skip to main content
10.1145/1900441.1900483acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespdcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Textiles as tangible working materials in participatory design processes: potentials and challenges

Published:29 November 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Participatory design (PD) methods are currently of little use in the textile industry, even though the need for multiple stakeholder involvement in the industry is growing. In this paper, we argue that PD represents a potential for innovation in the textile industry, due to PD's collaborative nature facilitating dialogue between different stakeholders and its ability to move stakeholder participation to the early stages of the design process. We have explored PD tools in a design process engaging architects and textile designers in designing textile products for Danish hospitals. From this we have realized a potential in dividing the materials into three types with different attributes, which should consequently be staged differently in a PD process. We have thereby seen that exploring PD in a textile design process improves the understanding of the role of tangible working materials in PD processes. We believe that the application of PD to the textile industry will enrich the theoretical foundations of PD in general.

References

  1. Bang, A. L. Triads as a Means for Dialogue about Emotional Values in Textile Design. Design Connexity: Proc. of the Eighth European Academy of Design International Conference. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang, A. L. and Nissen, K. Facilitating Teamwork in the Design Process: Repertory Grid as an Approach to Exploratory Inquiry. Nordic Design Research Conference: Engaging Artifacts. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Berley et al. Communication-Wear: User Feedback as Part of a Co-Design Process, HAID 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Binder, T. WHY DESIGN: LABS? Nordic Design Research Conference: Design Inquiries. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucciarelli, L. L. Designing Engineers. The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Buechley, L., et al. The LilyPad Arduino: Using Computational Textiles to Investigate Engagement, Aesthetics, and Diversity in Computer Science Education. Proc. SIGCHI. 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fischmeister, H. Materials-inspired innovation in a world of routine design, Technovation, 1989, 9 (4).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Heimdal, E. and Lenau, T. Physical tools for textile creativity and invention, DUCK Journal for Research in Textiles and Textile Design, 2010, 1(1): 14 p.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hensel, M. Heterogeneous Materials and Variable Behaviour: Potentials for the Design Disciplines, Nordic Design Research Conference: Engaging Artifacts. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Horgen, T. H., Joroff, M. L. et al. Excellence by Design, Transforming workplace and work practice, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA. 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy et al. MATERIAL MIGRATIONS -- Top designers dream up new uses for an industrial textile, ID Magazine, 2003, 50 (7): 66--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Malkin, J. A Visual Reference for Evidence-Based Design, The Center for Health Design, USA. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sanders, E. New Design Spaces, Proc. of ICSID 2001: Exploring Emerging Design Paradigm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sanders, E. and Stappers, P. J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, CoDesign, 2008, 4 (1): 5--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Seim, R. and Broberg, O. Participatory workspace design: A new approach for ergonomists?, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2009, 40 (1): 25--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Thomsen, B. S. Performative Environments: Architecture Acting with Flows, Architectural Theory Review, 2008, 13 (3): 320--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Van Kesteren, I. et al. Defining user-interaction aspects for materials selection: three tools, Nordic Design Research Conference: Design Enquiries. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    PDC '10: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference
    November 2010
    314 pages
    ISBN:9781450301312
    DOI:10.1145/1900441

    Copyright © 2010 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 29 November 2010

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate49of289submissions,17%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader