Hashem, M., Moustafa, A., Abdel Hady, A. (2024). Applicable Procedures to Design Products for Users with Special Needs Using Design Thinking. International Design Journal, 14(4), 89-110. doi: 10.21608/idj.2024.358307
Marwa Khaled Hashem; Ahmed Waheed Moustafa; Ahmed Zaki Abdel Hady. "Applicable Procedures to Design Products for Users with Special Needs Using Design Thinking". International Design Journal, 14, 4, 2024, 89-110. doi: 10.21608/idj.2024.358307
Hashem, M., Moustafa, A., Abdel Hady, A. (2024). 'Applicable Procedures to Design Products for Users with Special Needs Using Design Thinking', International Design Journal, 14(4), pp. 89-110. doi: 10.21608/idj.2024.358307
Hashem, M., Moustafa, A., Abdel Hady, A. Applicable Procedures to Design Products for Users with Special Needs Using Design Thinking. International Design Journal, 2024; 14(4): 89-110. doi: 10.21608/idj.2024.358307
Applicable Procedures to Design Products for Users with Special Needs Using Design Thinking
1Teaching Aid, Metal Products and Jewelry Department, Faculty of Applied Arts, Helwan University
2Professor of Design, Faculty of Applied Ats, Helwan University
3Lecturer, Department of metal products and Jewelry, Faculty of applied arts, Helwan University, A_zaky77@yahoo.com
Abstract
There is an increasing interest in designing for people with special needs and accommodating them in various community activities, and this is achieved by the presence of special products suitable for enabling them to carry out normal daily tasks, which leads to their self-reliance without the need for the help of others. In order for a product designer to be able to design and produce a useful product for such categories, solving a problem they have which makes it easier to carry out certain tasks, he must follow a specific design system and clear practical procedures that help him reach a design solution that is useful and attracts the user. Problem: The main research problem can be summarized in the following question: What are the design procedures that can be applied to use design thinking in solving problems of special categories? From which sub-questions arise: Who will use these procedures? What is the importance of these procedures? How will it benefit the designer or the consumer? Does it have a return on industry or the academic community? Is there a specific classification or order for using procedures? This means that the designer must make use of these procedures freely according to what he sees fit, or is there a specific experimental design that obliges him to use them each in a specific place? How will the validity of these measures be tested? Objectives: arriving at a design system with specific procedures and tools that enable the designer to design products that people with special needs can use to achieve independence of use without the help of others. Importance of the research: The study benefits institutions that design products for people with special needs, to be used when designing products that meet the real needs of this group. Product design students can also benefit from this system by providing suitable, easy-to-use tools for design thinking that save their time and effort, and also encourage them to learn to use logical thinking, adding to their creativity in practicing these procedures in a logical, sequential manner. Hypotheses: Using applied design thinking tools and procedures helps give the designer the ability and awareness to design a product that accurately meets the requirements of people with special needs. Methodology: The study will use the case study and descriptive analytical approaches. Research tools: 1- Brainstorming card 2- Procedure cards. Delimitations: 1- Human limits: The study is designed for two purposes: A- Providing scientific material for designers concerned with products for people with special needs - Providing scientific material for students in subjects concerned with design for people with special needs. 2- Spatial boundaries: Greater Cairo area (in the Cairo and Giza governorates) 3- Temporal boundaries: The period from February 2024 to May 2024 4- Objective boundaries: This study only covers the evaluation of cards in the stages of empathy, problem identification, and idea generation
1) Abdel-Al Abdel-Al, Al-Ahwal, Gamal, Sami, Shaima (2021). Design thinking and its role in developing jewelry design education, International Design Journal, Scientific Society of Designers, Volume 11, Issue 1 (pp. 43-47)
2) Abdel Fattah, Shaima Ibrahim, “Methods for developing skill innovation in the product design process” - Master’s thesis (unpublished research) in the Department of Metal Products and Jewelry, at the Faculty of Applied Arts - Helwan University, October 2019
4) Bastien, J. C. (2010). Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. International journal of medical informatics, 79(4), (pp. 18-23)
5) Bennett, C. L., & Rosner, D. K. (2019, May). The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the" Other". In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13)
6) Boess, S. (2009). Experiencing product use in product design. In DS 58-9: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 9, Human Behavior in Design, Palo Alto, CA, USA, (pp. 311-322).
7) Boisadan, A., Buisine, S., & Moreau, P. (2021). Towards the design of a quick and universal questionnaire to assess the intuitiveness of products. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 22(6), (pp. 753–774).
8) Bruno, F, Cosco, F, Angilica, A, & Muzzupappa, M. (2010) "Mixed Prototyping for Products Usability Evaluation." Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Volume 3: 30th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Parts A and B. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (pp. 1381-1390)
9) Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000, August). Experience prototyping. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 424 - 433).
11) Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., ... & Wood, K. (2017). Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Design Science, 3, e13.
12) Chen, L., Wang, P., Dong, H., Shi, F., Han, J., Guo, Y., ... & Wu, C. (2019). An artificial intelligence based data-driven approach for design ideation. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 61, (pp.10-22).
13) Cheng, J. (2018). Product design process and methods. Product Lifecycle Management-Terminology and Applications, (pp.36-37)
14) Dalton, J., & Kahute, T. (2016). Why empathy and customer closeness is crucial for design thinking. Design Management Review, 27(2), (pp.20-27).
15) Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., Yilmaz, S., & Gonzalez, R. (2016). Comparing ideation techniques for beginning designers. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138(10), 101108.
16) Devecchi, A., & Guerrini, L. (2017). Empathy and Design. A new perspective. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S4357-S4364.
17) Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. DTRS8 Interpreting Design Thinking: Design Thinking Research Symposium Proceedings, 2010, (pp. 131 – 139)
18) Dorta, T. (2008). Design flow and ideation. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 6(3), (pp.299-316).
19) Eiriksdottir, E., & Catrambone, R. (2011). Procedural instructions, principles, and examples: How to structure instructions for procedural tasks to enhance performance, learning, and transfer. Human factors, 53(6), (pp.749-770).
20) Furnham, A. (2000). The brainstorming myth. Business strategy review, 11(4), (pp.21-28).
21) Gafour, O. W., & Gafour, W. A. (2020). Creative thinking skills–A review article. Journal of Education and E-Learning, 4, (pp. 44-58).
22) Gasparini, A. (2015, February). Perspective and use of empathy in design thinking. In ACHI, the eight international conference on advances in computer-human interactions (pp. 49-54).
24) Gerber, E., & Carroll, M. (2012). The psychological experience of prototyping. Design studies, 33(1), (pp. 64-84).
25) Harris, R. (2002). Creative thinking techniques. Creative Problem Solving: Creative Thinking, 10, (pp.1-12).
26) Hass, C. (2019). A practical guide to usability testing. Consumer informatics and digital health: solutions for health and health care, (pp.107-124).
30) Ishino, Y., & Jin, Y. (2006). An information value based approach to design procedure capture. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 20(1), (pp. 89-107).
31) Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1994). The global network organization of the future: Information management opportunities and challenges. Journal of management information systems, 10(4), (pp. 25-57).
32) Keates, S. (2015). Design for the value of inclusiveness. Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains, (pp. 383-402).
33) Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2014). Empathy via design thinking: creation of sense and knowledge. In Design thinking research: Building innovators (pp. 15-28). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
34) Lemons, G., Carberry, A., Swan, C., Jarvin, L., & Rogers, C. (2010). The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design. Design Studies, 31(3), (pp. 288-309).
35) Lewrick, M., Link, P., & Leifer, L. (2020). The design thinking toolbox: A guide to mastering the most popular and valuable innovation methods. John Wiley & Sons.
36) Liedtka, J. (2011). Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 39(5), (pp. 13-19).
37) Lutters, E., Van Houten, F. J., Bernard, A., Mermoz, E., & Schutte, C. S. (2014). Tools and techniques for product design. CIRP Annals, 63(2), (pp. 607-630).
38) Maaravi, Y., Heller, B., Shoham, Y., Mohar, S., & Deutsch, B. (2021). Ideation in the digital age: literature review and integrative model for electronic brainstorming. Review of Managerial Science, 15(6), (pp. 1431-1464).
39) Magnier, C., Thomann, G., & Villeneuve, F. (2012). Seventeen Projects Carried Out by Students Designing for and with Disabled Children: Identifying Designers' Difficulties During the Whole Design Process. Assistive Technology, 24(4), (pp. 273-285).
40) Meneses,R. (2011). Experiences of ‘Empathy’. Doctoral Thesis, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham.
41) Mose Biskjaer, M., Dalsgaard, P., & Halskov, K. (2017, June). Understanding creativity methods in design. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 839-851)
43) Norell M (1996) Competitive Industrial Product Development Processes – a Multidisciplinary Knowledge Area. in Kleimola MKa, (Ed.) NordDesign’96, (pp. 125–132).
44) Otto, K. &Wood, K. (2001) Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New
45) Product Design. Prentice-Hall.
46) Petrie, H., & Bevan, N. (2009). The evaluation of accessibility, usability, and user experience. The universal access handbook, 1, (pp. 1-16)
47) Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. M. (2018). How to facilitate a brainstorming session: The effect of idea generation techniques and of group brainstorm after individual brainstorm. Creative Industries Journal, 11(3), (pp. 263-277).
48) Seifert, C. M., Gonzalez, R., Yilmaz, S., & Daly, S. (2015). Boosting creativity in idea generation using design heuristics. Design and Design Thinking: Essentials in the PDMA’s New Product Development Series, (pp. 71-86).
49) Shinohara, K., Bennett, C. L., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2016, October). How designing for people with and without disabilities shapes student design thinking. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 229-237).
50) Silverstein, D., Samuel, P., & DeCarlo, N. (2009). The innovator's toolkit: 50+ techniques for predictable and sustainable organic growth. The Innovators Toolkit.
51) Soares, M. M. (2012). Translating user needs into product design for the disabled: an ergonomic approach. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 13(1), (pp. 92-120).
53) Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
54) Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., & Hassenzahl, M. (2008). Now let's do it in practice: user experience evaluation methods in product development. In CHI'08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 3961-3964).
55) van der Meij, H., Blijleven, P., & Jansen, L. (2003). What makes up a procedure. Content & Complexity. Information design in technical communication, (pp. 129-186).
56) Vernon, D., Hocking, I., & Tyler, T. C. (2016). An evidence-based review of creative problem solving tools: A practitioner’s resource. Human Resource Development Review, 15(2), (pp. 230-259).
57) Ward, J. T. (1989, October). Human Factors Design Guidelines for the Disabled. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 490-492). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
58) Wróbel, M., & Romanowski, A. (2015). Guidelines for designing products and services for users with special needs by design thinking method. Ergonomics for people with disabilities-Social and occupational integration, (pp. 98-114).
59) Xu, W. (2014). Enhanced ergonomics approaches for product design: a user experience ecosystem perspective and case studies. Ergonomics, 57(1), (pp. 34-51).
60) Yayici, E. (2016). Design thinking methodology book. ArtBizTech.
View on SCiNiTO
Top