Design Process and Issues

In an open access article, Liedgren, Desmet, and Gaggiolo lay out the case for considering higher levels in Maslow’s system when developing design options.  They “argue that the sublime is struggling to find room in product design primarily aimed at commercial and transactional goals such as speed and efficiency. We suggest a new category of products to promote deeper and more meaningful experiences, specifically those offering liminality, transcendence, and personal transformation. . .

Rizzo and team’s work confirms how much language used influences conclusions drawn.  They determined that “sensory language (e.g., words like “crumble” and “juicy” that engage the senses) shapes consumer responses to influencer-sponsored content. A multimethod investigation . . . demonstrates that sensory language increases engagement and willingness to buy the sponsored product. . . . these effects are driven by perceived authenticity.

Researchers have learned that artificial intelligence can effectively design cars.  A recent press release from MIT shares that “machine learning models can not only predict the appeal of new aesthetic designs but also generate designs that are aesthetically pleasing or aesthetically innovative. (And, once trained, the models can run on a standard corporate laptop.)”

Research by Paes and colleagues sheds additional light on the most effective VR based studies.  The investigators report that “Identifying and characterizing the factors that affect presence in virtual environments has been acknowledged as a critical step to improving Virtual Reality (VR) applications in the built environment domain. In the search to identify those factors, the research objective was to test whether three-dimensional perception affects presence in virtual environments. . . .

Latini, Di Giuseppe, and D’Orazio have determined that research outcomes obtained in virtual reality settings are useful in real world applications.  They conducted research in real and immersive office spaces finding “No significant results variation between real and virtual offices. . . . participants performed one test session in a real or a virtual room, three cognitive tasks and surveys (on immersivity, cybersickness, comfort, and intention of interaction).