Anthropometry (?)...

[Don Y]

I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

Do designers rely on some smaller (though still large!)
set of general metrics for overall guidance? Or, do they
design experiments to quantify the particular metrics
of interest to them (and their products)?

[This latter seems like it would be incredibly impractical]

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 09:31:27 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

Do designers rely on some smaller (though still large!)
set of general metrics for overall guidance? Or, do they
design experiments to quantify the particular metrics
of interest to them (and their products)?

[This latter seems like it would be incredibly impractical]

We need a data sheet.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 22/05/2023 17:31, Don Y wrote:

I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

The military have some pretty good ones for male and female if you can
find them, but I have no idea about their classification status.

Do designers rely on some smaller (though still large!)
set of general metrics for overall guidance?  Or, do they
design experiments to quantify the particular metrics
of interest to them (and their products)?

[This latter seems like it would be incredibly impractical]

Designers of UK car park alphanumeric keyboards seem to go out of their
way to make ones that are impossible to use unless you have fingers <5mm
diameter. Likewise with displays that you can\'t read in direct sunlight.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:23:46 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

> We need a data sheet.

People who actually use it call it anthropometrics. The question is too broad and bullshitty.

 

[Don Y]

On 5/22/2023 2:03 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 22/05/2023 17:31, Don Y wrote:
I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

The military have some pretty good ones for male and female if you can find
them, but I have no idea about their classification status.

But those would be *metrics* -- results of previous measurement surveys.
You will only find data on things that <someone> decided were worth
measuring.

As such, the more interesting question is metrology -- the measurement
*process*. Deciding when you can rely on an existing measurement
(set of metrics) vs. when the data represented by those measurements
doesn\'t apply to the problem at hand.

Do designers rely on some smaller (though still large!)
set of general metrics for overall guidance?  Or, do they
design experiments to quantify the particular metrics
of interest to them (and their products)?

[This latter seems like it would be incredibly impractical]

Designers of UK car park alphanumeric keyboards seem to go out of their way to
make ones that are impossible to use unless you have fingers <5mm diameter.
Likewise with displays that you can\'t read in direct sunlight.

So, they misapplied existing metrics (I\'m sure, somewhere, there
are data concerning the distribution of fingertip sizes). There
likely also exists data on the readability of particular display
technologies in various lighting conditions.

The designer either failed to map his choices onto the existing
data *or* failed to appreciate that the existing data didn\'t cover
his use case.

E.g., the handle of a screwdriver should adhere to the shaft under
loads that approach/exceed the amount of torque that a nominal
human can exert -- before the tip fails (any torque exceeding that
would be wasted).

There\'s probably data indicating how small an item a person can reliably
pick up. And, how large. (both irrespective of weight) And, *maybe*
something that indicates the load that can be held -- in various
positions -- for various durations.

[E.g., the \"70 pound\" figure likely didn\'t come out of thin air]

But, I doubt there\'s data (20 year old) indicating the amount of
force that a user would be expected to apply to a touchpad of
varying technologies. Or, characterizing the deformation of the
fingertip at those forces (over time).

So, this suggests folks needing data that doesn\'t SEEM to be
directly applicable from existing metrics would have to invent
their own experiments/surveys to catalog that data. The obvious
way of doing this is to round up an assortment (for some notion
of \"assortment\") of likely users/customers and \"measure\" their
abilities as related to your specific needs.

This has got to be costly. And, never really authoritative
as you often can\'t imagine all of the LIKELY customers/users
that you may eventually encounter. (plus you have to design
and stage the experiment!)

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 22:03:05 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/05/2023 17:31, Don Y wrote:
I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

The military have some pretty good ones for male and female if you can
find them, but I have no idea about their classification status.

The US Military does have a publicly available handbook on this, and
the UK will have a like (or identical?) handbook. It\'s called human
factors or the like (don\'t recall the precise name), and it contains
much measured data summarized in probability distributions. A typical
requirement is to design from the male 95th percentile to the female
5th percentile.

Found it:

\"MIL-STD-1472F, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DESIGN CRITERIA STANDARD: HUMAN
ENGINEERING (23 AUG 1999)., This standard establishes general human
engineering criteria for design and development of military systems,
equipment, and facilities. Its purpose is to present human engineering
design criteria, principles, and practices to be applied in the design
of systems, equipment, and facilities. \"

Do designers rely on some smaller (though still large!)
set of general metrics for overall guidance?  Or, do they
design experiments to quantify the particular metrics
of interest to them (and their products)?

[This latter seems like it would be incredibly impractical]

Designers of UK car park alphanumeric keyboards seem to go out of their
way to make ones that are impossible to use unless you have fingers <5mm
diameter. Likewise with displays that you can\'t read in direct sunlight.

We have the same genius designers here. Nor do they seem to be able
to make a reliable card reader.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Don Y]

On 5/22/2023 3:36 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2023 22:03:05 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/05/2023 17:31, Don Y wrote:
I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

The military have some pretty good ones for male and female if you can
find them, but I have no idea about their classification status.

The US Military does have a publicly available handbook on this, and
the UK will have a like (or identical?) handbook. It\'s called human
factors or the like (don\'t recall the precise name), and it contains
much measured data summarized in probability distributions. A typical
requirement is to design from the male 95th percentile to the female
5th percentile.

Found it:

\"MIL-STD-1472F, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DESIGN CRITERIA STANDARD: HUMAN
ENGINEERING (23 AUG 1999)., This standard establishes general human
engineering criteria for design and development of military systems,
equipment, and facilities. Its purpose is to present human engineering
design criteria, principles, and practices to be applied in the design
of systems, equipment, and facilities. \"

There are other related documents that similarly address practices, etc.

But, the information available in these (and lots of other, similar) documents
are too general. And, you can\'t make inferences about metrics that haven\'t
previously been tabulated. You can infer how a diode will work in
a completely new application based on data characterizing its performance.
People aren\'t as easily \"summarized\" (even *a* person)

How much force can a person be expected to *comfortably* exert to
actuate a control? (imagine folks with arthritic hands/fingers)

How much force should be required to ensure a control isn\'t
accidentally actuated? (imagine parkinsonian/essential tremor)

How \"fine\" the motor skills to invoke a mechanism? (imagine a young child
invoking an \"emergency alert\" or position a pointing device)

Calculator vs. phone keypad? QWERTY/AZERTY/Dvorak/etc.? (and
characteristics vary depending on how reified -- try typing on
a membrane keypad vs. discrete switch vs. touchpad vs. ...)

[This last being a mix of anthropometric and cultural issues]

etc.

You need to *gather* the data (vs. looking up published *metrics*)
to address specific needs. Or, make hopeful guesses...

How often have you seen informal and /ad hoc/ \"meetings\" where folks
poke at a prototype and come to a decision based on their limited
data points? I guess it\'s not worthy of an \"engineered\" solution!?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 23/05/2023 23:26, Don Y wrote:

On 5/22/2023 3:36 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 22:03:05 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/05/2023 17:31, Don Y wrote:
I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

The military have some pretty good ones for male and female if you can
find them, but I have no idea about their classification status.

The US Military does have a publicly available handbook on this, and
the UK will have a like (or identical?) handbook.  It\'s called human
factors or the like (don\'t recall the precise name), and it contains
much measured data summarized in probability distributions.  A typical
requirement is to design from the male 95th percentile to the female
5th percentile.

Found it:

\"MIL-STD-1472F, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DESIGN CRITERIA STANDARD: HUMAN
ENGINEERING (23 AUG 1999)., This standard establishes general human
engineering criteria for design and development of military systems,
equipment, and facilities. Its purpose is to present human engineering
design criteria, principles, and practices to be applied in the design
of systems, equipment, and facilities. \"

There are other related documents that similarly address practices, etc.

But, the information available in these (and lots of other, similar)
documents
are too general.  And, you can\'t make inferences about metrics that haven\'t
previously been tabulated.  You can infer how a diode will work in
a completely new application based on data characterizing its performance.
People aren\'t as easily \"summarized\" (even *a* person)

OTOH enough of the main characteristics are similar enough that you can
avoid making gross mistakes by following the MIL spec guidelines.

How much force can a person be expected to *comfortably* exert to
actuate a control?  (imagine folks with arthritic hands/fingers)

That is another can of worms. Many child proof caps on pill bottles are
also impossible for people with arthritic fingers to open (as are some
of the anti tamper seals on eg bottled water for normal fit adults).

How much force should be required to ensure a control isn\'t
accidentally actuated?  (imagine parkinsonian/essential tremor)

There are guidelines on haptic devices and their feedback. I found some
active haptic feedback on my hire car most disconcerting.

How \"fine\" the motor skills to invoke a mechanism?  (imagine a young child
invoking an \"emergency alert\" or position a pointing device)

It depends on the age of the child - look at toys designed for different
ages if you want to get an idea of what works and what doesn\'t.

Calculator vs. phone keypad?   QWERTY/AZERTY/Dvorak/etc.?  (and
characteristics vary depending on how reified -- try typing on
a membrane keypad vs. discrete switch vs. touchpad vs. ...)

[This last being a mix of anthropometric and cultural issues]

I grew up with QWERTY and can touch type on it have lived in countries
with AZERTY keyboards and always had to look for some rarely used
letters but could still by the end of it type on them pretty well. It
didn\'t help that I still used QWERTY at home.

You need to *gather* the data (vs. looking up published *metrics*)
to address specific needs.  Or, make hopeful guesses...

How often have you seen informal and /ad hoc/ \"meetings\" where folks
poke at a prototype and come to a decision based on their limited
data points?  I guess it\'s not worthy of an \"engineered\" solution!?

The usual one is that dead flesh keyboards may be wonderfully wipe clean
and neat but they are horrible to use for significant data entry.

IOW OK for the occasional interaction but nothing more.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 5/24/2023 2:12 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 23/05/2023 23:26, Don Y wrote:
On 5/22/2023 3:36 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 22:03:05 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 22/05/2023 17:31, Don Y wrote:
I recall seeing references regarding *certain* aspects of
human body characteristics -- height, weight, hand size,
etc. -- that were used in industrial design of equipment
and interfaces.

But, it seems to me, that the number of such *potential*
metrics is really only limited by the imagination (e.g.,
how much weight can a person support on an outstretched
arm; how much pressure can a person apply with a finger
tip; etc.)

[i.e., \"abilities\" instead of \"characteristics\"]

So, it seems likely that there isn\'t One Grand Reference
for all this stuff.

The military have some pretty good ones for male and female if you can
find them, but I have no idea about their classification status.

The US Military does have a publicly available handbook on this, and
the UK will have a like (or identical?) handbook.  It\'s called human
factors or the like (don\'t recall the precise name), and it contains
much measured data summarized in probability distributions.  A typical
requirement is to design from the male 95th percentile to the female
5th percentile.

Found it:

\"MIL-STD-1472F, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DESIGN CRITERIA STANDARD: HUMAN
ENGINEERING (23 AUG 1999)., This standard establishes general human
engineering criteria for design and development of military systems,
equipment, and facilities. Its purpose is to present human engineering
design criteria, principles, and practices to be applied in the design
of systems, equipment, and facilities. \"

There are other related documents that similarly address practices, etc.

But, the information available in these (and lots of other, similar) documents
are too general.  And, you can\'t make inferences about metrics that haven\'t
previously been tabulated.  You can infer how a diode will work in
a completely new application based on data characterizing its performance.
People aren\'t as easily \"summarized\" (even *a* person)

OTOH enough of the main characteristics are similar enough that you can avoid
making gross mistakes by following the MIL spec guidelines.

Depending on the population you\'re addressing and the way you are
extrapolating the data...

How much force can a person be expected to *comfortably* exert to
actuate a control?  (imagine folks with arthritic hands/fingers)

That is another can of worms. Many child proof caps on pill bottles are also
impossible for people with arthritic fingers to open (as are some of the anti
tamper seals on eg bottled water for normal fit adults).

Yet the size and force constraints would be deemed \"appropriate\"
for the populations identified in those documents. Because the
documents don\'t reflect how those populations \"age\".

[I\'ve a friend who proudly told me he was working out with
ONE POUND weights! I laughed thinking it a reference to
\"twelve ounce curls\" (the weight of a can of beer weighing)
only to discover that he really meant one pound weights!
I guess strength falls off rapidly as the population ages
(for folks who haven\'t taken steps to preserve it!)]

[[Is there a metric that explains why old folks can\'t
look over their shoulder while driving??]]

How much force should be required to ensure a control isn\'t
accidentally actuated?  (imagine parkinsonian/essential tremor)

There are guidelines on haptic devices and their feedback. I found some active
haptic feedback on my hire car most disconcerting.

How \"fine\" the motor skills to invoke a mechanism?  (imagine a young child
invoking an \"emergency alert\" or position a pointing device)

It depends on the age of the child - look at toys designed for different ages
if you want to get an idea of what works and what doesn\'t.

\"It depends\" is entirely my point. How did the designers of those
items come to realize the constraints appropriate for them? Not
by consulting a book/standard but, rather, by empirical observation.
Effectively conducting their own surveys of \"user capabilities\".

Calculator vs. phone keypad?   QWERTY/AZERTY/Dvorak/etc.?  (and
characteristics vary depending on how reified -- try typing on
a membrane keypad vs. discrete switch vs. touchpad vs. ...)

[This last being a mix of anthropometric and cultural issues]

I grew up with QWERTY and can touch type on it have lived in countries with
AZERTY keyboards and always had to look for some rarely used letters but could
still by the end of it type on them pretty well. It didn\'t help that I still
used QWERTY at home.

But you still had expectations for what to find approximately-where.

I went to make an adhesive label with a caret (\'^\') in the text,
yesterday. Only to discover that the character can not be created
by the labelmaker! And, on close examination of the positions
of the non-alphabetic glyphs, realized that they were \"all wrong\".
E.g. SHIFT-6 was \"\'\", tilde was missing -- as was \'+\'/\'=\', and
both angle-brackets, SHIFT-_ was \'\"\', SHIFT-, was \'?\' while
SHIFT-. was \'/\', etc.

Another device had the digits assigned to the top row of keys with
a special \"shift\" action. Other keys had punctuation characters
similarly assigned.

[ObTrivia: What ten-letter word can be typed on the top row of keys?]

A third had the keys arranged alphabetically (when is this EVER right?)

Granted, one doesn\'t expect to type \"at speed\" on such devices.
But, I spent a fair bit of time examining all the keys AND all
of the \"modes\" in an attempt to locate \'^\' -- to no avail!
The sheer number of keys on the keypad and their arrangement would
never have led me to imagine that it wouldn\'t BE there!

You need to *gather* the data (vs. looking up published *metrics*)
to address specific needs.  Or, make hopeful guesses...

How often have you seen informal and /ad hoc/ \"meetings\" where folks
poke at a prototype and come to a decision based on their limited
data points?  I guess it\'s not worthy of an \"engineered\" solution!?

The usual one is that dead flesh keyboards may be wonderfully wipe clean and
neat but they are horrible to use for significant data entry.

But, one would assume the fingertip size distribution would allow
one to design appropriately sized keys! I can type reliably on
a phone\'s mechanical (or touch) keypad despite the keys being
a fraction of a fingertip-size. Yet, on a membrane keypad,
would need something considerably LARGER than a fingertip-size
to even hope to get the keystrokes correct! And, the stiffer the
material, the truer the statement! (e.g., the keys on our
microwave oven are exactly the same size as the keycaps on this
keyboard -- but, have a relatively light actuating force so
using it doesn\'t leave you feeling ham-fisted.

OTOH, I\'ve designed maritime products where the keys were twice
the width and height in order to be reliably operated (because
they had such high actuating forces suited to their operators!)

The hidden problem with such technologies is the user has no
way of determining if the interface is \"broken\" or just
\"unresponsive\" to HIS actions. \"Gee, the STOP button doesn\'t
seem to be working (perhaps because it has been overused?).
Let\'s see if RUN works... Yup, that did it! Shit, now how
do I *STOP* it???\"

But, in no case can I recall anything other than an informal
\"what-do-YOU-think\" approach to making those decisions. Never
any \"engineering\".

IOW OK for the occasional interaction  but nothing more.