Revisions of Design Guidelines for the Elderly-Friendly Package
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/bei.2022.22Keywords:
Design Guidelines, Packaging Opening Indications, Understanding Packaging Opening Methods, the elderlyAbstract
This article is part of the completed research and aims to 1) evaluate the guidelines to design package opening indications for the elderly and 2) revise the design guidelines. The research procedure followed the design process. Twelve designers used the tool to identify design requirements for opening indications of two package samples which are difficult for the elderly to understand. Thirty-six volunteer elderly participants opened the redesigned 3D printing packages, compared them to the original packages, and ranked all these packages by easiness or difficulty to understand the opening. The researcher interviewed the participants about the reasons behind it. The evaluation result showed that one out of the two redesigned packages was easier to understand than the original package. The data analysis provided further in-depth and additional design guidelines titled by the cognitive process while opening packages as follows. 1) “Notice, identify, and read indications” relates to the use of 3D indications such as lid forms and textures around the lid to reduce the difficulty of identifying small 2D indications such as words and symbols. 2) “Understanding the opening” involves the use of 3D indications according to the “form follows function” principle. If packaging forms are simple, 2D indications such as an arrow should be added to clarify the opening methods. 3) “Actual acts of opening” refers to (a) limitations of the elderly hand functions, (b) the elderly behaviors of using goods and their packages, and (c) mechanics of opening packages.
References
Berns, T. (1981). The handling of consumer packaging. Applied Ergonomics, 12(3), 153-161.
CEN-CENELEC. (2014). Guidelines for accessibility in standards. (2nd ed.). Retrieved January 1, 2020, from
https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Guides/Pages/default.aspx
Chasanidou, D., Gasparini, A. A., & Lee, E. (2015). Design thinking methods and tools for
innovation. In M. Aaron, Design, user experience, and usability: Design discourse (pp. 12-23).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Chavalkul, Y. (2009). Package openability: design for novel packaging for older people. (Doctoral thesis,
BCU).
Duizer, L. M., Robertson, T. & Han, J. (2009). Requirements for packaging from an ageing consumer’s
perspective. Packaging Technology and Science, 22 (4), 187-197.
Hartson, H. R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(5), 315-338.
Lauer, D., & Pentak, S. (2008). Design basics. Boston, CA: Wadsworth.
Lindahl, M. (2005). Engineering designers' requirements on design for environment methods and
tools. (Doctoral dissertation, KTH).
Lofthouse, V. (2006). Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 14(15-16), 1386-1395.
Madu, C. N. (2006). House of quality (QFD) in a minute. 2nd. Ed. Fairfield, CT: Chi Publishers.
Martin, B. and Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design. Beverly, MA: Rockport publishers.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value proposition design: How to create
products and services customers want. Bangkok: WeLearn.
Sasananan, M. (2007). Product design for innovation and reverse engineering. Bangkok: Thammasat
University Publication.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Built Environment Inquiry

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions expressed in the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
