Overview

Inclusive design (or universal design) and ergonomics:

Inclusive design shares the same goals as ergonomic design but adds a social agenda - social justice, accomodating diversity, etc.
Ergonomics as a science focuses on understanding relationships
Ergonomic design focuses on similar outcomes as inclusive design - e.g. safety, health, usability, convenience, etc.
But does not necessarily include the social justice perspective, e.g. could focus on how to improve warfare and directed against a particular population or to increase profits of employers through higher productivity of workers
In this course we will approach ergonomic design as serving the goals of inclusive design - "more benefits for more people in more situations"
We will also see how inclusive design is emerging as an important focus of ergonomics due to greater understanding of usability issues

Automated doors as an example:

Automated doors were not developed simply for convenience. The original goals is to move large numbers of people quickly through a narrow opening
The desire for speed and efficiency introduces some safety considerations that have to be addressed with ergonomic design:
- Direction of door swing
- Speed and force of closing
- Warning signs
- Side protection on swinging doors
- Emergency egress when there is a power failure
- etc.
Experience with automated doors demonstrated their further value for accessibility
Inclusive design goals were then introduced - mandated use automation to reduce door opening force resistance
Article demonsrates that there are further design goals that could be pursued beyond minimum accessibility code requirements
How did we identify all the ergonomic factors of concern?
- Through task analysis - detailed analysis of the tasks of using automatic doors
- Framed by a conceptual framework of inclusive design, e.g. 7 Principles
- Research through a study of existing products and interviews with facilities managers
Best practices in inclusive design identified in the article, e.g.
- All public buildings should have one automated door at accessible entrances
- Use bi-parting with motion sensor systems and microprocessor control where affordable and feasible
- Interface for remotes and ECS systems
- Etc.
Implications
- Maintenance costs
- Cold weather issues

The central core activity of ergonomic design is Task Analysis

Ergonomic Design for Defecation - Kira

Basic activities
- Partially disrobing
- Squatting - full squat is best for elimination as opposed to conventional seating
- Voiding
- Holding the position
- Getting up
Modifying factors
- Gender differences - anatomy, clothing, footwear
- Aging - size, squatting ability, rising ability, endurance
- Culture - psychological resistance
Conclusions
- Three alternative approaches - inclined bowl, stirrups and low bowl
- Ruled out two due to gender differences and aging issues
Research
- Design issues
  - Attitudes - perceived sanitariness, comfort, etc.
  - Height of seat - height of full squat (controlled observations)
  - Contour of seat - support by thighs and pelvic bone structure (ischial tuberosities) -
  - Shape of seat - male/female differences in anatomy and positions, accommodate urination,
  - Size of seat
- Research domains
  - Anatomy
  - Anthropometry
  - Comfort (biomechanics)
  - Attitudes
  - Sources - survey, anthropmetric data, seating research, direct observations
Design
- Seat height: 9-11 inches
- Seat contour: sloped sides to reduce pressure on points and to provide friction in spreading buttocks, curved up in front to contain urination
- Seat shape - max opening to provide support to ischail tuberosities, reduce fear of soiling, room for wiping, penis clearance, straddling clearance
- Other issues
  - Accessory items, e.g. control and tissue location, ash tray, magazine rack, etc.
  - Installation
  - Maintenance

Ergonomic Design for Urination - Kira

Basic activities
- Vary greatly for women and men
- Women can be accommodated by the same fixture as for defecation
- Men find extreme convenience by standing
  - Partially unrobing
  - Directing the stream of urine
  - Voiding
Modifying factors
- Age
- Health
- Intoxication (e.g. disability)
Research
- Design issues
  - Attitudes - convenience of standing posture for men and sitting posture for women, noise
  - Characteristics of urine stream is the key design issue
    - Velocity determines arc
    - Stream disintegrates at a point
    - Pattern of dispersion
    - Difficult to predict the initial point of of impact accurately
    - Corrective maneuvers used to adjust trajectory after voiding begins
  - Water closet is a poor target - splash, initial inaccuracy, distance of target, etc.
- Research domains
  - Anatomy - gender differences in urinary function
  - Anthropometry - observation and measurement of simulated male urine stream
  - Attitudes - survey
Design guidelines
- Target - intercept stream before disintegration
- Large enough target
- Noisless
- Contain back splash
Design
- Size
  - Front lip 24 in. from floor
  - Min. opening of 10 in. x 10 in.
- Shape - funnel
- Angle of 40-50 degrees
- Walls with concave shape
- Obvious target
- Other issues - controls, space (hinged above water closet)

Limitations of Kira's Analysis and Design