Talk:Human factors and ergonomics/Archive 2

Headline text
ction. However, I think more work should be completed on this section of the page. --Laurel 310 03:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Laurel310


 * See WP:LEAD for more guidance on how to introduce an article. --Ronz 03:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say the introduction lacks clarity. I don't think the first sentence helps in this regard - despite its lofty source - because it's liable to leave the reader confused as to what it is ergonomics is actually concerned with. Ergonomics is not a complex subject, the goal should be to come up with simple, easy to understand explanations, rather than technical definitions which place linguistic accuracy over clarity (I imagine the International Ergonomics Association had the opposite motivation when they arrived at their definition). Blankfrackis (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent External links cleanup
I don't understand the criteria for the recent cleanup of external links. Why remove just some of the professional organizations and not them all? -- Ronz 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it will be good to get a third view about it, I thought closely before removing the EL's as I left some which seemed to be appropriate organisations. The Sunshine Man 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've sought help: Wikipedia_talk:External_links. -- Ronz 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The external link cleanup has gone over the top. Ofcourse having an article that's for the majority links isn't good, but no links at all is worse in my opinion. I'd like to be able to find recent books or articles about ergonomics. How is one to be expected to find the peer-reviewed article named "ergonomics"? Atleast add the journal / edition in which it got published and the author(s) who wrote it, so you got something to go on. The way it's listed now, that list is just utterly useless... --Xiph
 * There was no response to the request for help, so I think we just put together some criteria. Easiest way would be to find similar articles (other professions) and derive some basic criteria from them. --Ronz 17:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation
I added a citation to the one area that said was needing a citation, so I removed the needs to be cited tag from the page. --aishel (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The coining of the term?
The article describes the term as being coined in 1857, however Ergonomics: Man in his working environment by K.F.H. Murrell, first published in 1965 has this to say:

"...a meeting was held in my office in the Admirality in July 1949, at which an interdisciplinary group was formed for those interested in human work. ... An Immediate need was to find a name for this interdisciplinary field and it was finally decided to coin a new word, ERGONOMICS, from the Greek ergos: work; nomos: natural laws."

Anyone have any thoughts on which is correct, or whether both should be mentioned? JackAidley (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This also accords with the account given by the Ergonomics society http://www.ergonomics.org.uk/page.php?s=3&p=15. JackAidley (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The original coinage appears not to have been the English word "ergonmics" but the Polish word "ergonomji", which may or may not have been intended to mean the same thing. Indeed, it would appear that Wojciech Jastrzębowski published only in Polish. Even if his works were translated into English before July 1949, I am not sure that Murrell would necessarily have been aware of them. On this basis I certainly think both should be mentioned, not least because both parties probably thought they had something new (and even if the agenda mapped out by Murrell and colleagues may have been wider). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Acronyms removed
I removed the following list of Acronyms related to ergonomics. This kind of lists are not acceptable in Wikipedia -- Mdd (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BIO	Biomechanics

DM	Decision Making

HF	Human Factors

HEP	Human Error Probability

HFE	Human Factors Ergonomics

HR	Human Reliability

IE	Industrial Ergonomics

MDS	Multidimensional Scaling

OE	Operational Environment

OST	Operational System Testing

S-R	Stimulus-Response he rrdfkd

Organizations

APA	American Psychological Association

HFES	Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

IEA	International Ergonomics Association

NIOSH	National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

BCPE	Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics

ICAO	International Civil Aviation Organization\

Examples removed
This article is the main article in the field of ergonomics and should an overview, not overloaded with examples. That is way I removed the following examples. I do think this text can be used in an other article or a Wikibook about ergonomics. -- Mdd (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Ergonomics in the workplace
Examples of areas which may need improvement in workplaces are lighting, noise, duration of work, number and frequency of breaks, seating, posture, lifting requirements, and shift scheduling.

Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders, WMSDs WMSDs can be defined as disorders of the muscles, tendons and nerves that are caused or aggravated by exertions or movements of the body. The primary cause may be work related or non-work related. In either case, work exposure is an important consideration in determining work-relatedness and in return to work from an injury.

Properties of Musculoskeletal Disorders
 * they involve both mechanical and physiological process
 * they are related to work intensity and duration
 * they require periods of weeks, months or years to develop
 * they require periods of weeks, months or years for recovery
 * their symptoms may be poorly localized, nonspecific and episodic
 * they are often unreported
 * they may have multiple work and personal issues

Work Factors of Musculoskeletal Disorders
 * Repeated or sustained exertions
 * Forceful exertions
 * Localized mechanical stresses
 * Postural stresses
 * Low temperatures
 * Vibration
 * Work schedule and duration
 * Psychosocial stresses

The relationship between work factors and the occurrences of musculoskeletal disorders is referred to as the exposure response relationship. Generally, it can be assumed that there will be a background level of musculoskeletal disorders irrespective of work exposures. Increasing exposure is accompanied by increasing prevalence or incidence of musculoskeletal disorders. Musculoskeletal disorders includes a large group of muscles, tendon and nerve disorders and their individual sensitivities to risk factors will vary. The exposure response relationship provides a basis for establishing allowances to help prevent WMSDs.

Vision is the main sensory channel used in most workplaces. In order to improve ease of visual tasks one could:
 * Lighting
 * Increase contrast by using black ink instead of blue, or pencil
 * Increase the size of the smallest critical detail by increasing font size or decreasing viewing distance
 * Change the work area so that what is being viewed is perpendicular to the light source

To improve illumination, minimize glare. Glare can be direct, or indirect. Direct glare is caused when the light source is much brighter than the work materials. Indirect glare is caused when the light is reflected from the work surface. Indirect is preferred because it is more uniform than direct. Also, direct lighting has more shadowing and veiling reflections. To reduce glare in VDU workplaces one could: To reduce glare from windows
 * Lower ambient lighting
 * Sit operator with back to a dark wall
 * Paint walls with matte dark colors and use desks with matte finishes
 * Don't put reflective things in areas where reflections could appear on the screen
 * Tilt the screen down
 * Cover windows
 * Use awnings to shield the sun
 * Cover windows with neutral density filters
 * Make a right angle between the VDU and window

The three types of methods use to reduce noise are equipment and tool selection, altering the environment, and protecting the listener’s ears.

For long duration jobs sitting is preferred because it is less of a strain on the body and a good posture is easier to keep while sitting than standing. Sitting enables better controlled arm movements, improves blood circulation and gives a stronger sense of balance and safety.

The NIOSH Lift Guide was set in place to assess the risk in a lifting task. Consult this resource for information about what tasks are considered safe. However, note that te NIOSH Lift Guide is for ideal situations, which rarely occur in real life. The guide has two limits, one is the action limit and the other is the maximum permissible limit. The action limit represents a limit where most women would not be injured performing the task (implying that most men would not be injured either). The maximum permissible limit represents a limit where most men would experience back injury (implying that most women would experience injury.

A weekly rotation in shift work scheduling is a bad method from the biological rhythm point of view because our biological rhythms take about a week to adjust, or flatten. Therefore, if the shift work was rotated weekly, the worker’s biological rhythm would be continually adjusting to their work schedule.

The ICAO(International Civil Aviation Organizaion) Formula, also known as the Jet Lag formula calculates the rest period a worker should be given before they should be required to work. When using this equation, keep in mind, travel time includes time spent in the airport, time to drive to and from the airport, time to check in to a hotel(if necessary) and so on. Use the chart below to fine the adequate Arrival and Departure Coefficients.
 * ICAO Formula

Rest period(tenth of a day)=0.5 x travel time(hr) + time zones(in excess of 4) + departure coefficient + arrival coefficient


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Local Time ! Departure Time Coefficient ! Arrival Time Coefficient
 * 8am-11:59am
 * 0
 * 4
 * 12 noon-5:59pm
 * 1
 * 2
 * 6pm-9:59pm
 * 3
 * 0
 * 10pm-12:59am
 * 4
 * 1
 * 1am-7:59am
 * 3
 * 3
 * }
 * 1am-7:59am
 * 3
 * 3
 * }
 * }

When calculating, round up to the nearest half day for rest period.

Fields of ergonomics
I would like to delete the secton titled Fields of ergonomics. The Engineering psychology can be mentioned at the domains. The Macroergonomics is another domain. This is the only domain detailed. It is a good sub-article, I suggest to move it to a separate article. The Seating ergonomics is a really small particle of ergonomics. If this is the only example, it drives the readers to a wrong direction. Because it can be interesting for the readers, it can be moved to a separarate article (however with more precisious details).--Karesz1h (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias?
Reading this article, it sounds like it was written by people who work in this field. The importance and usefulness of Ergonomists seems to be asserted subtly and repeatedly time and time again. I don't think there is really any anti-Ergonomics sentiment to be reflected, but I feel references to the millions businesses could save and the subtle praise to those who do might should be removed. Anyone agree? Torca (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I've tagged the article for more references and wikifying. You might want to use fact or weal to indicate the problem areas. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't understand what particular problems there are here. But if you Ronz have any problem please add a fact required tag on particular places. For the rest I think this article is in good shape, but maybe I am missing the bigger picture here. Please explain. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think editors should just focus on verifying the information. I don't see anything that's obviously biased, rather the information just needs to be properly referenced and organized. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You must have noticed I recenly wikified the whole article, as I did with a thousand other articles this year. Now I think this article is rather well organized, just as I organized all others. But you have a lot of experience of your own, and maybe I am missing the point. I do agree:
 * This article is written rather vague
 * It is missing clear examples
 * And clear references to existing theory and practice.
 * And it is missing the person element, of the scientists who created this field.
 * So I agree with more references... but the need for better organization and multiple goals, I don't understand. That is why I removed the tag. Maybe you can explain, what is bothering you? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than the lead section not meeting WP:LEAD (I moved the mention of the UK society), I don't have much problem with the organization. I was mostly just offering suggestions related to Torca's original concerns.  --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I moved the template into the article. I hope Torca can explain some more, what is bothering him!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added three images and some text to give some more impression, what ergonomics is about. It is an other step, but there remains a lot to be done. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Varied definitions and structures
Such a broad field as ergonomics is can't help having a plethora of definitions. I propose that we use the IEA one as the main one, but I'm wondering why the Berkeley one is currently there.

I'm removing the aspects section because it's similar to the IEA definition and domains. The one thing I like about the aspects section is the mention of culture, but ergonomists don't tend to think enough about that.Thomas Levine (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article on compressive loads
I found the article Low back joint loading and kinematics during standing and unsupported sitting (2001) to be fascinating. I imagine that there are a lot of good sources citing it as well, and since back pain is one of the biggest concerns in ergonomics, I imagine it might be able to help this article... not sure where to put it though. II | (t - c) 07:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Role of Sound in Ergonomic design?
I wonder if the sound design of the workplace is under-considered in the study of ergonomics. I see no references made in this article to Muzak in the workplace, as designed to increase productivity while reducing stress. Once I have more time, I'll try to rectify this, but maybe someone else can get started on it?

For example: R.L. Cardinell, "Music in Industry," in Schullian & Schoen, eds., Music and Medicine, 1948.

24.84.229.90 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ergonomics:
Ergonomics:In simple words, is the word "comfort" to the Human Body, i.e. between System(Human) & its Surrounding(his seating+desk+atmosphere)..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.241.210 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)