International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Quantifying the qualities of aesthetics in product design using

eye-tracking technology
Shahabeddin Khalighy a, b, *, Graham Green a, Christoph Scheepers c, Craig Whittet b
a
School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, University Ave., Glasgow, UK
b
Department of Product Design Engineering, Glasgow School of Art, 167 Renfrew St., Glasgow, UK
c
School of Psychology, University of Glasgow, 58 Hillhead St., Glasgow, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study provides a methodology to quantify the qualities of visual aesthetics in product design by
Received 8 December 2014 applying eye-tracking technology. The output data of eye-tracking software, consisting of number,
Received in revised form duration, and coordinate of eye fixations, are formulated using the fundamental constituent factors of
5 May 2015
beauty and attractiveness. This methodology has been developed by conducting three eye-tracking ex-
Accepted 16 May 2015
Available online 8 June 2015
periments and five experiments applying subjective measures which in total more than 300 participants
attended. The results of these experiments contributed to the development of an aesthetic formula. The
output of this formula was then compared with the declared preferences of a further 200 subjects. This
Keywords:
Aesthetics
comparison confirmed that the proposed methodology was capable of quantifying and predicting
Product design aesthetic preference by only monitoring eye behaviour.
Eye-tracking © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Design methodology
Design tool

Aesthetics is widely considered as a primary highly effective
factor in the success of product design (Kieran, 1997; Herr, 2000;
Postrel, 2001). Several attempts have been made to develop an
engineered robust method as a design tool to improve the aesthetic
qualities more objectively (Pham, 1999; Chuang et al., 2001; Lai
et al., 2005, 2006; Cawthon and Moere, 2007; Hsiao et al., 2008;
Zain and Tey, 2008; Yadav et al., 2013). However, the visual
design of product is still subjectively processed and designer's
perceptions dominate the final outcome (You et al., 2006; Yun et al.,
2003) which does not necessarily match the consumer's preference
(Hsu et al., 2000). One of the anticipated reasons is the proposed
methods are not efficient, useful, and feasibly applicable in the
design process because of two reasons: firstly, the divergent nature
of aesthetics consists of emotional and rational aspects makes it
difficult to judge (Bloch, 1995; Crilly et al., 2004; Khalid and
Helander, 2006), and secondly evaluation of aesthetic requires a
combination of areas such as art, engineering, and psychology
which are inherently different (Khalid and Helander, 2006). In or-
der to develop a method which is capable of quantification, it is
necessary to clearly define the effective factors of aesthetics
* Corresponding author. James Watt Building, School of Engineering, University
of Glasgow, University Ave., Glasgow, UK.
E-mail address: s.khalighy.1@research.gla.ac.uk (S. Khalighy).
(Khalighy et al., 2012). Del. Coates has categorised product aesthetic
into four factors which are design principles, consumer features,
contrast, and novelty (Coates, 2003). The issues with this classifi-
cation are absence of product function and vague purport of design
principles and consumer features (Khalighy et al., 2014). To define
clear and quantifiable constituent factors of aesthetics it is essential
to begin with fundamentals. By imagining an absolute clean canvas,
the first factor which makes a human able to recognise a visual
element is called ‘contrast’ which is caused by difference between
visual properties of the element and the background (Coates,
2003). Once the number of visual elements increases, the second
factor which is called ‘pureness’ is defined that is the ‘quantitative’
aspect of beauty. These visual elements interact with each other in
terms of similarity which defines the third factor called ‘propor-
tion’. These three basic factors are combined to define ‘beauty’
(Kostellow, 2002; Coates, 2003; Norman, 2004). One of the main
aspects of product design is function. Different perceptions of
design elements in meeting functionality indicate the quality
which is called ‘appropriateness’ (Chang et al., 2006, 2007). In other
words, appropriateness shows what types of design elements are
perceived appropriate and consequently pleasant for a certain
product by a majority of people (Baxter, 1995). In addition, products
can become monotonous after a while of use. This generates de-
mand for new designs, which is called ‘novelty’ (Hung and Chen,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.05.011
0169-8141/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
32 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43

2012). Appropriateness and novelty are the main qualities of

‘attractiveness’ (Lubart and Sternberg, 1995; Christiaans, 2010)
which cannot exist in the absence of a known function (Mono,
1997). Beauty and attractiveness constitute ‘aesthetics’. The ele-
ments of design are linked to aesthetics so that beauty defines the
‘relationship’ between the design elements and attractiveness
suggests what ‘type’ of design elements can be used towards the
optimum level of aesthetic. In the following sections the result of
examining the relationship between aesthetic qualities and the
definitions will be provided. Moreover, a practical approach of
quantifying the defined qualities capable of improving effective
aspects of visual design by applying relevant technology will be
suggested.
1. Theoretical framework
1.1. Beauty
Beauty is a timeless pleasant phenomenon (Etcoff, 1999) which
is intuitive (Norman, 2004). Beauty follows a certain pattern
(Galanter, 2010) in which the design principles are generated based
on that pattern (Kostellow, 2002) and it is independent of people's
taste (Khalid and Helander, 2006).
1.2. Attractiveness
Unlike beauty, attractiveness is time dependent (Khalid and
Helander, 2006), it is generated by function (Mono, 1997; Verma
and Wood, 2001) and it can vary among different people (Huang
and Henry, 2009).
1.3. Role of attractiveness in aesthetic judgement
An experiment using subjective measures was conducted in
order to clarify the role of attractiveness in aesthetic judgement.
The result of the experiment shows that preference changes in
presence of the function when the design elements are the same
(Khalighy et al., 2014). This was done by presenting the same design
elements to 56 subjects one without any indication of the function
and the other with a clear sign of product functionality.
Fig. 1. Reducing proportion by varying visual elements in terms of shape (1), size (2),
and location (3).
qualitative part of contrast and indicates the level of similarity
between the elements including shape, size, and location (Fig. 1).
1.4.4. Interaction of qualities of beauty
As discussed, pureness and proportion are functions of contrast.
By increasing proportion and pureness, contrast will decrease and
vice versa (Fig. 2). Therefore:
1 1
Contrast is a function of ;
pureness proportion
We define beauty as a specific relationship between contrast,
pureness, and proportion (Khalighy et al., 2014). Where the
contrast reaches a certain number, beauty will be optimum. This
theory can explain the reasons behind believed phenomenon. For
instance: why golden ratio is mostly preferred (Elam, 2001). The
reason is golden ratio has higher contrast compare to square due to
its lower proportion and it has highest rectangular proportion
because only in this ratio, the small and big rectangular are similar
when it starts to drift away from a square (Fig. 3).
The experiments using subjective measures have been done in
order to verify the qualities of beauty. The results show a specific
preference of all three qualities in which the preferred designs
maintain certain relationship between three qualities (Khalighy
et al., 2014). This experiment was done applying an online survey
in which 51 subjects participated.
1.5. Qualities of attractiveness

Attractiveness which comes with emotional responses (Khalid

1.4. Qualities of beauty
and Helander, 2006) emerges when an object becomes meaning-
ful to a consumer (Mono, 1997). Although, the constituent factors of
Beauty is generated from logical visual relationships (Kostellow,
attractiveness may vary depending on the nature of the object,
2002; Khalighy et al., 2012) in which a certain balance between
consumer's features are always effective (Bloch, 1995; Pham, 1999;
these relationships generates an optimum pleasantness. The qual-
Breemen et al., 1998; Coates, 2003; Noble and Kumar, 2008; Crilly
ities of beauty are fundamentally produced from the main factor
et al., 2009). However, in mass production, the effective factors
which makes eyes able to recognise visual elements. This factor is
must be comprehensive and universal so that subjective responses
called ‘contrast’ which is composed of pureness and proportion.
can be objectively measured. These qualities are directly connected
to the function of product (Verma and Wood, 2001). Attractiveness
1.4.1. Contrast
Contrast is generated by difference between design elements
which causes visual recognition (Coates, 2003). This difference is
composed of quantitative and qualitative factors: how many
different elements and how much the elements are different.

1.4.2. Pureness
Pureness defines the level of simplicity against complexity
(Norman, 2010) which is the quantitative part of contrast and it is
related to the number of elements.
Fig. 2. From left to right: figure (2) has lower pureness compare to Fig. (1) due to
having more elements therefore contrast is higher, Fig. (3) has lower proportion
1.4.3. Proportion compare to Fig. (1) because the elements are less similar therefore contrast is higher,
Proportion defines balance between visual weights generated Fig. (4) has lower pureness and lower proportion compare to Fig. (1) therefore contrast
by visual forces of design elements (Kostellow, 2002). Proportion is is higher.
 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43
Fig. 3. In golden ratio small and big rectangular are similar.
is closely associated with creativity (Christiaans, 2010; Sternberg,
2006) and the main factors of a creative design are appropriate-
ness and novelty (Lubart and Sternberg, 1995).
1.5.1. Appropriateness
Appropriateness indicates what design elements are preferred
by consumers for a certain function (Baxter, 1995; Hekkert, 2006)
which is often interpreted as product character (Langmeyer and
Shank, 1994). This creates different design elements for different
categories of a product and generates a known pattern as a typical
visual expectation (Veryzer and Hutchinson, 1998; Hung and Chen,
2012). For instance, people may perceive low height cars as sport
cars and consequently appropriate for this function due to its
known typical pattern of design elements which is basically
generated because of the constraints in achieving the aim of the
product. Therefore, appropriateness can include the elements of
typicality (Barsalou, 1985).
1.5.2. Novelty
Unlike appropriateness, novelty includes unexpected and
unexperienced (Berlyne, 1971) design elements for a certain func-
tion (Hekkert et al., 2003). However, it may still maintain the main
elements to identify a specific category of a product (Hung and
Chen, 2012). For instance, a car is recognisable by its wheels as
main elements which cannot be removed in order to create a novel
design unless the category changes (Khalighy et al., 2014).
2. Experimental framework
2.1. Measuring tool
In order to quantify the qualities of aesthetics objectively, a
measuring tool is required which is able to detect related visual
properties from involuntary stimulus. Because the whole process of
perceiving is visual, the tool has to detect the eye's behaviour. The
technology which is able to track eye movement and gazes is called
‘eye-tracking’ device. This technology has been used in the design
related experiments such as eye behaviour while sketching (Sun
et al., 2014). This device is capable of measuring the locations on
the image which viewer looks at and the duration of each fixation.
Fixation is duration of time between each eye movement (saccade).
It can also measure the dilation and blinks both in size and dura-
tion. The device which was used for the experiments is called
‘EyeLink II’ from SR Research Company which is composed of a
headband and three cameras.
2.2. Eye-tracking input and output data
EyeLink II software accepts bitmap image with resolution of
1024
768 which is applied as a trial in the experiments. The
output data is saved as EDF file which contains trial ID, sync time,
33
saccade, gaze position, pupil size, and eye blink. EDF file can be
converted into ASCII file using EDF2ASC application which makes
text format data readable in Microsoft Excel.
2.3. Measuring formula
A formula is required to quantify the qualities of aesthetic in
order to maintain the robustness and reliability of the methodology
which matches the output data of the measuring tool. As
mentioned the output data includes number, location, and duration
of fixations on each trial.
2.3.1. Measuring pureness
As discussed, pureness indicates the number of elements in
which fewer elements will result in higher pureness. Number of
fixations in eye-tracking data represents the number of elements
because viewers are likely to look at each element and therefore as
the number of fixations increases the more elements there are.
Therefore, if NF ¼ Number of fixations then:
1
pureness ¼ (1)
NF
2.3.2. Measuring proportion
Regarding the definition, elements with optimum proportion
attract eyes for same amount of time because of similarity in visual
forces. Thus, higher standard deviation of the duration of the fix-
ations indicates lower proportion. Therefore, if sF ¼ Standard de-
viation of duration of fixations then:
1
proportion ¼ (2)
sF
2.3.3. Measuring contrast
As discussed in part 1.4.4, contrast has inverse relationship with
pureness and proportion and because both are effective in contrast
value they are multiplied. For instance, 5 elements with low pro-
portion makes higher contrast compared to 2 low proportion ele-
ments. Therefore contrast value is calculated using Equation (3).
contrast ¼ NF
sF (3)
Similar formula has been suggested by Eli Peli (1990) in
measuring contrast of images which applies standard deviation of
pixels based on grey level value (Peli, 1990).
As can be interpreted from the formula, contrast refers to
amount of time which eye behaviour is erratic within total time of
observation. Total time here means the time of observation until
the viewer is able to express the preference.
2.3.4. Measuring appropriateness and novelty
As already mentioned appropriateness and novelty are the
qualities of attractiveness, which is also time and function depen-
dent. Therefore, measuring these qualities needs an up-to-date
template which can change for different products and at different
times. The reason is the perception of novelty and appropriateness
of a particular product change over time. This template can be
generated by applying the location of fixations in eye-tracking data
as x and y coordinates. Appropriateness template is created from a
known preferred product in a specific category while a novelty
template indicates non-common elements of known products. A
known most preferred product as representative of appropriate-
ness and all known products as representative of typical products
34 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43
change over time and that is why an up-to-date template is
required. Thus, two templates are produced on each trial which has
1024
768 pixels and generates x axis with size of 1024 and y axis
with size of 768. Therefore, the appropriateness template indicates
the common area of fixations of most preferred design and novelty
template shows the common area of fixations for all the designs.
These areas create ellipses in which the centre is the mean of the
coordinates of all the fixations and the radii represent the standard
deviations of the x, y coordinates. The ellipses show how the dis-
tribution of fixations is concentrated on the stimuli (Fig. 4).
C ¼ ðx; yÞ
Rx ¼ sx ; Ry ¼ sy
   
Rx Ry
arc sin MinðxÞ þ arc sin MinðyÞ
q¼
2 adjusted to be in a position where it can detect the subject eye's
In Equation (6), in the arcsin fraction, denominator is always
greater than numerator. For example, if Rx is greater than Min(x)
then Rx will be the denominator. Moreover, if x value which is
associated with the minimum of y is greater than mean of x co-
ordinates, the ellipse is towards ‘right’ otherwise it is towards ‘left’.
If A ¼ Appropriateness then: A ¼ (x,y)2A
If N ¼ Novelty then:N ¼ (x,y)2T' or N ¼ (x,y);T
T 0 is everywhere excluding T area. If NT ¼ Total number of fixa-
tions, NA ¼ Number of fixations of A area, and NN ¼ Number of fix-
ations in N area, then appropriateness and novelty can be measured
using Equations (7) and (8):
NA
A¼
NT
NN
N¼
NT
Fig. 4. A ¼ Appropriateness Area (coordinates of fixations of most preferred design)
T ¼ Typicality Area (coordinates of all designs).
2.4. Eye-tracking experiment
Three eye-tracking experiments were conducted and 50 sub-
jects participated in each of them. The first eye-tracking experi-
ment (Khalighy et al., 2014) and the second one were conducted in
order to identify the issues and improve the method of conducting
the third experiment. This paper will discuss the procedures,
methods, and the results of the third experiment.
2.4.1. Generalities
The experiment was conducted in a lab with a size of almost 20
(4) square meters. The windows are covered and only artificial light is
used in order to remove any distraction to eyes. The stimuli are
uploaded to the computer before beginning the test via the eye-
(5) tracking builder software. The subject sits in front of 1900 screen
where the images are shown. Four sensors are located on the cor-
ners of the screen in order to detect the position of eye-tracking
device. Then eye-tracking device is set on their head through its
(6) headband which is adjustable by the screw. Then the camera is
pupil in order to track the eye movement. Two PCs are used in the
experiment: one is used to show the images while the experi-
menter can monitor the process of eye tracking via the second one.
The eye-tracking software is run on both computers simulta-
neously. The eye's position has to be calibrated before images are
shown on the screen. This process involves asking the participant to
look at a black dot on the white background. The dot moves to
different locations on the screen and each time it adapts the pupil
position with the dot location. This process is repeated once in
order to validate the calibration. Speakers are also used to help in
increasing the concentration of movement of the dot and indication
of changing the stimuli. Once calibration is done, the software
shows whether it is successful or recalibration is required. If cali-
bration is unsuccessful, the camera position has to be adjusted
again before repeating the process. After successfully finalising the
(7) calibration process, the stimuli will be shown on the screen and the
eye-movement is being recorded (Fig. 5).
2.5. Method of experiment
(8)
Two tasks with different types of stimuli were designed: ‘se-
lection task’ and ‘rating task’. In the selection task, the images are
simple geometric figures with no indication of any functionality. As
mentioned in ‘section 1.3’ in the absence of function, only beauty
exists and consequently the judgement of preference is only based
on beauty. Therefore, beauty can be measured applying selection
task in which subjects were asked to choose one figure that they
prefer over the others (that is why it is called selection task). The
reason for selecting rather than rating is to make the task more
logical in terms of judgement because it can be very difficult or
even impossible to rate a simple geometric figure. In order to
remove any distraction, participants were asked to verbally express
the preferred figure. No alphabet or number was used in the se-
lection task and subjects chose one figure by expressing “left” or
“right” words depending on their preference. In the rating task the
images of products were applied. Chair was used as the product
category because of two reasons: first, it has high diversity in
models; second, its function is very well known and established
and consequently easy to judge. The first image was used as warm-
up image to make subjects familiar with the process but it is not
included in data analysis. No time limitation was applied and par-
ticipants were able to decide in their own time because there is no
certain defined time for judging appearance. In order to generate an
attractiveness template all the images were placed exactly in the
same area with the same scale (Fig. 6).
 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43
Fig. 5. Conducting the eye-tracking experiment in the lab with applied equipment.
Fig. 6. Wireframe models of two chairs (out of 25) which were used in the eye-
tracking experiment. As can be seen the models are in the same scale and posi-
tioned in the exact same area.
2.6. Conducting the experiment
Before beginning, subjects are informed about the procedure of
the experiment. Then they are asked to do a simple task in order to
determine their dominant eye. They are asked to make a triangle
hole with their hands and look at a target on the wall which is a
small circle through the hole made by hands with both eyes open.
Then they bring the hands close to the face while they are looking at
the target. Each eye they bring their hands close to, is the dominant
eye. They then sit in front of the screen and the eye-tracking device
is set on their head. Then the camera for the dominant eye is
adjusted to the right position and eye movement is calibrated
(Section 2.4). Experiment begins with the selection task in which
25 images were used. Each image contains two simple geometric
figures. Different figures were generated by changing the elements
of design in terms of nature, dimension, and location (Section 1.4)
in form, shape, colour, and texture (Kostellow, 2002). By modifying
the design in terms of pureness and proportion, 8 different possi-
bilities emerge (2
4 ¼ 8, 2 indicates pureness and proportion and
4 shows 4 design elements of form, shape, colour, and texture) and
for each possibility 3 criteria (nature, dimension, and location) are
35
applied. Therefore 3
8 ¼ 24 images are generated plus one warm-
up image and total of 25 stimuli. The subjects are asked to look at
each image and express which one they prefer by saying left or
right words. Once they say the word, the experimenter presses the
SPACE key on the keyboard of monitoring PC (Section 2.4) and next
image is shown. Before showing each image, subjects have to look
at a black dot on the white background which is located on the
bottom of the screen for two reasons: first, all eye fixations start
from the same area which uniforms the data of each participant in
order to achieve more accurate result; second it monitors eye
calibration each time the eye fixates on the dot. This process is
repeated until all the images are shown. After the last image, eye-
tracking software saves the data in EDF format to both com-
puters. The rating task begins after finishing the selection task.
Calibration is required again before starting the task. In the rating
task the images of chairs are shown on the screen and subjects are
asked to rate the image from 1 to 10. Same as selection task, par-
ticipants verbally express a number from 1 to 10 depends on how
much they like the appearance of the product. 25 images (including
one warm-up image) of different designs of chair were used in the
experiment. The chair models were rendered in 3D Studio Max
using V-Ray rendering plugin in order to create realistic images.
2.7. Data analysis
2.7.1. Calculating the qualities of beauty
Eye-tracking software saves files in EDF format which is read-
able via EyeLink Data Viewer software. However, analysis of the
required data will need the text format of the file. Therefore, the
ASCII files were generated by converting the EDF file using EDF2ASC
application. Each file represents the data for each subject and
contains duration and coordinate of fixations for each stimulus.
ASCII file contains lots of data in which all data are not relevant to
this study. Therefore, each file is filtered via AscFilter software in
order to extract the required data. This application reads .acs file
and converts it to .flt file. Fig. 7 shows the interface of AscFilter
software.
As can be seen from Fig. 7, there are 8 sections shown in the
interface of the application. Input file is converted ASCII file and
output file is the file which is generated by this software which is
saved as FLT file. The Log file shows what types of data are selected.
In “Select Messages” section, the type of data is listed. The required
data in this study are TRIAL_ID, SYNCTIME, and TRIAL_RESULT
which are selected. The next section is “Items of Interest” which
36 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43
Fig. 7. Interface of AscFilter software which is used to extract the required data from ASCII file.
shows the list of trials. In this study except the first image which is
warm-up image and the data may not be included in the analysis,
the other images are selected. In “Channel” section the data of left
and right eyes are selected. This study uses the data for one eye for
each subject as a dominant eye (Section 2.6). Although the ‘eye
blinking rate’ (Srinidhi and Ip, 2012) and ‘pupil size’ (Ho and Lu,
2014) have been considered in a relationship with preference,
those are not effective factors in this study. Fixations are the
required data which is ticked in “Eye Tracking Events”. Fixation
durations below 80 ms were removed because such ‘extremely
short’ fixations normally result from false saccade planning rather
than meaningful information processing. Out-of-range fixations are
also removed from the data as they are outside the default
1024
768 canvas using data pooling option in the software. The
SYNCTIME is set to zero in “Set time to zero” section and eye
dilation can be selected in “Include Pupil Size” section which is not
included in this study. After applying all the required settings, the
filtering process begins by clicking the “Start” button. 50 subjects
participated in the experiment. Therefore, for each task 50 files
were generated (100 files for both tasks). The mentioned process is
repeated for all 100 files.
The FLT files contain the required data. In order to apply the
defined formula, the data were imported in Microsoft Excel (Fig. 8).
Each file includes the data for all 24 trials. However, all 50 data
for each trial must be located in the same section in order to
calculate the result for all 50 subjects. Therefore, the data of each
trial copied into a single section. This section shows all the co-
ordinates and duration of fixations for each trial and for all 50
participants. After having all the data in a same place, the defined
equations of the qualities of beauty are applied. Fixations on left
and right figures are separated based on x coordinate in which if the
x coordinate of fixation is over 512 (middle of the image) the fix-
ation is associated with the right figure otherwise it is on the left
figure. Pureness is calculated in percentage by multiplying the
Equation (1) by 200 (because minimum number of fixation is 2).
Because pureness is quantitative, number of fixations is divided by
number of subjects. Proportion is measured in inverse of second by
dividing 1000 by Equation (2) (the fixations duration unit is milli-
second) and contrast is calculated using Equation (3) divided by
number of subjects. Table 1 shows an example of calculating the
qualities of beauty for left and right figures for the first stimulus
(Fig. 11).
2.7.2. Calculating the qualities of attractiveness
By calculating the required variables, a relevant ellipse is
generated. In order to draw an accurate shape, AutoCAD software
was utilised. First, a rectangle with dimensions of 1024
768 is
drawn as an image area. The appropriateness template applies the
coordinates of fixations for most preferred stimulus and novelty
template uses the coordinates of all the fixations for all the stimuli.
By calculating and applying the numbers for C,Rx,Ry, and q (Equa-
tions (4)e(6)) the ellipses are produced in AutoCAD. Then the file is
exported as PDF file using “Export” command in AutoCAD and the
PDF file is converted to bitmap image using PDF to BMP converter.
Using Photoshop software, the ellipse area is filled with black
colour (AscFilter software can recognise 256 colours) and the whole
image rescaled to be 1024
768 pixels (same resolution as the
stimuli). Therefore, two templates will emerge: One for appropri-
ateness and one for novelty. Fig. 9(a) left shows the distribution of
all the fixations on all the images and right figure shows the tem-
plate used in measuring novelty and Fig. 9(b) shows the distribu-
tion of all fixations on the most preferred design and the template
used in measuring appropriateness.
The next step is to input the templates in AscFilter software by
making script file which is in text format (.txt). The script file is
made using this command:
 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43 37

Fig. 8. Imported FLT file in Microsoft Excel shows 8 fixations on image 02 (1: Image file name, 2: Fixation duration in millisecond, 3: Fixation ‘X’ coordinate, 4: Fixation ‘Y’
coordinate).

Fig. 9. (a). Generating the template (right) to measure novelty based on the concentration of distribution of fixations on all the stimuli (left). (b). Generating the template (right) to
measure appropriateness based on the concentration of distribution of fixations on the most preferred stimuli (left).

Fig. 10. By applying the template the data shows which fixation is in white or black area.
38 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43

Table 1
Example of calculating the beauty qualities in the selection task.

Stimulus 1 Left figure Right figure

Number of fixations 196 165

Standard deviation of fixations 166.4 230.7
Total time (sum of fixations) (ms) 1254 1384
Pureness (%) 1÷(196÷50)
200 ¼ 51.0% 1÷(165÷50)
200 ¼ 60.6%
Proportion (s1) (1÷166.4)
1000 ¼ 6.0 1÷(230.7)
1000 ¼ 4.3
Contrast (ms) 196
166.4÷50 ¼ 652 165
230.7÷50 ¼ 761
C/T 652÷1254 ¼ 0.52 761÷1384 ¼ 0.55

Fig. 11. The images which were used in the selection task.

2.8.1. Result of the selection task

crap < stimuli filename:bmp > 3000 image name:bmp
< template filename:bmp >
This command is repeated in the script file for all the stimuli.
Script file then will be added into AscFilter software using “Select
Masterscripts” in the options menu. The same procedure is applied
to generate the FLT files. But this time the FLT file allocates black or
white word to each fixation which shows which fixation is in white
or black area in the template. Fig. 10 shows the FLT file imported in
Microsoft excel which indicates white and black fixations.
As can be seen from Fig. 10, out of 9 fixations on image 20, 7
fixations are in the white area and 2 fixations are located in the
black area of the template. By calculating number of ‘black’ fixations
for appropriateness and ‘white’ fixations for novelty, the qualities
are measured by dividing each number by total number of fixations.
Selection task was designed in order to discover the beauty
formula. Therefore, it applied simple geometric figures without any
indication of function while in the Rating task the aim is to measure
the attractiveness. Therefore, the products with clear expression of
function were presented in the experiment's stimuli of the Rating
task. Fig. 11 shows the stimuli which are applied in the selection
task. Table 2 shows the calculated values for contrast, pureness, and
proportion of each stimulus using Equations (1)e(3). It also shows
total time and the C/T which is the contrast value over total time,
and percentage of subjects who selected the preferred figure.
As can be seen from Table 2, in all the figures which C/T is 0.5
and more, the preferred design is the one with higher proportion.
However, when C/T is lower than 0.5 the design is not preferred
even the proportion is higher. Moreover it shows proportion de-
creases when C/T increases (Fig. 12). In other words, subjects prefer
the design which C/T is closer to 0.5 and not lower.
Therefore, maximum beauty (preference) is achieved when
contrast equals half of total time:

2.8. Result

T
By using the commands for each formula in Microsoft Excel the C¼ (9)
value for each aesthetic quality is calculated. In this section the 2
results of both tasks are provided.
 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43 39

Table 2
The result of selection task.

Figure no. Figure Contrast (ms) Pureness (%) Proportion (s1) Total time (ms) C/T Preference (%)

1 Left 652 51.0 6.00 1254 0.52 72

Right 761 60.6 4.34 1384 0.55 28
2 Left 516 60.2 6.42 890 0.58 38
Right 479 60.2 6.94 855 0.56 62
3 Left 549 65.4 5.58 915 0.60 44
Right 581 59.2 5.82 1019 0.57 56
4 Left 574 62.9 5.54 990 0.58 78
Right 632 67.1 4.72 929 0.68 22
5 Left 429 71.4 6.54 753 0.57 14
Right 465 63.3 6.80 830 0.56 86
6 Left 423 82.0 5.76 682 0.62 86
Right 484 80.0 5.16 733 0.66 14
7 Left 288 83.3 8.34 720 0.40 42
Right 542 63.3 5.82 1023 0.53 54
8 Left 621 69.0 4.66 1515 0.41 48
Right 546 96.2 3.82 758 0.72 52
9 Left 516 69.0 5.62 938 0.55 80
Right 527 74.1 5.12 909 0.58 20
10 Left 270 87.7 8.44 600 0.45 48
Right 567 65.4 5.40 736 0.77 52
11 Left 406 84.0 5.86 655 0.62 52
Right 450 80.6 5.52 682 0.66 48
12 Left 527 54.6 6.94 976 0.54 50
Right 439 65.8 6.92 896 0.49 50
13 Left 500 71.4 5.60 877 0.57 78
Right 290 91.7 7.52 659 0.44 22
14 Left 311 85.5 7.52 635 0.49 40
Right 517 79.4 4.88 923 0.56 60
15 Left 541 56.5 6.54 984 0.55 94
Right 488 87.7 4.66 668 0.73 6
16 Left 521 78.1 4.92 695 0.75 12
Right 431 70.4 6.58 829 0.52 88
17 Left 446 56.8 7.88 782 0.57 78
Right 440 66.7 6.82 746 0.59 22
18 Left 549 54.6 6.66 998 0.55 58
Right 608 54.1 6.08 1067 0.57 42
19 Left 405 74.1 6.66 686 0.59 66
Right 635 59.5 5.30 907 0.70 34
20 Left 592 55.9 6.04 789 0.75 46
Right 548 58.5 6.24 929 0.59 54
21 Left 601 58.5 5.70 1093 0.55 64
Right 722 58.1 4.76 1146 0.63 36
22 Left 459 69.9 6.24 820 0.56 88
Right 452 78.1 5.66 706 0.64 12
23 Left 597 53.2 6.30 979 0.61 38
Right 416 68.5 7.02 800 0.52 62
24 Left 402 94.3 5.26 670 0.60 16
Right 452 71.4 6.18 853 0.53 84

2.8.2. Beauty formula

Fig. 12. C/T (Contrast divided by total time) against proportion. Although proportion
has fluctuated, the trend is downwards.
As already explained, measuring beauty was accomplished via
the selection task and it was revealed that maximum beauty occurs
when contrast is half of total time. However, preference of each
figure with different contrast in comparison with other figures is
required to establish the beauty formula. Therefore, 12 figures with
various contrast values over total time (repeated values were not
included) from the lowest value (0.40) to the highest (0.77) were
selected (Fig. 13). These figures are representative of all 24 figures.
The reason of not including all 24 figures is to make the ranking
task more manageable. 82 subjects were asked to participate in the
test by ranking the figures from 1 to 12 based on their own judg-
ment of beauty. Then based on the ranking results, each figure was
rated from 1 to 12. Table 3 shows the result of the test.
Fig. 14 shows the graph of preference compared to the contrast
over time (C/T).
As can be seen from Fig. 14, the same pattern has repeated. The
preference increases when contrast over time tends towards 0.5.
Moreover, the preference is higher when C/T is over 0.5 compared
40 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43

Fig. 13. The figures were used in the test from wide range of contrast over total time number.

Table 3
Result of the beauty test.

Fig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pref. 57.0 58.5 37.5 71.1 77 62.9 54.6 64.3 43.5 29.6 55.6 35.9
C/T 0.44 0.45 0.75 0.49 0.52 0.56 0.61 0.55 0.70 0.40 0.60 0.77

 2
100 C C C
beauty ¼
 9
þ 4:18; 0:50  (11)
19 T T T

2.8.3. Calculation example

This section provides an example of calculating the aesthetic
qualities which have been given in the next section. Table 4 shows
the calculated values for chair 1 where C/T is contrast over total
time, NN is number of white fixations in novelty template, NA is
number of black fixations in appropriateness template, NT is total
number of fixations, N is novelty value, and A is appropriateness
value.

2.8.4. Result of the rating task

Fig. 15 shows the stimuli used in the Rating task. By applying the
beauty, appropriateness, and novelty measuring methods, using
the eye-tracking data, each quality is calculated.
In order to compare the result of appropriateness and novelty
coming from the formula (see the Section 2.3.4 and the last part of
Section 2.7) and declared preference, 45 subjects were asked to rate
the chairs in terms of appropriateness and 45 different candidates
Fig. 14. Graph of preference compared to the contrast over time (C/T). C/T has been rated the chairs in terms of novelty. Figs. 16 and 17 and Table 5 show
multiplied by 100. the results.
As can be seen from Figs. 16 and 17, the calculation method using
eye-tracking data has a close match with candidates expressed
to below 0.5 with the equal variance. By normalising the graph, the preference in both appropriateness and novelty qualities.
beauty formula based on the result can be defined. Therefore: As can be seen from Table 5, all three qualities (beauty, appro-
priateness, novelty) are effective in the final preference. Therefore,
the aesthetic formula is based on certain relationship between
these qualities. In next section this relationship is identified.
 2
C 100 C C
beauty ¼ 35

 8:37; < 0:50 (10)
T 3 T T 2.8.5. Aesthetics formula
Using exponential functions, if N ¼ Novelty, B ¼ Beauty, and
A ¼ Appropriateness, the aesthetic formula is calculated using the
Equation (12):
Table 4
Calculation sample of aesthetic qualities for chair 1. aesthetics ¼ AeNB  eNBA þ 1 (12)
Chair 1 C/T Beauty NN NA NT N A In this formula all the variables (aesthetic, novelty, beauty, and
0.587 0.702 188 196 354 0.531 0.554
appropriateness) are a number between 1 and 0. Fig. 18 shows the
 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43 41

Fig. 15. The images which were used in the Rating task.

graph of the result of the aesthetic formula applying eye-tracking optimum amount is a certain balance between those opposite
data against the declared preference. qualities. In beauty, contrast has an inverse relationship with
As can be seen from Fig. 18, aesthetic formula has created the pureness and proportion and in attractiveness, while appropriate-
results which are a close approximation to declared final preference ness deals with known variables, novelty deals with unknown
of the designs. variables. The template of novelty and appropriateness can be
created at any time for any kind of product. Because of the time-
dependent nature of attractiveness these patterns may change
3. Discussion
over time which is required to be renewed. This method created a
mathematical solution as a robust objective method based on
The proposed method has been able to objectively measure the
fundamental factors of aesthetic. However, there have been some
qualities of aesthetic in which the final result has a close match
limitations in this study.
with the declared preference. Unlike previous related studies, the
proposed method is relying on visual properties which contain the
 First, the number of candidates in each eye-tracking experiment
main variables of aesthetic measurement. Although the preferences
was limited to 50. Although this is an acceptable number in this
are declared by different subjects, the result shows a good match.
By reviewing the nature of the aesthetic qualities it is revealed
that aesthetic is determined by opposite factors in which the

Fig. 16. Appropriateness measured from eye-tracking data (APP-EYE) compared to the Fig. 17. Novelty measured from eye-tracking data (NOV-EYE) compared to the declared
declared preference (APP-PRE). preference (NOV-PRE).
42 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43

Table 5 4. Conclusion
Result of the task extracted from eye-tracking data compared to the final declared
preference.
This study has confirmed that appropriateness, novelty, and
Figure no. Beauty (%) Appropriateness (%) Novelty (%) Preference (%) beauty are major effective qualities of aesthetics which determine
1 70.2 55.4 53.1 64.2 the visual preference by concentrating on three main areas: art,
2 67.5 43.5 40.6 44.4 engineering, and psychology. It has also provided an objective
3 51.3 50.9 50.3 51.8 robust methodology to measure each of the aesthetics qualities by
4 53.3 49.5 58.5 46.0
monitoring the eye behaviour in which the whole process is
5 67.5 47.6 59.3 41.6
6 42.8 34.6 44.3 37.8 repeatable by anyone at any time. The outcome of the method
7 67.5 64.8 39.7 41.8 showed its capability in quantifying product aesthetics with close
8 64.8 79.0 47.3 78.6 approximation to the final preference using number, duration and
9 47.6 75.4 46.0 58.2
coordinates of eye fixations. Therefore, through this aesthetic
10 82.2 60.2 48.8 62.8
11 64.8 70.0 44.6 77.0
measuring system, the designs can be objectively evaluated before
12 79.1 37.7 64.5 46.4 being taken into manufacturing process. This method can be used
13 67.5 27.9 70.7 41.0 by novice designers, design focus groups, and also professional
14 88.8 30.6 49.4 26.8 designers, each with a specific aim. In the educational environment,
15 73.1 48.0 41.4 39.0
design students can benefit from the methodology in under-
16 88.8 46.3 46.5 37.0
17 85.5 47.4 66.8 49.2 standing the visual design in order to enhance and improve their
18 76.0 59.4 38.1 64.2 ability of aesthetic evaluation more objectively. The results also
19 92.3 67.0 33.6 55.8 show that although design students may not be able to create high
20 64.8 50.9 57.6 45.8 quality of aesthetic in their designs, they can judge other designs
21 59.9 45.2 35.7 39.0
22 85.5 40.6 67.3 39.2
accurately. By applying this method in professional environments,
23 88.8 54.5 57.3 57.4 designers can rely on more customer-oriented preference rather
24 62.3 57.3 63.3 54.8 than subjective taste. It can also reveal more aesthetically pleasant
design when the difference is subtle and difficult to judge. The
beauty formula can be used in different applications to determine
the level of absolute pleasantness of the visual compositions. The
next step in developing a comprehensive aesthetic enhancement
model is to define the relevant metrics. Each metric is produced by
intersection of each aesthetic quality and a design element. For
instance the possibility of controlling (increase or reduction)
pureness in shape or proportion in form can be considered. By
applying the proposed method, the exact aesthetic value of each
metric can be determined. More metrics with aesthetical value can
be added to the database over time until a comprehensive model
emerges which is capable of proposing possible solutions of
enhancing aesthetic qualities towards an optimum result. This
software-based model can be integrated with eye-tracking tech-
nology in order to create fast and reliable result. Using remote eye-
tracking device and optimised software is proposed to be used as an
aesthetic measurement tool. This methodology has potential to be
developed in evaluating real 3D objects. The proposed method is
applicable to any environment and any kind of product in which the
qualities of visual aesthetic is required to be objectively quantified.
Fig. 18. Aesthetic measured from eye-tracking data (AES-EYE) against final declared This study established the basis of a practical solution to a subject
preference (PRE). which had not been clearly identified in which this new approach
can provide a foundation for further related studies.

kind of experiments, it can be even more accurate if number of

participants increases.
 Second, the eye-tracking device which was used in the experi-
ments was a headset type. The time of operating the experiment
can be noticeably lower if remote eye-tracking device is used.
 Third, optimised software can reduce the amount of time while
the accuracy in the process of aesthetic measurement increases.
 Fourth, the study employed 2D images as stimuli which may
reflect different impressions compared to real 3D objects.
This study has developed the aesthetic formula for a chair as a
stimulus. However, the effect of each quality on aesthetic prefer-
ence can be dependent on the function of a product. In other words,
although the method of measuring each quality and its equations
are fundamental and valid for all kinds of products, the final
‘aesthetic equation’ may vary for different products and this is
subject of further work.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Dr Helen Purchase from University of
Glasgow, School of Computing Sciences.
References
Barsalou, L.W., 1985. Ideals, central tendency, and frequency or instantiation as
determinants of graded structure. J. Exp. Psychol. 11, 629e654.
Baxter, M., 1995. Product Design: Practical Methods for the Systematic Develop-
ment of New Products. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Berlyne, D.E., 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New
York, NY.
Bloch, P.H., 1995. Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response.
J. Mark. 59 (3), 16e29.
Breemen, E. J. J. van, Knoop, W.G., Horv ath, I., Vergeest, J.S.M., Pham, B., 1998.
Developing a methodology for design for aesthetics based on analogy of
communication. In: ASME DTM Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 1e26.
 S. Khalighy et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 49 (2015) 31e43
Cawthon, N., Moere, A., 2007. The effect of aesthetic on the usability of data visu-
alization. In: 11th International Conference Information Visualization, Wash-
ington, DC, USA, pp. 637e648.
Chang, H., Lai, H., Chang, Y., 2006. Expression modes used by consumers in conveying
desire for product form: a case study of a car. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 36 (6), 3e10.
Chang, H., Lai, H., Chang, Y., 2007. A measurement scale for evaluating the attrac-
tiveness of a passenger car form aimed at young consumers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37
(7), 21e30.
Christiaans, H., 2010. Creativity as a design criterion. Creat. Res. J. 14 (1), 41e54.
Chuang, M., Chang, C., Hsu, S., 2001. Perceptual factors underlying user preferences
toward product form of mobile phones. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 27 (1), 247e258.
Coates, D., 2003. Watches Tell More than Time. McGraw-Hill, London UK.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J., 2004. Seeing things: consumer response to the
visual domain in product design. Des. Stud. 25 (6), 547e577.
Crilly, N., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J., 2009. Shaping things: intended consumer
response and the other determinants of product form. Des. Stud. 30 (3), 224e251.
Elam, K., 2001. Geometry of Design: Studies in Proportion and Composition.
Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Etcoff, N., 1999. Survival of the Prettiest: the Science of Beauty. Little, Brown &
Company, UK.
Galanter, P., 2010. Complexity, neuroaesthetics, and computational aesthetic eval-
uation. In: 13th Generative Art Conference. Politecnico di Milano University,
Italy, pp. 399e409.
Hekkert, P., 2006. Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychol. Sci. 48
(2), 157e172.
Hekkert, P., Snelders, D., Van Wieringen, P.C.W., 2003. Most advanced, yet accept-
able: typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in in-
dustrial design. Br. J. Psychol. 94, 111e124.
Herr, P.M., 2000. An investigation of the processes by which product design and
brand strength interact to determine initial affect and quality judgments.
J. Consum. Psychol. 12 (2), 133e147.
Ho, C.H., Lu, Y.N., 2014. Can pupil size be measured to assess design products? Int. J.
Ind. Ergon. 44, 436e441.
Hsiao, S., Chiu, F., Chen, C., 2008. Applying aesthetics measurement to product
design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38 (8), 910e920.
Hsu, S.H., Chuang, M.C., Chang, C.C., 2000. A semantic differential study of designers
and users product form perception. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25, 375e391.
Huang, T., Henry, K., 2009. How does “green” mean the emerging semantics of product
design. In: The MX Design Conference. IDSA, Columbia College Chicago, USA.
Hung, W.K., Chen, L.L., 2012. Effects of novelty and its dimensions on aesthetic
preference in product design. Int. J. Des. 6 (2), 81e90.
Khalid, H.M., Helander, M.G., 2006. Customer emotional needs in product design.
Concurr. Eng. 14 (3), 197e205.
Khalighy, S., Green, G., Whittet, C., 2012. Product aesthetics and creativity. In: 2nd
International Conference on Design Creativity, Glasgow, UK, pp. 52e60.
Khalighy, S., Green, G., Scheepers, C., Whittet, C., 2014. Measuring aesthetic in
design. In: 13th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia,
pp. 2083e2094.
43
Kieran, M., 1997. Aesthetic value: beauty, ugliness and incoherence. Philosophy 72
(281), 383e399.
Kostellow, R.R., 2002. Elements of Design. Princeton Architectural, New York NY.
Lai, H.H., Chang, Y.M., Chang, H.C., 2005. A robust design approach for enhancing
the feeling quality of a product: a car profile case study. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35,
445e460.
Lai, H., Lin, Y., Yeh, C., Wei, C., 2006. User-oriented design for the optimal combi-
nation on product design. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 100 (6), 253e267.
Langmeyer, L., Shank, M., 1994. Managing beauty, products and people. J. Prod.
Brand Manag. 3 (3), 27e38.
Lubart, T.I., Sternberg, J., 1995. An Investment Approach to Creativity: Theory and
Data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mono, R., 1997. Design for Product Understanding. Liber, Stockholm Sweden.
Noble, C.H., Kumar, M., 2008. Using product design strategically to create deeper
consumer connections. Bus. Horiz. 51, 441e450.
Norman, D.A., 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love or Hate Everyday Things.
Basic Books, New York NY.
Norman, D.A., 2010. Living with Complexity. The MIT Press.
Peli, E., 1990. Contrast in complex images. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 7 (10), 2032e2040.
Pham, B., 1999. Design for aesthetics: interactions of design variables and aesthetic
properties. In: 11th Annual Symposium e Electronic Imaging Conference, San
Jose, USA, pp. 364e371.
Postrel, V., 2001. Can Good Looks Guarantee a Product's Success. The New York
Times. July 12.
Srinidhi, A., Ip, H., 2012. Eye like you e a social recommendation system based on
spontaneous eye-blink rates. In: Human Interface Technologies Conference, 18
April. University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada.
Sternberg, R.J., 2006. The nature of creativity. Creat. Res. J. 18 (1), 87e98.
Sun, L., Xiang, W., Chai, C., Yang, Z., Zhang, K., 2014. Designers' perception during
sketching: an examination of creative segment theory using eye movements.
Des. Stud. 35 (14), 593e613.
Verma, M., Wood, W.H., 2001. Form follows function: cased-based learning over
product evaluation. In: ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences,
Pittsburgh, pp. 1e11.
Veryzer, R.W., Hutchinson, J.W., 1998. The influence of unity and prototypicality on
aesthetic responses to new product designs. J. Consum. Res. 24 (4), 374e394.
Yadav, H.C., Jain, R., Shukla, S., Avikal, S., Mishra, P.K., 2013. Prioritization of aesthetic
attributes of car profile. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 43, 296e303.
You, H., Ryu, T., Oh, K., Yun, M.H., Kim, K.J., 2006. Development of customer satis-
faction models for automotive interior materials. Int. J. Industrial Ergonomics
36, 323e330.
Yun, M.H., Han, S.H., Hong, S.W., Kim, J., 2003. Incorporating user satisfaction into
the look-and-feel of mobile phone design. Ergonomics 46 (13), 1423e1440.
Zain, M., Tey, M., 2008. Using Aesthetic Measurement Application (AMA) to mea-
sure aesthetics of web Page interfaces. In: 4th International Conference on
Natural Computation, Los Alamitos CA, pp. 764e773.