SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon / 2024 / Volume: 34 Issue: 4

Investigation of Style and Design Characteristics of Women's Outerwear with a User-Centered Design Approach

Hatice Harmankaya(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6375-7586
Meltem Özsan(KAHRAMANMARAS SUTCU IMAM UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-6217-4602
Pages
—
Publication Date
2024-12-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The Kansei evaluation shows that the Design Thinking process model makes it possible to create designs that meet users' emotional needs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to develop a design process model within the scope of the Design Thinking approach with Kansei Engineering support and to experientially apply this model.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Research data was obtained through a survey consisting of two sections, involving the opinions of 342 female consumers aged 18 and over, residing in Istanbul.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The Kansei evaluation shows that the Design Thinking process model makes it possible to create designs that meet users' emotional needs.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Design · Fashion design · Design thinking

Abstract

This study aims to develop a design process model within the scope of the Design Thinking approach with Kansei Engineering support and to experientially apply this model. Additionally, another aim of the research is to investigate the affective/emotional preferences of female users regarding visual and functional aspects of outerwear designs, and subsequently develop alternative design model proposals in alignment with users’ preferences. In this study, the 'Stanford d.school Design Thinking Model' was utilized. Research data was obtained through a survey consisting of two sections, involving the opinions of 342 female consumers aged 18 and over, residing in Istanbul. The first section includes a Likert-type scale to examine users’ outerwear design preferences. In the second section, a semantic differential scale was prepared to evaluate jacket, coat, and overcoat designs using Kansei words. The reliability of the measurement instrument was established through calculated Cronbach's Alpha coefficients, presented after each scale, confirming the reliability of both scales for this sample. The Kansei evaluation shows that the Design Thinking process model makes it possible to create designs that meet users' emotional needs.

🔖

Cite This Article

Harmankaya, H., Özsan, M. (2024). Investigation of Style and Design Characteristics of Women's Outerwear with a User-Centered Design Approach. Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon, Volume: 34 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.32710/tekstilvekonfeksiyon.1359813

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Ergüven A. 2021. İyi tasarım nedir? İstanbul, Türkiye: Hümanist.
  2. Kambar R. 2016. Moda ürünlerinde güdülenmiş tüketici yenilikçiliğinin satın alma ilgilenimi üzerindeki etkisi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (KOSBED), (32), 149-166.
  3. Kozan E. 2021. Tasarım odaklı düşünce. İstanbul, Türkiye: Abaküs.
  4. Leifer LJ, Steinert M. 2014. Dancing with ambiguity: Causality behavior, Design Thinking, and triple-loop-learning. In Gassmann, O. and Schweitzer, F. (Eds.) Management of the Fuzzy Front End of Innovation. Switzerland: Springer, 141-158.
  5. Öztürk A, Korkut F. 2020. Tasarım odaklı düşünme yaklaşımı ile Stem eğitimi etkinliği geliştirme. UTAK 2020 Dördüncü Ulusal Tasarım Araştırmaları Konferansı: Tasarım ve Öngörü Bildiri Kitabı. 8-10 Eylül 2020, Ankara, Türkiye, 391-404.
  6. Sürmelioğlu Y. 2021. Tasarım odaklı düşünmenin gelişimi için çevrimiçi proje tabanlı bir öğretimin tasarımı ve etkililiğinin incelenmesi. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from/Available from Yök National Thesis Center. (695169)
  7. Gropius W. 1935. The new architecture and the Bauhaus. London: Faber and Faber Limited.
  8. Rowe PG. 1987. Design Thinking. London: MIT.
  9. Liedtka J, Ogilvie T. 2011. Designing for growth: a design thinking tool kit for managers. NY: Columbia Business School.
  10. Dorst K. 2011. The core of ‘Design Thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
  11. Luchs MG. 2015. A brief introduction to design thinking. In Luchs, M.G., Swan, K.S. and Griffin, A. (Eds.) Design Thinking. NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 1-11.
  12. Lawson B. 2006. How designers think. Oxford: Elsevier/ Architectural.
  13. Lindberg T, Meinel C, Wagner R. 2011. Design Thinking: A fruitful concept for IT development? In Plattner, H., Meinel, C. and Leifer, L. (Eds.), Design Thinking, understand - improve – apply. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 3-18.
  14. Johansson-Sköldberg U, Woodilla J, Çetinkaya M. 2013. Design Thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121-147.
  15. Brown T. 2008. Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, l86(6), 1-10. Retrieved from https://readings.design/PDF/Tim%20Brown, %20Design%20Thinking.pdf
  16. Schmiedgen J, Rhinow H, Köppen E, Meinel C. 2015. Parts without a whole?: The current state of design thinking practice in organizations (Issue 97, p.8), Retrieved from https://idw-online.de/de/ attachmentdata45603.pdf
  17. Martin R. 2009. The design of business: Why design Thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business, Cambridge.
  18. Balakrishnan B. 2021. “Exploring the impact of design thinking tool among design undergraduates: A study on creative skills and motivation to think creatively. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(3), 1799–1812.
  19. Simon HA. 1969. The sciences of the artificial. The MIT, Cambridge.
  20. Dunne D, Martin R. 2006. Design Thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.
  21. Howard Z. 2015. Understanding design thinking in practice: A qualitative study of design led professionals working with large organizations. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from/Available from Swinburne University of Technology, Swinburne Research Bank.
  22. IDF (Interaction Design Foundation). 2020. The 5 stages in the Design Thinking process. Retrieved from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process
  23. d.school. 2023. Explore The Stanford D.School. Retrieved from https://dschool.stanford.edu/
  24. Plattner H. 2010. Foreword. In Plattner, H., Meinel, C. and Leifer, L. (Eds.), Design Thinking: Understand – Improve – Apply, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, v-vi. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0.
  25. Plattner H. 2012. Foreword. In Plattner, H., Meinel, C. and Leifer, L. (Eds.), Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, v-vi. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4.
  26. Meinel C, Leifer L. 2012. Design Thinking Research. In Plattner, H., Meinel, C. and Leifer, L. (Eds.) Understand innovation, Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1-12. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4.
  27. von Thienen JPA, Clancey WJ, Corazza GE, Meinel C. 2018. Theoretical foundations of design thinking. Part I: John E. Arnold’s creative thinking theories. In Plattner, H., Meinel, C. and Leifer, L. (Eds.) Design Thinking Research: Making Distinctions: Collaboration versus Cooperation, Springer, 13-40.
  28. Kröper M, Fay D, Lindberg T, Meinel C. 2010. Interrelations between motivation, creativity, and emotions in Design Thinking processes – An empirical study based on regulatory focus theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2010), 29 November - 1 December 2010, Kobe, Japan, pp. 97-104.
  29. Plattner H, Meinel C, Weinberg U. 2009. Design Thinking, Innovation lernen, 114p. Munich, German: mi-Wirtschaftsbuch.
  30. Stanford University Institute of Design. 2012. D. School design thinking process. Retrieved from: http://dschool.stanford.edu/
  31. Plattner H. (Ed.). 2009. d.School Bootcamp bootleg. Institute of Design at Stanford.
  32. Nagamachi M. 1995. Kansei engineering: A new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 15, 3-11.
  33. Nagamachi M. 2011. Kansei/Affective engineering and history of Kansei/Affective engineering in the world. In Nagamachi, M. (Ed.) Kansei/Affective Engineering, CRC Press, 1-12.
  34. Nagamachi M, Ito M, Tsuji T. 1988. Image technology based on knowledge engineering and its application to design consultation. In Adams, A.S., Hall, R.R., McPhee B.J. and Oxenburgh, M.S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Congress of International Ergonomics Association, Sydney, Australia, 72-74.
  35. Nagamachi M. 1996. Kansei Engineering and its Applications. The Japanese Journal of Ergonomics, 32(6), 286-289.
  36. Nagamachi M. 1999a. Kansei engineering and its applications in automotive design. SAE Technical Paper Series, 87-94.
  37. Nagamachi M. 2008. Perspectives and the new trend of Kansei/Affective Engineering. The TQM Journal, 20(4), 290-298.
  38. Nagamachi M. 1999b. Kansei engineering; the implication and applications to product development. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Tokyo, Japan, 273-278. DOI: 10.1109/ICSMC.1999.816563.
  39. Lokman AM, Noor NM, Nagamachi M. 2007. Kansei Engineering: A study on perception of online clothing website. Proceedings of the 10th QMOD, Helsingbörg, Sweden.
  40. Nagamachi M, Lokman, AM. 2011. Innovations of Kansei Engineering. New York, USA: CRC, Taylor & Francis Group.
  41. Ahmady A. 2008. Review and classification of Kansei Engineering and its applications. Proceedings of the 4th Annual GRASP Symposium: Graduate Research and Scholarly Projects, Wichita State University, 143-144.
  42. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. 1981. Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.
  43. Nardi PM. 2003. Doing survey research: a guide to quantitative methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  44. Sevinç B. 2009. Survey araştırması yöntemi. In Böke K. (Ed.) Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri, İstanbul: Alfa Basım Yayın, 245-284.
  45. Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK). (2022). Population by province, single age, and sex, 2007-2022. Retrieved from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/ Kategori/ GetKategori?p=nufus-ve-demografi-109&dil=2
  46. Semiz, M. 2011. Örnekleme yöntemleri. Konya: Dizgi Ofset.
  47. Durmuş B, Yurtkoru ES, Çinko M. 2013. Sosyal bilimlerde Spss'le veri analizi. İstanbul, Türkiye: Beta.
  48. Büyüköztürk Ş, Kılıç Çakmak E, Akgün EÖ, Karadeniz Ş, Demirel F. 2021. Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara, Türkiye: Pegem.
  49. Li X, Su J, Zhang Z, Bai R. 2021. Product innovation concept generation based on deep learning and Kansei engineering. Journal of Engineering Design, 32(10), 559-589.
  50. Zhou F, Hu M, Zhao Y. 2020. Study on the influence of modular design of garments on market innovation. Journal of Textile Science & Fashion Technology, 6(3), 1-2.
  51. Akgül E. 2020. Kansei tabanlı ürün tasarımı için hibrit bir yaklaşım (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from/Available from Yök National Thesis Center. (624977).