Tools and methods used by industrial designers for product dimensioning

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102844

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Tools and methods used by industrial designers for product dimensioning Ranger F. , S. Vezeau, M. Lortie

T

∗

Groupe 3D, Université Du Québec à Montréal C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3P8, Canada

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Industrial design Anthropometry Design software Dimensioning help tools Dimensioning activity DHM

Industrial designers often take part in dimensioning activities that require anthropometric data. However, little is known about the data, tools and processes used. Hence, this study focused on documenting process. Telephone interviews were conducted with 82 industrial designers involved in the dimensioning of 4 types of objects (vehicles, furniture, tools, and sports equipment). Questions focused on data, tools employed, existing dimensioning activities and difficulties encountered. Results indicate that designers give preference to dated documentation and simple tools. The tools that integrate anthropometric data and recommendations related to the use of the product seem to be appreciated. Considered too costly and complex, Digital Human Models are seldom used. The formats of human representations varied according to the class of the product to be developed. Various artefacts are produced throughout the dimensioning process. The designers regularly take measurements of their own, on themselves or others. Potential areas for improvement are presented.

1. Introduction Numerous cases of industrial products, being poorly sized or having unsuitable fitting adjustments, have been recorded in the literature, in multiple fields, from products-tools (Catapan et al., 2015; Hsiao et al., 2015; Wiklund et al., 2006), to driver cabs (Hsiao et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2003) to computer workstations (Pentikis et al., 2002). The problems reported are varied in nature, such as the poor grip (Wiklund et al., 2006), insufficient access to controls (Wang et al., 2003), reduced visibility (Wang et al., 2003), and insufficient clearing space (Hsiao et al., 2005). All of these can lead to consequences such as a higher incidence of musculoskeletal problems, safety hazards and lower work efficiency. Accurate and appropriate anthropometric data is important for ergonomists and industrial designers, the former being more involved in the design of work stations (but not exclusively) and the latter in the dimensioning of objects. Hence, the interface of anthropometric data books and tools is an important issue. Certain problems can be found in the literature regarding anthropometric data. A first problem relates to the gap between the data sought and the data that are available. This is particularly evident when the database does not correspond to the populations targeted by the designers: obesity/atypical measurement (Reed et al., 2014), immigration/ethnicity (Jiang et al., 2016), and aging population (El Menceur et al., 2008). Measurements such as head shape are difficult to find (Rogers et al., 2008). Also, although tools developed such as Digital Human Modeling (DHM) allow better contextualizing (e.g., postures can

∗

be modified in many ways), data provided is not sufficiently placed in a relationship with a context or task (Gyi et al., 2004), (Blanchonette, 2006). In addition, the more a designer increases the number of segments based on aggregated data, the more particular individuals are excluded (Porter et al., 2004). A second problem is the difficulties encountered in finding data. The scattering of data is one cause of making finding (Gyi et al., 2004), but also interpreting more difficult data (Burns et al., 1997). Different tools exist to overcome these difficulties, but their access is limited. For example, standards or certain specialized books provide contextualised and grouped data, the values of which have been interpreted to a certain degree. However, only a few sectors have developed standards, the vehicle sector having the most of them, and one reason for this is that the most recent anthropometric survey using three-dimensional (3D) body scanners (Robinette and Daanen, 2006), such as CAESAR, is expensive. A third problem ensues from the level of expertise or skills needed to work with new tools and software. For example, the statistical processing of data obtained from digitization requires specialized knowledge (Hsiao et al., 2005). Also, generating a posture with DHM, articulation by articulation, is quite time consuming (Lämkull et al., 2008) as is creating mannequins with atypical measurements. Finally, a fourth problem reported in the literature is that the formats of presentation are ill-suited to the work of designers (Nickpour and Dong, 2011). For example, 2D mannequins do not provide sufficient representation of the volume occupied and an important data in design (Troy and Guerin, 2004). Oftentimes, designers will find it difficult to transfer generic data to specific situations (Porter et al.,

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Ranger).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102844 Received 3 August 2018; Received in revised form 25 July 2019; Accepted 5 September 2019 0169-8141/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102844

F. Ranger, et al.

2004). Usually, designers develop artefacts during the process of conception which are either tangible, like mock-ups or prototypes, or virtual, as with CAD (computer-aided design). These artefacts may be used as a validation tool or to complete missing anthropometric data (Nickpour and Dong, 2011; Dong et al., 2009). In the same way, subjects may be used to validate artefacts, but possibly also to capture data. In both cases, it is important to better understand the means used by designers to integrate anthropometric data or considerations during the process of dimensioning, the strategies used to overcome the various difficulties experienced and to see how the needs are related to the type of product targeted. As a typical design process implies a series of back-and-forth (Lebahar, 2007), it also appears important to better target the integration of these data within a temporal frame. According to a study by Dong et al. (2015), anthropometric data sources are used mostly during exploration and development phases. However, other ‘sources’ of data may be used. Moreover to this, a lot of new tools are involved and how anthropometric data are integrated is not yet fully understood. Therefore, this study aimed to document the data, tools and methods used by industrial designers to carry out their dimensioning activities throughout the development process, in order to better assess their needs and possibly discover how these needs could be met more precisely.

Table 1 Typology of projects undertaken (n = 142) and their distribution according to the designers’ place of work (n = 82). Type of project

Targeted Transportation* Furniture Sports equipment Tools Other Electronic products*** Medical products *** Diverse (e.g, lighting, toys)

Employer Self-employed (30%)

Design studio (43%)

Manufacturing sector (27%)

22% 20% 13% 7%

23% 25% 28% 57%

58% 36% 61% 29%

19% 39% 11% 14%

14%

30%

70%

0%

11% 13%

12% 33%

88% 57%

0% 10%

*p < 0,1; ***p < 0,01.

2.3. Interview and data analysis The survey was mostly of a closed type (yes-no or selection of an item) and consisted of three series of questions: the tools used, the anthropometric data sought, the sizing activity. Items were proposed and the designers were systematically invited to add items as needed and to comment on their answers as they wished. Pre-tests interviews were conducted with seven designers, and suggested items were added. The first set of questions on tools (n = 18) explored which were accessible and their using frequency of use (regularly, occasionally, rarely, never). The reference period was the last six months prior to the interview. Four types of tools were explored: (I) books or human scales, (II) Digital Human Model (DHM) and its type of use (3 items), (III) CAD software (3D and 2D). The proposed list was based on what is usually taught or used in design programs or mentioned by designers in pre-test or previous interviews. The second set of questions, on the measurements sought, referred to the last project conducted to know what was sought (segment and type of measurement; e.g., circumferences, length), the difficulties met (e.g., identifying what measurement was sought or finding a specific measure) and the sources of dissatisfaction on what is found (e.g., out-dated). The designer was also asked to choose three words among a list of 5 words - and was allowed to propose another word more suitable to his experience - such as positive (e.g., easy, useful) and negative (e.g., complicated, difficult). Those words are fairly useful to point out the main incentives or barriers to an anthropometric data search. The third set of questions was centered on the sizing activity conducted in the framework of the four types of products targeted in this study (n = 113 projects). In each case, the designer was specifically questioned on the tools and methods used (e.g., 2D study, mock-up, measurement on colleagues) and their chronology. The interviewer first verified what was used and then established the sequence with the designer. An ethics certificate was obtained. Analyses were mainly descriptive (occurrence and percentages).

2. Material and methodology Phone interviews were carried out with 82 designers working on a regular basis in industrial product design. The interviews focused on four types of products: vehicles, furniture, manual tools and sports equipments, which typically involve a considerable amount of dimensioning. The first two products usually include the entire body, while the two others imply only a portion or segment. 2.1. Identification and characteristics of participants A preliminary list was drawn up using three sources. The first two were nominal (industrial designers of the Quebec Association and industrial designers listed in the virtual directory Yellowpage.ca). The third one listed enterprises involved in industrial design services and one of the products targeted (Quebec enterprise repertory; iCRIQ). Of the 230 persons or organisations contacted, 188 led to a successful contact. To be retained, the respondent had to be involved in product design activities on a daily basis and have some training in design: 93 did not qualify and 13 refused to participate in the study. The greater part (58%) of the 82 designers questioned had more than 15 years of experience in product development (< 5: 10%; 5 to 15: 32%). They had a bachelor's degree in industrial design (71%) or a technical diploma in industrial design (26%); 13% had a postgraduate degree, and 6% ergonomics training. They worked mostly in the context of a small structure: a design studio (43%) or as independent designers (30%). The other designers (27%) worked in a manufacturing company (≥500 persons). 2.2. Projects undertaken

3. Results

Designers were asked to indicate the type of products they had worked with during the last year (see Table 1). Of the 142 products named, 62% concerned one of the four targeted products, of which 42% were a vehicle or piece of furniture. Sixty-five percent reported that their practice was centered in one sector (two sectors: 12%; ≥ three sectors: 22%). Most projects were subcontracted to a design studio, except for the tools, which more frequently involved a self-employed designer. The furniture sector employs its own designers more than any other sector.

3.1. Anthropometric data tools 3.1.1. References used: human scales, books and other sources Seventy-eight percent of the designers still had and used - more ‘occasionally’ than ‘regularly’- reference source books of human scales, edited 25–40 years ago, such as Diffrient et al. (1981) human scales (see Table 2). They find them useful at the beginning of a project: “Even if the information is outdated, we have to start somewhere”. The designers (22%) using no source books explained that they did not feel a 2

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102844

F. Ranger, et al.

Table 2 Anthropometric source books owned and used by the 82 designers. Have

Utilization Regular

The Measure of Man and Woman (Tilley, 1993) The Human Scale (Diffrient et al., 1981) Human Dimension & Interior Space (Panero and Zelnik, 1979) Total(n = 64) Other sources mentioned by designers Standards (vehicle and furniture) Specific study (head - hand - feet) Other general books Data from a previous project Specialized book car Total(n = 21)

Table 3 The dimensioning activity (n = 76 projects): Data sought, difficulties and sources of dissatisfaction, global experience.

Occasional

Measurement soughta

Rare/ Never

51%

28%

36%

36%

28%

31%

52%

17%

26%

24%

38%

38%

78%

28%

41%

31%

11% 9% 4% 2% 2% 26%

56% 57% – 100% – 48%

22% 43% 33% – 100% 35%

22% – 66% – – 17%

Segment Upper limb Lower limb Hand Head Foot Difficulty met for finding What measurement sought The measurement soughta For a specific population: 23% A specific data (e.g., finger circumference): 18% None Project simple, little ergonomics impact: 16% Global experienceb Positive Useful Important Profitable Interesting Easy Other word suggested: mandatory, unavoidable, relevant, essential, rewarding.

necessity for such a practice. This could be because the dimension issue was seen as accessory (e.g., products used on a short time basis), or other sources used (e.g., measurements taken on another product). In addition, a variety of other data sources - 21 - were mentioned. They consisted mostly of specialised sources, which were reported as being used more regularly than the former ones. The most popular data sources were the published standards (essentially for furniture and vehicles; e.g., ANSI/BIFMA X5.5, 2008 for desk products, BNQ 1013110, 2007 for ambulances). They are seen as more up-to-date, better adapted to their needs, well recognized; the inclusion of recommendations is appreciated. Incidentally, the few participants who mentioned the Society of Automotive Engineering standards found them too harsh and complicated. Another popular source is the specialized studies published on specific segments (e.g., Farkas (1994) for the head, Liu (2008) paper on the ear). Overall, 37% kept one data source reference, 24% kept two, 7% kept three,10% more and 22% none.

a b

58% 47% 26% 21% 8% 64% 44%

22%

80% 61% 39% 32% 13% 13%

Measurement Length Reaching distance Field of view Joint angle Circumference Source of dissatisfaction Not useful Out-dated Standards are more reliable: 15% Not contextual enough

Negative Complicated Time consuming Cost Uninteresting Useless Other words suggested: discouraging, doubtful, not friendly, nothingness, incomplete, outdated, insufficient, inexistent

88% 41% 39% 36% 30% 66% 25%

19%

36% 22% 12% 1% 0% 13%

Explanations added. Designer could pick out up to 3terms.

3.1.3. The experience of searching data The upper limb dominates as a segment of interest (58%; see Table 3). However, about 25% of the designers sought data on a segment usually less covered in databases, such as the hand and the head. Almost all designers sought length data, but a significant proportion, about a third, sought circumferences (e.g., of fingers for hockey or baseball gloves; head for helmets), joint angle (e.g., for to determine the optimal space for moving items and the location and size of the scanner for a supermarket cashier counter) or field of view (e.g., up and down/ maximum and minimum values to delineate the size of a goggle frame; for the driving angle in the context of a raised seat for a postal vehicle to delineate the windshield position). A large majority, 78% of the designers, had difficulty finding the right data. Two third of them found hard to identify what anthropometric measurements was needed to size a product (e.g., to determine the positioning of the brake command on a wheelchair, the reaching distance to the patient's heart on a stretcher when the paramedic is ‘seat belted’ in the ambulance) and 44% in finding the data sought. It could be in regard to a population targeted (e.g., Asian male head width, depth and circumference for a hockey helmet; atypical morphology such as long torso with short legs to determine the seat/handles/pedal crank position). They would appreciate to have data according to geographical territory or a precise market. It could also be in terms of specific measurements sought (e.g., forearm-center of grip length to position a joystick; index-finger reach to place a control). The 22% of the designers experiencing no difficulty mentioned that the project was rather quite simple or only had a few ergonomics issues (e.g., design of a broom handle). The main source of dissatisfaction was the uselessness of data found rather than their possible out-dating or lack of contextualisation (66% vs. 25 vs. 19%). In these two latter cases, designers commented that standard sources, seen as more reliable, were a good alternative, easier to understand and appreciated because the data were bound together (e.g., reaching distance, visual field, posture), contextualised and ‘ready

3.1.2. Digital human modeling software Seventeen percent of the designers (n = 14) had access to a human representation. Three-dimensional manikins are also referred as Digital Human Model. The DHM may be divided into two categories according that they are centered on the integration of anthropometric data and on the production of photorealistic human representation. In the latter case, dimensions may be difficult to modify. Eight designers used the first type of DHM, (Pro-E: 4, Mannequin PRO: 2, CATIA: 2) and six the second type (Poser: 5, Maya: 1). Poser is particularly appreciated for the rendering for final presentations to the client. Three designers used alternative or homemade systems. One developed a homemade 3D solution and two others used Ergo Form (v1.0:2). It is not really a DHM, but it may be integrated in CAD system, a cheaper solution than DHM software, and used for presentations. In one case, the designer combined in fact 2D projections to obtain some kind of 3D representation. If for the majority of the designers (n = 11), the purpose of using the DHM was that the sizing of the product (especially for vehicles) and his using as a presentation tool (n = 8) was nevertheless almost as important. The fact that DHM may provide data on human capacity retained less interest (n = 4) from them. All designers stated that the price of DHM was deterrent and 94% of them mentioned that the manipulation of mannequin postures was long and fastidious. Three pointed out that the DHM did not allow to take into account some aspects seen as important (e.g., data on the compressibility of the seat when sit, to estimate the height of the steering wheel or the windshield). The users of mannequins PRO and CATIA found the evaluation modules complicated and lacking customary vocabular. 3

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102844

F. Ranger, et al.

complex surfaces. Among the 21 software listed, three of them are dominant: the parametric SolidWorks (61%) and AutoCAD (43%) and the surfacing Rhino 3D (39%). Nevertheless, AutoCAD 2D appears to be on the decline as 71% of its owners use it only occasionally or ignore it. Almost all the software mentioned were parametric. As shown in Table 4, the designers additionally own and use an areopagus of specialised software. Some software may be used jointly. For instance, 38% of the SolidWorks owners used it with Rhino 3D to combine the two functionalities. CATIA software, which may be completed with a DHM and ergonomic analysis modules, were owned by a small minority of designers and mostly used occasionally or never. Two elements stood out in the comments: (1) The cost: Small organisations prefer SolidWorks and Rhino 3D, because they are more affordable; (2) The difficulty of usage: Proficiency requires several years of experience, and when the software is mastered it takes a valuable reason to change it for another one.

Table 4 CAD software owned and used (n = 187) by designers (n = 82). Have

Proposeda Parametric SolidWorks AutoCAD (2D) Pro-E CATIA Solid Edge Surfacing Rhino 3D Other software mentioned (n = 15)b Total

Utilization Regular

Occasional

Rare/ never

61% 43% 27% 11% 11%

78% 29% 45% 33% 55%

10% 20% 14% 33% 22%

10% 51% 41% 33% 22%

39% 37%

37% 40%

37% 17%

25% 43%

99%

49%

20%

31%

a

The initial list was longer but it was restricted to 6 items to avoid a too fastidious enumeration. b Alias, CAD KI, Cobalt, Freeform, FormZ, IDEAS, IMOS, Inventor, Mechanical Desktop, Maxwell, Maya, MicroStation, Power Flo, Think, VectorWorks.

3.3. Methods and tools used to size various products and chronology of methods Eighty nine percent (n = 73) of the designers participated, during the last six months, in 113 projects involving the dimensioning of at least one of the four types of products targeted in the study. The others were involved with aesthetic or mechanical aspects only. To the nine methods or tools initially proposed by the interviewer (see Table 5), five designers mentioned two other methods: data provided by the client or taken directly on a product. Overall, 50% of the projects involved 5 steps or more. A project could involve up to 9 different steps (3% of projects). The steps were divided in three terciles or phases: upstream, middle, final steps. As shown in Table 5, more than 50% of the times, anthropometrics data sources were used, but essentially upstream, at the beginning of the project, rarely in the course of the design process. As for the tool projects, anthropometric data were hardly ever used (24%). 2D and 3D tools were also used predominantly upstream but quite more systematically. They were used to produce preliminary sketches. The designers explained that they favoured the mannequin format from human scales, exactly because mannequins could be scanned and transferred into CAD for 2D studies. It was mainly used by designers implicated in vehicle projects (55% of cases). They usually insert a small (1 or 5 percentiles) and a large mannequin (95 or 99 percentiles). However, the fact that mannequins are not articulated is reported as being a main difficulty. DHM software, which also provides

to use’. The recommendations spare the designers from the task of making calculations taking into account ‘outside’ factors. For example, the ISO 3411-2006 on earth-moving machinery recommends minimal space, taking into account the shoe, the arctic clothing, a safety helmet and it includes comfort parameters. However, designers complained of the high cost of such data and the time required to understand them. Despite all the difficulties met, when asked to choose among a list of proposed terms, the designers more often picked out a positive term (181) rather than a negative one (63). The designers largely considered the search for anthropometric data as ‘useful’ (80%), more than ‘important’ (61%). The negative side was sensed as ‘complicated’, ‘time consuming’ and ‘quite costly’ (36%vs. 22% vs. 12%). 3.2. Computer-aided design tools (CAD) All designers but one, own CAD software – 21 different, 187 in all or 2, 3 per designer - and used it on a regular basis (see Table 4). They mainly use two types of CAD software: parametric and surfacing. The parametric software allows defining geometric solids in 2D or 3D and combining them in space. The surfacing software allows the creation of Table 5 Methods, tools used to size various products and their chronology (n = 113). Method/Tool

Data Client Datab Anthropometric source Software 2D study 3D modeling DHM Artefact Existing productb Volume mock-up Prototype Measurements taken on Designer Colleagues Users (Bench test) Ergonomist consulted a b

Furniture (n = 45)

Vehicles (n = 29)

Tools (n = 21)

Sports equipment(n = 18)

%

Tercilea

%

Tercile

%

Tercile

%

Tercile

– 58

100 - 0 - 0

– 62

100 - 0 - 0

5 24

100 - 0 - 0 100 - 0 - 0

– 56

90 -10 - 0

71 73 –

97 - 3 - 0 88 - 12 - 0

83 66 14

100 - 0 - 0 89 - 11 - 0 50 - 50 - 0

52 52 –

91 - 9 - 0 73 - 18 - 9

72 67 –

100 - 0 - 0 100 - 0 - 0

2 44 64

100 - 0 - 0 60 - 40 - 0 34 - 59 - 7

– 59 55

59 - 41 - 0 38 - 62 - 0

5 76 81

100 - 0 - 0 69 - 31 - 0 65 - 29 - 6

11 78 83

50 -50 - 0 71 - 29 - 0 27 - 67 - 6

40 47 27 11

28 14 25 40

28 48 24 7

38 - 62 - 0 0 - 79 - 21 14- 57 - 29 50 - 50 - 0

67 76 67 9

43 - 57 25 - 63 21 - 50 100 - 0

50 67 39 5

0 - 100 - 0 0 - 83 - 17 0 - 14 - 86 100 - 0 - 0

- 67 - 5 - 67 -19 - 42 - 33 -20 - 40

Steps (up to nine) were regrouped into 3 terciles. Item added by designers. 4

-0 -12 - 29 -0

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102844

F. Ranger, et al.

mannequins, was rarely used or only in vehicle projects (14%). Artefacts - mock-ups, prototypes - were used systematically, especially for the design of tools and sports equipment. The mock-ups were used twice as much upstream than in the middle of the process but it was the opposite for the prototypes. They were used to gather ergonomic feedback such as the comfort in relationship with zones of reach in various postures (e.g., vehicles and furniture), the identification of pressure points vs. the shape of the head (e.g., helmet), grip vs. hand shape (e.g., tools). Artefacts could provide useful input on data rarely mentioned in a data base such as weight, balance, density and texture of materials. Artefacts could also help in the case of safety issues such as the space needed to avoid collision or impact. Another mentioned advantage: They could be scanned and integrated into CAD, a step which facilitates subsequent modeling work. Measurements were taken on subjects throughout the design process, but more often in the course of the final steps rather than other methods. Direct measurements were though more frequent for the design of tools, and the subject often used by the designer was either a colleague or himself. An ergonomist was consulted in 9% of the projects (n = 10). Several designers spontaneously said that they did not consider the presence of an ergonomist as useful, stating, “the ergonomist doesn't know more than we do”. However, those who worked with an ergonomist mentioned that they were satisfied.

circumferences or visual field are not especially well developed. Data sought on morphological details or tissue pressure distribution may be on the other hand rather sophisticated. Difficulties in finding data on specific population are also frequent. As observed in other studies, the designers projects must take into account various population parameters, not only age and gender but also physical characteristics and mental abilities (Nickpour and Dong, 2011; Gyi et al., 2004). However, recent norms developed (e.g., the ISO 7250-3: 2015 Basic Human Body Measurements for Technological Design) organizing data according to geographical areas are congruent with needs expressed. But the sustainability of the data produced may be limited. Adding any more data may altogether amplify the search problems and the production of ready-to-use data may not be realistic. We should therefore consider other strategies to refine data in a more relevant option. Lastly, the fact that designers still regularly use data sources considered as outdated, suggests that they may still present important usability qualities. It is striking to see that whatever the importance of software developments, the Human Scales (Diffrient et al., 1981) for example, almost forty years old and now out of print, is still largely used. A presentation of a simple data visual fits well with the design process and first phase goal to establish the framework and volume, and is painless to learn, easy to use and effortless to work with. 4.1.1.1. Research axes and potential improvements. (1) We need to detect if data is untraceable because it is either extinct, lacking of knowledge, really hard to find or an accessibility problem. It could therefore help to define improved search strategies. - (2) As data are dispersed, it may be difficult for designers to know if a data a priori exist or not, thus additional development of any kind of compendium could be interesting. - (3) How to link anthropometric and associated dimension data entails for better understanding and appropriate guidelines should be developed. - (4) As proposed by Nickpour and Dong (2011) the grouping and formatting of data into affordable tools would also help. But we need to better identify where to put the priorities. - (5) The updating of some ‘old’ tools and their integration into CAD tools should be considered as well.

4. Discussion This discussion tackles four aspects of designers' needs for anthropometric data: (1) The search and use of anthropometric data: What is prevalent and problems met; (2) The tools proposed are reviewed and discussed at the in light of the designers' experience and comments; (3) Designers needs and expectations; (4) Interaction with ergonomists. Through this discussion, we have underlined possible areas of development and improvement. We therefore terminate with some observations about methodology and subsequent steps. 4.1. Search, use and interpretation of anthropometric data

4.1.2. Collecting of data Designers often collect data themselves, in particular in the case of tools and sports equipments: on subjects, artefacts or existing products. They appreciate perceptive and interpretative feedback. The taking of measurements on themselves and/or colleagues is easier, inexpensive and mainly appraised because their colleagues often comment on the results. It is also why standards, which implicitly include an assessment dimension, are so appreciated. It could herewith explain why we unexpectedly observed that the two sectors employing mostly their own designers, and where standards were available, were those using fewer bench tests with users. Hence, feedback was possible because of the systematic use of mock-ups and prototypes. Therefore, whatever the importance of development of 3D software - known and used - material and direct perception is still an important part of the process design. As shown in the past, direct perception (Vicente and Rasmussen, 1990) retains its importance. The mock-ups were generally used as a first step to define the overall framework and volume before the development of the prototype, which is coherent with Pei et al. (2011) observation: Prototype requires more accurate measurements. The study shows that they are used to validate anthropometric data based decisions, but also to collect dimensioning data. This is why the possibility to scan artefacts has been evocated by many designers.

Designers use three different strategies: (1) They search edited body measurement data; (2) They collect themselves anthropometric data; (3) They collect data from the artefacts developed. These two latter strategies are also used to validate decisions or introduce interpretative aspects. Sometimes, as fortool design, these latter two strategies clearly dominate over the use of anthropometric sources. 4.1.1. Edited data The designers encounter all kinds of problems, but their overall experience remains positive. There are more incentives than barriers as for the use of edited data. The choice of terms such as ‘interesting’ and ‘beneficial’ in a significant proportion reflects a dimension of pleasure, and an added value, although the data found are not really what they sought. The multiplicity of sources of data used, general or specialised, shows that they were quite active in this search. A possible explanation could be cultural: the concept of users is important in the training of industrial designers and the search of data about the user may be seen as part of a continuous learning process. It would surely be interesting to explore more of these dimensions. Although most designers interviewed were experienced in sizing activities, the majority found the search for anthropometric data arduous, stating that they are dispersed and difficult to find; their search is thus reported as complicated and time consuming. They have difficulties to identify which data is needed or to link anthropometric to dimension data. We may therefore say that we are facing here a typical problem of knowledge transfer and translation. In addition, the data edited are seen as not sufficiently congruent with their needs. For example, data often sought on segment

4.1.2.1. Research axes and potential improvements. (1) As the gathering of anthropometric and subjective data is important, it would be relevant to document methodological aspects (e.g., how data are taken, subjects selection) to better understand the dynamic between the data collected by the designer and the data edited. It could help in 5

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102844

F. Ranger, et al.

the development of appropriate guidelines for the collect of data. (2) Considering the importance of collecting data for designers, it could be relevant to rethink approaches to fit better with this practitioners' reality.

products (office furniture, vehicles, and tools), the proportion of projects involving the collaboration with an ergonomist was surprisingly low. Ergonomics may be seen as important, but not necessarily ergonomists. The comments collected match with what as been observed by other researchers: Industrial designers consider their training sufficient to cover all aspects of the design process (Trépanier and Gosselin, 2007), a perception shared by clients (Abdel-Malak et al., 2008), the use of one's ‘common sense’ and proper judgment is seen as being sufficient (Nickpour and Dong, 2011; Pheasant and Haslegrave, 2006). The study shows that designers are hired to search and take anthropometric measures, probably more than most ergonomists do themselves. Ergonomists may not be sufficiently familiar with the product design process such as: translation of body measurements into product dimension, working with artefacts, and where software and CAD are used. This may also explain why designers do not see where an ergonomist could be helpful. When a project involves some collaboration, it occurs mostly upstream and minor in the final phase of validation with subjects. Nevertheless, designers were satisfied with their collaboration. Their expectations were perhaps limited and the designers may not have perceived what the role of an ergonomist could be. Overall, it is striking that ergonomics is often associated with product design, especially in advertising, while here it appears rather absent from the design process. Research axes and potential improvements: (1) We need to better understand how designers apprehend or see the role of ergonomists. (2) Ergonomists may need better training in interdisciplinary work, notably with designers. Bridges definitely need to be built. (3) As ergonomists, we need to better understand the designers needs and how anthropometric data could be integrated into the various tools used and where our support would mostly be acknowledged.

4.2. Tools developed 4.2.1. DHM and CAD design software Many own and use CDA software, but only a few designers own and use regularly DHM. The cost, the learning time investment needed, and their complexity for use are major deterrents. Unsurprisingly, essentially the ‘wealthiest sectors’ such as transport enterprises, can afford them. The study shows that DHM are also used as a communication tool. As most designers work in very small enterprises, both issues are central. The study also shows that DHM is used mainly in upstream projects, at a phase where the designers seek mostly to rough out the problem. As precision is not of importance at this stage, they want simple and inexpensive tools. Therefore, we may question the relevance for developing highly anatomical and biomechanical DHM. For example, as interesting as may be the developments of hand deformation data (Rogers et al., 2008), we must nevertheless examine whether the use of mock-ups and prototypes do remain better adapted, more economical and a quicker way to size tools. Even if designers complain about untraceable data, the solution doesn't necessarily reside in the production of more data but rather in the development of more improved methods to facilitate their gathering. Nevertheless, one reason for appreciating DHM is the use of mannequin formats. Data integrated in human representations (explaining the popularity of human scales) are favoured to data presented in table formats. Nonetheless, multiple problems were reported. As stated by Blewitt et al. (2009): mannequins barely vary morphologically speaking. Designers constantly need to modify and manipulate them and change their position, which a time consuming task. Finally, the study enlightens how much designers use a panoply of tools and methods. Interfacing issues recurrently surfaced: with data sources, between DHM, between DHM and CAD, between CAD, with scans, mannequins, etc. The overall process needs to be fluid as gobetween steps and the use of tools are frequent. Presently, the connection between software and others tools requires numerous manipulations.

4.4. Methodology considerations In mostly close-end type questionnaires, designers could add items and comments, which opening was well used. The strategy appeared as an efficient compromise. Close-end questions allowed us to draw the portrait of used instruments and the comments helped to improve our understanding of the why/why not, as well as the ‘we would like’ suggestions. The designer work context - small and mostly very small businesses has a major impact on the results, though results may be quite different in other contexts. For example, a large enterprise, as Atlas Copco, successfully integrated some ergonomists in the design process of power tools (Lindqvist, 1997).

4.2.1.1. Research axes and potential improvements. (1) We need to better document and understand the interface problems, to develop adequate solutions and especially elaborate the possibility of integrating scans in CAD, to improve the interface with artefacts and mannequins and improve the compatibility of DHM with the different CAD software. (2) The development of DHM adapted to a certain class of products could be conceptualized. For instance, we could differentiate classes according to a product worn by the user (e.g., helmets), handled (e.g., tool) or the inside use of a specific setting (e.g., car).

4.5. Next steps Possibilities of improvements, as previously exposed, are multiple and many concern ergonomists. We need to document more effectively the designer's needs as well as their expectations concerning the different tools they used. We also need to apprehend the activity of dimensioning, steps by steps, through more specific projects.

4.2.2. Standards The standards are appreciated for different reasons, but their cost, as well as their non-user-friendliness (too complex, technical and/or too long to read) limits their use, especially in a context where designers working in small offices often work on different projects. Only huge manufacturing companies can acquire existing standards used mainly for ‘wealthy sectors’. While large companies are involved in their own development, small businesses are often unconsidered or simply discarded. Potential improvement: Inclusion of small businesses in the development of standards better fit to their needs.

5. Conclusion Designers' needs truly reflect the fast transformation of our society. One of our research results shows that the actual data produced are never - and will never be - sufficient to meet their needs. However and whatever the difficulties, designers appreciate the experience of searching for anthropometric data. A second general observation is the coexistence of virtual and material tools. ‘Old’ data sources continue to be used because more user-friendly user and artefacts stay at the heart of the design process. These artefacts are also essential to the collection of anthropometric, dimension and assessment data. And the main stakes are presently the interfacing between all these different tools. All these aspects may present an important challenge for ergonomists.

4.3. Collaboration with ergonomists Taking into account that many projects involved work-related 6

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 74 (2019) 102844

F. Ranger, et al.

In conclusion, the study indicates that we need to improve our tool developments according to the characteristics revealed by their users: Designers working in small businesses have very limited resources.

frames. Ergonomics 48 (4), 323–353. ISO 3411, 2006. Principles for Selecting and Using Test Persons for Testing Anthropometric Aspects of Industrial Products and Designs. International Standard Organisation, Geneva. ISO 7250-3, 2015. Basic Human Body Measurements for Technological Design - Part 3: Worldwide and Regional Design Ranges for Use in Product Standards. International Standard Organisation, Geneva. Jiang, B., Chen, J., Song, S., Wang, H., Wang, X., 2016. An Experimental Investigation on In-Vehicle Driving Postures of Chinese Drivers Using a Digital Human Model. The 4th International Digital Human Modeling Symposium. June 15-17. Montréal. Lämkull, D., Hanson, L., Örtengren, R., 2008. Uniformity in manikin posturing: a comparison between posture prediction and manual joint manipulation. Int. J.Hum. Factors Model. Simul. 1 (2), 225–243. Lebahar, J.-C., 2007. La conception en design industriel et en architecture. Désir, pertinence, cooperation et cognition. Lavoisier, Paris. Liu, B.S., 2008. Incorporating anthropometry into design of ear-related products. Appl. Ergon. 39 (1), 115–121. Lindqvist, B., 1997. Power Tool Ergonomics - Evaluation of Power Tools. Atlas Copco, Ed. Helsingborg. Nickpour, F., Dong, H., 2011. Designing anthropometrics! requirements capture for physical ergonomic data for designers. Des. J. 14 (1), 92–111. Panero, J., Zelnik, M., 1979. Human Dimension & Interior Space. Withney Library of design, New York. Pentikis, J., Lopez, M., Thomas, R., 2002. Ergonomic evaluation of a government office building. Work. a J. of Prevention, Assess. &Rehabil 18 (2), 123–131. Pheasant, S., Haslegrave, C., 2006. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design at Work, 3d ed. CRC Press, London. Pei, E., Campbell, I., Evans, M., 2011. A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. Des. J. 14 (1), 64–91. Porter, J.M., Case, K., Marshall, R., Gyi, D., Oliver, R.S., 2004. ‘Beyond Jack and Jill’: designing for individuals using HADRIAN. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 33 (3), 249–264. Reed, M.P., Park, B.K., Kim, K.H., Raschke, U., 2014. Creating custom human avatars for ergonomic analysis using depth cameras. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting. vol. 58. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, pp. 1590–1594 1. Robinette, K.M., Daanen, H.A., 2006. Precision of the CAESAR scan-extracted measurements. Appl. Ergon. 37 (3), 259–265. Rogers, M.S., Barr, A.B., Kasemsontitum, B., Rempel, D.M., 2008. A three-dimensional anthropometric solid model of the hand based on landmark measurements. Ergonomics 51 (4), 511–526. Tilley, A.R., 1993. The Measure of Man and Woman: Human Factors in Design. Whitney Library of Design, New York. Trépanier, M., Gosselin, P.M., 2007. Faire du design industriel au Québec: Étude sur les pratiques professionnelles des designers industriels québécois. INRS, Montréal. Troy, J., Guerin, J., 2004. In: Human Swept Volumes. SAE Technical Paper Serie, pp. 1–5 2004-01-2190. Vicente, K.J., Rasmussen, J., 1990. The ecology of human-machine systems II: mediating 'DirectPerception' in complex work domains. Ecol. Psychol. 2 (3), 207–249. Wang, X., Dolivet, C., Nicolas, B., Minguy, J.L., 2003. Apport d'enquête de terrain puis d'une simulation 3D par mannequin numérique pour l'aménagement spatial d'un poste de conduite de grue portuaire à conteneurs. Rech. Transp. Sécurité 78, 43–61. Wiklund, M., Rudnick, J., Liberatore, J., 2006. Addressing women's needs in surgical instrument design. Medical Device &Diagnos. For. Ind. 28 (11), 76.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank ADIQ and UQAM for their financial support (FARE grant). Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102844. References Abdel-Malak, S., Brassard, L., Audibert, D., Grenier, L., Larivière, M., 2008. Synthèse des résultats de l'enquête sur la perception et l'utilisation du design industriel par les entreprises manufacturières québécoises. Ministère de l’Économie, de l'Innovation et des Exportations, Québec. BIFMA X5.5, 2008. Desk Products. Business & Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association. Blanchonette, P., 2006. Jack human modeling tool: a review. Ergon. Aust. 21, 6–13. Blewitt, V., Caple, D., Veitch, D., 2009. Sizing up Australia: How Contemporary Is the Anthropometric Data Australian Designers Use? Report. Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council. BNQ 1013-110, 2007. Ambulances — Vehicle Specifications. Bureau de normalisation du Québec, Québec. https://www.bnq.qc.ca/fr/normalisation/protection-et-surete/ ambulances.html. Burns, C.M., Vicente, K.J., Christoffersen, K., Pawlak, W.S., 1997. Towards viable, useful and useable human factors design guidance. Appl. Ergon. 28 (5–6), 311–322. Catapan, M.F., Okimoto, M.L., Santana, F.E., Silva, C.M.A., Rodrigues, Y.W., 2015. Anthropometric analysis of human head for designing ballistic helmets. Procedia Manuf 3, 5475–5481. Diffrient, N., Tilley, A., Harman, D., 1981. Human Scale 1/2/3: a Portfolio of Information. MIT Press, Cambridge. Dong, H., McGinley, C., Nickpour, F., Cifter, A.S., 2015. Designing for designers: insights into the knowledge users of inclusive design. Appl. Ergon. 46, 284–291. Dong, H., Nickpour, F., McGinley, C., 2009. Designing data for designers. In: 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stanford, CA. vol. 8. pp. 53–64. El Menceur, M.O.A., Pudlo, P., Gorce, P., Thévenon, A., Lepoutre, F.X., 2008. Alternative movement identification in the automobile ingress and egress for young and elderly population with or without prostheses. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38 (11), 1078–1087. Farkas, L.G., 1994. Anthropometry of the Head and Face, 2d ed. Raven Press, New York. Gyi, D.E., Sims, R.E., Porter, J.M., Marshall, R., Case, K., 2004. Representing older and disabled people in virtual user trials: data collection methods. Appl. Ergon. 35 (5), 443–451. Hsiao, H., Whitestone, J., Kau, T.-Y., Hildreth, B., 2015. Firefighter hand anthropometry and structural glove sizing: a new perspective. Hum. Factors 57 (8), 1359–1377. Hsiao, H., Whitestone, J., Bradtmiller, B., Whistler, R., Zwiener, J., Lafferty, C., Kau, T., Gross, M., 2005. Anthropometric criteria for the design of tractor cabs and protection

7