## 4 Results
### Study 1
#### 4.1.3 Qualitative Feedback
**Aesthetic Design:** The aesthetic perception varies considerably across the three Design Types. The designs of _Generative AI_ were perceived as \"simple and unobtrusive\" (P26, P56, P66), with \"suble colors\" (P43, P81), a \"clean\" (P156) and \"modern design [that] could be accepted as a replacement for shoes\" (P75), which in some cases appear \"futuristic\" (P66). However, some participants mentioned that the designs look \"too technical\" (P63) because \"the box looks too extreme\" (P156). _Orthopedic products_ were associated with a \"minimalistic\" (P63, P142) and \"classic design\" (P8, P26), characterized by \"neutral colors\" (P81) that \"looks like a conventional product\" (P162). However, these designs were criticized for being visually \"unesthetic\" (P16, P56, P63)--described as \"old-fashioned\" (P13), \"unfashionable\" (P161), \"crude\" (P107), \"strange\" (P13, P39), and \"too big\" (P32, P66)--and therefore perceived as \"less socially acceptable\" (P16) because of their \"robotic appearance\" (P32, P119, P144). The medical appearance of some orthoses could affect the wearer's self-confidence because the \"impairment attracts attention\" (P43). The _Development concepts_ were generally recognized as \"innovative\" (P75), \"stylish\" (P144), \"futuristic\" (P13, P34, P60, P64, P156), and \"it is nice that the color is different from other design\" (P130), which makes them appear \"like a fashion item\" (P13) and \"do not look like a medical product\" (P22). In contrast, the bright color was also perceived negatively, along with the \"cheap-looking quality\" (P63, P66, P72) and \"ugly holes\" (P84). Additionally, some designs were criticized for their overly \"mechanical appearance\" (P8, P156) and the \"excessive size of the box\" (P63), which could lead to \"aesthetic acceptance issues\" (P24). **Technical Properties:** The technical properties of _Generative AI_ designs were recognized for \"technology integration\" (P152) as an \"electronic device\" (P119). However, some of these technical functions were also negatively considered for their \"complexity and the need for regular maintenance or charging\" (P152). _Orthopedic products_ are recognized for \"longevity and low-maintenance\" (P109), which \"provides strong support and stability for the foot and ankle\" (P120) because they \"immobilize the ankle and foot\" (P27), making them reliable for medical use and effective in the rehabilitation of severe injuries. Although the _Development concepts_ featured \"lighter\" (P22, P25) and \"simpler designs\" (P5, P161) for \"improved mobility\" (P110), they were \"not stable\" (P53, P160) enough to support more serious medical needs. Participants expressed concerns about \"durability under heavy loads\" (P110), \"lack of strength/stiffness\" (P101), and the technical efficiency of these designs. **Usability and Comfort:** The usability and comfort of the three Design Types resulted in contrary user reactions, revealing strengths and weaknesses in product design. _Generative AI_ designs faced criticism for certain elements, such as \"visible toes\" (P39, P72), and raised concerns about \"the longevity of materials...[because the] material could wear out more quickly\" (P152). Despite the technical advantages of the _Orthopedic products_, they \"can be bulky\" (P141) \"which can be uncomfortable during everyday activities\" (P152), and can reduce comfort over time because it \"restricts freedom of movement\" (P101). Although some models are described as \"comfortable\" (P142, P162), there is criticism due to insufficient air circulation because the \"feet could sweat\" (P84) which can lead to \"moisture and skin irritation\" (P113). In contrast, it was noted that _Development concepts_are \"easy to wear\" (P164) and \"suitable for everyday use\" (P22), offering a practical and \"less intrusive\" (P8, P161) alternative. However, participants also mentioned that it \"can be uncomfortable during long-term use\" (P110).