Computational Prototyping Methods to Design Human Centered Products of High and Low Level Human Interactions

Salman Ahmed, Lukman Irshad, H. Demirel
{"title":"Computational Prototyping Methods to Design Human Centered Products of High and Low Level Human Interactions","authors":"Salman Ahmed, Lukman Irshad, H. Demirel","doi":"10.1115/detc2019-98450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Incorporating human factors engineering guidelines early in design has the potential to reduce the cost and product lead-time to market. Also, products that go through strict ergonomics assessments are associated with better comfort and safety ratings. However, designers are often caught in the dilemma of what prototyping method to use when assessing product ergonomics early in design. This is especially problematic during the conceptual design phase before the physical prototypes are available or built. In this research, we explore the computational prototyping dilemma for early design ergonomics assessments from both fidelity and human-product interaction perspectives. In this paper, three computational prototypes with different fidelity levels (low, medium-, and high-fidelity) are compared in their adequacy for evaluating designs that comprise low- to high-levels of human-product interactions. We used three computational prototyping strategies: (1) Method #1 is a low-fidelity methodology based a digital sketchpad tool; (2) Method #2 is a medium-fidelity methodology consisted of computer-aided design and digital human modeling; and, (3) Method #3 is a high-fidelity methodology composed of computer-aided design, digital human modeling, and surrogate modeling. In order to perform computational ergonomics analyses using above approach, we selected a generic wall mounted cabinet design and a simplified Boeing 767 cockpit model as case studies to illustrate designs that require low- and high-levels of human-product interactions. Our preliminary results show that low-, medium- and high-level prototyping strategies produce similar ergonomics outcomes when evaluating low-level human-computer interaction (e.g., cabinet model). On the other hand, both low- and medium-fidelity (Method #1 and Method #2) prototyping strategies are limited in terms of providing detailed information about human performance when compared to high-fidelity prototyping (Method #3) in evaluating designs with high-level human-computer interaction (e.g., cockpit model).","PeriodicalId":143350,"journal":{"name":"Volume 7: 31st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 7: 31st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2019-98450","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Incorporating human factors engineering guidelines early in design has the potential to reduce the cost and product lead-time to market. Also, products that go through strict ergonomics assessments are associated with better comfort and safety ratings. However, designers are often caught in the dilemma of what prototyping method to use when assessing product ergonomics early in design. This is especially problematic during the conceptual design phase before the physical prototypes are available or built. In this research, we explore the computational prototyping dilemma for early design ergonomics assessments from both fidelity and human-product interaction perspectives. In this paper, three computational prototypes with different fidelity levels (low, medium-, and high-fidelity) are compared in their adequacy for evaluating designs that comprise low- to high-levels of human-product interactions. We used three computational prototyping strategies: (1) Method #1 is a low-fidelity methodology based a digital sketchpad tool; (2) Method #2 is a medium-fidelity methodology consisted of computer-aided design and digital human modeling; and, (3) Method #3 is a high-fidelity methodology composed of computer-aided design, digital human modeling, and surrogate modeling. In order to perform computational ergonomics analyses using above approach, we selected a generic wall mounted cabinet design and a simplified Boeing 767 cockpit model as case studies to illustrate designs that require low- and high-levels of human-product interactions. Our preliminary results show that low-, medium- and high-level prototyping strategies produce similar ergonomics outcomes when evaluating low-level human-computer interaction (e.g., cabinet model). On the other hand, both low- and medium-fidelity (Method #1 and Method #2) prototyping strategies are limited in terms of providing detailed information about human performance when compared to high-fidelity prototyping (Method #3) in evaluating designs with high-level human-computer interaction (e.g., cockpit model).
计算原型方法设计以人为本的高、低层次人机交互产品
在设计早期纳入人为因素工程指导方针有可能降低成本和产品上市时间。此外,经过严格人体工程学评估的产品与更好的舒适性和安全性评级有关。然而,在设计早期评估产品的人体工程学时,设计师经常陷入使用哪种原型方法的困境。这在物理原型可用或构建之前的概念设计阶段尤其成问题。在这项研究中,我们从保真度和人机交互的角度探讨了早期设计人机工程学评估的计算原型困境。在本文中,比较了具有不同保真度水平(低、中、高保真度)的三种计算原型在评估包含低到高水平人机交互的设计时的充分性。我们使用了三种计算原型策略:(1)方法#1是基于数字素描板工具的低保真度方法;(2)方法#2是由计算机辅助设计和数字人体建模组成的中等保真度方法;(3)方法#3是一种由计算机辅助设计、数字人体建模和代理建模组成的高保真方法。为了使用上述方法进行计算人体工程学分析,我们选择了一个通用的壁挂柜设计和一个简化的波音767驾驶舱模型作为案例研究,以说明需要低水平和高水平人机交互的设计。我们的初步结果表明,在评估低级人机交互(例如,橱柜模型)时,低级、中级和高级原型策略产生相似的人体工程学结果。另一方面,与高保真度原型(方法#3)相比,在评估具有高级人机交互(例如,座舱模型)的设计时,中低保真度(方法#1和方法#2)原型策略在提供有关人类表现的详细信息方面受到限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信