung Lee, Gyeol Han, Jundong Park, and Daniel Saakes. 2017. Consumer to Creator: How Households Buy Furniture to Inform Design and Fabrication Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 484-496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025666 video: https://vimeo.com/200118835
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Consumer to Creator (CHI 2017 presentation)
Similar to Consumer to Creator (CHI 2017 presentation) (20)
More from Lydia BoKyung Lee
More from Lydia BoKyung Lee (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Consumer to Creator (CHI 2017 presentation)
- 1. Consumer to Creator: How Households Buy Furniture to Inform Design and Fabrication Interfaces. Bokyung Lee, Gyeol Han, Jundong Park, Daniel Saakes Department of Industrial Design, KAIST, Korea boing222@kaist.ac.kr 2016. 05. 08 CHI 2017
- 2. Consumer to Creator: How Households Buy Furniture to Inform Design and Fabrication Interfaces. Bokyung Lee, Gyeol Han, Jundong Park, Daniel Saakes Department of Industrial Design, KAIST, Korea boing222@kaist.ac.kr 2016. 05. 08 CHI 2017
- 4. 4 01. MOTIVATION “Let’s imagine you want a stool for your house.”
- 5. 5 01. MOTIVATION Picture by Hanssem co. height of the table? material harmony?
- 6. 6 01. MOTIVATION comfort? fit to your body?
- 7. 01. MOTIVATION 7 make decisions together?
- 8. 8 Shouldn’t these natural practices also be addressed within design / fabrication interfaces? 01. MOTIVATION
- 11. 11 02. RELATED WORK Online Customization Tools HCI Research in Fabrication
- 13. 13 03. Study Method By looking into how families discover what they need, find solutions, and realize a solution in their house, understand the practice of acquiring furniture, and identify design opportunities for digital fabrication. we aim to research goal
- 14. 14 • Four types of households, 16 households in total. • Average Study Duration per household: 105 days • We recruited people who are planning to purchase interior items in the near future. 03. STUDY METHOD Participant A. Single Male x 4 B. Single Female x 4 C. Couples (no chidren) x 4 D. Couples (with children) x 4
- 15. 15 Study Process Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 03. STUDY METHOD Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell model (EKB model) research framework Rachel Ashman, Michael R. Solomon, and Julia Wolny, An old model for a new age: Consumer Decision Making in Participatory Digital Culture, Journal of Consumer Behaviour (2015)
- 16. 16 03. STUDY METHOD Probe study probe study Four-day probe kit boxes delivered to the participants.Examples of probe study result.
- 17. 17 03. STUDY METHOD Motivation interview motivation interview The photo from the motivation Interview of D4.
- 18. 18 03. STUDY METHOD Diary study (in-between) diary study SNS diary study results (captured from the mobile SNS)
- 19. 19 03. STUDY METHOD Purchase interview purchase interview The photo from the purchase Interview of C1.
- 20. 20 03. STUDY METHOD Usage interview usage interview The photo of the purchased item in-use (C4). They send this photo while doing the chat-interview.
- 21. 16 households 105 days / household 21
- 22. Open Coding & Axial Coding Affinity Diagramming • To understand the big picture or common workflow • Iterative Process (physically & digitally) 03. STUDY METHOD analysis activities needs sources barriers & enablers roles 22
- 23. 03. STUDY METHOD analysis activities Motivation type Furniture type Residential situ User Journey Mapping • To see relations between activity and participant’s motivation/characteristic/residential situation…etc. • To see the relations between what / why / how 23
- 25. 25 04. RESULTS result overview Furniture Design Workflow Motivation / Exploration / Realization Design Practices Key activities / sources / requirements Collaboration among household Collaboration Types / Patterns for Exploration & Realization stage Furniture Design Workflow
- 26. 26 04. RESULTS result overview Furniture Design Workflow Motivation / Exploration / Realization Design Practices Key activities / sources / requirements Collaboration among household for Exploration & Realization stage Collaboration Types / Patterns
- 27. 27 04. RESULTS 14~83 days 1~27 days Furniture Design Workflow
- 28. 28 04. RESULTS Motivation Five Motivation Types According to the motivation type, purchase behaviour drastically changes.
- 29. 29 Uncomfortable experience with an existing item Replacing the existing item New Item (not relevant to existing item) Upgrading the existing item Primary Item (Essential Item) 04. RESULTS Motivation Secondary Item functional purpose decoration purpose Interaction with the existing item (Pair-Item) Aspects of the existing item (Re-design)
- 30. 30 04. RESULTS Exploration EXPLORE THE SOLUTION SPACE EXPLORE THE PROBLEM SPACE Understanding design requirements
- 31. 31 04. RESULTS Exploration EXPLORE THE SOLUTION SPACE EXPLORE THE PROBLEM SPACE Understanding design requirements
- 32. 32 04. RESULTS External Exploration (Explore the Solution Space) • All started with online searches to see various styles of the product. (Picture A ) • All obtained trend data from curated shopping malls or crowd-sourced information. • User-generated content had a large impact. (ex. photo of the product-in-use (Picture B )) • No experience with the product -> Experiential information (ex. User Reviews) • Ergonomic Products-> Find out Expert Knowledge (Picture C ) A B C C B A
- 33. 33 04. RESULTS Exploration EXPLORE THE SOLUTION SPACE Understanding design requirements EXPLORE THE PROBLEM SPACE
- 34. 34 Gesture Movements to Demonstrate Comfortable Scenarios 04. RESULTS Internal Exploration (Problem Space) Express Ideal Color through Adjectives Novice’s Prototyping Activities to Define Dimensions
- 35. 35 04. RESULTS Exploration EXPLORE THE SOLUTION SPACE EXPLORE THE PROBLEM SPACE Understanding design requirements
- 36. 36 04. RESULTS Realization EXPLORE THE SOLUTION SPACE EXPLORE THE PROBLEM SPACE Understanding design requirements Prototyping Solutions in their House
- 37. 37 04. RESULTS Realization Prototyping in their House • Visualize the item in their home. • material chips • measuring tape or gestures (Picture ) • mobile as a low-tech AR display (Picture ) • Check the comfort • Indirect check (Picture ) Getting Advice from Others • Gain confidence by consulting others. • people who had expert knowledge • friends, parents (expertise in usage) • salespeople, professional designers (expertise in product features) A B C C B A
- 38. 38 04. RESULTS Realization Usage at Home
- 39. 39 04. RESULTS Usage at Home Usage at Home Reflection on their purchase / decision. Households reflect on their purchase process after having the item in use for a month
- 40. 40 A CB 04. RESULTS Usage at Home • Households made mistakes in estimating item dimensions. • Households usually didn’t take account all the possible scenarios or situations. (Picture ) • Households fail to consider the interaction between the new item and an existing objects. (Picture ) B C
- 41. 41 05 DISCUSSION
- 42. 42 Limitations • Too diverse products & motivations for in-depth studies • Only 16 middle-income households living in South Korea
- 43. 43 05. DISCUSSION External Information Source for Casual Users Situated and Experiential Prototyping at Home Mobile Media In the Design Process Collaborative Process Among Households Temporality in Design • 2 stages, each with unique information needs • households experience difficulty “prototyping” the new items in their life. • All households exclusively used handheld mobile media throughout the process (no pc) • Roles • Households do not only design for their current home but also take into account their future
- 44. 44 Exploration Stage: photo of product-in-use (e.g., blogs/website) • Need of Context-in-use information • Using images proved a convenient way to materialise their ideas ➡ Automatic Styling based on the collected images Realization Stage: in-depth qualitative information (opinions / feedback) • Including images as input could decrease the gap between what they want and make ➡ Teleoperation Interfaces User-generated > vendor supplied 05. DISCUSSION External Information Source for Casual Users Situated and Experiential Prototyping at Home • System that allows people to design directly in the environment • Situated Prototyping / Direct Visualisation / Rapid design iterations (1:1 scale) • Feedback on ergonomic
- 45. Long-term qualitative study in which we followed 16 households during a purchasing process of furniture items for their homes. 45 Summary Empirical findings regarding the households’ furniture purchasing. Social Practices & Several Design opportunities
- 46. Thank you. Any Questions? Bokyung Lee, Gyeol Han, Jundong Park, Daniel Saakes Department of Industrial Design, KAIST, Korea boing222@kaist.ac.kr 2016. 05. 08 CHI 2017
- 47. 47 Usage at Home
- 48. 48 Appendix
- 49. 49 • Non-co-located Collaboration within households through SNS ➡ Reflect the qualities of SNS, which are non-co-located, non-synchronous, and over time. • Mobile as a medium to connect online & offline sources ➡ design practices not only in the livingroom, but also everywhere All households exclusively used mobile phones in South Korea 05. DISCUSSION Mobile Media in the Design Process
- 50. 50 • Single households • lower the priority of aesthetic aspect • cheap solutions within the boundary of requirements • Families • temporal qualities & future family situation • The complexity of the process of purchasing furniture. Current Reality vs. Future Situation 05. DISCUSSION Temporality in Design
- 51. 51 Practice of Buying Things = Variant Design People who want to acquire a product = Everyday Designers our design lens
- 52. 52
- 53. 53
- 54. 54
Editor's Notes
- Good afternoon. My name is Bokyung Lee, I am a 3rd year phd student / in department of Industrial Design / at KAIST. - This session is about 3D printing. But my presentation will be more about the things that are happening before people start 3d-printing or fabricating items. - My co-authors are, Gyeol Han, Jundong Park, and advisor, Professor Daniel Saakes.
- To start,
- Let’s imagine you want a stool for your house. What might you consider?
- If you are planning to use it with a table in your house, you might measure the height of the table or check the matching color.
- Some will check if the seat fits your body, because our body sizes are all different.
- If you have a living partner, you need to make decisions together with them, because furniture is a shared product.
- Like these, lots of hidden considerations or activities exist before deciding on a product. Then, this raises the question: Shouldn’t these practices also be addressed within the design or fabrication interfaces, to enable people to make an item that they really want, similar as shopping?
- There are already many design or customization toolkits for casual users.
- These toolkits allow people to make an item on users’ specifications. However, most of them still do not assist the users throughout the entire journey. If you look at these online customization tools, you can check these are very object-centric. This let people select color from a palette, or set the dimensions by simply filling in numbers, without considering how people decide each aspect.
- Researchers in the field of HCI proposed ‘situated design interfaces’ and tried to help people address situated needs. For example, setting the dimensions directly from their body posture, or situate the virtual model in the space while designing. However, still, the process that takes place before or after modelling the solution has not been fully explored. //
- Therefore, we decided to explore the entire journey leading up to the purchase of the product.
- We viewed the shopping process as a form of design process. So, our goal is, By looking into how families discover what they need, find solutions, and make decisions we aim to understand the journey and practice of acquiring furniture, and identify opportunities for fabrication interfaces.
- We recruited families that were planning to purchase an interior item in the near future. As furniture is shared within a household, we selected four different types to see the variations. 4 single men, 4 single women, 4 couples without children, and 4 couples with children.
- For our study process, we drew inspiration from the field of consumer behaviour. We chose the EKB model out of many consumer models as the base of our study. This model provides a high-level overview of how people acquire goods, as a time basis. [click] Using it as a guide, we investigated the detailed purchase journey that people follow. The entire process was divided into 3 phases: the Motivation, pre-purchase, and post-purchase.
- In the Motivation stage, we tried to let the participants be fully sensitised with our study before an interview. We gave them a probe, consists of four boxes filled with worksheets.
- After that, we visited their home to conduct the motivation interview, It was important to be in their living environment for a richer collection of information. - We asked about the items they are planning to buy, and their early considerations.
- The second stage is the pre-purchasing. We asked them to log their activities or considerations on frequently used SNS application, until the purchase was made. As you can see in this captured images, they shared numerous photos from online and offline stores.
- As soon as they purchased the product, we scheduled a purchase interview to understand implicit thoughts or actions that we could not grasp from the diary study. - We printed out the results from the diary study, and used it as the interview material.
- The final phase is the post-purchase stage, in which the users take time to use the furniture. About two months after the purchase, we conducted a chat-interview, to let them reflect on their purchase.
- The entire study with 16 families took almost 8 months. Because each family took almost 4 months in average from having a motivation to the moment of purchase. They bought various items, - chair, shelves, table, or desk. - Therfore, a huge amount of data was collected.
- In order to deal with such a vast data, we started with coding process to acquire the big picture for their activities, requirements, sources, and understand common workflow. - However, we were unable to discriminate the differences between the type or furniture or type of household.
- That’s why the journey map was produced for each household to understand each family’s journey
- As our results,
- We first suggested a furniture design workflow, as shown in this diagram. Then, we analysed users’ Design Practices for each stages, including key activities, sources, or needs. Third, we identified the collaboration types among household members.
- But for today’s presentation, I will focus on the first two parts.
- Let me briefly explain the workflow. As I already mentioned, we framed the purchase procedures as a design process, especially inspired from the design double-diamond model. - After having a Motivation, - people move into the exploration stage, spending a considerable amount of time understanding their needs internally and externally. - Once people decide on a candidate item, - they employed various activities to test fit the item in their homes during the Realization stage . - Through these activities, a purchase decision is made.
- Usually, the people’s mindset during the motivation stage has been ignored in current design interfaces. However, we realised that depending on their motivation types, the design activities for the rest of the process can drastically differ.
- For example, some participants were motivated by uncomfortable experiences using their existing furniture. Some choose to replace the item with a new one, while others keep the product but upgrade it by adding an additional item, // as you can see in this picture of a cushion upgrade on a sofa. In the first case, the users’ mindset will be governed by the aspects of the existing furniture as the reference, and the process becomes similar to a RE-DESIGN. However, in the second case, the process will focus on exploring interactions between the new item and the existing item.
- Next, people jump into the exploration stage, and try to understand their design requirements.
- As the participants are not experts on furniture, they started by wanting to understand the possible solutions in the market. - We call it, external exploration.
- [1] Most people started with online searches to see various styles of the product. As shown in Picture A, people searched on google image, and collect pleasing designs from a large amount of images. This is because casual users find it difficult to describe their ideal product from the beginning, so they prefer finding their ideal design by removing disliked images. [2] Most of them obtained trend data from curated shopping malls, or crowd-information such as the best-seller ranking. [3] Especially, user-generated content had an large impact on all families, as those allowed people to explore how other people dealt with similar problems or motivations. People valued the photos of the product-in-use in real-life. [4] If they had no experience in using certain furniture, online user reviews also worked as a source of experiential information. [5] Some spent time studying expert knowledge on certain products. Picture C shows one result from the diary study. They searched for ergonomic information for stools.
- People also understand personal design requirements by considering internal constraints, such as their body, house, or existing furniture. We call it, Internal Exploration
- This table shows the list of design requirements related to internal factors, house,items, and users. This stage is very interesting because we could check how participants demonstrate their personal needs. I will highlight some examples. - [1] When they express the materials that match with current interior, they tended to express through adjectives that demonstrate the feeling, such as warm-colored, or similar feeling as our sofa. [2] For defining dimensions, they did several design activities. For example, drawing a floor plan and brainstormed the best size by sketching various shapes and positions. Or they put random objects on the space to test and check the sizes. [3] To describe needs originated from users’ usage patterns, people estimated a comfortable height for a table by moving their hands up and down while seated.
- Both explorations are breadth-first mutual exploration of the solution and problem space, and there are continuous iteration.
- When they have a candidate design, they started realising a solution for their homes. Here, they switched to a depth-first search.
- During this stage, their activities are focused on evaluating the item through diverse prototyping activities. Their primary need was to visualise the item in their space. For example, bringing material chips in their house, or using measuring tape or body gestures for quick prototyping. One participant used his mobile phone to display a photo as a low-tech augmented display, as shown in picture B. People also wanted to check comfort. For example, as shown in picture C, one participant used the height difference of the existing comfortable chair/table, and apply those calculation and guess the comfort. Also, they gain confidence by consulting others. Several people asked for advice from people who had expert knowledge, such as salespeople or designers.
- However, if they are not pleased during this stage, they iterated the Realisation process with another object. Or they may even return to the Exploration stage and update their design requirements and tastes.
- Next stage is where the participants used them in their homes with their routines. Here, they found several things they missed or failed.
- Many households failed to estimate dimensions because it was hard to take account all the possible scenarios. For example, in picture B, the mother only considered the her standing height when installing the shelves on the wall, but forgot that their children frequently stood on the sofa, and as a result, they often hit their heads. One participant fail to consider how the desk will fit with her items. In Picture C, she chose a desk with slanted legs, but had trouble using it because her computer didn’t fit, due to the angle of the leg.
- Okay. This study with 16 families provides insights into the journey that casual users make / when acquiring furniture for their houses.
- But, there were still several limitations of our study, Our participants bought a diverse range of products with diverse different motivations. so more in-depth analysis was impossible. - Also, as the study was done with only 16 families in Korea, there might be some cultural issues in the findings. - But still, I would say this research takes the first step to explore users’ perspectives on fabrication interfaces, to enable people to create the object that they need, want and desire.
- In our discussion section, we highlighted five key insights, with the lens of design, and I will share two of them today.
- Firstly, casual users consulted a wide variety of external information during the process. User-generated contents had greater influence on decision making than vendor supplied information. As people appreciate the photo of product-in-use during the exploration stage, we can think of tools that contain context-in-use information in-between. Also, Automatic styling based on the users’ photo collection can be considered. In the Realization Stage, people relied on in-depth qualitative information, rather than the images. Hence, for this stage, we could think of teleoperation interfaces for experts to give in-depth advice. Secondly, “Situated and experiential prototyping” turns out to be very important for selecting a furniture. Therefore, a system that allows people to design directly in the environment with the interaction of nearby furniture would help people in their information need. However, AR or VR virtual models can not handle comfort tests, so we can think about ergonomic or comfort feedback during the design.
- As a summary, we present a long-term qualitative study in which we followed 16 families during a purchasing process of furniture items for their homes. From this we provide empirical findings regarding the households’ furniture purchasing cycle. and, we documented social practices as highlevel insights, and suggest several design opportunities for non-professional fabrication tools derived from real-life needs.
- Thank you.
- However, if they are not pleased during this stage, they iterated the Realisation process with another object. Or they may even return to the Exploration stage and update their design requirements and tastes.
- We observed design conflicts in terms of temporality when designing both for their current reality and their future situation.
- [Why similar process] In my opinion, I think shopping an item, and designing an item are sharing similar contexts, in terms of acquiring a product in their home. I think the problem of current customization or design tool is originated from regarding these process different. In real life, a lot of people use design tools just for fun. They create an item but do not purchase. So, if toolkits keep ignoring how people acquire goods in their life, they will remain conceptual, and go far from the reality.
- [Why furniture?] Actually, we categorised the home product into two based on their qualities. One was, durable, huge, shared item among households, and the furniture was just one example item in this cateogry. The other was non-durable, small, wearable items, like bag or fashionable items. At the beginning of our study, we assumed that item acquiring workflow will be very different, and this require different way of customisation or design process.
- [나는 아닌뎅?] Okay. Thank you for the question. I understand your point, but I want to argue that people, including you are smart people, and mostly engineers. The participant we studied were not engineers, just normal people. From the study, we found various people struggling with dimensions, which can be very simple to professional designers engineers. And I also want to mention that it was part of the design study, and we tried to recruit diverse style of people to avoid sampling issues. But maybe, we could’t observe certain type of people.