Packaging design tool: The effectiveness of opening indications for older people
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Packaging with a novel appearance and opening method is a powerful marketing strategy. However, accessibility to products can be limited for older consumers due to unfamiliarity with how to open the packaging. This research evaluated the outcomes of a previous study regarding design tools that determined the ease of instructions explaining opening methods of novel packaging for older people. This manuscript is structured into two phases. Phase one evaluates a diagram identifying the effectiveness of opening directions. A triangulation investigation was conducted to compare the evaluations from a researcher, designers, and 36 older participants. The researcher and designers used the diagram to examine the opening instructions of five packages, while older participants opened the packages to help investigate the clarity of the given directions. The results were inconsistent; therefore, the diagram to identify the effectiveness was unreliable. Accordingly, the researcher revised the diagram and combined it with the packaging design tool, utilizing the data from three designer focus groups and older participants’ in-depth interviews. The final design tool was a step-by-step checklist guiding designers to analyze opening indications, then identify design problems. Phase two centered on examining two aims: to assess the revised design tool used for creating effective opening directions for older people and to formulate considerations for developing the design tool. Twelve designers applied the design tool to redesign the misleading directions of two packages. It was found that of the two directions for opening the redesigned packages, one was easier to understand for the older participants than the other. The design tool was efficient when the package adopted simple directions. The design tool improvement considered its contents—balancing between thorough checklists and overloading contents; its method—recognizing the difference between older people’s and designers' cognition regarding opening indications; and its form—applying graphic-oriented design.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All rights reserved. Apart from citations for the purposes of research, private study, or criticism and review,no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any other form without prior written permission by the publisher.
References
Belhe, U., & Kusiak, A. (1996). The house of quality in a design process. International Journal of Production Research, 34(8), 2119–2131.
Blakey, S., Rowson, J., Tomlinson, R. A., Sandham, A., & Yoxall, A. (2009). Squeezability. Part 1: A pressing issue. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 223(11), 2615–2625.
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.
CEN/CENELEC. (2002). CEN/CENELEC Guide 6: Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities. https://www.cencenelec.eu/media/Guides/CEN-CLC/cenclcguide6.pdf
Chasanidou, D., Gasparini, A. A., & Lee, E. (2015). Design thinking methods and tools for innovation. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user experience, and usability: Design discourse (pp. 12–23). Springer.
Chavalkul, Y., Saxon, A., & Jerrard, R. N. (2011). Combining 2D and 3D design for novel packaging for older people. International Journal of Design, 5(1), 43–58.
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
de la Fuente, J., & Bix, L. (2010). User-pack interaction: Insights for designing inclusive child-resistant packaging. In P. Langdon, P. J. Clarkson, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing inclusive interactions: Inclusive interactions between people and products in their contexts of use (pp. 89–100). Springer.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. McGraw-Hill.
Goldstein, E. B. (1980). Sensation and perception. Wadsworth.
Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kimita, K., & Shimomura, Y. (2014). Development of the design guideline for product-service systems. Procedia CIRP, 16, 344–349.
Lewis, R., Menardi, C., Yoxall, A., & Langley, J. (2007). Finger friction: Grip and opening packaging. Wear, 263(7–12), 1124–1132.
Lindahl, M. (2005). Engineering designers' requirements on design for environment methods and tools [Doctoral dissertation, Royal Institute of Technology]. DiVA. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:8009/FULLTEXT01.pd
Lofthouse, V. (2006). Ecodesign tools for designers: Defining the requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(15–16), 1386–1395.
Ma, X., & Moultrie, J. (2017). What stops designers from designing sustainable packaging? —A review of eco-design tools with regard to packaging design. In G. Campana, R. J. Howlett, R. Setchi, & B. Cimatti (Eds.), Sustainable design and manufacturing 2017. SDM 2017. Smart innovation, systems, and technologies, Vol. 68 (pp. 127–139). Springer.
Madu, C. N. (2006). House of quality in a minute: Quality function deployment. Chi Publishers.
Martin, B., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., Smith, A., & Papadakos, T. (2014). Value proposition design: How to create products and services customers want. John Wiley & Sons.
Pirkl, J. J. (1994). Transgenerational design: Products for an aging population. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Rath, K., Birkhofer, H., & Bohn, A. (2011). Which guideline is most relevant? Introduction of a pragmatic design for energy efficiency tool. ICED 11 - 18th International Conference on Engineering Design - Impacting Society through Engineering Design, 5, 293–301.
United Nations (UN), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2020). World population ageing 2019 (ST/ESA/SER.A/444). United Nations.
Watkinson, S. (2005). Visual impairment in older people: The nurse's role. Nursing Standard, 19(17), 45–52.
Weytjens, L., Verdonck, E., & Verbeeck, G. (2009). Classification and use of design tools: The roles of tools in the architectural design process. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3(1), 289–302.
Winder, B. (2006). The design of packaging closures. In N. Theobald & B. Winder (Eds.), Packaging closures and sealing systems (pp. 36–67). Blackwell Publishing.
Winder, B., Ridgway, K., Nelson, A., & Baldwin, J. (2002). Food and drink packaging: Who is complaining and who should be complaining. Applied Ergonomics, 33(5), 433–438.
Yoxall, A., Janson, R., Bradbury, S. R., Langley, J., Wearn, J., & Hayes, S. (2006). Openability: Producing design limits for consumer packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 19(4), 219–225.
Yoxall, A., Kamat, S. R., Langley, J., & Rowson, J. (2010). Squeezability. Part 2: Getting stuff out of a bottle. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 224(6), 1261–1271.