Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T10:03:07.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Design Case Study: 3D Printer Software Interface Design Based on Home Users Preferences Knowledge

Part of:Design for Additive Manufacturing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Xuenan Li,
Danhua Zhao and
Jianghong Zhao

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 rapid development of 3D printing technology has an impact on all aspects of modern manufacturing, design and society. However, the home use of 3D printers is still limited by the difficulty in deploying the software and the technology which both need professional understanding and training. How to enable non-technical home users to use 3D printers without the need for training, becomes an urgent problem for both academics and the industry. This paper is concerned in an investigation into home use of 3D printers, their needs and preferences, their impacts on the interaction design of 3D printing. First, a questionnaire survey supported by 127 non-technical users is conducted to understand their preferences on several key steps of the 3D printing procedure. Then, we integrate the survey results into the interaction design process to improve the usability of the 3D printing software. Finally, the advantage of our implementation is tested via the user satisfaction and feedback towards the post-use period. Our design project shows a simple method to extend 3D printing interactive software to non-technical users, and pushes forward the landscape of the home use of 3D printers.

Keywords

Design methods3D printingUser centred designHuman-Machine InterfacesUser preference

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019, pp. 639 - 648
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) 2019

References

Blackmer, B. E. (2005), “Knowledge on knowledge”, Journal of Interior Design, Vol. 31 No. 1, p. viiexii.Google Scholar
Boztepe, S. (2007), “Toward a framework of product development for global markets: a user-value-based approach”, Design studies, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 513–533. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.010Google Scholar
Camburn, B. A., Auernhammer, J. M., Sng, K. H. E., Mignone, P. J., Arlitt, R. M., Perez, K. B. and Wood, K. L, . (2017, August), “Design innovation: A study of integrated practice”, In ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. V007T06A031–V007T06A031). American Society of Mechanical Engineers. http://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2017-68382Google Scholar
Chamorro-Koc, M., Popovic, V. and Emmison, M. (2008), “Using visual representation of concepts to explore users and designers’ concepts of everyday products[J]”, Design Studies, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 142–159. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.005Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2011), ”Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work”, Berg.Google Scholar
Easton, T. A. (2009), “The design economy: a brave new world for businesses and consumers”, The Futurist, Vol. 43 No. 1, p. 42.Google Scholar
Gershenfeld, N. (2008),” “Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop–from personal computers to personal fabrication”, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Groat, L. N. and Wang, D. (2013), Architectural Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hu, S. J. (2013), “Evolving paradigms of manufacturing: from mass production to mass customization and personalization”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 7, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Huang, X., Kristal, M. M. and Schroeder, R. G. (2008), “Linking learning and effective process implementation to mass customization capability”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 714–729. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.11.002Google Scholar
Hudson, N., Alcock, C. and Chilana, P. K. (2016, May), “Understanding newcomers to 3D printing: Motivations, workflows, and barriers of casual makers”, In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 384–396). ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858266Google Scholar
Micallef, J. (2015), “Timeline of 3D printing design milestones”, In Beginning Design for 3D Printing (pp. 397–401). Apress, Berkeley, CA. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0946-2_14Google Scholar
Mueller, S. (2017), “3D printing for human-computer interaction”. interactions (pp. 76–79) http://doi.org/10.1145/3125399Google Scholar
Neagle, C. (2013, 31 January 2015), “3D printers: Not for the average consumer”, Available: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2165120/data-center/3d-printers--not-for-the-average-consumer.html#moreGoogle Scholar
Pohlmeyer, A. E., Hecht, M. and Blessing, L. (2009), “User Experience Lifecycle Model Continue [Continuous User Experience]. Der Mensch imMittepunkttechnischerSysteme”, Fortschritt-Berichte VDI Reihe, Vol. 22, pp. 314–317.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. B. N. and Stappers, P. J. (2012), Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for The Front End of Design. Amsterdam: BIS.Google Scholar
Shapeways. (2012, 20 February 2015). Available: http://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/1344-Have-Your-Say-in-a-3D-Printing-Community-Survey.htmlGoogle Scholar
Turbovich, Z. N., Avital, I., Mazor, G., Das, A. K. and Kalita, P. C. (2017, January). “Personal 3D Printer: Self-design and Manufacturing”, In International Conference on Research into Design (pp. 327–338). Springer, Singapore. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3518-0_29Google Scholar
Underwood, G. (2014), “RP vs workshop: how modelling methods affect early design development”, In DS 78: Proceedings of the 16th International conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E and PDE14), Design Education and Human Technology Relations, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 04-05.09. 2014 (pp. 537–542).Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E., De Jong, J. P. and Flowers, S. (2012), “Comparing business and household sector innovation in consumer products: findings from a representative study in the United Kingdom”, Management Science, Vol. 58 No. 9, pp. 1669–1681. http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1508Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (2005), “Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation”, Journal fürBetriebswirtschaft, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 63–78. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-004-0002-8Google Scholar