Design for all': methods and data to support designers

276 Pages·2017·22.19 MB·English

Loughborough University
Institutional Repository
‘Design for all’: methods and
data to support designers
ThisitemwassubmittedtoLoughboroughUniversity’sInstitutionalRepository
by the/an author.
Additional Information:
• A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University.
Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/6914
Publisher: (cid:13)c Ruth Elise Sims
Please cite the published version.
This item is held in Loughborough University’s Institutional Repository
(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) and was harvested from the British Library’s
EThOS service (http://www.ethos.bl.uk/). It is made available under the
following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
`Design for All': data
to
methods and
designers
support
by
Ruth Elise Sims
Doctoral
thesis
Submitted in fulfilment
the
partial of requirements
for
the
award of
Doctor Philosophy Loughborough University
of of
`h
6 June 2003
© by Ruth Elise Sims 2003
Abstract
If designers are to meet the needs of the growing population of older and disabled people then data
be increasingly important. This details
thesis
on size, shape, posture and capabilities will a
for joint
the
methodology collection of anthropometry, constraints, reach range, postural capability
information, database `individuals'. These data
and task specific to create a unique of were then
in development design (HADRIAN), design
used the of a computer-based tool to allow
be by design.
to the
professionals estimate percentage of people who could accommodated a
Having data for individuals is
to to
complete sets vital enable multivariate analysis, as opposed
data.
traditional
univariate percentile
Following the literature two interview 32 design
a review of surveys were conducted with
50 disabled The designers
the
professionals and older and people. majority of were aware of
`design for but due
the to time
philosophy of all', rarely considered approach perceived and
financial With disabled it found
to that
costs. respect older and people was nearly all experienced
basic daily life, improvements designs
that to
problems completing activities of and existing could
improve life. Activities being able to the bath
quality of such as cook a meal, and use were
being important.
reported as particularly
Firstly, 8 different data
to the
a pilot study was conducted with participants assess collection
Data 100 being disabled,
then the
options. were collected on people, with majority older and/or
From data it
and encompassing a wide range of capabilities. these was possible to see that the
data beyond 15` 99`h for dimension
anthropometric showed a range and percentile each when
to data, breadth in task behaviours.
compared existing anthropometry and a of variation specific
Validation trials then to the task 10 the 100
were conducted compare actual performance of of
`individuals' that by HADRIAN, task being
with predicted with postures and capabilities correctly
for This it is
predicted open-access reach-and-lift tasks. gives some confidence that possible to
from data
the
predict postures and capabilities collected.
Acknowledgements
for have in
I like following the that they this
would to thank the people part played me obtaining
doctorate:
The Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council, for funding for the
and providing project
framework for
that the this thesis.
provided
Diane Gyi, Mark Porter, director for
the
my supervisor, and my of research, employing me on
in first for drafts.
the then their
project place, and encouragement and support, reading endless
Keith Case Russ Marshall, the team,
and who completed project and who gave support and
Diane
the technical the together
assistance, especially with more aspects of research, plus with and
for lunch.
Mark
numerous much-needed outings
Andrew for Martin Freer for building
the the
constructing reach range rig, and case study
humour.
trial
validation rig and providing endless
Bahar, Geoff, Beccy, Steve Shayal, fellow joined in discussions the
and research students who on
PhD.
trials tribulations
and of carrying out and writing up a
My for Sarah Chris for keeping
their
parents, unending support, and and me sane and providing
from
much needed reassurance personal experience.
And finally Richard, life PhD,
there to than
who stuck with me and reminded me was more a
laugh, from Oliver Sims just
to through, to
made me and changed my surname part-way confuse
by
trying to trace the
anyone papers and work same author.
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my grandparents, none of whom got to see what I have
become I have but I hope they be
and what achieved, would pleased.
4
Contents
Title 1
page
Certificate Originality 2
of
Abstract 3
Acknowledgements 4
Contents 5
List 12
of appendices
List Figures 13
of
List Tables 15
of
1. Introduction
1.1. The EQUAL 18
programme
1.2. Design for All 19
1.3. Multivariate 21
analysis
1.4. The EPSRC 22
project
1.5. Research detailed this thesis 23
within
2. Design literature
practice review
2.1. Introduction 26
2.2. Why is information 26
about end-users needed?
2.3. Anthropometry for designers 30
2.4. The design incorporating information 33
process and end-user
2.5. Communication design information 36
of
2.6. Legislation 40
2.7. Conclusions 42
3. Survey design
of professionals
3.1. Introduction
43
3.2. Aims 43
3.3. Rationale for design 44
survey of professionals
3.4. Sampling 44
3.5. Design interview
45
of questionnaire
3.5.1. Personal details
46
and company
3.5.2. Current
46
practice
3.5.3. Computers
47
5
48
3.5.4. The future
48
3.6. Ethical
considerations
48
3.7. Piloting
49
3.8. Equipment
3.9. Survey 49
procedure
3.10 Data 51
analysis
3.11 Results 51
3.11.1 Personal details 51
and company
3.11.2 Current 53
practice
3.11.3 Computers 59
3.11.4 The future 65
3.12 Discussion 66
3.12.1. Time the design 66
within process
3.12.2. `Design for improves design for 67
all' all
3.12.3. Anthropometry Fundamental Fallacies 68
the
and
3.12.4. End-user involvement 69
3.12.5. The influence 70
the
of client
3.12.6. Legislation 72
3.12.7. The tools 72
use of software and packages
3.13 Critique 73
the
of methodology
3.14 Conclusions 75
4. Review literature disabled
of on older and people
4.1 Introduction 76
4.2 Disability 76
4.2.1. Definitions 76
4.2.2. Prevalence 77
4.2.3. Causes 78
4.3 Classification disability disability 81
of and severity of
4.3.1. Classification disability 82
of
4.3.2. Severity disability 84
of
4.4 The 85
ageing population
4.5 Activities Daily Life 86
of
4.5.1. What Activities Daily Life (ADL)? 86
are of
6
4.5.2. Studies ADL 87
time
of spent on
4.5.3. Studies ADL 88
of problems with
4.5.4. Coping behaviours implications for ADL
and
design 91
assessment and
4.6 The design in independence 92
role of maintaining
4.7 Conclusions 94
5 Survey disabled
of older and people
5.1 Introduction
95
5.2 Aims 95
5.3 Rationale for the disabled 96
survey of older and people
5.4 Sampling 96
5.5 Questionnaire design 96
5.6 Ethical
98
considerations
5.7 Piloting 98
5.8 Survey 98
procedure
5.9 Data 99
analysis
5.10 Results 99
5.10.1 Sample information 99
and general
5.10.2 Mobility independence 100
and
5.10.3 Kitchen 102
activities
5.10.4 Bathroom 103
activities
5.10.5 General home from home 104
tasks the
around and away
5.10.6 Leisure 106
activities
5.10.7 What like be do? 107
to to
would participants able
5.11 Discussion 108
5.11.1 Activities daily life 109
of
5.11.2 Independence 111
5.12 Critique
the 113
of methodology
5.13 Conclusions
115
6 Pilot for data from
disabled
study collection of older and people
6.1 Introduction
116
6.2 Rationale for data
the 116
collection phase
7
118
6.3 Aim
the
of pilot study
6.4 CODA 119
6.5 Anthropometry 120
6.6 Measuring 121
reach envelopes
6.7 Posture 123
analysis
6.8 Classification disability 124
of
6.9 Participants 126
6.10 Equipment 126
6.11 Ethical issues 128
6.12 Procedure 128
6.12.1 Greeting 128
and questionnaire
6.12.2 Anthropometry joint 129
and constraints
6.12.3 Reach 133
range
6.12.4 CODA 133
measurements
6.12.5 Task-based data 134
collection
6.13 Data 135
analysis
6.13.1 Posture 135
task-based
analysis and activities
6.13.2 Anthropometry 136
6.13.3 Reach 136
range
6.13.4 Joint 138
angles
6.14 Results 138
6.14.1 Participants 138
6.14.2 Anthropometry 138
6.14.3 Comparison
of external anthropometric measures,
link lengths 140
and measured and calculated
6.14.4 Joint 141
constraints
6.15 Discussion 142
6.15.1 CODA 143
6.15.2 Posture 145
analysis and video recording
6.15.3 Assessment disability 146
of severity of
6.15.4 Design kitchen 146
the
of rig
6.15.5 Design 146
the
of reach rig
6.15.6 Anthropometry 147
6.16 Conclusions 147
8
7 Main data
collection phase
7.1 Introduction 148
7.2 Aims data 148
of the collection phase
7.3 Methods 149
7.3.1 Measuring 149
reach envelopes
7.3.2 Posture task-specific data 150
analysis and
7.3.3 Anthropometric 151
measurements
7.3.4 Other investigations
151
methods and
7.4 Ethical 152
considerations
7.5 Participants 152
and sampling
7.6 Equipment 153
7.7 Procedure 154
7.8 Data Analysis 156
7.8.1 Reach 156
range
7.8.2 Anthropometry 157
7.8.3 Joint 158
constraints
7.8.4 Physical 158
capabilities: questionnaire and assessment
7.8.5 Task-specific data 158
7.9 Results 159
7.9.1 Participants 159
7.9.2 Reach data 161
range
7.9.3 Anthropometry 165
7.9.4 Comparison data
of anthropometry with
169
existing sources
7.9.5 Joint 174
movements
7.9.6 Coefficient 176
of variation
7.9.7 Physical 177
capabilities
7.9.8 Task-specific data 180
and capabilities
7.9.9 Comparison data from 185
the
of six participants
7.10 Discussion 189
7.10.1 Anthropometry 189
7.10.2 Joint 191
angles
7.10.3 Reach 192
ranges
7.10.4 Task-based behaviours 194
and postures
9