PROJECTOVERVIEW The purpose of this project is to redesign a common garden tool with close attention to human factors’ considerations. The first phase of this project entails gathering anthropometric data relevant to the specific tool, task, environment, and user. For the hose nozzle, physical user interaction is limited to the hand; therefore, several measurements pertaining to the dimensions of my hand were recorded and compared with anthropometric data from the US (see Dreyfuss).
HANDMEASURMENTS All measuremnts are taken with calipers in mm. The data are compared to data for the 1st, 50th, and 99th percentiles for men from the US. My dimensions are in green.
ring finger length 01% US | 69 mm 02% US | 73 mm 50% US | 81 mm 99% US | 93 mm
little finger length 01% US | 51 mm 07% US | 55 mm 50% US | 61 mm 99% US | 71 mm
hand thickness 01% US | 28mm 50% US | 33 mm 93% US | 37 mm 99% US | 38 mm hand thickness w/ thumb 01% US | 51 mm 29% US | 60 mm 50% US | 62 mm 99% US | 72 mm
HOSENOZZLE
middle finger length 01% US | 74 mm 06% US | 80 mm 50% US | 88 mm 99% US | 99 mm
TIM TOCCI | PROF. V.P. HJELTNESS | 10 JAN 2010 IDUS 221: HUMAN FACTORS IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
index finger length 01% US | 66 mm 16% US | 71 mm 50% US | 76 mm 99% US | 86 mm
source: Dreyfuss, Henry. The Measure of Man and Woman: human factors in design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. p 42.
index finger breadth 01% US | 18 mm 46% US | 20 mm 50% US | 21 mm 99% US | 24 mm thumb length 01% US | 48 mm 43% US | 58 mm 50% US | 59 mm 99% US | 69 mm
thumb breadth 01% US | 14 mm 23% US | 22 mm 50% US | 23 mm 99% US | 32 mm
hand breadth 01% US | 28mm 50% US | 33 mm 93% US | 37 mm 99% US | 38 mm
hand breadth across thumb 01% US | 51 mm 07% US | 55 mm 50% US | 61 mm 99% US | 71 mm
PHASE1CONCLUSION
AGE+NATIONALITYCOMPARISON
After analyzing the data and comparing with both estimated measurements and actual data from the United States and the United Kingdom, it is clear that egocentric, ethnocentric, and gerocentric design are limited in application. While my own dimensions may be a useful starting point, to extrapolate my data for all users would be an oversimplification. It is also clear that body dimensions are not linearly correlated, even for a single isolated appendage such as a hand. Furthermore, there are instances where I myself do not fit the 5th to 95th percentile range, which serves to indicate the limits of that rule as well. Essential measurements for the hose nozzle include the hand, palm, and finger lengths as well as the grip diameter.
95.4% 197mm
9 5% 195mm
5% 175mm 50% 190mm 78% 197mm 9 5% 205mm
hand length elderly 5% 160mm 50% 180mm
hand length UK
5% 175mm 50% 191mm 72% 197mm 95% 205mm
hand length US
197mm
95% 90mm
70% 83mm
hand breadth elderly 5% 75mm 50% 80mm
50% 83mm 95% 95mm
5% 80mm 28% 83mm
hand breadth UK
95% 100mm
50% 90mm
5% 80mm 7% 83mm
hand breadth US
83mm
HOSENOZZLE
GRIPMEASURMENTS To measure the maximum grip diameter, the hand is placed around a cone and lowered until only the thumb and middle fingers touch (Pheseant 250). To simplify this process, I created a circle with my thumb and middle fingers and measured the diameter. The maximum functional spread is taken by “gripping a wooden wedge with the tip end segments of the thumb and ring fingers” (250). My dimensions are in green.
TIM TOCCI | PROF. V.P. HJELTNESS | 10 JAN 2010 IDUS 221: HUMAN FACTORS IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
source: Pheseant, Stephen. Bodyspace: anthropometry, egonomics and the design of work. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor Francis Group, 2006. pp 244, 249, and 254.
maximum grip diameter 05% US (est) | 45 mm 50% US (est) | 52 mm 66% US (est) | 54 mm 95% US (est) | 59 mm
maximum functional spread 05% US (est) | 112 mm 47% US (est) | 141 mm 50% US (est) | 142 mm 95% US (est) | 162 mm