Currently, mobile phone design is undergoing a trend towards shifting from a singular operational approach to a more stylish and user-centric direction. User satisfaction with mobile phones has become a pivotal factor driving innovation in product design. However, disparities between designers and user demands exist, occasionally resulting in an overly subjective understanding of user needs and leading to final product designs that deviate from market realities. Therefore, this study takes conceptual design schemes for mobile phones as decision-making objects, aiming to maximize market demand objectives and seek optimal conceptual solutions, thereby providing high-quality input for subsequent designs.
This section selects mobile phones as a case study to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method. With the development of the economy and technology, a plethora of different mobile phone models have emerged on the market, accelerating the competition and iteration of mobile phone designs among different manufacturers. The evolution of new media technologies has diversified the methods in which users express their needs, making the internet the primary platform for consumers to articulate their product usage experiences and perceptions. Constantly emerging user comment data on mobile phones on forums have become a valuable source for extracting continuously evolving user demands, providing an effective avenue for improving mobile phone designs. Mobile phone designs typically involve modelling components and functionalities that significantly enhance user experiences. Throughout the entire lifecycle of a mobile phone, these components not only garner attention from manufacturers but also receive substantial consideration from users.
The data in this paper were obtained by the author from JD shopping website, and the ownership of the data belongs to JD. The data crawling protocol of JD was complied with the national data security management measures, and it was approved by JD Company, which confirmed that the informed consent of all subjects had been obtained.
Data acquisition and preprocessing
According to the price comparison on JD.com, 43% of users choose prices ranging from 136 to 3573. Products in this price range are mostly mid- to low-end mobile phones, possessing advantages in certain features to meet diverse user needs. Therefore, considering factors such as brand, sales, reviews, and prices, this study selects smartphones in the price range of 2500–3500, which are commonly chosen by young people, as the target for case analysis. Seven mobile phone products were chosen as the design schemes for case analysis: CS1: OnePlus Ace2 Pro, CS2: Honor 90 Pro, CS3: OPPO Reno10, CS4: in vivo iQOO Neo8, CS5: realme GT5, CS6: Huawei Nova 11, and CS7: Redmi K60 Supreme Edition. Each product is analysed with 1000 user comments, totalling 7000 user comments as experimental data.
ROSTCOM6 was employed for segmentation, and key terms are extracted, followed by the generation of a word cloud for visualization as Fig. 2.
Similar keywords are merged, and irrelevant keywords are excluded. The top 40 keywords are selected as product attributes \(P{a_i}\). Utilizing the relevant literature on mobile phone design in recent years and based on product attributes, semantic clustering has been applied to obtain design themes (DPm) for mobile phones as Table 8.
Table 8
Design theme and inclusion design attributes
No. | Design Theme | Included Design Attributes |
---|
DP1 | Aesthetic Experience | Weight; Appearance; Colour; Feel; Material; Screen, etc. |
DP2 | Imaging Experience | Photo Quality; Shooting Modes, etc. |
DP3 | Operational Performance | Processor; RAM; Storage Capacity (ROM); Heat Dissipation Performance, etc. |
DP4 | Phone Endurance | Battery Life; Charging Speed; Battery Capacity; Wireless Charging, etc. |
DP5 | Additional Features | Product Features (V1 Chip; Software System; Kunlun Glass, etc.); Sound Adjustment, etc. |
DP6 | Connected Experience | Social Recognition; Identity Symbol, etc. |
The connected experience refers to the user's self-expression and self-value demonstrated through the use of the product. It can serve as a symbol of identity, establishing unique social recognition for consumers.
User-centric design concept evaluation
Due to individual differences in shopping experiences, backgrounds, cultural contexts, personality traits, and other factors, users form unique emotional inclinations, leading to significant variations in their perceptions of product design concepts. This diversity extends beyond individual differences, encompassing the impact of shopping environments, societal factors, and psychological and physiological factors on individual shopping experiences.
By extracting emotional and qualitative terms from design attribute keywords and the calculation of users' emotional inclinations \([\mu _{{ij}}^{{D{P_i}'}},v_{{ij}}^{{D{P_i}'}}]\) represented by IFS, an evaluation matrix for users' perceptions of design themes is then computed as Table 9.
Taking CS2 (Honor 90 Pro) and CS7 (Redmi K60 Ultra) as examples, as shown in Fig. 3, Honor 90 Pro is relatively balanced, with lower user evaluations in terms of aesthetic experience and phone endurance. In contrast, Redmi K60 Ultra excels in performance, receiving consistent praise from users. However, outstanding performance comes at the expense of decreased phone endurance, leading to a decrease in user satisfaction with phone endurance.
Table 9
Design Theme | CS1 | CS2 | CS3 | CS4 | CS5 | CS6 | CS7 |
---|
DP1 | [0.67,0.28] | [0.57,0.36] | [0.78,0.18] | [0.63,0.31] | [0.80,0.16] | [0.78,0.18] | [0.59,0.35] |
DP2 | [0.45,0.47] | [0.74,0.21] | [0.83,0.14] | [0.50,0.41] | [0.49,0.43] | [0.75,0.20] | [0.51,0.40] |
DP 3 | [0.82,0.15] | [0.71,0.24] | [0.58,0.34] | [0.80,0.16] | [0.83,0.15] | [0.51,0.42] | [0.85,0.13] |
DP 4 | [0.50,0.42] | [0.67,0.26] | [0.41,0.50] | [0.71,0.23] | [0.79,0.17] | [0.52,0.41] | [0.37,0.55] |
DP 5 | [0.59,0.34] | [0.54,0.36] | [0.68,0.26] | [0.68,0.26] | [0.59,0.35] | [0.82,0.15] | [0.48,0.43] |
DP 6 | [0.64,0.29] | [0.71,0.24] | [0.67,0.27] | [0.56,0.36] | [0.61,0.35] | [0.78,0.18] | [0.52,0.39] |
Designer-perspective product design concept evaluation
Based on the TF-IDF algorithm, the evaluation values of the designer's sentiment towards product attributes are calculated. The designer's evaluation matrix for design concepts is constructed as shown in the Table 10:
Table 10
Designer evaluation matrix
Design Theme | CS1 | CS2 | CS3 | CS4 | CS5 | CS6 | CS7 |
---|
DP1 | [0.74,0.21] | [0.72,0.23] | [0.80,0.15] | [0.48,0.47] | [0.74,0.21] | [0.82,0.13] | [0.68,0.22] |
DP2 | [0.51,0.44] | [0.95,0.05] | [0.67,0.28] | [0.66,0.29] | [0.51,0.44] | [0.95,0.05] | [0.40,0.55] |
DP3 | [0.95,0.05] | [0.88,0.07] | [0.95,0.05] | [0.95,0.05] | [0.95,0.05] | [0.40,0.55] | [0.95,0.05] |
DP4 | [0.55,0.40] | [0.64,0.31] | [0.47,0.48] | [0.71,0.23] | [0.81,0.14] | [0.69,0.26] | [0.54,0.41] |
DP5 | [0.40,0.55] | [0.40,0.55] | [0.71,0.24] | [0.46,0.49] | [0.78,0.17] | [0.83,0.12] | [0.48,0.47] |
DP6 | [0.72,0.23] | [0.56,0.39] | [0.40,0.55] | [0.40,0.55] | [0.40,0.55] | [0.78,0.17] | [0.52,0.43] |
Degree of conflict calculation
Based on the evaluation matrices of design concepts by designers and the perception matrices of design concepts by users, the dissimilarity function is constructed using Formula (6) to calculate the degree of conflict between the two. The results are shown in the Table 11:
Table 11
The designer-user design conflict matrix
Design Conflicts | CS1 | CS2 | CS3 | CS4 | CS5 | CS6 | CS7 |
---|
\(d(D{P_1},D{P_1}')\) | 0.1004 | 0.1980 | 0.0442 | 0.2201 | 0.0812 | 0.0198 | 0.1181 |
\(d(D{P_2},D{P_2}')\) | 0.0607 | 0.2653 | 0.1535 | 0.2027 | 0.0215 | 0.2502 | 0.1876 |
\(d(D{P_3},D{P_3}')\) | 0.1689 | 0.2411 | 0.1051 | 0.1820 | 0.1599 | 0.1645 | 0.0805 |
\(d(D{P_4},D{P_4}')\) | 0.0551 | 0.0575 | 0.0782 | 0.1779 | 0.0361 | 0.2274 | 0.2207 |
\(d(D{P_5},D{P_5}')\) | 0.2874 | 0.2362 | 0.1797 | 0.3168 | 0.2632 | 0.0381 | 0.1718 |
\(d(D{P_6},D{P_6}')\) | 0.3165 | 0.2108 | 0.3854 | 0.2510 | 0.2845 | 0.0213 | 0.2348 |
Decision-making based on the degree of conflict
Analysis of the degree of conflict and product sales
This section explores the impact of user-designer conflicts on product sales based on the degree of conflict of the product attributes to determine the importance of these conflicts. First, sales data for the abovementioned seven design schemes are collected. As smartphones are primarily sold online, data are integrated from major official stores on platforms such as JD.com, Tmall, Taobao, and various brand-specific mobile phone shops. Sales are denoted as Sai (i = 1,2,…,7), with the Redmi K60 Supreme Edition having the highest sales at approximately 760,000 units, followed by the OPPO Reno10 at approximately 670,000 units. The OnePlus Ace2 Pro and Huawei Nova 11 have lower sales, approximately 450,000 units and 430,000 units, respectively. A regression model is then constructed with the degree of conflict \(d(D{P_j},D{P_j}')\) as the independent variable. The calculation results are shown in Table 12
Table 12
The relationship between design conflict and sales
Weight | Coefficient |
---|
C0 | 166.87 |
\({\eta _1}\) | -68.06 |
\({\eta _2}\) | -122.82 |
\({\eta _3}\) | -35.454 |
\({\eta _4}\) | -249.79 |
\({\eta _5}\) | -192.35 |
\({\eta _6}\) | -111.55 |
Degree of conflict analysis in relation to product pricing
Consumers typically expect products to possess superior qualities, rich features, and a convenient user experience. However, they also desire relatively lower prices to ensure good value for their money. This user expectation can potentially clash with the desires of designers who may seek to incorporate more advanced features and innovations into products, which often increases production costs and subsequently raises prices.
Therefore, in the product development process, designers must find a balance to meet user expectations while ensuring that the product remains reasonably priced. This requires a comprehensive consideration of factors such as costs, market competition, target audiences, and brand positioning. In some cases, products may adopt a differentiation strategy by offering various versions to meet the diverse needs of different user groups, thereby resolving conflicts.
This section delves into the impact of user-designer conflicts regarding product attribute degrees of conflict on pricing to determine the pricing weight of this design attribute conflict. Initial data collection included the prices of the seven design schemes mentioned in this paper, with JD.com's self-operated prices used as a reference (denoted as Pri for i = 1, 2..., 6), all falling within the [2500, 3500] price range. By utilizing degree of conflict \(d(D{P_j},D{P_j}')\)as the independent variable, a regression model was constructed according to Eq. (8).
The calculation results are shown in Table 13.
Table 13
The relationship between design conflict and pricing
Weight | Coefficient |
---|
C1 | 4368.04 |
\({\gamma _1}\) | -2050.34 |
\({\gamma _2}\) | -1823.23 |
\({\gamma _3}\) | -1718.74 |
\({\gamma _4}\) | -801.27 |
\({\gamma _5}\) | -1162.90 |
\({\gamma _6}\) | -1526.37 |
Optimal design solution
Using the design themes \(D{P_i}\) covered by the 7 design schemes as references for product selection and considering the product price range [2500, 3500] as a constraint, we calculated the optimal product configuration scheme that maximizes the expected sales under limited product types based on formulas (9) and (10).
The calculation results are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
Optimal conceptual design scheme
Design theme | Optimal conceptual design scheme (CSnew) |
---|
DP1 | CS3 |
DP2 | CS3 |
DP3 | CS6 |
DP4 | CS4 |
DP5 | CS2 |
DP6 | CS5 |
Design improvement directions
This study conducts a comparative analysis based on the optimal solution to understand the specific directions for improving the product. Using CS7 (Redmi K60 Ultra) as an example, we aimed to identify areas for enhancement.
As shown in the Fig. 4, in DP1, DP2, DP3, and DP6, the degree of conflit of CS7 was greater than that of the product's optimal configuration CSnew. This indicates that in these four design themes, the design approach adopted by CS7 resulted in more conflicts, leading to a decrease in sales. Therefore, significant improvements are needed in these four aspects. The larger the difference is, the greater the priority for improvement. Thus, the priority for improvement in product themes was DP1 > DP2 > DP3 > DP6.
Table 15
CS7 Visual experience negative review information statistics table
Product Feature | Product Issue | Frequency | Percentage/% |
---|
Outer Shell | Plastic material, feels cheap | 64 | 47.41 |
Monotonous colour, low distinguishability | 47 | 34.81 |
Smooth outer shell, poor grip experience | 31 | 22.96 |
Screen | Easily attracts fingerprints, dust | 34 | 25.19 |
Colour deviation, insufficient colour saturation | 2 | 1.48 |
Camera Module | Camera module protrudes, affecting aesthetics | 39 | 28.89 |
Middle Frame | Plastic middle frame, prone to scratches | 16 | 11.85 |
Based on the raw data captured, negative comments related to four CS7 design themes were selected for manual labelling. The comments were analysed to extract elements such as "product features" and "product issues," and their frequency and percentage were calculated. For brevity, the analysis results are presented for DP1 (aesthetic experience) as an example in Table 15; similar analyses were conducted for DP2, DP3, and DP6 but are not listed here.
After identifying the issues mentioned above, specific improvement strategies can be proposed through consultations with experts, such as the following:
(1) Consider using higher-quality, tactile plastics or exploring the use of premium materials such as metal or glass. Special surface treatments can be applied to enhance the touch and texture, reducing the perception of low cost. A wider range of colours is chosen to increase product appeal. Moreover, gradient colours, frosted textures, or other unique designs can be explored to enhance visual distinctiveness. The curvature and design of the shell should be adjusted to improve ergonomic comfort. The addition of anti-slip features is considered to enhance the grip stability.
(2) Implementing antifingerprint coatings to reduce fingerprint and dust adhesion. The screen colour accuracy and saturation should be increased to ensure clearer and more vivid display effects.
(3) A smoother camera module seamlessly integrated with the shell design is used to reduce protrusion. Consider adopting a concealed design or unique shape to maintain aesthetics.
(4) Consider using more robust materials, such as metals, to improve durability. Edge protection designs are introduced to reduce the risk of collision damage to the mid-frame.