Determining the Effect of Users’ Mobile Phone on Design Preference via Interactive Genetic Algorithms

Abstract

This study uses an Interactive Genetic Algorithm (IGA), a design space searching method, to determine the degree to which a user’s current mobile phone impacts their design preference, and how features in a product can change preference. IGAs mimic evolution by iteratively converging towards a design while exploring a design space through random mutations. 20 participants, 10 current Apple iPhone owners, and 10 non-iPhone owners were asked to use a web-based IGA tool to design touchscreen and non-touchscreen phones for dialing use only. Similar to other IGA mobile phone work (Nathan-Roberts & Liu 2010), the IGA varied screen size, button spacing, and phone radius independently. Results showed iPhone users, and non-iPhone users did have different design preferences, but that there was a bigger difference between touchscreen phone owners (iPhone and non-iPhone touchscreen phones), and non-touchscreen phone owners. Overall participants had significantly different preferences for touchscreen and non-touchscreen designs for all variables except for the vertical button spacing, and phone radius. This work is part of a larger research study of aesthetic ergonomics of mobile phones, specifically looking at usability, and the capacity of users to combine multiple goals in design. Future research needs are discussed, including further testing the effect of non-iPhone touchscreen phone ownership.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bauerly

Michael

Yili

Liu

(2006). “Computational modeling and experimental investigation of effects of compositional elements on interface and design aesthetics,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 670-682.

Bauerly

Michael

Yili

Liu

(2008). “Effects of symmetry and grouping on interface and design aesthetics.” International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. 24(3), pp. 275-287.

Bauerly

Michael

Yili

Liu

(2009). Evaluation and improvement of interface aesthetics with an interactive genetic algorithm (IGA). International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. In press.

Cho

S. B.

Towards creative evolutionary systems with interactive genetic algorithm. Applied Intelligence: The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Neural Networks, and Complex Problem-Solving Technologies, 16(2):129–38, 03/ 2002.

Chuang

M. C.

Chang

C. C.

Hsu

S. H.

(2001). Perceptual Factors Underlying User Preferences Toward Product Form of Mobile Phones. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27, 247-258.

Darowish

Lawton

J. N.

Evans

P. J.

(2009). What is cell phone elbow, and what should we tell our patients? Cleveland Clin. Jour. Med., 76 (5), 306-308.

Dawkins

The Blind Watchmaker. Harlow: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1986.

Durant

E. A.

Wakefield

G. H.

Van Tasell

D. J.

Rickert

M. E.

Efficient perceptual tuning of hearing aids with genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing, 12(2):144–155, 2004.

Green

P. E.

Srinivasan

Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4):3–19, 1990.

10.

Han

S. H.

Kim

K. J.

Yun

M. H.

Hong

S. W.

Kim

(2004). Identifying Mobile Phone Design Features Critical to User Satisfaction. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 14, 15-29.

11.

Holland

J. H.

Adaptation in Natural and Artificial System. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 1975.

12.

International Telecommunication Union. (2010). Measuring the Information Society. Geneva, Switzerland: ITU.

13.

Jordan

P. W.

Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics, 29(1):25–33, 1998.

14.

Kelly

J. C.

Interactive genetic algorithms for shape preference assessment in engineering design. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 2008.

15.

Kelly

J. C.

Papalambros

Wakefield

(2006). The Development of a Tool for the Preference Assessment of the Visual Aesthetics of an Object Using Interactive Genetic Algorithms. 9th Generative Art Conference. Milan, Italy.

16.

Kelly

J.C.

Wakefield

G.H.

Papalambros

P.Y.

“Evidence for using interactive genetic algorithms in shape preference assessment”. International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2011 pp 168-184.

17.

Louviere

J. J.

Hensher

D. A.

Swait

J. D.

Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

18.

Liu

Yili

(2003A). Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology. Ergonomics, 46, 1273-1292.

19.

Yili

Liu

(2003B). The Aesthetic and Ethic Dimensions of Human Factors Design. Ergonomics, 46, 1293-1305.

20.

Nathan-Roberts

Dan

Alex

Beeker

Yili

Liu

. (2009). Modeling Two Key Physical Ergonomic Problems with Mobile Phones. 2009 University of Michigan Engineering Graduate Symposium. November

21.

Nathan-Roberts

Dan

Yili

Liu

(2010). Investigation of Relative Mobile Phone Size Preference Using Interactive Genetic Algorithms. 54th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. San Francisco, California: HFES.

22.

Nathan-Roberts

Dan

Yili

Liu

Michael

Young

Hays

Jon D.

So, Christine

Christian

Little

Liang Hao

Zhao

“Content Analysis of Literature on Mobile Phone Design Features.” IEA, 17th World Congress on Ergonomics, Aug. 2009, Beijing, China

23.

Noblet

(1993). Industrial Design: Reflections of a Century. Paris: Abbeville Press, Inc.

24.

Otto

K. N.

Wood

K. L..

Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Prentice Hall, 2001.

25.

Seva

R. R.

Duh

Helander

M. G.

(2006). Factors Affecting Emotional Responses in Mobile Phone Design Evaluation. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, (pp. 2173-2177). San Francisco.