A priority-based approach for satisfying the diverse users' needs, capabilities and expectations: A universal kitchen design case

Journal of Engineering Design

Volumn 21, Issue 2-3, 2010, Pages 315-343

  Afacan, Yasemin ^a   Demirkan, Halime ^b  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b BILKENT UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Computer assisted design; Kitchen design; Planning game; Universal design; User needs

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951173360     PISSN: 09544828     EISSN: 14661837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09544820903303423     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Afacan, Y., 2008a. Designing for an aging population: residential preferences of the Turkish elderly to age in place. In: P. Langdon, P.J. Clarkson, and P. Robinson, eds. Designing inclusive futures. London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 241-252.
2. Afacan, Y., 2008b. A computer assisted universal design (CAUD) plug-in tool for architectural design process [online].Thesis (PhD). Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey. Available from: http://bliss.bilkent.edu.tr/blissweb.php?islem=2&dil=0&d=bilkutup&n=0405979 [Accessed 10 September 2008].
3. Afacan, Y. and Erbug, C., 2009. Application of heuristic evaluation method by universal design experts. Applied Ergonomics, 40 (4), 731-744.
4. Akin, O., 1986. Psychology of architectural design. London: Pion.
5. Bailey, K.D., 1994. Methods of social research. NewYork: The Free Press.
6. Beck, K., 1999. Extreme programming explained. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7. Beecher, V. and Paquet, V., 2005. Survey instrument for the universal design of consumer products. Applied Ergonomics, 36 (3),363-372.
8. Byun, D.H., 2001. TheAHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model. Information and Management, 38 (5), 289-297.
9. Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2006. International best practices in universal design: a global review. [CD-ROM]. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Human Rights Commission.
10. Carmichael, A., Newell, A.F., and Morgan, M., 2007.The efficacy of narrative video for raising awareness in ICT designers about older users' requirements. Interacting with Computers, 19 (5-6), 587-596.
11. Carrara, G., Kalay, Y.E., and Novembri, G., 1994. Knowledge-based computational support for architectural design. In: G. Carrara and Y.E. Kalay, eds. Knowledge-based computer-aided architectural design. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 147-204.
12. Choi, Y.S., et al. 2006. Are 'universal design resources' designed for designers. In: Proceedings ASSETS' 06, 23-25 October, Portland, Oregon. NewYork: ACM Press, 87-94.
13. Clarkson, P.J. and Hamilton, J.R., 2000. 'Signposting', a parameter-driven task-based model of the design process. Research in Engineering Design, 12 (1), 18-38.
14. Clarkson, P.J., et al., 2007. Inclusive design toolkit. UK: Cambridge Engineering Design Center Press.
15. Cross, N., 1989. Engineering design methods. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
16. Darses, F. and Wolff, M., 2006. How do designers represent to themselves the users'needs? Applied Ergonomics, 37 (1), 757-764.
17. Demirbilek, N. and Demirkan, H., 2004. Universal product design involving elderly users: a participatory design model. Applied Ergonomics, 35 (4), 361-370.
18. Demirkan, H., 2007. Housing for the aging population. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 4 (1), 33-38.
19. Eastman, C.M., 1999. Building product models: computer environments supporting design and construction. NewYork: CRC Press LLC.
20. Goldsmith, S., 1997. Designing for the disabled the new paradigm. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.
21. Goodman, J., et al., 2006. Increasing the uptake of inclusive design in industry. Gerontechnology, 5 (3), 140-149.
22. Gregor, P., Sloan, D., and Newell, A., 2005. Disability and technology: building barriers or creating opportunities. In: M. Zelkowitz, ed. Advances in computers. London: Elsevier, 284-346.
23. Grist, R.R., et al., 1996. Accessible design review guide: an ADAAG guide for designing and specifying spaces, buildings and sites. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
24. Hayden, D., 1972. The grand domestic revolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Holbrook, H., 1990. A scenario-based methodology for conducting requirements elicitation. ACM SIGSOFT, 15 (1), 95-104.
26. Howitt, D. and Cramer, D., 1999. An introduction to statistics in psychology: a complete guide for students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27. Isiklar, G. and Büyüközkan, G., 2007. Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 29 (2), 265-274.
28. nd international conference on requirements engineering (ICRE' 96) 15-18 April, Colorado, USA. Colorado: IEEE CS Press, 110-116.
29. th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (IWSSD' 96), 22-23 March, Schloss Velen, Germany. Wahington, DC: IEEE CS Press, 146-149.
30. Karlsson, J. and Ryan, K., 1997. A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software, 14 (5), 67-74.
31. Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., and Regnell, B., 1998. An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Information and Software Technology, 39 (14-15), 939-947.
32. Karlsson, L., et al. 2007. Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning: experiments on requirements prioritization techniques. Empirical Software Engineering, 12 (1), 3-33.
33. Krathwohl, D.R., 1997. Educational and social science research. 2nd ed. NewYork: Addison-Wesley.
34. Lawson, B., 1998. Towards a computer-aided architectural design process: a journey of several images. Computers in Industry, 35 (1), 47-57.
35. Leffingwell, D. and Widrig, D., 2000. Managing software requirements - a unified approach. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
36. Lehtola, L. and Kauppinen, M., 2006. Suitability of requirements prioritization methods for market-driven software product development. Software Process Improvement and Practice, 11 (1), 7-19.
37. Lehtola, L., Kauppinen, M., and Kujala, S., 2004. Requirements prioritization challenges in practice. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on product focused software process improvement, 5-8 April, Kansai Science City, Japan. Beriln, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 497-508.
38. Levine, D., ed., 2006. Universal design New York 2. NewYork: IDEA Publication.
39. Lin, M., et al., 2008a. Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in customer-driven product design process. Computers in Industry, 59 (1), 17-31.
40. Lin, C.C., Wang, W., and Yu, W., 2008b. Improving AHP for construction with an adaptive AHP approach (A3).Automation in Construction, 17 (2), 180-187.
41. Liu, F.X., 1998. A quantitative approach for assessing the priorities of software quality requirements. The Journal of Systems and Software, 42 (2), 105-113.
42. Lucas, H.C., 1975. Performance and the use of an information system. Management Science, 21 (8), 908-919.
43. Maguire, M., 2001. System acceptance questionnaire (SAQ) [online]. HUSAT Research Institute. Available from: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/esri/hfdc/index.htm [Accessed 5 January 2008].
44. Margaritis, S. and Marmaras, N., 2007. Supporting the design of office layout meeting ergonomics requirements. Applied Ergonomics, 38 (6), 781-790.
45. Mullick, A. and Levine, D., 2001. Universal kitchens and appliances. In: F.E.W. Preiser and E. Ostroff, eds. Universal design handbook. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 41.1-41.18.
46. Ostroff, E., 2001. Universal design: the new paradigm. In: F.E.W. Preiser and E. Ostroff, eds. Universal design handbook. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1.1-1.12.
47. Ozkaya, I. and Akin, O., 2006. Requirement-driven design: assistance for information traceability in design computing. Design Studies, 27 (3), 381-398.
48. Pinto, M.R., et al., 2000. Ergonomics, gerontechnology, and design for the home-environment. Applied Ergonomics, 31 (3),317-322.
49. Saaty, T.L., 1980. Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
50. Schon, D., 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. NewYork: Basic Books.
51. Smustard-the Companion to Sketchup (TM), 2008. Smustard scripts [online]. Available from: www.smustard.com [Accessed 1 December 2008].
52. Story, M.F., 2001. Principles of universal design. In: F.E.W. Preiser and E. Ostroff, eds. Universal design handbook. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 10.1-10.11.
53. Story, M.F., Mueller, J.L., and Mace, R.L., 1998. The universal design file: designing for people of all ages and abilities. North Carolina State University Press.
54. The Center for Universal Design, 1997. Principles of universal design [online].Available from: http://www.design.ncsu. edu/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm [Accessed 19 September 2009].
55. The Center for Universal Design, 2000. Affordable and universal homes: a plan book. Chapel Hill: NC State University Press.
56. The Center for Universal Design, 2007a. Residential rehabilitation, remodelling and universal design [online]. Available from: www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ [Accessed 23 September 2003].
57. The Center for Universal Design, 2007b. Gold, silver and bronze universal design features in houses [online]. Available from: www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ [Accessed 23 September 2003].
58. Vaidya, O.S. and Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169 (1), 1-29.
59. Wellcome Home Project, 2007. Universal kitchen design [online].Available from: http://www.bsu.edu/wellcomehome/ friendly_kitchen.html [Accessed 19 September 2009].
60. Wiegers, K., 1999. Software requirements. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
61. Young, L.C. and Pace, R.J., 2001. The next-generation universal home. In: F.E.W. Preiser and E. Ostroff, eds. Universal design handbook. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 34.1-34.21.
62. Zhang, Q. and Nishimura, T., 1996.A method of evaluation for scaling in the analytical hierarchy process. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 14-17 October, Beijing, China. Wahington, DC: IEEE CS Press, Vol. 3, 1888-1893.