EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 179 (2020) E3S Web Conf., 179 (2020) 02004 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 179, 2020
2020 International Conference on Environment and Water Resources Engineering (EWRE 2020)
Article Number 02004
Number of page(s) 6
Section Environmental and Industrial Design
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017902004
Published online 23 July 2020
  1. Barnes, C. & Lillford, S.P., 2009. Decision support for the design of affective products. Journal of En¬gineering Design, 20 (5), 477-492. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnum, G.J. & Mattson, C.A., 2010. A computationally assisted methodology for preference-guided conceptual design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132 (12), 121003. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barone, S., Lombardo, A. & Tarantino, P., 2007. A weighted logistic regression for conjoint analysis and kansei engineering. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 23 (6), 689-706. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berlyne, D.E., 1966. Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153 (3731), 25-33. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chakrabarti, A. & Bligh, T.P., 1996. An approach to functional synthesis of mechanical design concepts: Theory, applications, and emerging research issues. AI EDAM, 10 (4), 313-331. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chang, D., & Nesbitt, K.V. (2006, October). Identifying commonly-used gestalt principles as a design framework for multi-sensory displays. In 2006 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cy-bernetics (Vol. 3, pp. 2452-2457). IEEE.. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, C.-C. & Chuang, M.-C., 2008. Integrating the kano model into a robust design approach to en¬hance customer satisfaction with product design. International Journal of Production Economics, 114 (2), 667-681. [Google Scholar]
  8. Coates, D., 2003. Watches tell more than time: Product design, information, and the quest for elegance New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crilly, N., Moultrie, J. & Clarkson, P.J., 2004. Seeing things: Consumer response to the visual domain in product design. Design Studies, 25 (6), 547-577 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0 142694X04000225. [Google Scholar]
  10. Deng, Y.M., 2002. Function and behavior representation in conceptual mechanical design. AI EDAM, 16 (5), 343-362. [Google Scholar]
  11. Elam, K., 2001. Geometry of design: Studies in proportion and composition New York: Princeton Archi-tectural Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gombrich, E.H., 1984. The sense of order: A study in the psychology of decorative art Oxford: Phaidon. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hekkert, P., 2006. Design aesthetics: Principles of pleasure in design. Psychology Science, 48 (2), 157-172. [Google Scholar]
  14. Holbrook, M.B. & Schindler, R.M., 1994. Age, sex, and attitude toward the past as predictors of consumers’ aesthetic tastes for cultural products. Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (3), 412-422. [Google Scholar]
  15. Katz, D., 1950. Gestalt psychology, its nature and significance New York: Ronald Press Co. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kim, N., 2006. A history of design theory in art education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40 (2), 12-28. [Google Scholar]
  17. Komoto, H. & Tomiyama, T., 2012. A frame work for computer-aided conceptual design and its applica¬tion to system architecting of mechatronics products. Computer-Aided Design, 44 (10), 931-946 Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010448512000401. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lavie, T. & Tractinsky, N., 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, 60 (3), 269-298. [Google Scholar]
  19. Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A. & Augustin, D., 2004. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 95 (Pt 4), 489. [Google Scholar]
  20. Nagamachi, M., 1995. Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15 (1), 3-11. [Google Scholar]
  21. Noble, C.H. & Kumar, M., 2010. Exploring the appeal of product design: A grounded, value-based model of key design elements and relationships: Exploring the appeal of product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (5), 640-657. [Google Scholar]
  22. Patyra, M.J. & Mlynek, D.M., 1996. Fuzzy logic: Implementation and applications Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ralls, K., 1995. But is it science? Conservation Biology, 9 (5), 983-984. [Google Scholar]
  24. Saaty, T.L., 1988. What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Gautam, M. ed. Mathematical models for decision support. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 109-121. [Google Scholar]
  25. Schifferstein, H.N.J. & Hekkert, P., 2008. Product experience San Diego, Ca: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  26. Smith, G.C. & Smith, S., 2012. Latent semantic engineering - a new conceptual user-centered design approach. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26 (2), 456-473. [Google Scholar]
  27. Smith, S., Smith, G.C. & Chen, Y.-R., 2013. A ke-lsa approach for user-centered design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24 (5), 919-933. [Google Scholar]
  28. Stebbing, P.D., 2004. A universal grammar for visual composition? Leonardo, 37 (1), 63-70 Available from: http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/stable/15 77576. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ulrich, K.T. & Eppinger, S.D., 2012. Product design and development New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. [Google Scholar]
  30. Umeda, Y., Ishii, M., Yoshioka, M., Shimomura, Y. & Tomiyama, T., 1996. Supporting conceptual design based on the function-behavior-state modeler. AI EDAM, 10 (4), 275-288. [Google Scholar]
  31. Wallschlaeger, C., Busic-Snyder, C., & Morgan, M. (1992). Basic visual concepts and principles for artists, architects, and designers. Wm. C. Brown Publishers. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.