User-Centered Design

In class on September 18, Jerry Weslake gave a lecture surrounding the topics of anthropometrics, ergonomics and user-centered design.  This touched on the idea of the ‘critical fit’ and designs that accommodate all users.

Many modern day designs develop from the idea of fitting the ‘average man’ because there is some sort of general assumption that the average fits most people. Anthropometric data determines the dimensions of this ‘average man’, and it is interpreted into models such as Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian-Man, or Le Corbusier’s Modular.

Determining a model of the average man has its apparent benefits: It allows for a quick and general guideline for designers to follow when they are designing a space for users. However, I wanted to look into the potential dangers of designing for the average man. How many people do not fit into this average? When is it most important to consider those outside the average? What designs work to accommodate more than the average man, and what designs do not? 

A document from Alberta Human Resources and Employment explains, “The problem is, very few people are average. A good design takes into account that people vary widely in size and shape. Controls and shelves should be reachable by the shortest person. Man openings should be designed for the widest person.”

Even though it is always ideal, in certain design scenarios it is absolutely crucial for the designer to accommodate users outside the average model. An article for the BBC gives a prime example of this: “one might reasonably suppose that pretty much any woman traveling on public transport late at night should be able to reach an emergency alarm button, so this must be brought into 100% reach” 

Alberta Human Resource and Employment suggests that as a general rule designers should work to reach “The 90 Percent Solution”. This solution would accommodate everyone but the 5% extremes on either end of the range of human dimensions. Since the challenge of accommodating 100% of the users often proves to be quite challenging, this allows for some leniency.

One design in Winnipeg that I think does not accommodate its range of users is the seating at the Blue Bomber stadium. Only a person of a specific height, leg length, posture, breast breadth, etc., can sit comfortably for the duration of a game. 

EQ3, on the other hand, designs seating with adjustable heights, tilting mechanisms, and extra back support that can accommodate a wider range of people. It is not within the budget for the stadium to have that level of seating but surely they could incorporate some simple design solutions that could allow a larger range of users to be included, such as more leg room.

In general I found that it is not effective to design for the average man. The average model is an extremely helpful guideline for designers but we have to consider the wide variety of variances within the human dimensions. We have to, first and foremost, pinpoint the users that we are designing for, and then make sure that the widest possible range of those users are accommodated. 

M.H.

Resources:

http://employment.alberta.ca/documents/WHS/WHS-PUB_erg030.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3213127

I also came across a book called Extra-Ordinary Ergonomics: How to accommodate Small and Big Persons, The Disabled and Elderly, Expectant Mothers and Children. This book identifies key demographics that have proportions and needs outside of the average, and it gives suggestions on how to accommodate them.