Hi, as i browse through as much as i can for anything and everything i find on industrial designing, i find that not many designer really take ergonomics in consideration, except for the usual chairs and/or traditional every day stuff.
This is just my opinion of course, maybe im missing something.
Anyway, i guess what i want to ask… or discuss, is:
What are your ideas on the use of ergonomics?.. how far have you been able to explore on the human interaction?, and have you had to surrender to something, in your design, to solve the problem needed?..
There has been a whole lot done on ergonomics. Most of them are subtle. Perhaps you are looking specifically at ergonomics, and that’s why it leads you to obvious products like furniture.
Car interior is all about ergonomics. Computer mouse, keyboard and all forms of controller device are heavily designed with ergonomics in mind. Even the packaging of many things are designed with ergonomics in mind to facilitate transportation. More subtle aspects of ergonomics can be the feedback properties, such as button size, material and texture, as well as the level of resistance a knob needs to provide when the user turns it. Graphic layouts are a part of ergonomics, like control panels and light indicators. Sound feedbacks need to be considered too, which will differentiate the kind of signal the user needs to receive. An “ok” signal certainly needs to sound differently from a “warning” signal.
Let’s put it this way, every product you see is being designed one way or another. As long as you don’t find them uncomfortable to use, they are ergonomically designed, because that’s what ergonomic means. It has to feel natural, best if you don’t even notice it.
However, everything is a compromise, because you also have to consider other aspects such as packaging, aesthetics, budget, schedule, etc. We do whatever we can.
Wow… you put it quite nicely…
What about prostethics… what do you think about those…im really interested in a breaktrough on design and function…
Those i have to admit i havent looked into much, but it seems to me like there are more possibilities in design and even maybe those little extra functions…
well maybe its a bit too crazy… but its all possible, no?
I think one aspect about ergonomics in today’s design is that it is very adaptable. A truly ergonomic form usually caters to one person or task, where as a simple, maneuverable design allows a more broad range. It definately fits modern styling, but also allows for a more universal way to be ergonomic. While I think some things still seem like they lack ergonomics… and maybe they do.
Wondershon, what types of prosthetics do you have in mind? I work for a prosthetic foot manufacturer, and I can tell you that ergonomics are very important. -But this is an incredibly unique industry, everything is custom made to fit the individual. That is part of the challenge, i guess, and part of the allure.
i think to really utilize ergonomics, you have to understand it is only a fraction of the area of study it originates from: anthropometrics. anthropometrcis is also related to anthropology, the study of humanity. not just physical interation, but all forms of human interaction, psychologically for example.
I think one aspect about ergonomics in today’s design is that it is very adaptable. A truly ergonomic form usually caters to one person or task, where as a simple, maneuverable design allows a more broad range. It definately fits modern styling, but also allows for a more universal way to be ergonomic. While I think some things still seem like they lack ergonomics… and maybe they do.
stijlsketcher, i didnt really have an actual prosthetic in mind, the idea just kind of popped in to my head. I really dont know much about that industry, but it does seem very wide open to me.
i guess that when it comes to that, im a bit more curious on how it is attached and how it affects the person, how real can it be, and maybe on a more functional level, what else could a product like that bring more options to the person…
You can see his facial prosthetics before/after under the testimonials section.
He’s presently doing masectomy prosthetics using scanning techniques.
I’m really interested in how prosthetics can push beyond normal human capabilities (like bionics). A neat example is the calf-foot prosthetic that allows different foot attachment for running etc. Or the new ‘brain controlled’ arm/hand combos. Neat field!
Wow Cg… that really kind of… blew me away, it was a little grewsome, but quite interesting, i never thought of those possibilities, but what i was kind of referring to, which i believe u nailed nicely, was the enhancement type of things and going beyond just the traditional motor skilled prosthetic, something that could enhance and help not only people with certain handycap, but also, could be something just as usefull to someone with all capabilities…
This is all great, very interesting stuff…but i have differed a little too, cause my most basic concern to start with, was on a bit more traditional everyday stuff, i think everyone has made a good point on the general idea of the use of Ergonomics.
Yet somehow i still feel empty on the whole subject…i do understand though (in what i guess has been the simplest most direct term) , that if its comfortable, and useable, then its ergonomic. Yet somehow i dont feel that we have gone further from where ergonomics stood some years ago, on the exception that it has been applied more often.
Im curious, how do you, work ergonomics into your design or project?
We work on a lot of manufacturing equipment that has a fairly robust ergonomics componenet although much of it happen in phases that do not run concurrent with conceptualization. Also, for us, on this type of (packing, assembly or welding) equipment there is usually an existing product so the improvements are less obvious.
I think that over the past 10 years a lot of this time is now spent on the UI.
I am continually dismayed that most discussion regarding ergonomics, the human element, in my world of industrial and medical equipment is denied at the door of project budgets and the oft-repeated “user-centered design group developing our UI”. Years ago I published article on this subject “All Interaction is not at the Computer”.
Here’s a paraphrased sample discussion on a large piece of medical equipment, multi million $ budget, multi billion $ company:
“Product spec relating to ID specifically states ease of user access to identified areas.”
“John is developing that area.”
“We should put a door there so the user knows where to gain access.”
“John has developed concept and we cant’t change it now.”
“Can we at least put a handle on it so people know it’s a door?”
“No room and no time to change it. People will just have to open it. Technical writing can put something in the manual.”
“But there’s no indication where to open it, it may have high static charge and it will be hot. Also, John says there may be a strong residual force holding it closed and damage could result if people just yank it or use a tool. This is where users directly daily interact with your equipment, the human element is important.”
“Certification guys will put a label on it, if needed.”
Yet somehow i still feel empty on the whole subject…i do understand though that if its comfortable, and useable, then its ergonomic.
I think the problem may be that ‘ergonomics’ is a term that through the nineties was used as a hype-word in the public sphere without true acknowledgment of what it is. So maybe what wonderschon’s looking for is something more mysterious than just plain old comfort.
Ergonomic designs are everywhere, but most are very subtle. No hype.
But it’s not all about comfort and anthropometrics. IMO 50% of ergonomics is …(pause for effect)… visual perception. If it looks noticeably comfortable, the user expects comfort before even picking it up. Then if the item follows through on the promise then it’s a winner. Something that looks unergonomic generally doesn’t get perceived as comfortable even after trying.
in furniture ergonomics is either used as a gimmick or as real science. upper echelons of contract companies pour millions of dollars in design research of ergonomics. lower echelon companies add an air bladder to the lower lumbar of the seat shell, slap a star burst on the packaging with the word “ergonomic” in it.
in my experience, ergonomics is seamless and natural. it is also intuitive to the user. it needs no explanation or highlight.
however, working on a large ergonomic study, i found it interesting that observing people with the “best” office chair, few utilize the features. their posture is so distorted that given the best features, their habit is to lean forward off the chair or towards the edge of the seat. it’s not that the newest design isn’t good, it’s more probable that their other seating products (at home, for instance) have subconsciously altered their posture due to comfort.
I remember sitting in an Ergonomics class in College (which was pretty good BTW) and the professor said the most adaptable, universal thing in the world is the human body, and it’s true, we acclimate to bad tools, chairs, houses to the point where a re-thought out design based on ideals feels “wrong” or “off”
Something else I remember from the class was learning the appropriateness of use, for example, a supportive bucket seat is best for a performance application, but for long term highway cruises, and everyday use, a bench seat is more ergonomic, because it allows you to shift around and find your own comfort point at any given moment. With most cars being front drive, eliminating the central tunnel of rear drivers, bench seats would be even better today. A bucket locks your body into a particular pose and you fatigue from holding the position… but the market demanded ergonomic supportive bucket seats, so the entire industry went that way… I like buckets too…