## 2 Materials and Methods
### Evaluation Method  
The participants evaluated their affects regarding samples in three different ways. In the first case, samples were presented in a random order, and participants answered all questions about each sample. When they finished evaluating one sample, they began to evaluate the next sample by answering all the questions; this SD method was referred to in this study as absolute evaluation type 1 (AE 1). In the second case, all samples were presented to participants, and every sample was evaluated for a single word in a random order. After they finished evaluating one affective word, they evaluated the next word in the same order. This process was repeated until the last affective word; this SD method was referred to in this study as absolute evaluation type 2 (AE 2). In the third case, all possible pairs of samples were presented to participants, and all the affective words were evaluated for each sample pair. When the evaluation was completed for one pair, the same process was applied to another pair. This process was repeated until all the pairs were completely evaluated; this SD method was referred to in this study as relative evaluation (RE). Three different questionnaires were developed according to the characteristics of the evaluation methods, and a seven-point Likert scale was used for each semantic pair. For example, the graded scale indicated that the closer to one point, the darker the sample feels, and the closer to seven points, the brighter the sample feels. All three questionnaires are presented in the Supplementary Materials Figures S1-S3. In conclusion, in both AE 1 and AE 2, one participant evaluated six samples by seven semantic pairs using a seven-point Likert scale. Thus, six sessions were repeated for AE 1 (according to the number of samples), and seven sessions were repeated for AE 2 (according to the number of semantic pairs) in which they rated all semantic pairs as absolute values in each sample. However, in RE, one participant relatively evaluated two samples which were arbitrarily paired among six samples. Therefore, 15 sessions were repeated for RE while they rated all semantic pairs as relative values on one sample to the other sample. A flow chart of these three SD methods is presented in Figure 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Gray** & **Class** & **Thermal** & **WVIR** & **Squeak** & **Ra** & **Softness** \\
**No.** & **Scale** & & **(W/mK)** & **(g/m\({}^{2}\)-day)** & **Squeak** & **(\(\mu\)m)** & **(mm)** \\ \hline
1 & 3.187 & 1.1 & 0.123 & 629 & 0.075 & 18.086 & 3.7 \\
2 & 3.14 & 1.2 & 0.119 & 617 & 0.068 & 15.495 & 3.9 \\
3 & 3.18 & 1.1 & 0.122 & 553 & 0.055 & 21.073 & 4.1 \\
4 & 3.14 & 1.1 & 0.123 & 640 & 0.052 & 16.966 & 4.1 \\
5 & 4.867 & 1.2 & 0.131 & 716 & 0.043 & 16.155 & 3.9 \\
6 & 4.817 & 0.6 & 0.122 & 1150 & 0.388 & 15.178 & 4.57 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. The value for each design parameter for any given sample is the mean of three different measurements.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Values of design parameters by sample.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Semantic Pairs** & **Design Parameters** & **Interpretation of Semantic Pairs** \\ \hline Dark–Bright & Gray Scale & Feels brighter as the gray scale decreases. \\ Matt–Glossy & Gloss & Feels glossier as the gloss increases. \\ Cooling–Warming & Thermal Conductivity & Feels more warming as the thermal \\ productivity increases. \\ Dry–Moist & WVTR & Feels drier as WVTR increases. \\ Slippery–Sticky & Squeak & Feels stickier as the squeak increases. \\ Flat–Rugged & Ra & Feels more rugged as Ra increases. \\ Hard–Soft & Softness & Feels softer as the softness increases. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Design parameters for semantic pairs and their interpretations.