Examples of user research needed for optimal comfort design

Examples of user research needed for optimal comfort design

Prof dr P. Vink,

editor of the book:

The famous Peter Vink

•>200 publications on comfort

•head dpt interior design TNO

•professor IO TU-Delft

•a big applause please

No research/design could be dramatic

An armrest with the controls on the thigh

expec-tations

comf. brochures,

websites

first sight

good looking,spacious

short term

comfort: positive attention

discomfort: no obstacles, no pressure

points

long term

comfort: nice

entertainment

discomfort:posture

variation good fit

aftercare

tell “bad = coinci-dence”

The comfort process in time

expec-tations

first sight short term

-Find main user demands

-Test alternatives-Test final

product

long term

-Find main user demands

-Use biomechanics/

ergonomics-Test

alternatives-Test final

product

aftercare

Effects of treat-ments

For each phase research

Studying how users react on

websites products

three cases

1. LIRR

2. Faber

3. Aircraft interior

Conclusions

Research:

•observation is essential

•involve employees/management

•measure the effects

Design:

•set priorities based on user demands

•test alternative designs in an early stage

•test detailed design too

Designers make nice office chairs

a cheap and simple chair: four controls

how often do you adjust the chair (n=100)?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

never sometimes daily more a day

%

Vink et al., 2007

How often do you adjust the chair (n=100)?

thus, user research is needed in design

user research alone is useless 2193876345987630458796305760387562038746508374560283746508237456083746508374605837465209837456028374650823746058273460582735609827360528734650287345602873456q49067194869847692847698246941385608347065187340813705`7201834750`872340873509830658357601385765781698356138659814350823752873562823537650283745602387310380561873451983057173

this presentation

three cases showing the benefits of the

combination of research and design

• LIRR, design of a passenger seat• Faber, design of a factory layout• Comfortable aircraft interiors,

Case 1: Long Island RailRoad trainseat

More info: Bronkhorst & Krause, 2005

2 designers + topexpert (Vink) idea:

comfort in passenger seats could be better

• some experience in office seat design

• marketing:

brochure, publication, presentation, visits (40 seat manufacturers)

• after a year two small projects and one for LIRR was acquired

1. Analysis: 1500 subjects observed2. Selection: most important tasks3. Test: effects in lab of best seats4. Design: ideas for improvement tested in

ergomix 5. Specific design (drawings and mockups)6. Again tests of a feasible selection7. Manufacturing

LIRR: design process

Results of the observations

Anthropometric data + 4 main activities:-sleeping-reading-just sitting/talking-in- and egress really important

Study of the best benchmark (S1) against the now used chair (S0) to come up with ideas

Regular LPD measurements

Even improvements for the best chair

back angledepth of the seatin- egress/arm restback cushion anglearm resthip to knee spacewings stiff cushionsno side head supportstyling

5o

Criterion S1 (best) S2 (new)Entire seatReport mark 6.2 7.3*General preference 16.7% 83.3%Forced choiceGeneral comfort 16.7% 83.3%Preferred for sleeping 27.8% 72.2%Preferred for reading 22.2% 72.2%Preferred for leg space 33.3% 55.6%Table 1: forced choices; * p=0.012

S1 S2ReadingGeneral comfort – +Backrest +/– +Backrest angle +/– ++SleepingGeneral comfort – – +Backrest – – ++Backrest angle – ++Head support – – ++Leg space and leg movementsStretching legs – +Crossing legs – – – –Ingress-egressGeneral ease – +/–Hampering of seat in front – – +/–Easiness of getting up – +Force required +/– +

83% of 20 passengers experience more comfort sitting, reading, sleeping

Case 1 Research

•Observation

•Ergomix

•Several tests with real passengers

Case 1 Design

•Ideas for improvement based on research

•Redesign based on user tests

•Detailed design

this presentation

three cases showing the benefits of the

combination of research and design

• LIRR, design of a passenger seat• Faber, design of a factory layout• Comfortable aircraft interiors,

Case 2: Faber work station design

More information: Van Rhijn et al. (2005)

2 designers + topexpert (again Vink):

assembly work can be improved

• assembly improvement was done before

• Marketing:

workshops with assembly companies on old cases + publication and appointments

• After a year 7 projects a year are done

• Participatory approach

• Stepwise: from analysis to evaluation

• Involve employees, management, engineers and designers

• As direct participation as possible

More info: Vink et al. 2008

Participatory approach

the company

a manufacturer of emergency

light systems.

tremendous increase in market,

so production quantity must increase

the question

• Help us to build a new assembly line in a new production hall

• Reduce the physical work load and increase productivity

• Comfortable for the employees

the design process (participatory)

• A work group leads• Analysis of the assembly process• Inventory of bottlenecks• Target: more production volume• Discussion/choice for assembly concept• Definition of tasks and work places• Lay out, delivery of parts and transport of products• Work places design, tools, equipment

from batch (old) to flow (new)

other result of the new design

New assembly line is so small that it fits in

the existing production hall: no new building

is required!

evaluation goals

old vs new:

• Productivity

• Physical work load (+ LPD)

• Mental work load and job satisfaction

Both assembly systems were in use at the same time, unique possibility

Old situation

New situation

%

Lead time of a batch

(60 products)

2 hours 35 min (2p)

1 hours 12 min (3p)

-46%

Time/person/product 5,2 min 3,6 min -31%

Products/person/day 93,3 134,7 +44%

Required space (m²) 80,5 (4p) 45 (3p) -44%

Required space/person (m²)

20 15 -25%

Products per person per day per m²

4,6 9 +96%

• No diff. in bending of body (green*)• No diff. in neck bending (green-yellow*)• Arm elevation 20-60°: new (19,1% = yellow*) > old

(7,5% = green*)• No diff. in wrist bending (yellow*)• No diff. in rotation of body or in bending sideward

(green*)

* Working postures evaluated with the traffic light system (time determines the permissability (green, yellow, red)

Results Working postures

Job satisfaction in the new situation # yes (of 6)

Improvement towards more pleasant work 5

Improved experienced productivity 6Improved job content 4Improved tasks diversity 5Improved use of work space 6Improved detection of faults 2Reduced work stress / time stress 3Reduced walking with heavy boxes 6

Results Job satisfaction

Conclusion

•New situation: increased productivity•New situation: hazards of lifting reduced•Observed work load of straining postures over one working day hardly changed•New situation: improved job satisfaction

Recommendation

•Present the board that no new building is needed, but investment in the new layout (10% of old budget)•Improve the storage of relatively heavy parts (e.g. batteries), use for instance height adjustable shelves•Increased intensity of work requires:

-Job rotation and sufficient moving-Attention for working methods

Case 2 Research

•Several tests with employees

•Evaluation of productivity and health effects

Case 2 Design

•Good participatory planning/design of the new layout based on research

•Work station participatory designed

•Redesign based on user tests

this presentation

three cases showing the benefits of the

combination of research and design

• LIRR, design of a passenger seat• Faber, design of a factory layout• Comfortable aircraft interiors,

Case 3: Aircraft interior

More information:

Blok et al. (2007), Vink et al. (2007)

20 – 30 years of difference: can you see it?

of course there are changes

•More flying•More companies•More comfort•More differentiation•More possibilities by technology (lighting, entertainment (life TV)) •More transparancy (pitch and comfort scores on internet)•……

Main problems in 11,000 trip reports

2 2,5 3 3,5 4

hygiene

staff attention

climate

noise

IFE

seat w idth

personal space

knee space

luggage bins

in- egress

customs

boarding

checkin

total

% of comfort aspects that 153 participants rated “very poor/poor” on a five point scale:

1=very poor, 2=poor, 3=moderate, 4=good, 5=very good.

main problems

Knee spaceSeat widthPersonal space

However, in case of delay/cancellation/ lost luggage, comfort is also rated low

+ cramped muscles/tired/stiff

Possibility 1

Design: I. Kamp

Possibility 2

Design: I. Kamp

Possibility 3

Design: I. Kamp

What do passengers like?

• 28%, laptop, short trips, cheap tickets, walking for shop/bar

• 42%, cheap tickets, more knee space

• 30%, ideal for sleep, music, noise absorption

Case 3 Research

•Three ways of user research:•Internet reports

•Structured interviews

•Opinions on sketches

Case 3 Design

•Priorities in design

•Ideas for improvement based on research

this presentation

three cases showing the benefits of the

combination of research and design

• LIRR, design of a passenger seat• Faber, design of a factory layout• Comfortable aircraft interiors,

Conclusions

Research:

•observation is essential: focus on activities

•involve employees/management

•measure the effects: clear input for design

Design:

•set priorities based on user demands

•test alternative designs in an early stage

•test detailed design too

Conclusion: guru Vink says:

Better design thought research or design through research or …

should be practiced by you!!!

References

Blok M, Vink P, Kamp I. Comfortabel vliegen: comfort van het vliegtuiginterieur door de ogen van de gebruiker. Tijdschrift voor Ergonomie 2007;32(4):4-11.

Bronkhorst RE, Krause F, Designing Comfortable Passenger Seats, In: Vink P, ed. Comfort and Design: Principles and Good Practice. Boca Raton (etc.): CRC Press, 2005:155-168

Rhijn JW van, Looze MP de, Tuinzaad GH, Groenesteijn L, Groot MD de, Vink P. Changing from batch to flow assembly in the production of emergency lighting devices. International Journal for Production Research 2005;43:3687-3701

Vink P., Porcar-Seder R., Page de Poso A., Krause F. Office chairs are often not adjusted by end-users. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) 51st Annual Meeting, Baltimore, October 1-5, 2007. CD-ROM.

Vink P. I. Kamp, M. Blok, A description of the aircraft interiors study can be found at http://www.io.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=2241219a-ddeb-405c-a2dd-57f54b89cdb4&lang=en