Talk:Ergonomics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Created page[edit]

Hi there, I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak for this, but i created this article from Human factors and Ergonomics, two articles that reproduced a lot of the same material and both did quite a good job of explaining that the two fields were, essentially, one. Famousdog (c) 09:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting the effort into what must have been a massively non-trivial task. For convenience, here are Talk:Ergonomics and Talk:Human factors. There may be some slick way to pin them to the top of this page... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just name the page one or the other? I'd lean towards 'ergonomics', as that would seem to be the more popular and commonly known term (traffic stats show about 70k pageviews for ergonomics in June, only about 12k for human factors). If the fields are the same and the terms are synonymous, there's no reason we must include both in the title. It's really clumsy phrasing, and a little bit confusing. Honestly, naming the page either one would be preferable to naming it *both*. Mxheil (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) -- Also, I'm no expert on either subject, but it seems we had this debate a few years ago and the answer was no. Maybe the opposition was just a bunch of unsupported opinions, but there sure were a lot of them and at least a few cited specific organizations and university programs (GMU, Indiana, Illinois, among others). And I was on the Ergonomics page (by far the more frequently viewed of the two) a few days ago and didn't see any merge banner. I feel very iffy about opening up this 'debate' for three weeks without a merge banner on the main page involved and then closing the case and merging the pages after no one notices. Maybe it was there and I just missed it, but right now this change (a pretty big one) is very surprising. Mxheil (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input (where were you when I first suggested this merge?! Only joking!). As far as I can see, the debate "a few years ago" seemed to sputter out because it was presented as a merge of one article into the other, not a merging of both articles into a new heading. So the result of that debate was to do nothing, thereby leaving the unsatisfactory situation of two articles about essentially the same topic saying much the same thing! I'm happy to consider a different title, but there are obviously entrenched opinions about retaining both terms so I think any attempt to put this all under "ergonomics" (or, indeed, "human factors") will meet with strident opposition. Personally, I prefer the term ergonomics and I think HF is a vague and confusing term best abandoned, but that's just me. Famousdog (c) 09:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see how/if the debate plays out, but I personally think it should be a priority to simplify the page's name. If we can pick one term or the other, we should choose the most widely used term. If we can't pick one or the other, are they really synonymous? Not that I'm saying they aren't. They certainly seem to be, as the current article says, "essentially synonymous". Mxheil (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your earlier comment about the "missing" merge banner. I did add one and it was there for two weeks without eliciting comment. Ditto for the human factors article. I took this as encouragement to do something bold! Famousdog (c) 20:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I went back into the page history and saw it. Guess my eyes just passed over it before. Mxheil (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Physical ergonomics, a link on this page, redirects to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjansson (talk • contribs) 08:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert name to Ergonomics[edit]

Three years ago we merged Ergonomics with Human Factors to create the current page, Human Factors and Ergonomics. I objected at the time, and since then, traffic has gone down considerably. Before the merge, Ergonomics regularly polled above 60k pageviews a month, often breaking 100k. Now, this page averages around 20-25k views a month.

I know that metric isn't perfect, but it does seem that less people are finding and making use of this page. I think that's a strong case that we should go ahead and rename this page "Ergonomics", with mention in the article of the term human factors. Mxheil (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human factors and ergonomics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Office chair picture[edit]

I would like to suggest changing the office worker picture (Computer Workstation Variables cleanup.png). I appreciate the quality of the artwork but I do not feel that this office chair style, where the seat is positioned directly on the plate on top of the leg (gas lift), is necessarily beneficial to the user, regardless of the ability to change the chair height. There is a chair called the Aeron chair, and this style, where there is a clear gap between the gas lift and the seat, gets very positive reviews in terms of its ergonomic profile. I think altering the picture may be a good way to add it to the page, if Yamavu would like to? Otherwise it could be added to the page in another place. As mentioned, this style of chair is often recommended for its ergonomic benefits and I think it would be beneficial to an understanding of ergonomics to show it. Any ideas on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyBennison (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vibram Five Finger Shoes[edit]

Given there are no sources at all, [1] is unverified original research. As the editor who is edit-warring over it has been made aware of this in both edit summaries and on his talk page, I don't see what's to discuss. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing individual research papers[edit]

As this article is about Human factors and ergonomics in general, citing individual research papers risks WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV problems. Writing an entire paragraph on a specific example is definitely a NOT and NPOV problem, possibly OR. I suggest finding a review or history, large in scope, that can give us historical and application context. [2] [3] [4] [5] --Ronz (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. Sorry, but reverting is no substitute for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there's not going to be a response, I'll request the content be removed once again.
Given that the section is about recent history, I think any main source for the section should be on that topic. Otherwise it is OR to provide any specific examples to typify/hightlight/etc that period in history. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's still no response, I'm going to assume that this dispute is ended and there is no objection to its removal once again. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz:The information was put in the appropriate location i.e. in the 'Information Age' section which contains information about modern ergonomic practices. The source is perfectly viable (Lake, Mark J., 'Determining the protective function of sports footwear' in Ergonomics, Taylor&Francis, 2000, Vol.43, No.10, p.1618). You have previously started an edit war and you are attempting to restart it. I will be reinserting the edits on Tuesday 1st August- if you have a justifable reason for me not to do so, then please say so. On a more general note, it is likely that that section will grow over time with other material related to ergonomics in the modern day/Information Age.RickyBennison (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion.
I disagree. Please could you address my concerns from 17 July, specifically that we need sources that document history? --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz:On Wikipedia, and including in this article, the Information Age is spoken of as being current- although some parts of it could be, and are, considered and spoken about historically. The source is dated 2000. Please elaborate if this does not answer your concerns about documenting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyBennison (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. Could you please withdraw your plans to revert without consensus?
That doesn't address my concerns. If it's not a source that specifically discusses the history, or if it is not paired with such a source, it doesn't belong per NOT, OR, NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support Ronz's reversion of this addition. It shoehorns a primary research article about a specific topic (sports footwear ergonomics) into a section about the history of ergonomics generally. It has no place in that particular section as it does not address the history of ergonomics. Famousdog (c) 10:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will delay the edit for the time being. In regard to documenting history, read the 'Information Age' section- it is clearly talking about a current situation:

'The dawn of the Information Age has resulted in the related field of human–computer interaction (HCI). Likewise, the growing demand for and competition among consumer goods and electronics has resulted in more companies and industries including human factors in their product design. Using advanced technologies in human kinetics, body-mapping, movement patterns and heat zones, companies are able to manufacture purpose-specific garments, including full body suits, jerseys, shorts, shoes, and even underwear.'

I went on to add information to this section about footwear ergonomics, which was substantiated by the source; this developed the section. By no means to its maximum potential but its a positive start in developing a section which displays how ergonomics is approached in the modern day. I wonder if your objections are simply a matter of the tense used? This is always going to be slightly awkward when reporting on on-going situations, if you want to only speak in historical terms.RickyBennison (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for delaying further reverts. You said you wanted a third opinion, and now that you have it. I hope things will progress more smoothly.
I don't see how we could not violate NOT, OR, and NPOV continuing without sources that give us a historical context. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue and PWC[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in adding a Fatigue and Physiological Work Capacity (PWC) section or subsection (potentially under 'Physical ergonomics'). It will give a broad overview of how PWC is assessed, the likelihood of fatigue to occur and work place solutions etc. I plan on using an article from The International Encylopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors as the source. If you have any suggestions, or are opposed to the proposal, feel free to leave a message here. Thanks. RickyBennison (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an edited book, and we can assume some review. The 2006 publication date is old enough that material from it should not be considered up to date. Consider citing some of the sources it uses, and finding more recent reviews on the topic. Who's the author for the section? I think MEDRS applies, so more recent and higher quality sources may be required depending upon the content. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human Factors & Ergonomics - NOT simply Ergonomics[edit]

Human Factors and Ergonomics are actually NOT synonymous. Although to the unknowledgeable it is easy to understand that many may think so. Human Factors consists of many things, such examples are color theory, sensation and perception, user interface design, user experience design, et cetera. While Ergonomics many overlap in some area's, it also stands alone in many area, such examples are biomechanics, anthropometrics, universal design, et cetera. This is why the society for the field is called "Human Factors & Ergonomics". To think that "Ergonomics" alone (regardless of page hits) is a proper title for the page would be incorrect information to the searcher, and therefore would not "illuminate" them to the true and actual field. RP Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E585:3D00:3563:3F2A:B226:A025 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are two separate concepts, each able to stand alone. Which is why I'm baffled that they are both being made to share a single article. Oktalist (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merges, redirects, and disambiguation, oh dear[edit]

There seems to be a little bit of a muddle here. We've got three pages:

And in addition to the many articles about books and media named The Human Factor, we've also got:

The existence of the human factors redirect makes it hard to search for the others, and the inadequate hatnote compounds the issue. There are too many places where the same information ought to be replicated, leading to every such place being out of sync and incomplete.

At a minimum, I suggest merging the two disambigs together, and pointing the hatnote there instead. In the interests of not creating an even bigger muddle, I thought I should check before proceeding. Oktalist (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human factors and ergonomics → Ergonomics – It seems 10 years ago it seems a non-discussed merge between human factors and ergonomics led to the creation of this article (see #Created page). This is deeply problematic, as in general, Wikipedia articles should not be named "X and Y". All interwiki pages are about ergonomics (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1750812). Corresponding category is still just Category:Ergonomics, there is no Category:Human factors. I am not sure if we should desplit this or have three articles (on ergonomics, human factors and 'Human factors and ergonomics'), but it is certainly wrong not to have articles on the key concept of eronomics. For now I suggest we rename this back to the most common name, and then interested editors can consider whether some 'human factor' stuff should be split or if it is just a synonym for ergonomics. I will ping previous participants of the discusions here: @Famousdog, Just plain Bill, Mxheil, Hipal, RickyBennison, and Oktalist: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do the best references say? I vaguely recall the terms being fairly similar, with the differences being mostly in where they are used. --Hipal (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point. Human factors by themselves grew into a much larger topic, only part of which is actually related to ergonomics. However, I think this article should not be renamed, as it almost solely about human factors in relation to ergonomics. It would be better to create a separate "Human Factors" article to describe other aspects of the topic, while keeping this article as sub-topic. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 09:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swap with human factors engineering: uite a few of the sources describe the topic described in Human factors and ergonomics as "Human Factors Engineering", and the first sentence states that it is commonly referred to by that term. Human factors engineering is a redirect to the current article, so why not switch the two? It doesn't get that much traffic, though. Reconrabbit 16:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (edited January 27th)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relist, to allow further discussion of whether this article should instead be split, and if it should whether a new "ergonics" article be created or a new "Human factors" article be created. BilledMammal (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swap with human factors engineering with Ergonomics redirecting appropriately, for the reasons Reconrabbit mentioned. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After sitting with it a while, Ergonomics is probably the better common name compared to human factors engineering while still maintaining the meaning of the topic. Reconrabbit 15:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. I'm easy. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Human Factors and Ergonomics should not be interchangeable.[edit]

Previously they may have been closely linked, due to the subject matter being humans interacting with external stimuli. However, Human Factors has become more prominent in its focus on cognition, while Ergonomics is more oriented towards anthropometry, repetitive movement, and the reduction of musculoskeletal disorders.

The goal of ergonomics (i.e. the scientific study of people at work) is to prevent soft tissue injuries and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) caused by sudden or sustained exposure to force, vibration, repetitive motion, and awkward posture. To create an ergonomically sound work environment, NIOSH ergonomists and industrial hygienists recommend designing tasks, work spaces, controls, displays, tools, lighting, and equipment to fit employee’s physical capabilities and limitations..

- Center for Disease Control and Prevention

Human Factors is that field which is involved in conducting research regarding human psychological, social, physical, and biological characteristics, maintaining the information obtained from that research, and working to apply that information with respect to the design, operation, or use of products or systems for optimizing human performance, health, safety, and/or habitability (Stramler, 1993).

- from Texas Tech University, which has a HFES accredited HF program.

Human Factors ENGINEERING utilizes both Human Factors and Ergonomics conjunctly for analysis and design.

Human factors engineering is the discipline that attempts to identify and address these issues. It is the discipline that takes into account human strengths and limitations in the design of interactive systems that involve people, tools and technology, and work environments to ensure safety, effectiveness, and ease of use. A human factors engineer examines a particular activity in terms of its component tasks, and then assesses the physical demands, skill demands, mental workload, team dynamics, aspects of the work environment (e.g., adequate lighting, limited noise, or other distractions), and device design required to complete the task optimally. In essence, human factors engineering focuses on how systems work in actual practice, with real—and fallible—human beings at the controls, and attempts to design systems that optimize safety and minimize the risk of error in complex environments. Human factors engineering has long been used to improve safety in many industries outside of health care—it has been employed to analyze errors in aviation, automobiles, and the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident. Its application to health care is relatively recent; pioneering studies of human factors in anesthesia were integral to the redesign of anesthesia equipment, significantly reducing the risk of injury or death in the operating room.''

- Patient Safety Network

Human Factors should have a distinctive definition, as should Ergonomics. If they do need to be on the same page for the organization of other links, they should NOT be listed as interchangeable words. It should be Human Factors AND Ergonomics, or with either as a sub header in a main article. When together, the disciplines work in conjunction, not as substitutions.

More info from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society on Human Factors and from OSHA on Ergonomics. HFanatic (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ergonomics&oldid=1209644029"