研究生: |
吳長諺 Chang-Yen Wu |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
以承擔特質概念運用於生活用品之設計創作 The Application of Affordance in Lifestyle Products Design |
指導教授: |
鄭金典
Jin-Dean Cheng |
口試委員: |
柯志祥
Chih-Hsiang Ko 王鴻祥 Hung-hsiang Wang |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
設計學院 - 設計系 Department of Design |
論文出版年: | 2008 |
畢業學年度: | 96 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 109 |
中文關鍵詞: | 承擔特質 、Affordance 、產品設計 、設計創作 |
外文關鍵詞: | Affordance, Product Design |
相關次數: | 點閱:252 下載:31 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本創作期望透過承擔特質的相關文獻與產品案例探討,來了解承擔特質概念是如何運作於產品上,進而將承擔特質概念運用於設計實作中。在文獻探討前半段以心理學角度切入,探索承擔特質的初衷與衍生出的理論,而文獻後半段則針對深澤直人以承擔特質概念為基礎所提出“無思考”的思維,以及承擔特質概念是如何在他設計的產品上運作的探討。產品設計案例則分為兩部分,分別為深澤直人以承擔特質概念所設計的產品分析,以及研究者對於現有產品及概念設計運用承擔特質的概念去分析及解讀;分別在心理學上以及產品設計案例上做一完整的說明與詮釋。
承擔特質概念應用於設計,著重於探討使用者行為模式與產品特質之間的互動關聯性。使用者察覺一件產品的使用方式不僅仰賴物品的特性,過去相關的使用經驗與知識也是影響因素之一。透過研究的歸納與整理,廣泛蒐集整體方向的研究資料後,接著依照文獻探討與產品案例分析資料訂定設計方向,做為實做設計發展的準則。在設計方向中,依照文獻探討與案例分析的結論,統整後分為以下兩個設計方向:
1.以產品為中心的設計思維
2.探索使用者的潛在使用行為
接著運用導入於生活用品之設計,以研究所得之方向應用於實際設計創作中。最後以所訂定的設計方向去發展三項生活用品,包括鬧鐘、椅子、衣架,以實驗性創作的角度設計此三件產品,並進行自我評估以達到承擔特質概念運用於產品設計上的目的。
The purpose of this research study is to realize how the concept of Affordance operating on product design. Through the related literature and product cases discussion, use the concept of Affordance into product design. In the beginning of literature, explore the original intention of Affordance by in terms of psychology. Moreover, the thinking called“Without thought”which is created by Naoto Fukasawa in foundation of Affordance and Discuss how Affordance concepts operate on his design. Product cases are separated into two parts. One of them is Naoto fukasawa’s design, and the other is the explanation and Analysis of Existing products and Concept design products by Affordance. Separately gives a complete explanation and the annotation in the psychology as well as the product design case.
The concept of Affordance, which applies in the design and focus on the relationship between the user behavior pattern and the product characteristic interactive. The user learns the usage of methods not only admires the product characteristic, but also relates with use experience and knowledge in the past. Through the Induction and reorganization, after the literature discussion and the product case analysis set two directions of design:
1. Product-central design
2. Explores user's latent behavior
Then, design three lifestyle products by the design directions, including alarm clock, chair, and clothes rack. Design the three products by the experimental way and carries on the self-appraisal to achieve the purpose of Affordance concept.
1. 李翔詣 (2000)。人體尺寸與工作椅之設計。人體尺寸資料之量測與應用研習會。
2. 林俊男、游蕙瑜、陳淑芬(2001)。從生物、心理符號角度解讀Affordance 理論意義。雲林科技大學工業設計研究所。
3. 卓耀宗 譯(2000)。Norman, D. A. 著。設計心理學,台北:遠流。
4. 茅仲宇(2004)。以椅子為例探討承擔特質於產品設計之應用,國立台灣科技大學設計研究所碩士論文。
5. 胡佑宗 譯(1996)。Bernhard E. Burdeük 著。工業設計—產品造形的歷史、理論及實務。台北:亞太圖書出版社。
6. 陳力豪(2003)。物件物理特質所提供之Affordance 感知差異研究。國立雲林科技大學工業設計系碩士班碩士論文。
7. 陳文印(1997)。設計解讀,工業設計專業知識之探索。台北:亞太圖書出版社。
8. 陳國祥、游曉貞(2001)。正規化承擔特質描述語法於產品設計初探。銘傳大學設計學院2001 年學術研討會論文集,頁195-202。
9. 陳國祥、游曉貞、徐宏文(2001)。以承擔特質為基礎的電腦輔助互動性設計系統研究(1)。國科會專題研究計劃成果報告,NSC90-2218-E-224-011。
10. 彭聃齡,彰必隱(2000)。認知心理學。台北:東華書局。
11. 游曉貞(1998)。設計的認知工程-淺談認知科學大師唐納.諾曼[Donald Normen]之設計原則。工業設計,第26 卷,第二期,頁82-91。
12. 游曉貞(2001)。正規化承擔特質描述語法於產品設計之初探。銘傳大學2001 年設計學院學術研討會。
13. 黃啟梧,高漢清(1999)。造形字彙對產品易用性的影響。中華民國設計學會第四屆學術研究成果研討會。
14. Anii, A. (1997). The Relationship between the Affordance Perception for "Clearable" Height ofCrossbar in High Jump and Properties of the Body. Japanese Society of Sport Psychology,Vol.24, No,1.
15. Burke, K.(1975).The Nature of Form." In Contemporary Rhetoric: A conceptual background with readings,Edited by R. Winterowd. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich。
16. Ellis, R., &Tucker, M.(2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology. Nov 2000, Vol. 91,Part 4, pp, 451-471.
17. Fukasawa, N. (2007). Naoto Fukasawa, New York:Phaidon
18. Gaver, W.(1991). Technology affordances. Proceedings of CHI`91(New Orlean,April28-May2,1991), pp.79-84. New York: ACM.
19. Gibson, J.J.(1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
20. Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, Physical, and Perceptual Affordances in Interaction Design, Behavior and Information Technology.
21. Igarashi, H. (1997). Interface Design : The Method and Meaning of Ecological System Design. 2nd Asian Design Conference, pp.137-147.
22. Krampen, M. (1989). Ecological Perception Research , Visual Communication , and Aesthetics, New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
23. Janlert, L.E. & Stolterman E.(1997). The Character of Things, DesignStudies, 18(3).pp. 297-314.
24. Koffka, K. (1935).Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt & Brace.
25. McGrenere, J. & Ho, W. (2000). Affordance: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2000. Montreal, May 2000.
26. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, Conventions, and Design , Interaction. May-June, pp. 38-42.
27. Norman, D. A. (1990). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books Inc.
28. Norman, D.A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
29. Warren, W. H. (1988). Action Modes and Laws of Control for the Visual Guidance of Action. Complex Movement Behaviour: The motor-action controversy, O. G. Meijer & K. Roth (ed.). Elservier Science Publishers, pp. 339-380.
30. Vihma, S. (1995). Products as Representations: A Semiotic and Aesthetic Study of Design Products. Helsinki: Helsinki University of Art and Design