Nathaniel Hanson and Dr. Richard Fry, Industrial Design
Industrial designers must balance a wide array of factors in their creation of useful products. The most important of these factors include functionality, reliability, and aesthetics, as well as market factors such as cost. Over the course of the last century, designers and design engineers have been increasingly compelled to adapt their designs to the varied physiological characteristics of the consumer. The growth of disabled populations, increased international trade, and greater understanding of human thought processes further necessitate and complicate accurate, representative anthropometric data tabulation and ‘ergonomic’ design in general.
Our first sophomore project last fall entailed the creation of a hand tool prototype of some sort, with the overt requirement that it be comfortable to use among a whole range of our friends, both male and female, and ambidextrously useable as well, if possible. Lacking any significant understanding of human anatomy and desiring some sort of reference point from which to begin, I hypothesized that reference to anthropometric models showing the varied dimensions of the human hand and their range within the US population would facilitate the creation of effective ‘ergonomically comfortable’ designs by eliminating inadequate attempts at an earlier stage.
Useful anthropometric data is found primarily in two sources: in an extensive 1978 NASA compilation of generally military worldwide data, and in the excellent, concise works of Alvin Tilley, with Henry Dreyfuss Associates, which restricts the NASA data to a domestic, civilian scale. The pertinent data is divided among the male and female populations of the US, and then extrapolated to include all those between the smallest one percent and the largest one percent of each, thereby representing fully 98 percent of the adult domestic population1.
Ultimately, however, comparison of Henry Dreyfuss Associates’ The Measure of Man and Woman2 to all other available data reveals that the principal objective of my proposal, the creation of a series of 2D diagrams of the hand, has already been quite adequately completed therein. The data nonetheless describes only the outer dimensions of the hand, and I have been unable to find any data quantitatively describing precise ranges of motion or, alternatively, internal musculoskeletal structure or nervous and circulatory systems, let alone any variation across the spectrum of a population.
I’ve also come to recognize a few difficulties regarding prototyping efforts using anthropometric models. Simply, a quick high-density foam prototype is difficult to relate to digital models. Even if physical reproductions of the models are made, the variety of motions of which the hand is capable will necessitate the use of alternative materials in a model and would entail extensive additional efforts to attempt to reproduce a functional hand. Therefore, a digital model will probably only be useful in the creation of a digital prototype, which at this point in time is of a very limited usefulness in the design program. Further, the degree to which either the physical or the digital models provide superior ergonomic forms has yet to be firmly established, if in fact there is any quality or time-saving advantage over foam prototyping.
I therefore intend to communicate with those firms specializing in anthropometry-based ergonomic design, including Anthrotech (Webb Associates) of Yellow Springs, OH, who helped compile the NASA data, and Metaphase of St. Louis, MO, whom I have unsuccessfully contacted as yet, to determine their methodology in ergonomic design and their procedures, if any, for interfacing digital and physical models. In addition to them, I plan to survey a few additional design firms3, such as Palo Alto-based IDEO, as a preliminary study of anthropometry-based ergonomic design from a business standpoint. IDEO has been called America’s leading design firm, and it considers prototyping “the shorthand of innovation”4, the essential ‘iterative process’ whereby inadequate designs are eliminated via an exercise in Darwinian exploration. If, as I anticipate, there are significant differences between the anthropometry-based design process and the prototyping design process, I will proceed to compare the two using scatter plots, specifically weighing ergonomic design investments against profits and changes in the product life cycle. Ultimately I intend to identify under which circumstances each method should be used.
I anticipate that most, if not all, of the contacted firms will take advantage of the opportunity to contribute to an educational understanding of effective design practices. This study will allow me to make a general assessment of the appropriateness of anthropometry-based design curriculum within the BYU Industrial Design major, especially given time and resource limitations therein. As originally proposed, the results of my research will be made available to the industrial design students upon completion, as will at least one copy of The Measure of Man and Woman. If my results merit even mentioning, they will add to the existing well roundedness of BYU’s design students, and increase their marketability accordingly.
__________________________
1 Uppermost 99 % – lowest 1 % = middle 98 %.
2 I was initially unable to locate a copy, but am now aware it is readily available via Amazon.com.
3 I will consult Dr. Gale Bryce of the BYU Statistics Dept. (my Stat 221H professor) as necessary.
4 Kelley, Tom. The Art of Innovation. New York: Currency, 2001.