Ergo-aesthetic approach through senses and behavioral assessment

  • Authors

    • Muhamad Ezran Zainal Abdullah
    • Khair Aidil Azlin Abd Rahman
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.28.20953

    Received date: October 4, 2018

    Accepted date: October 4, 2018

    Published date: August 17, 2018

  • semicolon design process, ergo-aesthetic, senses.

  • Abstract

    In general, the concept of ergo-aesthetic discloses the equilibrium of human behavioral character with form, shape, and symbolism inside a designed product. In fact, this harmony synthesis can be achieved throughout responses of behavior and senses inside a design process. Through the adaptation of ergo-aesthetic, humans will be able to achieve greater satisfaction with the designed product as they will positively interact and respond proportionally to it. In this context, ergo-aesthetic principles will replace the traditional method of evaluating and adapting ergonomic and aesthetic into the design process to achieve a better output product. Essentially, ergonomic and aesthetic are fundamental components that need to be considered throughout the design process procedures. The synergy between these two aspects may facilitate in optimizing the efficiency of the design process which will contribute to a higher output quality. Additionally, behavior and culture are also significant as they function as bonding agents for ergonomic and aesthetic to merge harmonically. Thus, implementing ergo-aesthetic principles into design process through behavior and cultural perspectives may lead to the enhancement of the output quality of a product.

  • References

    1. Wilson, J. R. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl. Ergon. 31, 557–567 (2000).
    2. Duncum, P. The Promiscuity of Aesthetics. J. Soc. Theory Art Edu-ation 30, 16–22 (2010).
    3. Manning, A. & Amare, N. Cross-cultural emotion responses to form, color, and typeface designs. IEEE Int. Prof. Commun. Conf. 1–4 (2013).
    4. Cai, D. & Chen, H. L. Ergonomic approach for pillow concept de-sign. Appl. Ergon. 52, 142–150 (2016).
    5. Lin, C. L., Chen, S. J., Hsiao, W. H. & Lin, R. Cultural ergonomics in interactional and experiential design: Conceptual framework and case study of the Taiwanese twin cup. Appl. Ergon. 52, 242–252 (2016).
    6. Taifa, I. W. & Desai, D. A. Anthropometric measurements for ergo-nomic design of students’ furniture in India. Eng. Sci. Technol. , an Int. J. 1–8 (2016).
    7. Bei, F. & Yan, Y. A perspective of novel design and creativity in the development of furniture. IEEE 6–9 (2011).
    8. Hong, S. W., Schaumann, D. & Kalay, Y. E. Human behavior simu-lation in architectural design projects: An observational study in an academic course. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 60, 1–11 (2016).
    9. Cash, P. J., Hartlev, C. G. & Durazo, C. B. Behavioural design: A process for integrating behaviour change and design. Des. Stud. 48, 96–128 (2017).
    10. Kamil, M. J. M. & Abidin, S. Z. Unconscious Human Behavior at Visceral Level of Emotional Design. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 105, 149–161 (2013).
    11. Aromaa, S. & Väänänen, K. Suitability of virtual prototypes to sup-port human factors/ergonomics evaluation during the design. Appl. Ergon. 56, 11–18 (2016).
    12. Christensen, B. T. & Ball, L. J. Dimensions of creative evaluation: Distinct design and reasoning strategies for aesthetic, functional and originality judgments. Des. Stud. 45, 116–136 (2015).
    13. Xenakis, I. & Arnellos, A. The relation between interaction aesthet-ics and affordances. Des. Stud. 34, 57–73 (2013).
    14. Gao, B., Chen, X., Li, J. & Zou, D. Modeling interactive furniture from a single image. Comput. Graph. 58, 102–108 (2016).
    15. González-García, S. et al. Eco-innovation of a wooden childhood furniture set: An example of environmental solutions in the wood sector. Sci. Total Environ. 426, 318–326 (2012).
    16. Guimaraes, J. C. F. de, Severo, E. A., Dorion, E. C. H., Coallier, F. & Olea, P. M. The use of organisational resources for product inno-vation and organisational performance: A survey of the Brazilian furniture industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 180, 135–147 (2016).
    17. Jacobs, S., Cambré, B., Huysentruyt, M. & Schramme, A. Multiple pathways to success in small creative businesses: The case of Bel-gian furniture designers. J. Bus. Res. 69, 5461–5466 (2016).
    18. Lihra, T., Buehlmann, U. & Graf, R. Customer preferences for cus-tomized household furniture. J. For. Econ. 18, 94–112 (2012).
    19. Lin, M. H., Wang, C. Y., Cheng, S. K. & Cheng, S. H. An event-related potential study of semantic style-match judgments of artistic furniture. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 82, 188–195 (2011).
    20. Anjum, N., Paul, J. & Ashcroft, R. The changing environment of offices : A challenge for furniture design. Des. Stud. 26, 73–95 (2005).
    21. Ng, B. K. & Thiruchelvam, K. The dynamics of innovation in Ma-laysia’s wooden furniture industry: Innovation actors and linkages. For. Policy Econ. 14, 107–118 (2012).

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Ezran Zainal Abdullah, M., & Aidil Azlin Abd Rahman, K. (2018). Ergo-aesthetic approach through senses and behavioral assessment. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(3.28), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.28.20953