Module 2-Annotated Biblios-Part II

Lang, Jon.  "Anthropometrics and Ergonomics" In Creating Architectural Theory:  The Role of Behavioral Sciences in Architectural Design, 126-134.  New York:  Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1987.

In this chapter, Lang presents the terms of Anthropometrics and Ergonomics and the considerations that help define each.  Lang defines Anthropometrics is the study of human dimensions, capabilities, and limitations, while Ergonomics is the study of the relationship between people and machines.

Lang gives us the history of these studies and where the needs for the use of such information arose from.  Human Comfort, Safety, and All-Inclusive Design are what factors environmental designers have  considered of great importance in their work, and anthropometrical data, along with ergonomic response can achieve these points.

• Specific factors or considerations include:  Human Metabolic Processes (HVAC), Lighting Levels, Color Use, Audible Quality, Human Behavior and Personality, and Barrier Free Design.
• Physiological Comfort and Activity Type are interrelated and depend on one another for efficiency.
• We must remember that we cannot design for every individual specifically, but consider the most diverse user groups possible.  Use of anthropometrical data for ergonomic design is not absolute, as we can see in Weber's piece "Manufacturing Gender in Commercial and Military Cockpit Design."
• It is important to revisit Anthropometrical Data often and recognize that social and cultural environments can affect people's experience of space.  How does our socioeconomic condition affect our willingness to demand better fit and change, as Lang suggests, and how much does how we grew up and how we interact with others decide what we accept for ourselves?
• Lang also mentions the ease of performing activities in our environment as well as the importance that we be challenged.  I love this.  It should not always be so easy.

 

Julius Panero and Martin Zelnik, "Anthropometric Theory."  In Human Dimension and Interior Space:  A Source Book of Design Reference Standard,  23-36.  New York:  Whitney Library of Design, 1979.

The authors of this book, Panero and Zelnik, have compiled a historical reference of Anthropometry here in Chapter one, which repeats the same point Weber does in her article "Manufacturing Gender in Commercial and Military Cockpit Design" which is that it became more popular around WWII and that the military accounts for the most common use of such data.  They also illustrate the complexity of the gathering of the data and the factors that one must consider.

• Anthropometry is defined here as "the science dealing with the measurement of the human body to determine differences in individuals, groups, etc." 
• Factors to consider when measuring the body;  age, gender, race, occupation, cultural background and ethnicity, socioeconomics (e.g. nutrition availability.)
• Compiled data is most accurately organized using a "Frequency Histrogram," which shows that the data is somewhat predictable, with the highest percentages(the so-called "average" measurement) compiled in the center column resembling a bell shape.  The extremes on each end are dropped.

How reliable is the data?  When you consider the complexity the factors listed here add to the data collected, it is not a perfect system, but a good starting point.  This is why it is important for designers to KNOW THEIR CLIENTS.

I would love for Panero and Zelnik to update this book based on more recent data.  Here in the US, with immigration, economics, and nutrition alone as factors since the 1970s, it would be interesting to see where the adjustments we see are needed in our built environment.

Ulrich, Roger S.  "How Design Impacts Wellness." The Healthcare Forum Journal (1992):  20-25.

When it comes to heath care facilities, one often thinks of functionality, security and cleanliness as the main guiding factors for design, but in this article, Ulrich presents the positive link between "good design" considerations and the physiological, emotional and psychological wellness of patients.  He points out negative effects of stress can have on all clients in these facilities including patients, as well as nurses, staff, and visitors.  (let us face it, happy nurse/staff = happy patient = happy visitors = happy administrators.)  Aspects of the physical environment such as poor signage, harsh lighting, glare, and certain colors can bring a degree of stress particularly to those who are advanced in age, resulting in a feeling of less control, frustration and anger.  More attention on the proper implementation of these design elements, as well as thought given to what will enhance one's experience of the space will benefit the user. 

• Sense of control-The more autonomous and independent we can be, even with small details like volume control on TV, the better we feel.
• Nature-Nature scenes (both through a window or through artwork) have been considered calming to both patients and visitors in healthcare facilities.
• Support-The opportunity to be social, and to feel supported by loved ones and staff/personnel has been shown to benefit wellness levels of patients and the comfort of loved ones. 
• Positive distractions-When one experiences variety from the everyday routine during hospital stay may indeed have a positive influence on healing.

Ulrich has presented ideas here that one would not immediately challenge, but there needs to be more support for such suggestions as "Nature is restorative."  "Nature" is a broad term, and what of the facilities located in urban areas? 

Similar ideas, it should be noted, have been explored by the Planetree Movement which was founded in 1978 by Angelica Thieriot.

Module 2-Annotated Bibilos-Part 1

Epp, Gayle.  "Furnishing the Unit from the Viewpoint of the Elderly, the Designer and HUD" (1980).

 In her paper, Gayle Epp presents an interesting study of the design and furnishing layouts for Elderly Housing Units. 

Similar envelopes of space (one-bedroom units) were given to each of two groups, architectural students (Students) and Interior Designers (Designers) and were compared to that done by a study at MIT of actual elderly housing units (MIT Study), and the HUD (Housing and Urban Development Office) Property Standards for the Elderly (HUD).  Grounds for comparison between the four were average number of furniture pieces used in whole apartment, types of furniture used, and the arrangements of the pieces themselves in the apartment, though HUD was only included in the comparison of amount of furniture pieces used.

• Results showed quite a disparity between the MIT Study and Students, Designers, and the so called "minimums" set up by HUD when it came to amount of furniture used.  One can deduce that these minimums are seen as maximums by those who program and design, as minimums often are when it comes to design, and adherence to building codes and regulations.
• The Elderly they are seen to have "crowded" spaces filled with collections and memories, which creates the need for storage and display case pieces, such as dressers, cabinets, and tables which comprise the difference in numbers.  Should we not, as Designers and Students satisfy this need to personalize?  Should HUD not acknowledge this?
• Interestingly, the elderly spaces in the MIT Study while considered crowded, still maintain the most intuitive use of space over the Students and Designers, as their dressers are close to their closets for proper dressing space, and their dining areas are close to their kitchens which creates less transit between stove and table.  While circulation and functionality are the motivation of the S & D, how does that translate to overall human interaction with space?
• One wonders how this study would result if performed today, which is 30+ years on from the original.  Things to consider would be how much the elderly are living as independently as they were before, and how the design of furniture, which is much more largely scaled compared to the past, would impact both arrangement and numbers.  Quality of furniture is also a consideration, as things just are not made like they used to be; therefore, will they hold the same sentimental value to the elderly

Monaghan, Peter. "Modern Play Spaces May Be Safe, but They're Stultifying, Some Experts Say." The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 7, 2000.

 In this article, Monaghan summarizes the opinion of various "experts" on Play Spaces.  Social Reproduction is the handing on, with modifications, of social practices and institutions, and these experts wonder what of value children will be able to hand onto future generations given the changing landscape of home and how we live, what is happening in these neighborhoods, changes in parental roles in a child's life, and how children are subsequently being encouraged to play in their environments.

While such "authoritarian environments" such as a Chuck E. Cheese, are considered generally "safe" from predators, and kidnappers, and the like, these spaces are considered to stunt a child's development and prevent proper social reproduction, so says Stuart Aitken, a cultural geographer.

Presented also is a debunking of the "Piaget Approach" by these experts.  Piaget's theories were too general and did not include the consideration of social factors in looking at childhood development.

Instead, these experts want to see control given back to children when it comes to molding and seizing their play spaces, much like Michael Chabon does in his essay "Manhood for Amateurs:  The Wilderness of Childhood."

• Cultural Geography is the study of how societies use and are shaped by spaces and places.
• Spatial Cognition/Mapping Ability is seen as a combination of physical , psychological, social and cultural processes.
• The article goes a long way to devalue the Chuck E. Cheese type environments that we have developed so wrongly for children, yet at the end, Mr. Aitken admits to the author that "My kids love coming here," so where does a child's voice come in?
• There is more to this, as there is in Chabon's essay, that speaks to a parent's role in child rearing, and how their own agendas and schedule's get in the way of raising their children

Weber, Rachel N.  "Manufacturing Gender in Commercial and Military Cockpit Design in Science." Technology & Human Values, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1997):  235-253.

What Weber presents in this article is her findings in the study of the case of the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS), and an evaluation of the design of cockpits in both military and commercial use aircraft and how these do, or do not, accommodate the female body, and by extension, the female gender .  She further delves into the willingness to alter such designs and how this is handled by both parties and what may have influenced the change if adopted. 

Weber discovers that the design of such cockpits, based on collection of anthropometrical data (such as seating height, reach, etc.) with ergonomic response , represents a bias toward both women and men of smaller stature. 

The military responded to political changes in the role of women in combat in 1993 and its realization that there is a decreasing pool of potential recruits, as well as the ire of special interests, politicos, pragmatists and feminists, and proposed a new seating height to accommodate more women.

The commercial aircrafts were less than open to such accommodation as they answer to the "intersection of technological capability, labor relations, and profit margins," and the design process is often different from manufacturer to manufacturer.  There is also an overwhelming call for negotiation on wage and benefits by the mostly male pilot population, that design is not on their list.  Fear of litigation on a discriminatory basis exists, but not enough to promote research and change.

• Anthropometrics is defined as  the measurements of the human body and its physical characteristics
• Ergonomics is the relationship between the human body and the built environment.
• Human Engineering refers to the" efforts made to design equipment that would be more suitable for human use 
• While universal design theory encourages flexibility in accommodating people of varying body type, there are systematic limitations, such as the need for ejection from military aircraft, therefore, adjustability of existing conditions is not the sole answer, and can, in fact, open up a proverbial "can of worms" where the need for further design overhaul requires review.  Can the military afford spending to achieve such a complete overhaul?
• Given what Weber has presented,  the true reason for the military's willingness to adjust the JPATS sitting threshold is really less about accommodating women, and more about accommodating these smaller statured men and the potential for foreign military sales to countries where anthropometrical data shows smaller than our average builds (men and money.) Does it really matter so long as women benefit, I do not know, but the military should not be wholeheartedly rewarded for this proposal.  The means may not justify the end. 
• Not sure the title of "Manufacturing Gender..." is appropriate here.  Giving such control to the Aviation industry seems like we are giving up our identity so easily, no?