Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T13:15:41.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biomaterials in Everyday Design: Understanding Perceptions of Designers and Non-Designers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

N. A. A. Sayuti ,
B. Sommer  and
S. Ahmed-Kristensen
N. A. A. Sayuti*
Affiliation:
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Royal College of Art, United Kingdom
B. Sommer
Affiliation:
Royal College of Art, United Kingdom
S. Ahmed-Kristensen
Affiliation:
University of Exeter Business School, United Kingdom
*
aynsayuti@gmail.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The application of biological materials in everyday design is gaining traction and designers are encouraged to employ biological systems through biodesign and biophilia. However, there is a deficiency in the understanding of potential consumers’ perceptions. This paper compares the perception of non-designers as well as designers towards design-embedded bio-materials. Data was collected from 234 respondents using an online survey. The findings were gathered by evaluating perception in terms of desirability, practicality, aesthetically, and familiarity with living and non-living biomaterials.

Keywords

perceptionbiomaterialsproduct designindustrial designuser experience

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2025 - 2034
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Achiche, S. & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2011) “Genetic Fuzzy Modelling of User Perception of 3D Shapes”. Journal AIEDAM Artificial Intelligence Engineering Design and Manufacturing. 25, pp 93–107.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (1972). “Self-Perception theory”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 6 (1): 1–62. 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blijlevens, J., Thurgood, C., Hekkert, P., Chen, L. L., Leder, H., & Whitfield, T. W. (2017). “The Aesthetic Pleasure in Design Scale: The development of a scale to measure aesthetic pleasure for designed artifacts”. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11(1), 86. 10.1037/aca0000098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrozza, M. C., Cappiello, G., Micera, S., Edin, B. B., Beccai, L., & Cipriani, C. (2006). “Design of a cybernetic hand for perception and action”. Biological Cybernetics, 95 (6), 629–644. 10.1007/s00422-006-0124-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chatterjee, A., and Vartanian, O. (2016). “Neuroscience of aesthetics”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1369 (1): 172–194. 10.1111/nyas.13035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiSalvo, C. F., Gemperle, F., Forlizzi, J., & Kiesler, S. (2002). “All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads”, In 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 10.1145/778712.778756Google Scholar
Dunston, P., Wang, X., Billinghurst, M., & Hampson, B. (2003). “Mixed reality benefits for design perception”. Nist Special Publication SP, 191-196. 10.22260/isarc2002/0030Google Scholar
Eckardt, M. H. (1996)." Fromm's Humanistic Ethics and the Role of the Prophet”. A PropheticGoogle Scholar
Analyst: Erich Fromm's Contributions to Psychoanalysis, 151–165.Google Scholar
Franklin, K. and Till, C. (2018). Radical matter: rethinking materials for a sustainable future. Thames & Hudson Incorporated., A. (1995) Aesthetic value. Westview Press, Colorado.Google Scholar
Gunn, H. (2002). “Web-based surveys: Changing the survey process”. First Monday, 7(12). 10.5210/fm.v7i12.1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofelich Mohr, A., Sell, A., & Lindsay, T. (2016). “Thinking inside the box: Visual design of the response box affects creative divergent thinking in an online survey”. Social Science Computer Review, 34(3), 347–359. 10.1177/0894439315588736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.W., Lenau, T. and Ashby, M.F. (2003). “The aesthetic and perceived attributes of products”. In Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., & Mador, M. (2008). Biophilic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lin, Z., Sommer, B. and Ahmed-Kristensen, S., (2020). “IoT product pleasurability-Investigating the pleasurable user experiences between conventional products and IoT products through watches”. In International Conference on ArtsIT, Interactivity and Game Creation, Springer, Cham, 394–408. 10.1007/978-3-030-73426-8_24Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M., Davis, O., & Baldwin, T. (2004). The world of perception. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Melcher, D. & Bacci, F. (2013). “Perception of emotion in abstract artworks: A multidisciplinary approach.” In Progress in Brain Research, Elsevier, Amsterdam. vol. 204, 191–216. 10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00010-5.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahon-Haft, T. A., & Dillman, D. A. (2010). “Does visual appeal matter? Effects of web survey aesthetics on survey quality”. In Survey Research Methods. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
Myers, W. (2018). Bio design: nature, science creativity. Revised and expanded version. Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Mata, M.P., Ahmed-Kristensen, S. and Shea, K. (2019). “Implementation of design rules for perception into a tool for three-dimensional shape generation using a shape grammar and a parametric model”. Journal of Mechanical Design, vol 141, 011101-1, 10.1115/1.4040169Google Scholar
Mata, M.P., Ahmed-Kristensen, S., Brockhoff, P.B. and Yanagisawa, H. (2017). “Investigating the influence of product perception and geometric features. Research in Engineering Design”, 28(3), pp.357–379, 10.1007/s00163-016-0244-1Google Scholar
Roth, M. (2006). “Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Germany”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 179–192. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayuti, N. A. A., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2020). “Understanding emotional responses and perception within new creative practices of biological materials”, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2020) University of Oulu, Finland, August 27-28, 2020, pp. 144–145. 10.35199/ICDC.2020.18Google Scholar
Sayuti, N. A. A., Sommer, B., Ahmed-Kristensen, S., (2020). “Identifying the purposes of biological materials in everyday designs”. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5(15), Conference on AMEABRA International Virtual Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, 2ndSeries Shah Alam Malaysia, 02-03 Dec 2020, 5(15), 29–37. 10.21834/ebpj.v5i15.2479Google Scholar
Sayuti, N. A. A., Sommer, B., Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2021a). “Bio-related Design Genres: A Survey on Familiarity and Potential Applications”. In: Brooks, A., Brooks, E.I., Jonathan, D. (eds) Interactivity and Game Creation. ArtsIT 2020. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 367. Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-030-73426-8_23Google Scholar
Sayuti, N. A. A., Bonollo, Elivio, and Montana-Hoyos, Carlos. (2021b). “Emotional Responses, Perceptions, and Preferences toward Furniture Design Based on Living Organisms”. The International Journal of Designed Objects, 15 (2): 1–20. 10.18848/2325-1379/CGP/v15i02/1-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayuti, N. A. A., Montana–Hoyos, C., & Bonollo, E. (2018). “Biophilic Design: Why do designers incorporate living organisms in furniture design?”, Conference Proceeding the Fifth International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2018). University of Bath, UK. February 2018.Google Scholar
Sayuti, N., Montana-Hoyos, C., & Bonollo, E. (2015). “A study of furniture design incorporating living organisms with particular reference to biophilic and emotional design criteria”. Academic Journal of Science, 4(1), 75–106.Google Scholar
Ware, Colin. (2019). Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
White, E. V., & Gatersleben, B. (2011). “Greenery On Residential Buildings: Does It Affect Preferences and Perceptions of Beauty?” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 89–98. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.002Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar