A tool for meaning driven materials selection

Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Materials and Design journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes A tool for meaning driven materials selection Elvin Karana *, Paul Hekkert, Prabhu Kandachar Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 4 November 2009 Accepted 14 December 2009 Available online 21 December 2009 Keywords: H. Selection of materials E. Properties of materials Meaning Expressive characteristics Emotional design a b s t r a c t There are several tools used in materials selection processes by designers. However, they are mostly engineering based tools, which are dominated by numerical (or technical) material data that is mostly of use in embodiment or detailed design phases of new product development. On the other hand, product designers consider certain aspects such as product personality, user-interaction, meanings, emotions in their material decisions. In this regard, existing tools and methods do not fully support designers in their materials selection processes. This paper describes the development of a new materials selection tool holding the idea of [meaning driven materials selection]. In addition, the paper consists of a study conducted to create data for a dummy application. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In most of the materials selection sources, an analytical approach is followed [1–3]. In an analytical approach, a set of objectives and constraints are defined. Afterwards, the properties of a number of existing materials are analyzed based on the defined objectives and constraints. The candidate materials are then selected. Ashby and Cebon [4] sum up the materials selection activity in four main steps: (1) translate the design requirements as constraints and objectives, (2) screen the material world to identify materials that cannot do the job, (3) rank the materials that can do the job best, and (4) explore the top rated materials. In that sense, materials selection is carried out (consciously or not) as a design activity, involving the phases concept creation (by formulating material objectives and constraints, and arriving at candidate materials), testing and comparing candidate materials, and making a detailed selection with technical specifications. The four steps described by Ashby and Cebon [4] summarize the traditional materials selection approach promoted in engineering design. Constraints and objectives are mainly determined by technical requirements and materials are selected accordingly. In product design, however, materials should not only fulfill technical requirements but also appeal to the user’s senses and contribute to the intended meaning of a product. These concerns are introduced to the domain of design with alternative approaches such as design for experience [5], pleasure in design [6], design for emotions [7] and multi sensory design [8]. Product designers are responsible for taking these concerns into account in order to use materials * Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 15 27 85726; fax: +31 15 27 81839. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Karana). 0261-3069/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.12.021 efficiently to transfer certain meanings. In other words, materials are selected for creating certain experiences with their physical entity as well as intangible characteristics. Following this notion, materials selection in product design in this paper is defined as the selection of appropriate material(s) for designed products by considering related design criteria such as manufacturing processes, availability, cost, function, shape, use, as well as meanings, associations, emotions, characteristics of users, cultural aspects. Designers who intend to create certain meanings through the materials of their products are confronted with the difficulty that there is not a one-to-one relationship between material properties and intended meanings [9]. Combinations of different properties evoke particular meanings for specific users within specific contexts. This statement is introduced with the Meanings of Materials (MoM) model (Fig. 1) in Karana’s PhD thesis [10]. The model presents the meaning of a material as a relational concept in which material, product and user are jointly effective. Furthermore, a set of related aspects are identified and tested in a series of studies, such as sensorial properties, manufacturing processes, shape, function, gender, age, expertise and culture [10]. Following the MoM model, this paper describes the development of a tool, namely [Meanings of Materials] tool, which aims to assist designers in manipulating meaning creation in materials selection. The following section reports on the two main steps that were followed in developing the Meanings of Materials tool: (1) the structure of the tool (order of actions) and (2) the content of the tool (generating data and presenting the outcome. At the end of this section, the proposed tool is summarized. In the third section, a study is conducted in order to generate data for a dummy application. The paper ends with a comprehensive discussion on the results of the conducted study. E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 2933 Fig. 1. [Meanings of Materials] Model [10]. 2. The [Meanings of Materials] tool When people are asked to describe a certain material, they frequently refer to its expressive characteristics and these characteristics are grounded in different aspects of materials (and products). A particular material of a product, for instance, might express professionalism predominantly through its shiny, robust and smooth properties and the product’s sharp-edged geometry. Herein, shininess, robustness, smoothness and sharp-edge geometry cooperate and jointly contribute to a material’s expressive character. Expressive characteristics (or meanings, variously called figurative or abstract characteristics, see [11]) are not factually part of a materials’ physical entity or appearance (i.e. a material is not literally feminine or masculine) [9]. A meaning of a material is evoked by the interactions between product aspects (such as shape, function) and material properties, with respect to how and in which context the material is used and who the user is, and can change over time. Thus, a meaning of a material cannot be reduced to a single property or a single sensory domain [10]. Therefore, it is not possible to define simple design rules for a certain material–meaning relationship. Nevertheless, there are some patterns that identify how materials obtain their meanings [10]. A material, for instance, may express professionalism when it is smooth and dark (coloured), when its used in an office environment and when certain technical properties are combined for enhancing its function (e.g. combining strength and lightness). We assume that a designer who can understand these relationships (which we may call ‘meaning evoking patterns’) can more deliberately (or systematically) manipulate meaning creation in materials selection processes. In order to make designers capable of finding these patterns, a tool should first familiarize designers with the key aspects (such as shape, user, manufacturing processes) that play an important role in attributing meanings to materials. The tool should convey the idea that many meanings can be attributed to many materials dependent on different products and contexts. The three major aims of a proposed [Meanings of Materials] tool are: (1) to familiarize designers with the main components (or factors) of the Meanings of Materials model, (2) to show which aspects (under main components) play an important role for certain meanings (such as sensorial properties, gender, culture, shape), and (3) to stimulate designers to find the relationships (or patterns) between these aspects and meanings. In this way, we aim to encourage designers to systematically involve meaning considerations in their materials selection processes. This approach is termed meaning driven materials selection in this research. For the three goals listed above, we aim to provide designers with a collection of material examples (as material samples or materials embodied in products) that have been selected by a number of individuals who think that each material example expresses a certain meaning. In this way, the intention is not to provide designers with explicit design rules but rather to encourage designers to make their own conclusions by analyzing the selected materials. 2.1. Step 1: the structure of the tool Scholars in the materials and design domain, underlie the need for a materials selection tool to support designers in their materials selection activities at early stages of the design process (i.e. concept creation) [12–15]. The tool was therefore required to be informative, inspiring and appealing to designers. In order to achieve this, a level of interactivity in the tool was sought: the aim is to construct a database derived from a number of people who are asked to select materials expressing certain meanings. They are asked to provide a picture of the materials they selected and to explain why they thought that the material they selected expressed the given meaning. Then, they are asked to appraise the selected material in terms of sensorial properties via five point scales. In approaching the proposed tool, designers ware expected to have in mind the meaning(s) they would like to create through the material(s) of their designs. From this standpoint, it is important to provide designers with a number of material examples presented alongside explanations made by the individuals who select the materials and point out their associated meanings. In the completed MoM tool, designers can navigate through selected materials and explanations. Furthermore, the MoM model and a list of important sensorial properties of materials are presented in the tool to guide designers in their analysis of the selected materials. The main assumption is that: even though each case (comprising a single person’s explanation of the meaning they attribute to a certain material) is unique, designers will be stimulated to combine the cases and identify meaning evoking patterns. The materials selection process, aided by the MoM tool, is intended to finalize with an idea(s) of a material(s) conveying a certain meaning. The MoM tool incorporates 76 meanings, which are identified as material relevant meanings that designers are likely to want to convey through the materials of their products [16], in order 2934 E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 to guide designers at the beginning of their materials selection processes. A designer, with an intention in mind, is first encouraged to browse through the meanings and see if his/her intention is similar to (or the same as) one of the offered meanings. The designer can then access the examples and results from previous studies about a meaning that he/she is interested in, or can require a new study if there are no examples or results about the intended meaning (or a closely related meaning) in the tool. Thus, a new study is conducted and the results are added to the database. The designer can also require a new study to expand the data about a particular meaning already existing in the tool. For instance, a designer who intends to create a feminine product and who wishes to select a material(s) that expresses the meaning feminine can find that the tool consists of data about feminine materials selected by a narrow group of people. The designer may want an additional study in order to see, for instance, what Mediterranean people think about materials that express femininity. In this way, the MoM tool is conceived as a growing database of material meanings obtained from ongoing studies. Fig. 2 summarizes the order of actions followed in the MoM tool as: (a) a designer’s request, (b) data generation, and (c) outcome evaluation. 2.2. Step 2: the content of the tool With the MoM tool, we aimed to provide designers with a variety of material (and product) examples, along with data on material sensorial properties (ranked on the basis of evaluations) and explanations of the MoM model components. The content of the tool was developed accordingly. 2.2.1. Data generation Data are proposed to be generated through the results of different studies conducted online with groups of people who are asked to select materials expressing particular meanings. People who participate in the study are given the following three tasks: (1) select a material that you think is ‘X’ (such as sexy, feminine, modern), (2) provide a picture of the material you selected, and (3) explain your choice and evaluate the material on the given sensorial scales (Fig. 3). 2.2.1.1. TASK 1: select a material. . .. While designing TASK 1 for the tool, a special attempt was made to define a task that would be comprehensible even for non-designers, and which would lead them to material rather than object evaluations. Accordingly, the task was defined as: select a material which you think is X (X: a meaning such as sexy, futuristic). An explanation page was prepared to provide participants with more detailed information about how to select a material expressing the given meaning (Fig. 4). The explanation points out that the selected material could be embodied in an object or in a part of an object (such as a handle of a kettle). Differences in terminology between object and material are also explained in two additional pages with the help of examples (Fig. 5). The participants are reminded that if they do not possess the material themselves, but instead noticed it in a magazine, Internet, etc., and if they think it is a good example for the given meaning, they could still select that material as long as they are able to provide visuals of the material (pictures, photos, etc.) at a later stage. 2.2.1.2. TASK 2: provide a picture of. . .. Combining several pictures into a visual whole makes it possible for designers to represent not just one object or idea, but something more multifaceted like a mood or a context [17]. Designers usually use visual collages to define their target group and deduce certain product characteristics (such as form, colour) from these collages [18]. In addition, Fig. 2. Order of actions followed in the MoM tool. Fig. 3. Process of data generation for the tool. E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 Fig. 4. Task 1 and the first explanation page. Fig. 5. The second explanation page of TASK 1. Fig. 6. TASK 2 and the explanation page. 2935 2936 E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 designers prefer to transfer an idea (or a mood, or a context) to a client (especially if he does not have a design background) using visual representations [15]. On the basis of these considerations, the participants are asked to provide pictures of the materials they selected. On an additional page, they are instructed that the pictures may either be photographs taken by themselves or others, or any type of visual (photo, modeling, etc.) taken from the Internet, magazines, or a similar source (Fig. 6). They are asked for a supplementary detailed picture in cases where the selected material is not embodied in an object’s Fig. 7. Sensorial scales used for generating data for the tool. E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 2937 Fig. 8. Evaluation of the outcome of studies undertaken for the MoM tool. whole, but in a part of it. In other words, two pictures are needed if the object is made of more than one material: one for the entire object and one for the part made of the material that expresses the given meaning. 2.2.1.3. TASK 3: evaluate the material. . .. Finally, the participants are asked to evaluate their selections. The appraisal of the selected materials is done in two ways: first verbally, by responding to an open ended question, and second with a list of sensorial properties presented with pictograms and five point scales (the sensorial properties come from a previously conducted study, see [19]) (Fig. 7). The aim of the open verbal explanation is to provide designers with more specific information concerning the reasons behind each individual’s selection. After the verbal explanations, the participants are asked to assess the sensorial properties of the selected materials, presented with pictograms and five point scales. The outcome of the tool is presented below (Fig. 8). 2.2.2. Outcome of the tool 2.2.2.1. Collages of the materials and objects. Here, the main idea is to support designers in identifying meaning evoking patterns regarding materials of products in an inspirational way. It is proposed that displaying the selected materials altogether in a single image might enhance the probability of designers detecting the similarities and differences among the materials. For this reason, the collected pictures from the participants are presented as a collage, in which designers first see all the materials associated with a certain meaning in zoomed views (thumbnails). When a zoomed view is clicked, the entire image appears. 2.2.2.2. Individual explanations of the participants. The MoM tool provides designers with the verbal explanations made by each individual who participated in the data generation studies. When a designer clicks on an image of a material presented in the MoM tool, besides the picture of the entire object, he/she finds the rationale of the individual who selected the material. The aim is to communicate to designers the participants’ main motivations in their material–meaning selections. 2.2.2.3. Comparisons of the selected materials based on certain group divisions. This information type is provided to allow designers to limit the results of the MoM tool to only those meanings offered by a certain target group, such as materials selected by females or males, materials selected by Asian people. Designers are able to compare the results of the sensorial scales and to see significant differences between the compared groups’ selections. 2.2.2.4. Quantitative results from the sensorial scales. This part of the MoM tool presents material ratings based on sensorial scales. The results are presented with a graph ranking the properties according to their mean scores. The most important properties for the given meaning are determined. In this way, designers first become familiar with the properties that may have a general effect on the meaning of a material, and second develop an appreciation of the properties that play a crucial role in attributing the intended meaning. 2.2.2.5. A link to a technical materials selection website. Designers are provided with a link to a technical material selection website where they can find detailed information about the technical properties of materials. The reason for inclusion of the technical link is the premise that it provides a good way to find out about those materials that deliver sensorial properties found to be significant in the overall evaluation. 2.2.2.6. The Meanings of Materials model. The Meanings of Materials (MoM) model provides designers with the key factors (or components) that play a central role in an individual’s materials decisions. These factors (material, product, user and context) are briefly explained and the key aspects under each factor and the key variables under each aspect are listed. Manufacturing processes, for instance, is presented under the product factor. A list of key processes that may affect the material’s aesthetics is offered. We expect the model to be used as a guideline and a checklist by designers to formulate their thoughts and ideas, and define the meaning evoking patterns that will lead to materials choices. 2.3. Summary of the MoM tool An important difference of the MoM tool compared with existing materials selection tools and methods is that it is proposed to be a growing database, augmented by data generated from contin- 2938 E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 ual studies. In addition, the MoM tool is intended to be an inspiring interactive alternative materials selection resource that has appeal to product designers. Summarizing, the purpose of the tool is to support designers: (1) to understand the key variables in meaning attribution to materials and (2) to define the patterns behind a particular material–meaning relationship. The tool offers visual and textual inspiration for various types of products and materials related to the intended meanings. Designers are encouraged to navigate through the material examples and read the explanations for each meaning case. There are four strong points of the tool expected to be found useful by designers. First, designers need to summarize and document the findings of fieldwork related to a target group [15]. The MoM tool is expected to answer this need by offering a collage of materials alongside ratings of the materials against sensorial scales. Together these are expected to lead to easier discussions with people involved in a design project, such as product designers from the project team, material suppliers or clients. Furthermore, the list of sensorial properties is expected to enhance designers’ vocabulary about materials, which is expected to be helpful in summarizing and documenting a study’s results. Second, the interpretation of the results is left to designers. This means that although the quantitative data is presented for addressing the high rated sensorial properties, designers are expected to: (1) be stimulated by the collage of materials, (2) pick up the useful or relevant points for their designs with their own intuition and creativity, and (3) define the meaning evoking patterns in their own way. We expect not only the similarities but also the differences between the selected materials to be inspiring for designers. The last point is that the online application of the tool is expected to provide a growing database. The outcome of every study conducted to enhance the MoM tool is added to the tool’s database. Thus, designers might either navigate through the results of an existing study, or request a new study to be performed. The next section focuses on the realization of the proposed tool. Data is generated for a dummy application. 3. A study: data generation for a dummy application This study was conducted with the aim of answering three questions. First, are the tasks involved in using the [MoM] tool comprehensible for people with different cultural backgrounds and expertise? Second, are people able to practically provide pictures of the materials they select? Third, can people explain their material selections in their own words and evaluate them using the sensorial scales? Above all, the goal of the study was to generate data for the dummy application of the tool. Two studies (Study A and Study B), each focusing on a different material meaning, were conducted simultaneously with 48 participants. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Meanings The two meanings used for the studies were ‘elegant’ and ‘sexy’ (see Karana and Hekkert [20] for a further explanation on the reason behind the selected meanings). Chinese, Tanzanian, German, South Korean, and Brazilian). Gender was expected to create differences in attributing the meaning sexy to materials. All of the participants were either academic staff or students from various departments of Dutch Universities. The main reason behind conducting this study within an academic environment was that the (dummy) tool is intended to be universal/global in its application, comprehensible by people from different nationalities. For the same reason, English was adopted as the language of the tool. The pool of participants for this study consisted of students and staff with different nationalities and a sufficient level of English. The studies took approximately half an hour per participant. 3.1.3. Procedure The studies were performed by electronic mail, with the participants asked to perform a total of three tasks: TASK 1 to select a material, TASK 2 to document the selected material with a visual (picture), and TASK 3 to evaluate the selected material. In order to prevent bias or unwarranted manipulation in the participants’ selections, the tasks were requested iteratively and only once a response from the previous task had been received. In Study A, the participants were asked to select a material that they thought was elegant. The participants were informed that the material they selected could be embodied in an object or in a part of an object. They were further explained that the objects could be made of more than one material and that not all of those materials need have the same expression (meaning). It was particularly emphasized that the focus should be on materials. Thus, if the selected material was a material of an object, the object as a whole need not have the same expression as the material. In addition, the terms ‘object’ and ‘material’ were defined and a few material and object examples were included in the definition (see Figs. 4 and 5). When the participants informed us that they had found a suitable material, they were sent the second task, in which they were requested to provide visual evidence of the material they selected. They were informed that the visual evidence might be either photographs they took or were taken by others, or illustrations (such as photos, modeling) that they could find on the Internet, in magazines or similar sources. It was underlined that if the material they selected was a part of an object made of more than one material, an additional picture (a close-up) of that particular part was required. The third task focused on the evaluation of the materials that the participants had selected. There were two sub-tasks in this task: TASK 3a (verbal explanation) and TASK 3b (evaluation against the sensorial scales). Having received the visuals of the materials from the participants, they were then sent TASK 3a, which asked them to explain in their own words why they thought that the material they selected was elegant. Next, the participants were sent the final task (TASK 3b), consisting of five-point bipolar scales attached to the sensorial properties. The participants were asked to evaluate the sensorial properties of the material they had selected on the given scales. The procedure for Study B was similar to Study A, however the participants were asked to select a material that they thought was sexy. 3.2. Results 3.1.2. Participants Two studies were conducted simultaneously. In the first (Study A), 12 Dutch and 12 Turkish academic staff and university students from various departments of Dutch and Turkish Universities volunteered to participate. The second study (Study B) was conducted with 12 female and 12 male participants with different nationalities (Dutch, Turkish, Italian, Portuguese, Argentinean, Colombian, 3.2.1. Study A: elegant materials selected by 12 Dutch and 12 Turkish participants In total the participants selected 24 elegant materials (Fig. 9). The Dutch participants mainly focused on hard materials with natural colours and smooth surfaces, such as ceramics and metal. The Turkish participants selected more glossy and transparent materi- 2939 E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 below the overall mean score, which shows that the selected materials were significantly rated as not-elastic. Glossiness (3.46) and reflectiveness (2.88) were rated significantly above the overall mean score (i.e. the selected materials were commonly glossy and reflective). The effect of cultural differences on attributing the meaning elegant to materials was analyzed by a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the 10 sensorial properties as dependent variables and culture as the fixed factor. One significant main effect of culture (p < .05) was obtained for transparency (Table 2). Elegant materials selected by Turkish participants were more transparent than the materials selected by Dutch participants (2.83 vs. 1.42). 3.2.2. Study B: sexy materials selected by 12 female and 12 male participants For the female participants, particularly the soft and velvet like feelings of a material played an important role in attributing the meaning sexy. Three of the female participants mentioned the Table 2 Results of multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) for the effect of culture in Study A. Fig. 9. Elegant materials selected by 12 Dutch and 12 Turkish participants. Dependent variable df F Sig. Culture Soft Rough Glossy Reflective Warm Elastic Transparent Ductile Weak Heavy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .071 .234 .750 1.641 .540 .146 5.453 .122 .015 .080 .792 .633 .396 .214 .470 .706 .029 .730 .902 .780 als such as glass. Two flashy coloured (red and purple) materials appeared in the Turkish participants’ selections. The sensorial scales filled by the participants were analyzed statistically both to see the most significant properties in attributing the meaning elegant to materials in an overall evaluation and also reveal the main differences between the sensorial properties of materials selected by Dutch and Turkish participants. A One Sample t-test was executed to compute the importance of the properties. The overall mean score for 10 items (M = 2.25) was taken as the test value for the One Sample t-test. Bold items in Table 1 show the properties that received scores significantly above or below the overall mean score. The properties that received scores significantly below the overall mean score are presented with a minus sign ( ) in the table. The implication is that the opposite pole of these poorly scoring properties is significant for the given meaning. For instance, roughness (1.42) was significantly below (–) the overall mean, therefore smoothness of a material would appear to be one of the most important properties in attributing the meaning elegant to materials. Elasticity (1.67) was also rated significantly Table 1 Results of the One Sample t-test for elegant materials. Test value = 2.25 Soft Rough ( ) Glossy Reflective Warm Elastic ( ) Transparent Ductile Weak Heavy t .544 4.920 3.607 2.106 .742 2.723 .377 .119 1.141 .578 df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 .592 .000 .001 .046 .465 .012 .709 .907 .266 .569 2.08 1.42 3.46 2.88 2.42 1.67 2.13 2.21 2.63 2.42 Fig. 10. Sexy materials selected by 12 female and 12 male participants. 2940 E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 Table 3 Results of the One Sample t-test for sexy materials. Test value = 2.56 Soft Rough ( ) Glossy (+) Reflective Warm Elastic ( ) Transparent Ductile Weak Heavy t .052 6.226 3.408 .728 .922 3.098 1.125 .053 .498 .072 df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 .959 .000 .002 .474 .366 .005 .272 .958 .623 .943 2.54 1.50 3.50 2.79 2.33 1.79 2.21 2.54 2.71 2.58 Table 4 Results of multiple analysis variance for the effect of gender in Study Bb. Dependent variable df F Sig. Gender Soft Rough Glossy Reflective Warm Elastic Transparent Ductile Weak Heavy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.543 .232 .815 2.178 3.143 .246 1.468 .703 9.757 2.547 .125 .635 .376 .154 .090 .625 .239 .411 .005 .125 importance of transparency (or semi-transparency) on sexiness. In contrast, hard and strong materials dominated the male participants’ selections. They hardly mentioned the importance of a soft tactual property of a material for conveying the meaning sexy (except for one participant, who selected silk as a sexy material) (Fig. 10). The same methods (One Sample t-test and MANOVA) were used for the statistical analysis of the sensorial scales filled by participants. The results of the One Sample t-test, with bold items depicting those properties receiving scores significantly above or below the overall mean score (M = 2.56), are presented in Table 3. Roughness (1.50) and elasticity (1.79) were rated significantly below the overall mean score, which reveals that the selected materials were commonly rated as smooth and not-elastic. Glossiness (3.50) was rated significantly above the overall mean score. The results of the multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA), with gender as the fixed factor, revealed one significant main effect of gender (p < .05) for weakness of materials (Table 4). Sexy materials selected by the female participants were weaker than the materials selected by the male participants (3.50 vs. 1.92). 4. Discussion Designers select materials not only for physical benefits but also to convey their ideas and give character to their products. Product designers may have several questions regarding the intangible aspects of materials that arise during materials selection, such as ‘‘Does the selected material support the intended meaning of the product?’’, ‘‘Does it fit the target user group?’’, or ‘‘what kinds of associations can it evoke?’’. In order to convey their intentions properly, designers should understand how a material possesses its meaning in different products. In existing literature on materials and design, the significance of this intangible side of materials is mentioned in various ways, such as: the second and third order materials characteristics [21], emotive-stage materials characteristics, softer criteria of materials’ considerations, invisible characteristics [22], less tangible issues of materials [23], qualitative properties [24,25], non-active or passive functions of materials [26], non-technical issues of materials [27], material image, metaphysical aspects of materials, non-physical properties of materials [28], material personality, personal dimensions of materials [29], intrinsic cultural Meanings Of Materials [30], expressiveness of materials [31], subjective dimensions, essential and indicative character of materials [32], and perceived characteristics of materials [33]. Even though the importance of these aspects is emphasized, only a few researchers [21,27,28,32,33] have conducted studies on the subject and proposed ways of linking intangible characteristics to designers’ materials selection processes. However, there is currently no materials selection source that focuses on understanding and applying the intangible side of materials within product design [15,21–23,26,34–36]. This paper describes the development of a new materials selection tool holding the idea of [meaning driven materials selection] to support designers to involve meaning considerations into their materials selection processes. A study was conducted to create data for a dummy application and to explore if the principle of the tool is well-understood by the people who provide data for the tool. Three main questions were addressed: first, are the tasks comprehensible for people with different cultural backgrounds and expertise? Almost all participants (44 out of 48) found the tasks clear and accomplished the tasks without questioning. Four participants found the first task particularly complicated. Two of them replied to the first e-mail expressing their confusion and stated that even though the main assignment (select a material that you think is elegant/sexy) was clear, the explanation of the task confused them. They recommended splitting the explanation part and the main assignment, and send them as separate documents. Two participants found the main assignment too broad. They could not understand that they should select a specific material, until they received the second task. Instead, they thought about a material family that they found to be elegant/sexy, such as glass is sexy or metal is elegant. The second question was: are people able to provide pictures of the materials they select? All of the participants were able to do so. Thirteen participants selected materials that were embodied in a part of an object. However, only six of these sent an additional picture showing the selected material in detail. All of the participants emphasized the selected materials by name (such as ‘glass in this object’) or by referring to the relevant part of the object (such as ‘the material of the handle’) in their verbal explanations (Task 3a). Those participants who did not send the detailed picture mentioned that they found the pictures on the Internet and that it was difficult and time consuming for them to edit the pictures. Instead of taking their own photographs, most of the participants preferred to surf the Internet for sourcing visuals of the materials. Nine participants (out of 48) sent photographs they had taken themselves. Therefore, on the basis of these findings, in a future application of the [MoM] tool the request for an additional photo will be left out. Instead, a more detailed explanation about the selected material (if it is a part of an object) will be required in Task 3a. In general, the quality of pictures (pixel resolution) was sufficient for use in the [MoM] tool. Only four participants sent pictures with low resolution. The third question was: can people explain their selections in their own words and make an evaluation using the sensorial scales? The participants were able to explain their selections in their own words. They were willing to talk about their selections and their appraisals were comprehensible. Two participants interpreted the sensorial scales incorrectly, using them to evaluate a certain material family rather than the specific material that they had selected. For this reason, instead of filling in the scales by considering the selected material (such as a particular metal type E. Karana et al. / Materials and Design 31 (2010) 2932–2941 embodied in a vase) they made their ratings based on the material family (‘metal’ in general). These two participants filled out the scales one more time after they were instructed about the purpose of the task. For both of the meanings elegant and sexy, certain properties were found more effective than others for attributing the meaning. However, the variety of the selected materials provided an inspiring collage of properties for incorporation into further applications of the [MoM] tool. An increased number of participants would enhance the chance of building an extensive collage, but would reduce the number of common properties amongst the selected materials. In certain cases, both common points and differences in the properties of selected materials by a particular target group can be valuable for the designer. This statement will be tested in the next study. In general, the results of this study confirm that people with different cultural backgrounds and expertise are able to fulfill the material–meaning related tasks. They can explain their choices and understand the given sensorial scales supported visually by pictograms. Not surprisingly, it was noticed that the participants with design backgrounds (such as industrial designers, architects, graphical designers) accomplished the tasks without difficulties. All questions arising from confusion about the first task came from four non-designers. The two people who declined to participate in the study and who explained that they could not evaluate materials as ‘sexy’ or elegant’ were also non-designers. This could suggest that the study would yield different results if it was conducted only with designers. The main goal of the study was to provide sufficient data about the meanings elegant and sexy for creating an example ‘outcome’ part of the tool. Only one property for each meaning (transparency for elegant and weakness for sexy) appeared as the differences between the specified groups (i.e. Dutch vs. Turkish, females vs. males). On the other hand, we could see some patterns (even though they were not that lucid) which evoke the given meanings for the specified groups. The materials that the participants selected, the selected user aspects (gender and culture) and the overall results were satisfactory for creating a dummy application. 5. Conclusion In this paper, we developed a tool that embraced [meaning driven materials selection]. The main idea was that a designer who can understand the relationships (or meaning evoking patterns) between materials and meanings can then systematically manipulate meaning creation in materials selection processes. Accordingly, the Meanings of Materials tool was developed: (1) to familiarize designers with the main components (or aspects) of the Meanings of Materials model, (2) to show which aspects (under main components) play an important role for certain meanings (such as sensorial properties, gender, culture, shape), and (3) to stimulate designers to find relationships (or patterns) between these variables for given meanings. After developing the tool, we conducted a study for the aim of generating data for the dummy application, as well as testing the comprehensibility of the tasks involved in the tool. In a next study, we plan to test the usefulness of the MoM tool with the dummy application. References [1] Ashby MF. Materials selection in mechanical design. 3rd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2005. [2] Cornish EH. Materials and the designer. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1987. 2941 [3] Farag MM. Selection of materials and manufacturing processes for engineering design. UK: Prentice Hall; 1989. [4] Ashby MF, Cebon D. The CES EduPack. In: Teaching engineering materials. UK: Engineering Department, Cambridge University; 2007. [5] Hekkert P, Schifferstein HNJ. Introducing product experience. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P, editors. Product experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 1–8. [6] Jordan PW. Designing pleasurable products: an introduction to the new human factors. London (UK): Taylor & Francis; 2000. [7] Desmet P. Designing emotions. In: Industrial design engineering. Delft (The Netherlands): Delft University of Technology; 2002. [8] Schifferstein HNJ, Spence C. Multisensory product experience. In: Schifferstein HNJ, Hekkert P, editors. Product experience. Elsevier: Amsterdam; 2008. [9] Karana E, Hekkert P. Attributing meanings to materials. In: 6th international conference on design and emotion, Hong Kong: School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2008. [10] Karana E. Meanings of materials, PhD thesis. Design Engineering, Delft; 2009. ISBN 9789051550559: TU Delft. [11] Blank P et al. Perceiving what painting express. In: Crozier WR, Chapman AJ, editors. Cognitive process in the perception of art. North Holland: Amsterdam; 1984. p. 127–43. [12] Ashby M, Johnson K. Materials and design: the art and science of material selection in product design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2002. [13] Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P. Material considerations in product design: a survey on crucial material aspects used by product designers. Mater Des 2008;29:1081–9. [14] Sonneveld M. Aesthetics of tactile experiences. Delft (The Netherlands): Delft University of Technology; 2007. [15] Van Kesteren I. Selecting materials in product design. Delft (The Netherlands): Delft University of Technology; 2008. [16] Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P. Sensorial properties of materials for creating expressive meanings. In: Kansei engineering and emotion research conference, Sapporo, Japan; 2007. [17] Govers PCM, Schoormans JPL. Intangible product attributes of watches: an exploratory study into the consensus of consumers’ reactions in 29th EMAC: marketing in the new millennium. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; 2002. [18] Muller W. Order and meaning in design. Utrecht (The Netherlands): Lemma; 2001. [19] Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P. Meanings of materials through sensorial properties and manufacturing processes. Mater Des 2009(30):2778–84. [20] Karana E, Hekkert P. User–material–product interrelationships in attributing meanings. Int J Des, in press. [21] Hodgson SNB, Harper JF. Effective use of materials in the design process–more than a selection problem. In: International engineering and product design education conference, Delft, The Netherlands; 2004. [22] Lefteri C. The branding of plastics – how important is the branding of a material and how far do plastics go in helping to define brands. In: International conference on the art of plastics design, Berlin, Germany; 2005. [23] Conran S. Creating value – keynote address. In: International conference on the art of plastics design, Berlin, Germany; 2005. [24] Edwards KL. Towards more strategic product design for manufacture and assembly: priorities for concurrent engineering. Mater Des 2002;23: 651–6. [25] Jee DH, Kang KJ. A method for optimal material selection aided with decision making theory. Mater Des 2001;21:199–206. [26] Deng YM, Edwards KL. The role of materials identification and selection in engineering design. Mater Des 2007;28:131–9. [27] Ferrante M, Santos SF, de Castro JFR. Materials selection as an interdisciplinary technical activity: basic methodology and case studies. Mater Res 2000;3(2):1–9. [28] Ljungberg LY, Edwards KL. Design, materials selection and marketing of successful products. Mater Des 2003;24:519–29. [29] Ashby M, Johnson K. The art of materials selection. Mater Today 2003:24–35. [30] Manzini E. The material of invention. London: Design Council; 1986. [31] Rognoli V, Levi M. Emotions in design through materials: an expressivesensorial atlas as a project tool for design of materials Turkey. In: 4th international conference on design and emotion, Ankara, Turkey; 2004. [32] Rognoli V, Levi M. How, what and where is possible to learn design materials? In: International engineering and product design education conference, Delft, The Netherlands; 2004. [33] Zuo H, Jones M, Hope T. Material texture perception in product design. In: International conference on the art of plastics design, Berlin, Germany; 2005. [34] Karana E. Guidelines for a materials selection source for industrial design activity: a survey on the expectations of Turkish designers. In: Industrial design. Ankara (Turkey): Middle East Technical University; 2004. [35] Lovatt AM, Shercliff HR. Manufacturing process selection in engineering design, part 1: the role of process selection. Mater Des 1998;19:205–15. [36] Sapuan SM. A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Mater Des 2001;22:687–95.