Concentrates on User Involvement and Continuous Interaction Between Users and Designers

Abstract

User studies and user involvement in design have been heavily discussed but lacks a systematic theory, thus causing confusion for novice designers and researchers. Through extensive literature review, this paper identifies three approaches of user studies, i.e. 'empirical studies' which tends to 'learn from the past'; 'experimental studies' which tends to 'learn from the present', and 'scenario-based studies' which tends to 'focus on the future'. It also summarises four models of user involvement in design, i.e. designers representing users, designers consulting users, users participating in the design process, and users as designers. These syntheses will help designers and researchers understand user involvement in a more structured manner, thus making the application of the theory and practice easier.

Keywords

User studies
User involvement
User participation
Models

1 Introduction

Users are often referred in the context of their existing relations with something, which can be a natural thing (e.g. a cave), a man-made artefact (e.g. a chair), a kind of service (e.g. healthcare) which might involve other human being(s) (e.g. a doctor) or social systems (e.g. legislation). The continuous changing relations build, construct and develop our environments and ourselves.

User studies firstly appeared in 1940s and they are one of the most researched areas in library and information science (Siatri 1999). In that field, researchers tend to focus on users' behavioural and cognitive responses to the natural and man-made world in order to understand their physical, sensory, cognitive and emotional needs and interactions.

In innovation and management fields, research shows that users were referred to contribute from 10 % to nearly 40 % per cent of the innovative ideas and products (Von Hippel 2006, pp. 19–22). From a postphenomenological point of view, there are four fundamental relations between the user, artefact and the world, where phenomenological analysis can be applied to each relation for revealing the structure of our daily life (Zhang and Dong 2013).

Understanding users/customers' needs and requirements in design studies is regarded as the first and most essential step for designers and manufacturers to take. Users are one of the human roles who put artefacts to use, the other two are designers and manufacturers 'who stand to have their activity and experience transformed' (Carroll and Rosson 2007). In user-innovation studies, users are 'firms or individual consumers that expect to benefit from using a product or a service', while manufacturers 'expect to benefit from selling a product or a service' (Von Hippel 2006, p. 3). In postphenomenology, users are those who get different experiences and perceptions through interacting with artefacts. In this paper, 'users' refer to individuals or a group of people using products or services. 'Artefacts' refer to man-made products. Users and artefacts are both in a context, a background which is the users' daily life.

User studies and user involvement in design have been heavily discussed but lacks a systematic theory, thus causing confusion for novice designers and researchers. In this paper, the authors will review literature from a broad range of disciplines, aiming to offer a structured view on user involvement in design.

2 Approaches of User Studies

In his book 'The Sciences of the Artificial', Simon (1996) points out that to fulfill or adapt a goal involves a relation among three things: 'the purpose or goal, the character of the artefact, and the environment in which the artefact performs'. He gives two examples, one is that whether a clock will tell the time depends on its character (inner construction) and the environment (where it is placed); the other is whether a knife will cut depends on the material and the hardness of the substance. Influenced by Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) studies and social movements, designers in architecture, public service and industrial design gradually formed an opinion that designers have the ability and should be responsible to solve problems through getting to know users and their various needs and requirements.

These concerns have resulted in a series of approaches/methods of involving various users, e.g.

Participatory design, user design, and open design (Design Studies Special Issue 2007; CoDesign Special Issue 2008; Björgvinsson 2008; Von Abel et al. 2011; Simonsen and Robertson 2012; Wilkinson and De Angeli 2014; Taffe 2015)
Empathy design (The Design Journal Special Issues 2011; Newell et al. 2011)
Universal design (Wolfgang and Korydon 2010; Lidwell et al. 2010; McAdams and Kostovich 2011; Aragall and Montaña 2012)
Inclusive design (Coleman et al. 2007; Journal of Engineering Design Special Issue 2010; McGinley and Dong 2011; Heylighena and Bianchinb 2013; Applied Ergonomics Special Issue 2015)
Design for all (Bühler 2008; Aragall et al. 2013; Bendixen and Benktzon 2015)
Service design (Erl 2007; Roberto and Alexis 2008; Meroni and Sangiorgi 2011; Beaumont et al. 2014)

These developments of user-involvement research challenge the traditional design approaches, and the users' roles and user-designer relations become a phenomena thrive (Bihanic 2015, pp. vi–vii). Based on the classification of user models and the way of knowing the user, user studies in the design field can be categorised into three approaches:

The first is empirical studies, focusing on literature and relevant data. Designers learn from the existing studies of design theories and former practices. They also use data and references from other different disciplinary studies, e.g. ergonomics studies (physical data), medical research (health reports), economics and management studies (market research, innovation studies), psychology (emotions), and sociology (behaviour, habits, beliefs, culture); or from various surveys and reports (e.g. World Health Statistics annual reports 2005–2015; The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, ICF 2015); or from Standards(e.g. British Standards 7000-6 2005 and regulations, e.g. Americans with Disabilities Act 1990; Disability Discrimination Act 1995). This approach can be characterized as "to learn from the past".

The second is experimental studies, focusing on real individuals (potential users, target users, focus groups, or designers themselves and their friends, colleges) to get the first hand data and materials. Designers usually borrow qualitative and quantitative methods from ethnography, and they "typically work in teams and use prototypes during fieldwork to create dialog with the people" (Koskinen et al. 2012, pp. 69–70). This type of user studies can be categorised into three basic forms according to how designers interact with the real user: Forum—to ask, Representation—to observe, and Co-design—to participate (Dong et al. 2007). This approach can be characterized as "to learn from the present".

The third is scenario-based studies, focusing on certain sets of 'stories', 'narratives' to build a context of use which involves an actor, various backgrounds, and a series of events. It is "a relatively lightweight method for envisioning future use possibilities." (Rosson and Carroll 2003, p. 1033). Designers "can have a prospective approach and can imagine all sorts of events with many alternative interface ideas" (Hasdoǧan 1996). This approach also includes computer simulations, and developers tended to think in terms of two kinds of user: one who was exploring the system with no particular goal in mind and one who knew as much as the developer (Blandford et al. 2007). It is "the imagination of the future".

User studies in design are multi-disciplinary. The three approaches can be mixed in the design process, and in each approach the data gathered can be divided into four types: physical, cognitive, performance and psycho-social. Based on the three approaches of user studies and the four types of typical data, we have developed four models of user involvement in design practice.

3 Models of User Involvement

Due to different ways that designers involve users in the design process, there are various levels of users' activities: At one extreme, users are represented by designers or marketers; at the other extreme, users are the designers who are developing products themselves. Between the two are user consultation and user participation. These four models of user involvement are shown in Fig. 1.

Norman's model (see Fig. 2) will be used to further explain user involvement in design. The model shows the interactions and relationships between the designer, the user, and the system. The design model means the conceptualization that the designer has in mind; the user's model is what the user develops to explain the operation of the system. It depends on not only the system that the designer has designed, but also the various abilities of the users; the system is the only means that designers and users communicate with each other, which often has an interface for operation and responding, and the associated manuals and instructions.

3.1 Designers Representing the Users

In this context, designers are the only users who are 'involved' in the design process, interacting with the device (see Fig. 3). It contains a premise that professional designers are those who know what is best for everyone, no matter who they really are.

Designers in this model are often users of their own designs, and often think themselves as (typical) users at the early stage of design. In some specific circumstances, this representation can be powerful in getting an insight into the users, the use contexts and the user experiences. Patricia Moore, in the 1970s, made up and acted as an old woman to visit a number of cities in North American with artificial restrictions to her joints, hearing and vision. Her personal experiences show that in the late 1970s there were much discrimination towards old people and people with disabilities in America, especially when using products and public services (Moore 1985). This 'representation' revealed different experiences and conditions that various users encounter, which has made a huge influence on the growing universal design movement.

3.2 Designers Consulting the Users

This model of user involvement is most prevalent in design practice (see Fig. 4). The consultation can take place at any stage of the design process: from conceptual design to detail design. It is helpful for designers to gain access to users, to understand users' needs, requirements, and their responses. There are many different conventions of consulting users in different design disciplines, e.g. product design and architectural design.

User consultation can be regarded as a scientific experiment (Newell et al. 2011). The designers are viewed as scientists, and users are the experimental subjects. Scientists pick up and chose what they need from the experimental subjects when doing research in their lab, then collect and analyse data to achieve their goals. In this model, users play a passive role in the design process and decision-making; they are only regarded as information providers.

3.3 Users Participating in the Design Process

This model is represented by participatory design and user design, where users become stakeholders in the design process. It is a turning point from the information providers to the design participants, from the designer design to the designer-user co-design. It is also a co-creation design process of sharing knowledge, skills and experiences of all the participators (Fig. 5).

Many methods of this kind of user involvement have been developed (Hanington and Martin 2012; LUMA Institute 2012), such as webpage design and software development (Frick et al. 2001), customized computers (Randall et al. 2007), UTOPIA project (Newell et al. 2011), product design (Kostovich et al. 2009; McAdams and Kostovich 2011; Goodman-Deane et al. 2014). Several approaches and platforms provide supports for user participation in design, e.g. the 'critical user forums' (Dong and Cassim 2007) organized at the Helen Hamlyn Centre at the Royal College of Arts since 2000. Through bringing designers and users with disabilities together, the forums provide designers with an effective method to engage users in design, which inspires designers to develop more inclusive solutions. Open design, an approach that is the 'free distribution, documentation and permission of modifications and derivations' of an object, product or service (Von Abel et al. 2011), offers unprecedented possibilities for not only the end users or amateurs to participate in design, but also opportunities for more professional designers and manufacturers to get involved in the process.

3.4 Users as Designers

This model can be regarded as Do It Yourself (DIY). Through creative thinking and practice to make functional items for themselves, users become designers and innovators. According to Von Hippel's studies, the user firms and individual customers develop or modify products for their own use, and this ranges from 10 per cent to nearly 40 per cent of the innovative ideas and products. "Users as designers are a combination of existing and customized participatory and empathic design methods that help to facilitate the dialogue needed to illicit personal and contextual information that helps define the user's needs and wants" (Resink et al. 2011) (Fig. 6).

In this model, users are designers themselves and their creativity often leads to personalized products for themselves in daily use. Because of the lack of expertise and skills, it is rare for users to make the products standardised and then mass-produced.

4 Challenges of User Involvement

User involvements in design are facing three challenges: users' conventions, different cultures and contexts, and company's constrains. Firstly, users' conventions or natural mappings lead users to get an immediate understanding of the relationship between any two kinds of things. Some of them are cultural or biological, and some of them follow the principles of perception. This requires designers to fully recognise what the natural mappings are, and how to apply them correctly.

Secondly, the differences between various cultures result in consumers' different knowledge, experiences, tastes and habits. These differences result in various contexts of use/consumption, which challenge designers when involving the user. Designers might get lost and make mistakes if they fail to choose appropriate methods to understand the users.

Thirdly, user research can be constrained and delayed whether in Small to Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) or big companies, because of the limited resources (financial or time pressures).

Several methods have been developed to deal with the challenges, e.g. the Methods Lab (Aldersey-Williams et al. 1999) aims to help designers and other stakeholders to weigh and choose the proper and efficient design methods in design practice or research; The Make Tools (Sanders 2002), regarded as a 'design language' not only for designers, but also for users, are 'built upon an aesthetics of experience rather than an aesthetics of form… and there are many different types of Toolkits that facilitate the expression of a wide range of artefacts and/or models'. The IDEO Human-Centred Design Toolkit provides methods for each HCD phase (i.e. to hear, to create and to deliver), guidance for role-playing workshops, storytelling sessions, scenario building, and prototyping; it gives voice to communities and allows their desires to guide the creation and implementation of solutions.

Various challenges and methods in user involvement require designers' wide range of abilities, knowledge and experiences. Designers, as Henry Dreyfuss once said, 'must be part engineer, part businessman, part salesman, part public-relations man, artist, and almost, it seems at times, Indian chief' (Dreyfuss 2003, p. 24).

5 Discussions and Conclusions

User studies in design can be categorised into four models of user involvement:

Model (1): Designers representing users
Model (2): Designers consulting users
Model (3): Users participating in the design process
Model (4): Users as designers

In Models (1), (2) and (3), designers with participating users are usually the first batch of 'users' from early concepts to final products. The roles that designers and users play in these three models are distinguishable, but not rigorously distinct. For example, Model (1) is often mixed with Models (2) and (3). When designers do not have the direct experiences and knowledge that the specific users have, e.g. people with disabilities, the Models (2) and (3) will be adopted. Model (4) is less discussed in existing design literature, but more and more emerging design practice adopts this model.

The four models of user involvement show different relations of designers, users and systems. They will help designers and researchers understand user involvement in a more structured manner, thus making the application of the theory and practice much easier.

References

ADA: American with Disabilities Act, US Public Law, pp. 101–336 (1990)

Google Scholar
Al-Zu'bi, Z.B.M.F., Tsinopoulos, C.: Suppliers versus lead users: examining their relative impact on product variety. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 29(4), 667–680 (2012)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Aldersey-Williams, H., Coleman, R., Bound, J.: The Methods Lab. Royal College of Art, London (1999)

Google Scholar
Aragall, F., Montaña, J.: Universal Design: The HUMBLES Method for User-Centred Business. Gower, Hampshire (2012)

Google Scholar
Aragall, F., Neumann, P., Sagramola, S.: Design for All in Progress from Theory to Practice (ECA 2013). Info-Handicap-Conseil National des Personnes Handicapées, Luxembourg (2013)

Google Scholar
Baldwin, C., von Hippel, E.: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Org. Sci. 22(6), 1399–1417 (2011)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Beaumont, L.C., Bolton, L.E., McKay, A., Hughes, H.P.N.: Rethinking service design: a socio-technical approach to the development of business models. In: Schaefer, D. (ed.) Rethinking Service Design: A Socio-Technical Approach to the Development of Business Models, pp. 121–141. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2014)

Google Scholar
Bendixen, K., Benktzon, M.: Design for all in Scandinavia: a strong concept. Appl. Ergon. 46(1), 248–257 (2015)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Bihanic, D. (ed.): Empowering Users through Design: Interdisciplinary Studies and Combined Approaches for Technological Products and Services. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2015)

Google Scholar
Björgvinsson, E.B.: Open-ended participatory design as prototypical practice. Co-Design 4(2), 85–99 (2008)

Google Scholar
Blandford, A., Keith, S., Butterworth, R., Fields, B., Furniss, D.: Disrupting digital library development with scenario informed design. Interact. Comput. 19(1), 70–82 (2007)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Bogers, M., Afuah, A., Bastian, B.: Users as innovators: a review, critique, and future research directions. J. Manag. 36(4), 857–875 (2010)

Google Scholar
Brey, P.: Philosophy of technology after the empirical turn. Techné: Res. Philos. Technol. 14(1), 36–48 (2010)

Google Scholar
BS 8300: Design of Buildings and their Approaches to Meet the Needs of Disabled People. Code of Practice. British Standard Institution, London (2001)

Google Scholar
BS 7000–6: Guide to Managing Inclusive Design. British Standard Institution, London (2005)

Google Scholar
Bühler, C.: Design for all – from idea to practise. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5105, pp. 106–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Büttgen, M., Schumann, J.H., Ates, Z.: Service locus of control and customer coproduction: the role of prior service experience and organizational socialization. J. Serv. Res. 15(2), 166–181 (2012)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B.: Participatory design in community informatics. Des. Stud. 28(3), 243–261 (2007)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Churchill, J., von Hippel, E., Sonnack, M.: Lead User Project Handbook: A practical Guide for Lead User Project Teams (2009). <https://evhippel.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/lead-user-project-handbook-full-version.pdf>
Coeckelbergh, M.: Humans, animals, and robots: a phenomenological approach to human-robot relations. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 3(2), 197–204 (2011)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Coleman, R., Clarkson, J., Dong, H., Cassim, J.: Design for Inclusivity: A Practical Guide to Accessible, Innovative and User-Centred Design. Gower, Hampshire (2007)

Google Scholar
DDA: Disability Discrimination Act. Department for Education and Employment, London (1995)

Google Scholar
DeMonaco, H.J., von Hippel, E.: Reducing medical costs and improving quality via self-management tools. PLoS Med. 4(4), e104–e611 (2007). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040104

CrossRef Google Scholar
Dong, H., Cassim, J.: Critical user forums for inclusive design. Ergon. Des.: Q. Hum. Factors Appl. 15(4), 4 (2007)

Google Scholar
Dong, H., Nicolle, C., Brown, R., Clarkon, J.: Design-orientated user research methods. In: Coleman, R. (ed.) Design for Inclusivity: A Practical Guide to Accessible, Innovative and User-Centred Design, pp. 131–147. Hampshire, Gower (2007)

Google Scholar
Erl, T.: SOA: Principles of Service Design. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2007)

Google Scholar
Feenberg, A.: Active and passive bodies: Don Ihde's phenomenology of the body. In: Selinger, E. (ed.) Postphenomenology: A Critical Companion to Ihde. SUNY Press, Albany (2006)

Google Scholar
Franke, N., Piller, F.: Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design: the case of the watch market. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 21(6), 401–415 (2004)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Goodman-Deane, J., Ward, J., Hosking, I., Clarkson, J.: A comparison of methods currently used in inclusive design. Appl. Ergon. 45(4), 886–894 (2014)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Granieri, M., Renda, A.: Innovation Law and Policy in the European Union. Springer, Milan (2012)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Hanington, B., Martin, B.: Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishing, Massachusetts (2012)

Google Scholar
Hasdoǧan, G.: The role of user models in product design for assessment of user needs. Des. Stud. 17(1), 19–33 (1996)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Heylighena, A., Bianchinb, M.: How does inclusive design relate to good design? Designing as a deliberative enterprise. Des. Stud. 34(1), 93–110 (2013)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Hienerth, C., Lettl, C., Keinz, P.: Synergies among producer firms, lead users, and user communities: the case of the lego producer–user ecosystem. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 31(4), 848–866 (2014)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Jaakkola, E., Alexander, M.: The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: a service system perspective. J. Serv. Res. 17(3), 247–261 (2014)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Jeppesen, L.B.: User toolkits for innovation: consumers support each other. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 22(4), 347–362 (2005)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Kostovich, V., McAdams, D.A., Moon, S.K.: Representing user activity and product function for universal design. In: Proceeding of 2009 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering, San Diego, CA, USA (2009)

Google Scholar
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., Wensveen, S.: Design Research through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2012)

Google Scholar
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J.: Universal Principles of Design: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach Through Design. Rockport Publishers, Beverly (2010)

Google Scholar
Institute, L.U.M.A.: Innovating for People, Handbook of Human Centred Design Methods. LUMA Institute, Pittsburgh (2012)

Google Scholar
Mahr, D., Lievens, A., Blazevic, V.: The value of customer cocreated knowledge during the innovation process. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 31(3), 599–615 (2014)

CrossRef Google Scholar
McAdams, D.A., Kostovich, V.: A framework and representation for universal product design. Int. J. Des. 5(1), 29–42 (2011)

Google Scholar
McGinley, C., Dong, H.: Designing with information and empathy: delivering human information to designers. Des. J. 14(2), 187–206 (2011)

Google Scholar
Menguc, B., Auh, S., Yannopoulos, P.: Customer and supplier involvement in design: the moderating role of incremental and radical innovation capability. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 31(2), 313–328 (2014)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Meroni, A., Sangiorgi, D.: Design for Services. Gower, Hampshire (2011)

Google Scholar
Mitcham, C.: From phenomenology to pragmatism: using technology as an instrument. In: Selinger, E. (ed.) Postphenomenology: A Critical Companion to Ihde, pp. 21–36. SUNY Press, Albany (2006)

Google Scholar
Moore, P.: Disguised. Word Books, Waco (1985)

Google Scholar
Newell, A.F., Gregor, P., Morgan, M., Pullin, G., Macaulay, C.: User-sensitive inclusive design. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 10(3), 235–243 (2011)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M., Ogawa, S.: User-generated versus designer-generated products: a performance assessment at Muji. Int. J. Res. Mark. 30(2), 160–167 (2013)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Norman, D.: The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (2002)

Google Scholar
Nørskov, M.: Revisiting Ihde's fourfold "technological relationships": application and modification. Philos. Technol. 28(2), 189–207 (2015)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Wolfgang, P., Korydon, S. (eds.): Universal Design Handbook, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New York (2010)

Google Scholar
Oudshoorn, N., Pinch, T.: User-technology relationships: some recent developments. In: The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn, pp. 541–565. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)

Google Scholar
Ponty, M.M.: Phenomenology of Perception. Humanities Press, New York (1962). (Smith, C. (Trans.))

Google Scholar
Ponty, M.M.: Signs. Northwestern University Press, Evanston (1964). (McCleary, R., Trans.)

Google Scholar
Randall, T., Terwiesch, C., Ulrich, K.T.: User design of customized products. Mark. Sci. 26(2), 268–280 (2007)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Resink, E., Van Dijk, D., Reitenbach, M.: Waag Society (2011). <http://waag.org/nl>
Roberto, M.S., Alexis, P.G.: Service design: an appraisal. Des. Manag. Rev. 19(1), 10–19 (2008)

Google Scholar
Rosenberger, R.: Multistability and the agency of mundane artifacts: from speed bumps to subway benches. Hum. Stud. 37(3), 369–392 (2014)

CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar
Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M.: Scenario-based design. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 1032–1050. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)

Google Scholar
Salge, T.O., Farchi, T., Barrett, M.I., Dopson, S.: When does search openness really matter? A contingency study of health-care innovation projects. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 30(4), 659–676 (2013)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N.: From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In: Frascara, J. (ed.) Design and the Social Sciences: Making Connections, pp. 1–7. Taylor & Francis Books Limited, London (2002)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Schreier, M., Prügl, R.: Extending lead-user theory: antecedents and consequences of consumers' lead userness. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25(4), 331–346 (2008)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Schweisfurth, T.: Embedded Lead Users inside the Firm. Gabler Verlag, Berlin (2013)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Schweisfurth, T., Raasch, C.: Embedded lead users—the benefits of employing users for corporate innovation. Res. Policy 44(1), 168–180 (2015)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Siatri, R.: The evolution of user studies. LIBRI 49(3), 132–141 (1999)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Simon, A.H.: The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)

Google Scholar
Simonsen, J., Robertson, T.: Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. Routledge, New York (2012)

Google Scholar
Taffe, S.: The hybrid designer/end-user: revealing paradoxes in co-design. Des. Stud. 40(9), 39–59 (2015)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Tripathi, A.: Postphenomenological investigations of technological experience. AI Soc. 30(2), 199–205 (2014)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Van Den Eede, Y.: In between us: on the transparency and opacity of technological mediation. Found. Sci. 16(2–3), 139–159 (2011)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Verbeek, P.P.: Cyborg intentionality: rethinking the phenomenology of human-technology relations. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 7(3), 387–395 (2008)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Verbeek, P.P.: Expanding mediation theory. Found. Sci. 17(4), 391–395 (2012)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Von Abel, B., Evers, L., Klaassen, R., Troxler, P.: Open Design Now: Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam (2011)

Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E.: Perspective: user toolkits for innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 18(4), 247–257 (2001)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E.: Users rule. Technol. Rev. 114(2), 14–15 (2011)

Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E., Nikolaus, F., Reinhard, P.: Pyramiding: efficient search for rare subjects. Res. Policy 38(9), 1397–1406 (2009)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Wellner, K.: User Innovators in the Silver Market. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Hessen (2015)

CrossRef Google Scholar
WHO: World Health Statistics (2005–2015). <http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/en/index.html>
WHO: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, ICF (2015). <http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/>
Wilkinson, C., De Angeli, A.: Applying user centred and participatory design approaches to commercial product development. Des. Stud. 35(6), 614–631 (2014)

CrossRef Google Scholar
Zhang, B., Dong, H.: User-mobile phone interactions: a postphenomenology analysis. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8012, pp. 171–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been sponsored by the project FJ2015C008 of Fujian province: the research challenges of postphnomenology in modern western society and the way out, and the project XYS201405 of Xiamen Technology of University: the philosophical meanings of inclusive design.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Xiamen University of Technology, Xiamen, People's Republic of China

Bin Zhang
College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Hua Dong

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hua Dong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

Jia Zhou
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

Gavriel Salvendy

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zhang, B., Dong, H. (2016). User Involvement in Design: The Four Models. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds) Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Aging. ITAP 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9754. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_14

Download citation

.RIS
.ENW
.BIB

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_14
Published: 21 June 2016
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39942-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39943-0
eBook Packages: Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

cloughalwass1992.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-39943-0_14