A evolução dos processos de criação dos artefatos

Metodologias de design, nos dias de hoje, são aplicadas de diferentes formas e com conteúdo bem diversificado, variando de uso, área de aplicação e desejo de uso. No resultado o desejo de alcançar a melhor qualidade nos artefatos criados e estudados virou necessidade de busca por meio destes processos. Esta qualidade pode ser caracterizada como o fator inovação. Tanto no mercado quanto na academia o termo inovação vem ganhando destaque e se tornando curioso, não apenas como resultado, mas também, como entendimento por meio do processo e maneira de alcançá-lo. E assim seguem as metodologias, com o intuito de averiguar e entender a inovação dentro do design. Com tantas metodologias utilizadas é preciso entender como elas funcionam, seus termos e suas necessidades, e assim poder analisar seus conceitos e atividades. Neste ensaio são analisados os termos e conceitos que compõem o tema, desde os estudos prévios em design dirigidos para este tipo de pesquisa, a evolução dada na área e suas atribuições dentro do universo dos processos metodológicos de design como ciência e atributos da inovação na criação de artefatos

IDOSOS E O USO DE TECNOLOGIAS ASSISTIVAS EM CASA: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA DE LITERATURA

Assistive Technologies (ATs) have great potential for healthy aging at home. Its activity reaches several sectors and it focuses on the progressive demand for improvements and new solutions. In this sense, this article aims to understand the studies direction related to ATs development, focusing on the elderly and domestic environment, in the last five years. For this, a systematic literature review was carried out in four stages according to the PRISMA recommendations. Scopus, SciELO and Google Scholar were used as databases, based on pre-defined terms, with publications in English and Portuguese and the period from 2015 to 2019. 36 studies were chosen for this review, observing the development of technologies related to physical and digital artifacts, ambient assisted living, wearable and immersive products, in addition to the services implementation for home environment. From the totality of studies, it was noticeable the valuation of issues related to privacy, cost and customization, in addition to the emergence of new action contexts when compared to the related works.As Tecnologias Assistivas (TAs) possuem grande potencial de auxiliar o envelhecimento saudável em casa e seus campos de atuação atingem diversos setores, exigindo a demanda progressiva de melhoramentos e novas soluções. Nesse sentido, este artigo objetiva compreender o direcionamento dos estudos relacionados ao desenvolvimento de TAs com foco em idosos no ambiente doméstico, nos últimos 5 anos. Para isso, uma revisão sistemática de literatura em quatro etapas foi realizada segundo as recomendações PRISMA. Scopus, SciELO e Google Scholar foram utilizados como bases de dados, com termos pré-definidos em publicações em Inglês e Português, no período de 2015 a 2019. Foram elegidos 36 estudos para a revisão, observando-se a presença do desenvolvimento de tecnologias relativas a artefatos físicos e digitais, ambientes de vida assistida, produtos vestíveis e imersivos, além da implementação de serviços para o ambiente doméstico. Da análise dos estudos, percebeu-se a valorização de questões relativas à privacidade, custo e personalização nos projetos, além do surgimento de novos contextos de ação quando comparado aos trabalhos relacionados anteriores

AVALIAÇÃO + NORMALIZAÇÃO: DESIGN COMO MODERADOR NA ANÁLISE DE BENS DE CONSUMO

The design of packaging products depends on knowledge of different areas, including those focused on mechanical quality, such as in Mechanical, Chemical and Production Engineering, and other informational and communicative areas, such as in Product Design and Graphics. It is in this context that this research focuses on a demand from Inmetro in evaluating the usability of packaging. During its development, use was made of national quality and safety standards to define the field of study, select test batteries and regulatory guidelines, and choose sample quantities and profiles. However, even with the diversity of these standards established by ABNT (2020) and ISO (2020) there is still a gap in the guidelines that deal with ergonomics and usability of non-digital products, especially about interaction with real users. In this article, three different packaging models common to different foods from twenty different manufacturers are analyzed. Methods, tools, testing environment, sample selection and participant selection are described in the methodology section of the next topic. The results in fact point to what can be defined as a major concern that companies should have in relation to the quality of these types of packaging.O design das embalagens dos produtos depende do conhecimento de diferentes áreas, incluindo aquelas voltadas para a qualidade mecânica, como em Engenharia Mecânica, Química e de Produção, e outras informacionais e comunicativas, como em Design de Produto e Gráfico. É nesse contexto no qual esta pesquisa se debruça ante uma demanda do Inmetro na avaliação de usabilidade de embalagens. Durante o desenvolvimento desta, foi feito o uso de padrões nacionais de qualidade e de segurança para definir o campo de estudo, selecionar as baterias de teste e as diretrizes regulatórias, além de escolher as quantidades de amostra e perfis. Porém, mesmo com a diversidade dessas normas estabelecidas pela ABNT (2020) e pela ISO (2020) existe ainda uma lacuna quanto às diretrizes que tratam da ergonomia e usabilidade de produtos não digitais, principalmente no que diz respeito à interação com usuários reais. Neste artigo, são analisados ​​três diferentes modelos de embalagens comuns a diferentes alimentos, de vinte fabricantes diferentes. Os métodos, ferramentas, ambiente de teste, seleção de amostra e seleção de participantes são descritos na seção de metodologia do próximo tópico. Os resultados de fato apontam para o que se pode definir como uma maior preocupação que as empresas devem ter em relação a qualidade destes tipos de embalagens

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016