A comparison of methodologies for designing for human variability

In the design of artefacts that interact with people, the spatial dimensions of the user population are often used to size and engineer the artefact. The variability in anthropometry indicates the fixed allocation of space, adjustability requirements, or how many sizes are needed to accommodate the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of engineering design Vol. 22; no. 7; pp. 505 - 521
Main Authors Garneau, Christopher J., Parkinson, Matthew B.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Abingdon Taylor & Francis 01.07.2011
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
Adjustment
Allocations
Anthropometry
Artefacts
Bicycles
Boundaries
boundary manikins
Design engineering
design methods
Human
Mathematical models
population models
Prototypes
spatial analyses
Studies
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In the design of artefacts that interact with people, the spatial dimensions of the user population are often used to size and engineer the artefact. The variability in anthropometry indicates the fixed allocation of space, adjustability requirements, or how many sizes are needed to accommodate the intended user population. Various tools are used to achieve this goal, including boundary manikins, digital human models, prototypes and population models, and hybrid methods that combine the approaches. The present work explores each of these and their relative strengths and weaknesses. This is done in the context of a univariate case study involving the adjustability requirements of a stationary bicycle. An experiment involving 51 individuals was conducted to obtain the data necessary for utilising and evaluating the methods.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0954-4828
1466-1837
DOI:10.1080/09544820903535404