Talk:Human factors and ergonomics/Archive 1

=====

About the quote

I do believe that although the quote was taken direct from the source, it is misleading as engineers do not make things so much that are useful, as make things that work, while egonomists and designers make things workable. More often than not, designers make things that are useful to people, and engineers make those things function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.191.198.252 (talk • contribs) 05:37, February 16, 2005

Proposing Major Changes

i find the links at the bottom of the page very useful, however could some of the links from http://www.humanics-es.com/recc-ergonomics.htm be put directly into the article?

---

August 11, 2005
I find this article on the whole does a poor job of describing ergonomics. Many parts of it appear to be written by people with good intentions but without the useful background in ergonomics. As an ergonomist, I take issue with the introductory definition, which suggests ergonomics is a purely academic field ("study"), by ignoring the other, equally important component—practice. I take issue with the paragraph that outlines "strict usage" as opposed to "common usage". I think the author has the uses of the term reversed, as ergonomics indeed does apply to any aspect of the man-machine interface, while in common usage the term is mainly limited to worker fatigue and productivity.
The "examples" section is sorely lacking and presents a very limited scope of the broad applications of ergonomics. Other areas where ergonomics has successfully been applied include aviation, health care, transportation, military, space, and nuclear industries. But gimmicky keyboards are important too.
I would like to apply my experience and resources as an ergonomist to make several significant changes to this article. With the changes I am proposing, much of the original material would be lost, but I think the overall result would be a more accurate and coherent exploration of ergonomics. My motivation for creating a better explanation of the term comes from continually being asked what an ergonomist does and what is ergonomics, and quite frankly never being able to provide a response to my own satisfaction. I don't know how many people will be looking up the word on Wikipedia, but it can't hurt to offer an explanation that does the field justice. And next time someone asks me what ergonomics is, I can confidently point that person here. If anyone objects to my proposal, please voice your concerns here. Suggestions for the re-write are also welcomed.
Thank you.
Mcarmody

You're right, the article doesn't do the subject justice, and a significant amount of rewriting is required. One obvious suggestion is that there seem to be more "External links" than anything else - these need culling. Good luck! -- Muntfish 11:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It helps if you sign your comments with ~~~~ so people know who you are and when you made the comment. Thanks. -- Muntfish 11:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess there is just no way of preventing people from promoting their websites or products on this page... - Mcarmody 12:50, 28 October 2005

---

I personally think that you are all wrong, the page is excellent in its intention, layout and content. I think this author has written an excelent piece and further addition by this knowledgable scientist would be greatly appreciated.Dr. C R Ocky.

---

Sidebar to OCKY - Goodness, that kind of strutting doesn't serve any purpuse. I don't know who "Ocky" is, but he's not a member of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of the US (perhaps he's in another country) and the Exectives I talked to at HFES had never heard of him.

More to the point, though, I agree that the page is a very good - at least a really good start.'

The comment by "C R Ocky" was added anonymously by someone at IP address 86.138.230.250. Since "cocky" (= C Ocky) is an English slang word meaning arrogant I think we can assume this was meant as a joke. Unfortunately it's not actually very funny.... Muntfish 15:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Muntfish, I missed that. I hope I'm not breaking any rules, though because I just took off his sentences about his superiority. Joke or not, it's not appropriate.

Misc section

Is the miscellaneous section really necessary? 128.6.175.16 14:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Deleted. Pavel Vozenilek 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Rani Lueder: I noticed my Ergonomics blog link missing, so I looked back through the update history, only to find that you deleted it, along with a bunch of other site links, only to add a link to your own business. My blog, though in its infancy, aims to be become among the very few regularly updated blogs focusing on ergonomics. I am re-posting my blog link. If you feel justified in deleting it again, please explain why you feel that way, in addition to why posting your own link in its place is justified. Best Regards, James Shannon Webmaster of The Industrial Athlete Post Time: 14:00 MDT, 15 March 2006

Schools offering PhD?

Wikipedia should mention that some schools offer a PhD in Ergonomics and list these schools. (23:21, 20 November 2006 Belgrade Glendenning)

Such lists are already available from the external links provided. Having them listed on the page would violate WP:NOT and WP:EL. --Ronz 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Merge the two articles to this article; in the human factors article it has been discussed and agreed on. 128.6.175.16 15:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to get the merge moving faster: Would people generally agree that physical ergonomics is often called ergonomics in the US, while cognitive ergonomics is often called human factors? (Ronz 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

In my work I tend to draw a marked distinction between Human Factors and Ergonomics. Ergonomics is treated as a subset of Human Factors. As Ronz states Human Factors does have a cognitive conotation to it, but that does not preclude the physical. I find a number of Human Factors are sometimes at odds with good ergonomics. For example, safety is a major human factors concern but its implementation is often to the detrement of comfort and efficiency, i.e. ergonomics. I know a lot of people and societies treat the two as the same and you can argue that all the human factors do relat to the science of work, but then you get into a lot of semantic arguments and start muddying the definition. (Chris the Ergonaut, October 2006)

Linkspam

This article has been having reoccurring problems with linkspam. Discuss here if you feel otherwise. Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM concerning linkspam. --Ronz 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If the three leading Societies recommend my pages as resources, why is Wikipedia calling them spam?

I had added Office-ergo.com as a recommended website, and I'm glad at least that one was kept on. By why was ErgoWeb repeatedly taken off? The web page listed below is shows the leading ergonomics forum there is, and it's used by people around the country.

http://forum.ergoweb.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?forum=1

Rani Lueder, CPE

That person is me. Please read WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM. Yes, the forums are worth keeping. --Ronz 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, Who are you? Please explain why the http://humanics-es.com/ergonomics.htm link is not worth including when it includes a number of original reports on it that review alternate keyboards, seating postures, vision and other topics. The one on alternative keyboards, for example, is the review of the literature that I wrote for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which they suggested that I make publicly available. These are posted on the site and are not found anywhere else.

Hi Rani. Have you read WP:EL yet? See my comments on Talk:Human_factors for more complete answer to your concerns. --Ronz 13:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Ron. I am glad you put ErgoWeb back in, at least.

And I think baddesigns was worth considering - just a regular guy going through his life pointing out the things he sees everywhere that make no sense.

I had no agenda by being anonymous, I just hadn't logged in. I listed it because I genuinely thought these pages (including mine) contributed. I added it several times because I was still working on it and didn't think it mattered if I made changes in the review or final mode.

I had thought the ergonomics papers page http://humanics-es.com/ergonomics.htm#ergo contributed because it is an attempt to get people to revisit our common everyday assumptions about posture, vision, lighting and products - and to break through the massive amount of misinformation on these topics out there by methodically reviewing research that showed that common assumptions - including ones often made by ergonomists - are questionnable and often disproven years ago.

By listing the page http://humanics-es.com/recc-ergonomics.htm, I was trying to point to the most important resources for different kinds of information on ergonomics.

Rani Lueder, CPE

Removed pretty obvious linkspam, even if it is all in Spanish, and also removed http://www.ergonomia.cl/ which may not be spam but is a sight that is largely a work in progress. Could someone fluent in Spanish give an opinion on the acceptability of http://www.ergonomia.cl/?

The person who added these links (200.68.32.106) also added six entries under "Organizations". This brings up the question of what is an acceptable organization given that there is likely at least one such organization in every country in the world. Any opinions on how to manage this? --Ronz 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object if I remove all but international organizations? --Ronz 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a blanket removal of all but international organizations would be inappropriate. Some of the national organizations will be real sources of additional information.

Pzavon 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How about international organizations and the few non-affiliated organizations, if any exist at all? People can very easily find local organizations through the main ones because of all the affiliations. --Ronz 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the English-language wikipedia, I would be more inclined to eliminate links to those organizations that have web sites in languages other than English. Pzavon 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed non-English sites, including ones where alternate English versions were offered but from non English-speaking countries. --Ronz 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

--- Don't know how/where to add this so here goes. -- I added a while back a link to www.ergogenic.com. This company is a leading company on ergonomic workstations and office equipment with valuable information about ergonomics. The owner of the company has written numerous white papers on the subject and is considered an industry expert.... I feel it was not spam and should remain...I will agree however that the site is a bit awkward to navigate. It's not spam and it's not a ploy to make some guy wealthy -- first off, the average person reading this section of wikipedia is not about to go out and contact one of these companies for purchase - AND even IF that were the case, do you have any idea the lack of companies that specialize in this? We're talking REAL ergonomics, not just those fancy "broken" keyboards you see and little tilting monitor stands...they have nothing to do with ergnomics. This site I added on the other hand does. Who says a site that is also a business can't be linked from wikipedia? Times like this I'm super happy I'm a DMOZ editor....but hey your call pal. I just wanted to further explain here. Doesn't bother me any really - just an annoying flashing message from you when I loaded the site. (Above added by 68.81.143.55 on 05:56, 13 November 2006).

I restored the forum.ergoweb.com per the discussion above. --Ronz 02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the DMOZ and about sites will be missed, unless we hear more from the DMOZ editor above. --Ronz 02:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Office Ergonomics links

We already have http://www.office-ergo.com/, which is well written and presented, and covers most issues. Today, an anonymous user added http://www.ergocise.com which I removed because in my opinion it is inferior to office-ergo in almost every way. Thoughts? --Ronz 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they are similar at all. office-ergo is entirely text and seems to give a nice description of elements of ergonomics. Ergocise has little text and lots of images and seems to focuse on exercises to be used by those working long hours at a computer or in similar static situations. The illustrations make it a more accessible and explicit means of communicating possible exercises.

Inferior/superior doesn't seem to me to be a valid continuum for comparing the two, as they have such a different focus and apparent intent. I suggest restoring the ergocise web site. I'm going to bring it to the attention of the ergonomist I work with. Pzavon 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement from Microsoft Encarta

I wonder did microsoft copy this article or wikipedia copy it from microsoft.

I found the exact same thing in http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500846/Ergonomics.html

Have a look.

(The above was added by HyperPacifist on16 October 2006)

Looks like it may have been taken from Encarta with this edit [1]. Can someone verify? --Ronz 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer trying to remove the current versions of the paragraphs that are based upon what was added in the edit above. I'm having a hard time making sense of the instructions on how to handle these cases. --Ronz 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit, noting there was a possible copyvio.[2]. It was immediately reintroduced by Umeshghosh [3]. --Ronz 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, the suspect sections of the article were removed 17 October 2006. --Ronz 04:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Response from Wikiquette noticeboard

When I found a similar problem at Mango I traced the copyvios to a single editor, then reverted the article to the version just before that editor's first edit. I also posted a message on the talk page stating what I had done and why. A modest amount of useful editing went by the wayside, but the priority was to get rid of the various copyvios. Editors who were watching the page would see the change and the reason so they could reinsert anything they considered important. I didn't get any complaints. Durova 03:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds like my suggestion above would be fine then. --Ronz 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

I mistakingly commented my edit "removed linkspam" when I should have written "removed per WP:EL & WP:NOT". My apologies. The issue here is that we cannot and should not [4] try to make lists of all ergonomics research projects, research groups, etc. While I cannot think of a good case to make for any individual research projects, there could be exceptions for research groups. The important thing is that such contributions are discussed since they are questionable per WP:NOT and WP:EL. --Ronz 04:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

cleanup tag

I removed the cleanup tag on this article. It has been there since May, and when I look at the May version, it is clear that much work has been done. It could use more, of course, but IMO doesn't really warrant the cleanup tag anymore. That being said, I won't object if someone who watches this page feels the tag should stay on. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 09:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ERGONOMY BY MAHDI SHIRZADKHAN

مسئولیت های ارگونومیکی

    تغییرات و عوض شدن ماهیت دفتر کار خواسته ی آن دسته از  کارکنانی است که می خواهند حرفه ای تر مستقل و با هوشتر از قبل باشند .

بنا بر این طراحان دفتر کار یک مکان وجایگاه کار قابل تنظیم و انعطاف پذیر که در اطراف اپراتور طراحی شده را آماده می کنند تا مجبور نباشند هما نند آن دسته از اپراتور هایی که بشدت خودشون رو با شرایط موجود مطابقت بدهند باشند .

مرکز طراحی انسانی در پیروی با ISO 9241.5 سطح کار باید از قابلیت انعطاف پذیری بالایی برخوردار باشد برای همسازی میزان مینیمم 5 درصدی از خانم ها و 95 درصدی آقایان که قبلا از استفاده کننده ها تعیین شده است . تنظیمات مبل و صندلی :

    باید از  موقعیت معمول کار از جهت طبی برتری داشته باشد ( یعنی درجه بالایی از راحتی از لحاظ معمول و شرایط عادی انسان را داشته باشد ) . نباید نیاز به مصرف نیرو و انرژی محرکه اضافی و زیادی باشد . نباید نیاز به هیچگونه آموزش های مخصوص یا لوازم خاص قبل از تنظیم بوجود بیاید .

سطح کار پر شده از تجهیزات قبلا تایین شده نباید از دست کاری های زیاد نا مشخص بکار رفته باشد چون ممکن است شخص کم سواد و نادانی روی آن بنشیند . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.218.80.251 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Is the above text suitable for the English version of Wikipedia? --Frank Steyvers 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As this is a Talk page, it probably doesn't matter too much, but it would be nice if someone could provide a translation. Pzavon 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Glorious mess!

How about some links to journals? I expected to find them here :-( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.129.229.105 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

We've plenty listed under Ergonomics#Resources --Ronz 16:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There Are No Drawings Here?

Correct me if i dont have the right idea here, but shouldnt there be some drawings in an encyclopedia which has a heading "Ergonomics" ? Students (I would be one of them) might want some basic information, for example a drawing with general dimensions of the various body parts for male female child for example.

The problem with the web is that when you do a search through a search engine a lot of prommissing results are listed for your search enquiry, but almost always the sites turn out to be some commercial entity, with very little useful info for students trying to learn.

As soon as I typed in ergonomics here in Wikipedia, and there was a 100% match, i thought finally Im going to find some info. There seems to be a few people, including the original author, who have contributed to this article who know their stuff. From a students perspective it would make a huge difference id some drawings were added, surely someone out there that can pass on this valuable knowledge through this great website.

Tony Milou--210.50.132.21 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OSHA information

There is a ton of information on http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.html that pertains to the ergonomics of computer usage. Since it's a government site, it's all public domain! --68.239.240.144 02:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

History Edit

I have added a brief section about ergonomics in Ancient Greece. This is an important aspect of the development of the science of ergonomics. --Laurel 310 03:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Laurel310

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Human factors and ergonomics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A new subtopic like "Job Prospects" should be added to the benefit of new graduates and post graduate students, and for those willing/hesitating to study the science of Ergonomics. Dharmanandjha (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)