## 4 Smart Speaker Design Evaluation
### Quantitative Analysis of Design Metrics
A pairwise comparison of all factors was performed using a scale of 1-9, and the weight of each indicator was determined through the AHP method (as shown in Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Criterion** & **Indicator Layer** \\ \hline A1 Product Layer & & \\ \hline A11 Friendly and Soft (4.18) & 0.2583 0.2583 0.2605 0.2590 \\ \hline A12 Warm and Novel (4.36) & 0.6370 0.6370 0.6333 0.6358 \\ \hline A13 Simple and Stylish (4.12) & 0.1047 0.1047 0.1062 0.1052 \\ \hline A2 Interactive Layer & & \\ \hline A21 Voice Recognition (4.34) & 0.0780 0.0779 0.0809 0.0789 \\ \hline A22 Button Interface Touch (4.39) & 0.1891 0.1908 0.1948 0.1916 \\ \hline A23 App Control (4.37) & 0.1188 0.1219 0.1244 0.1217 \\ \hline A24 Composite Interaction (4.54) & 0.6140 0.6095 0.5999 0.6078 \\ \hline A3 Context Layer & & \\ \hline A31 Psychological Stress (4.22) & 0.2050 0.2081 0.2122 0.2084 \\ \hline A32 Everyone Needs to Express (4.04) & 0.0511 0.0509 0.0539 0.0520 \\ \hline A33 Support for Technologically Innovative Products (4.21) & 0.1355 0.1392 0.1444 0.1397 \\ \hline A34 Discover and Experience the Beauty & 0.6084 0.6019 0.5895 0.5999 \\ Around You (4.48) & 0.6084 0.6019 0.5895 0.5999 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Weight values of each factor. Figure 3: Design evaluation system of the smart home audio–visual product design. In Table 5, a portion of the collected data and the obtained comparisons are presented, along with the derived AHP weights for each indicator within the criteria. This table provides transparency regarding the data collection process and demonstrates the objectivity of the obtained weights. The AHP weights were collected through a structured questionnaire survey involving participants experienced with smart audio systems. The questionnaire included criteria related to the product layer, interactive layer, and context layer, along with corresponding indicators. Participants provided pairwise comparisons of the indicators within each criterion based on their perceived importance. The responses were collected and aggregated to derive the weights for each indicator within each criterion. The consistency of the AHP was assessed using the consistency ratio (CR) values. The CR values for the three methods used in the study were all less than 0.10, indicating that the consistency condition was met. This implies that the results obtained from the AHP analysis were reliable and accurate. To enhance the robustness of the results, weights were calculated using three different methods: the eigenvalue method, the geometric mean method, and the arithmetic mean method. The results showed that the indicator A12, representing Warm and Novel, had the highest weight ratio for the A1 Product Layer. For the A2 Interaction Layer, the indicator A24, representing Composite Interaction, had the highest weight ratio. Lastly, the indicator A34, representing Discover and Experience the Beauty Around You, had the highest weight ratio for the A3 Context Layer. These results indicate the significance users attribute to warm and novel product designs, composite interaction modes, and the ability to discover and experience beauty in their context. Designers can consider these factors when creating new smart audio devices and interactions. By prioritizing these factors, designers can create products that are not only functional but also aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to use. In summary, the AHP method provides a valuable tool for designers to identify and prioritize user satisfaction factors across different layers of the product design process. Using this approach, designers can create products that meet user expectations and deliver an outstanding user experience. The results of this study also provide insights into the design of smart audio devices, guiding future research and development in this rapidly evolving field.