Controls, Indicators and Panels

Monday, 14 March 2011 19:54

Controls, Indicators and Panels

font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
Email

Rate this item

(4 votes)

Karl H. E. Kroemer

In what follows, three of the most important concerns of ergonomic design will be examined: first, that of controls, devices to transfer energy or signals from the operator to a piece of machinery; second, indicators or displays, which provide visual information to the operator about the status of the machinery; and third, the combination of controls and displays in a panel or console.

Designing for the Sitting Operator

Sitting is a more stable and less energy-consuming posture than standing, but it restricts the working space, particularly of the feet, more than standing. However, it is much easier to operate foot controls when sitting, as compared to standing, because little body weight must be transferred by the feet to the ground. Furthermore, if the direction of the force exerted by the foot is partly or largely forward, provision of a seat with a backrest allows the exertion of rather large forces. (A typical example of this arrangement is the location of pedals in an automobile, which are located in front of the driver, more or less below seat height.) Figure 1 shows schematically the locations in which pedals may be located for a seated operator. Note that the specific dimensions of that space depend on the anthropometry of the actual operators.

Figure 1. Preferred and regular workspace for feet (in centimetres)

The space for the positioning of hand-operated controls is primarily located in front of the body, within a roughly spherical contour that is centred at either the elbow, at the shoulder, or somewhere between those two body joints. Figure 2 shows schematically that space for the location of controls. Of course, the specific dimensions depend on the anthropometry of the operators.

Figure 2. Preferred and regular workspace for hands (in centimetres)

The space for displays and for controls that must be looked at is bounded by the periphery of a partial sphere in front of the eyes and centred at the eyes. Thus, the reference height for such displays and controls depends on the eye height of the seated operator and on his or her trunk and neck postures. The preferred location for visual targets closer than about one metre is distinctly below the height of the eye, and depends on the closeness of the target and on the posture of the head. The closer the target, the lower it should be located, and it should be in or near the medial (mid-sagittal) plane of the operator.

It is convenient to describe the posture of the head by using the “ear-eye line” (Kroemer 1994a) which, in the side view, runs through the right ear hole and the juncture of the lids of the right eye, while the head is not tilted to either side (the pupils are at the same horizontal level in the frontal view). One usually calls the head position “erect” or “upright” when the pitch angle P (see figure 3) between the ear-eye line and the horizon is about 15°, with the eyes above the height of the ear. The preferred location for visual targets is 25°–65° below the ear-eye line (LOSEE in figure 3), with the lower values preferred by most people for close targets that must be kept in focus. Even though there are large variations in the preferred angles of the line of sight, most subjects, particularly as they become older, prefer to focus on close targets with large LOSEE angles.

Figure 3. Ear-eye line

Designing for the Standing Operator

Pedal operation by a standing operator should be seldom required, because otherwise the person must spend too much time standing on one foot while the other foot operates the control. Obviously, simultaneous operation of two pedals by a standing operator is practically impossible. While the operator is standing still, the room for the location of foot controls is limited to a small area below the trunk and slightly in front of it. Walking about would provide more room to place pedals, but that is highly impractical in most cases because of the walking distances involved.

The location for hand-operated controls of a standing operator includes about the same area as for a seated operator, roughly a half sphere in front of the body, with its centre near the shoulders of the operator. For repeated control operations, the preferred part of that half sphere would be its lower section. The area for the location of displays is also similar to the one suited to a seated operator, again roughly a half sphere centred near the operator’s eyes, with the preferred locations in the lower section of that half sphere. The exact locations for displays, and also for controls that must be seen, depends on the posture of the head, as discussed above.

The height of controls is appropriately referenced to the height of the elbow of the operator while the upper arm is hanging from the shoulder. The height of displays and controls that must be looked at is referred to the eye height of the operator. Both depend on the operator’s anthropometry, which may be rather different for short and tall persons, for men and women, and for people of different ethnic origins.

Foot-operated Controls

Two kinds of controls should be distinguished: one is used to transfer large energy or forces to a piece of machinery. Examples of this are the pedals on a bicycle or the brake pedal in a heavier vehicle that does not have a power-assist feature. A foot-operated control, such as an on-off switch, in which a control signal is conveyed to the machinery, usually requires only a small quantity of force or energy. While it is convenient to consider these two extremes of pedals, there are various intermediate forms, and it is the task of the designer to determine which of the following design recommendations apply best among them.

As mentioned above, repeated or continual pedal operation should be required only from a seated operator. For controls meant to transmit large energies and forces, the following rules apply:

Locate pedals underneath the body, slightly in front, so that they can be operated with the leg in a comfortable position. The total horizontal displacement of a reciprocating pedal should normally not exceed about 0.15 m. For rotating pedals, the radius should also be about 0.15 m. The linear displacement of a switch-type pedal may be minimal and should not exceed about 0.15 m.

Pedals should be so designed that the direction of travel and the foot force are approximately in the line extending from the hip through the ankle joint of the operator.

Pedals that are operated by flexion and extension of the foot in the ankle joint should be so arranged that in the normal position the angle between the lower leg and the foot is approximately 90°; during operation, that angle may be increased to about 120°.

Foot-operated controls that simply provide signals to the machinery should normally have two discrete positions, such as ON or OFF. Note, however, that tactile distinction between the two positions may be difficult with the foot.

Selection of Controls

Selection among different sorts of controls must be made according to the following needs or conditions:

Operation by hand or foot

Amounts of energies and forces transmitted

Applying “continuous” inputs, such as steering an automobile

Performing “discrete actions,” for example, (a) activating or shutting down equipment, (b) selecting one of several distinct adjustments, such as switching from one TV or radio channel to another, or (c) carrying out data entry, as with a keyboard.

The functional usefulness of controls also determines selection procedures. The main criteria are as follows:

The control type shall be compatible with stereotypical or common expectations (for instance, using a push-button or toggle switch to turn on an electric light, not a rotary knob).

Size and motion characteristics of the control shall be compatible with stereotypical experience and past practice (for instance, providing a large steering wheel for the two-handed operation of an automobile, not a lever).

The direction of operation of a control shall be compatible with stereotypical or common expectations (for instance, an ON control is pushed or pulled, not turned to the left).

Hand operation is used for controls that require small force and fine adjustment, while foot operation is suitable for gross adjustments and large forces (however, consider the common use of pedals, particularly accelerator pedals, in automobiles, which does not comply with this principle).

The control shall be “safe” in that it cannot be operated inadvertently nor in ways that are excessive or inconsistent with its intended purpose.

Table 1. Control movements and expected effects

Direction of control movement

Function

Right

Forward

Clockwise

Press,
Squeeze

Down

Left

Rearward

Back

Counter-
clockwise

Pull¹

Push²

+³

–

+³

Off

–

Right

–

Left

–

Raise

–

Lower

–

Retract

–

Extend

–

Increase

–

Decrease

–

Open Value

–

Close Value

–

Blank: Not applicable; + Most preferred; – less preferred. ¹ With trigger-type control. ² With push-pull switch. ³ Up in the United States, down in Europe.

Source: Modified from Kroemer 1995.

Table 1 and table 2 help in the selection of proper controls. However, note that there are few “natural” rules for selection and design of controls. Most current recommendations are purely empirical and apply to existing devices and Western stereotypes.

Table 2. Control-effect relations of common hand controls

Effect

Key-
lock

Toggle
switch

Push-
button

Bar
knob

Round
knob

Thumbwheel
discrete

Thumbwheel
continuous

Crank

Rocker switch

Lever

Joystick
or ball

Legend
switch

Slide¹

Select ON/OFF

Select ON/STANDBY/OFF

–

Select OFF/MODE1/MODE2

–

Select one function of several related functions

–

Select one of three or more discrete alternatives

Select operating condition

–

Engage or disengage

Select one of mutually
exclusive functions

Set value on scale

–

Select value in discrete steps

Blank: Not applicable; +: Most preferred; –: Less preferred; = Least preferred. ¹ Estimated (no experiments known).

Source: Modified from Kroemer 1995.

Figure 4 presents examples of “detent” controls, characterized by discrete detents or stops in which the control comes to rest. It also depicts typical “continuous” controls where the control operation may take place anywhere within the adjustment range, without the need to be set in any given position.

Figure 4. Some examples of "detent" and "continuous" controls

The sizing of controls is largely a matter of past experiences with various control types, often guided by the desire to minimize the needed space in a control panel, and either to allow simultaneous operations of adjacent controls or to avoid inadvertent concurrent activation. Furthermore, the choice of design characteristics will be influenced by such considerations as whether the controls are to be located outdoors or in sheltered environments, in stationary equipment or moving vehicles, or may involve the use of bare hands or of gloves and mittens. For these conditions, consult readings at the end of the chapter.

Several operational rules govern the arrangement and grouping of controls. These are listed in table 3. For more details, check the references listed at the end of this section and Kroemer, Kroemer and Kroemer-Elbert (1994).

Table 3. Rules for arrangement of controls

Locate for the ease of operation	Controls shall be oriented with respect to the operator. If the operator uses different postures (such as in driving and operating a backhoe), the controls and their associated displays shall move with the operator so that in each posture their arrangement and operation is the same for the operator.
Primary controls first	The most important controls shall have the most advantageous locations to make operation and reaching easy for the operator.
Group related controls together	Controls that are operated in sequence, that are related to a particular function, or that are operated together, shall be arranged in functional groups (together with their associated displays). Within each functional group, controls and displays shall be arranged according to operational importance and sequence.
Arrange for sequential operation	If operation of controls follows a given pattern, controls shall be arranged to facilitate that sequence. Common arrangements are left-to-right (preferred) or top-to-bottom, as in printed materials of the Western world.
Be consistent	The arrangement of functionally identical or similar controls shall be the same from panel to panel.
Dead-operator control	If the operator becomes incapacitated and either lets go of a control, or continues to hold on to it, a “deadman” control design shall be utilized which either turns the system to a non-critical operation state or shuts it down.
Select codes appropriately	There are numerous ways to help identify controls, to indicate the effects of the operation and to show their status. Major coding means are: –Location–Shape–Size–Mode of operation– Labels –Colours–Redundancy

Source: Modified from Kroemer, Kroemer and Kroemer-Elbert 1994.
Reproduced by permission of Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved.

Preventing Accidental Operation

The following are the most important means to guard against inadvertent activation of controls, some of which may be combined:

Locate and orient the control so that the operator is unlikely to strike it or move it accidentally in the normal sequence of control operations.

Recess, shield or surround the control by physical barriers.

Cover the control or guard it by providing a pin, a lock or other means that must be removed or broken before the control can be operated.

Provide extra resistance (by viscous or coulomb friction, by spring-loading or by inertia) so that an unusual effort is required for actuation.

Provide a “delaying” means so that the control must pass through a critical position with an unusual movement (such as in the gear shift mechanism of an automobile).

Provide interlocking between controls so that prior operation of a related control is required before the critical control can be activated.

Note that these designs usually slow the operation of controls, which may be detrimental in case of an emergency.

Data Entry Devices

Nearly all controls can be used to enter data on a computer or other data storage device. However, we are most used to the practice of using a keyboard with push-buttons. On the original typewriter keyboard, which has become the standard even for computer keyboards, the keys were arranged in a basically alphabetic sequence, which has been modified for various, often obscure, reasons. In some cases, letters which frequently follow each other in common text were spaced apart so that the original mechanical type bars might not entangle if struck in rapid sequence. “Columns” of keys run in roughly straight lines, as do the “rows” of keys. However, the fingertips are not aligned in such manners, and do not move in this way when digits of the hand are flexed or extended, or moved sideways.

Many attempts have been made over the last hundred years to improve keying performance by changing the keyboard layout. These include relocating keys within the standard layout, or changing the keyboard layout altogether. The keyboard has been divided into separate sections, and sets of keys (such as numerical pads) have been added. Arrangements of adjacent keys may be changed by altering spacing, offset from each other or from reference lines. The keyboard may be divided into sections for the left and right hand, and those sections may be laterally tilted and sloped and slanted.

The dynamics of the operation of push-button keys are important for the user, but are difficult to measure in operation. Thus, the force-displacement characteristics of keys are commonly described for static testing, which is not indicative of actual operation. By current practise, keys on computer keyboards have fairly little displacement (about 2 mm) and display a “snap-back” resistance, that is, a decrease in operation force at the point when actuation of the key has been achieved. Instead of separate single keys, some keyboards consist of a membrane with switches underneath which, when pressed in the correct location, generate the desired input with little or no displacement felt. The major advantage of the membrane is that dust or fluids cannot penetrate it; however, many users dislike it.

There are alternatives to the “one key-one character” principle; instead, one can generate inputs by various combinatory means. One is “chording”, meaning that two or more controls are operated simultaneously to generate one character. This poses demands on the memory capabilities of the operator, but requires the use of only very few keys. Other developments utilize controls other than the binary tapped push button, replacing it by levers, toggles or special sensors (such as an instrumented glove) which respond to movements of the digits of the hand.

By tradition, typing and computer entry have been made by mechanical interaction between the operator’s fingers and such devices as keyboard, mouse, track ball or light pen. Yet there are many other means to generate inputs. Voice recognition appears one promising technique, but other methods can be employed. They might utilize, for example, pointing, gestures, facial expressions, body movements, looking (directing one’s gaze), movements of the tongue, breathing or sign language to transmit information and to generate inputs to a computer. Technical development in this area is very much in flux, and as the many nontraditional input devices used for computer games indicate, acceptance of devices other than the traditional binary tap-down keyboard is entirely feasible within the near future. Discussions of current keyboard devices have been provided, for example, by Kroemer (1994b) and McIntosh (1994).

Displays

Displays provide information about the status of equipment. Displays may apply to the operator’s visual sense (lights, scales, counters, cathode-ray tubes, flat panel electronics, etc.), to the auditory sense (bells, horns, recorded voice messages, electronically generated sounds, etc.) or to the sense of touch (shaped controls, Braille, etc.). Labels, written instructions, warnings or symbols (“icons”) may be considered special kinds of displays.

The four “cardinal rules” for displays are:

Display only that information which is essential for adequate job performance.
Display information only as accurately as is required for the operator’s decisions and actions.
Present information in the most direct, simple, understandable and usable form.
Present information in such a way that failure or malfunction of the display itself will be immediately obvious.

The selection of either an auditory or visual display depends on the prevailing conditions and purposes. The objective of the display may be to provide:

historical information about the past state of the system, such as the course run by a ship

status information about the current state of the system, such as the text already input into a word processor or the current position of an airplane

predictive information, such as on the future position of a ship, given certain steering settings

instructions or commands telling the operator what to do, and possibly how to do it.

A visual display is most appropriate if the environment is noisy, the operator stays in place, the message is long and complex, and especially if it deals with the spatial location of an object. An auditory display is appropriate if the workplace must be kept dark, the operator moves around, and the message is short and simple, requires immediate attention, and deals with events and time.

Visual Displays

There are three basic types of visual displays: (1)The check display indicates whether or not a given condition exists (for example a green light indicates normal function). (2)The qualitative display indicates the status of a changing variable or its approximate value, or its trend of change (for example, a pointer moves within a “normal” range). (3) The quantitative display shows exact information that must be ascertained (for example, to find a location on a map, to read text or to draw on a computer monitor), or it may indicate an exact numerical value that must be read by the operator (for example, a time or a temperature).

Design guidelines for visual displays are:

Arrange displays so that the operator can locate and identify them easily without unnecessary searching. (This usually means that the displays should be in or near the medial plane of the operator, and below or at eye height.)

Group displays functionally or sequentially so that the operator can use them easily.

Make sure that all displays are properly illuminated or illuminant, coded and labelled according to their function.

Use lights, often coloured, to indicate the status of a system (such as ON or OFF) or to alert the operator that the system, or a subsystem, is inoperative and that special action must be taken. Common meanings of light colours are listed in figure 5. Flashing red indicates an emergency condition that requires immediate action. An emergency signal is most effective when it combines sounds with a flashing red light.

Figure 5. Colour coding of indicator lights

For more complex and detailed information, especially quantitative information, one of four different kinds of displays are traditionally used: (1) a moving pointer (with fixed scale), (2) a moving scale (with fixed pointer), (3) counters or (4) “pictorial” displays, especially computer-generated on a display monitor. Figure 6 lists the major characteristics of these display types.

Figure 6. Characteristics of displays

It is usually preferable to use a moving pointer rather than a moving scale, with the scale either straight (horizontally or vertically arranged), curved or circular. Scales should be simple and uncluttered, with graduation and numbering so designed that correct readings can be taken quickly. Numerals should be located outside the scale markings so that they are not obscured by the pointer. The pointer should end with its tip directly at the marking. The scale should mark divisions only so finely as the operator must read. All major marks should be numbered. Progressions are best marked with intervals of one, five or ten units between major marks. Numbers should increase left to right, bottom to top or clockwise. For details of dimensions of scales refer to standards such as those listed by Cushman and Rosenberg 1991 or Kroemer 1994a.

Starting in the 1980s, mechanical displays with pointers and printed scales were increasingly replaced by “electronic” displays with computer-generated images, or solid-state devices using light-emitting diodes (see Snyder 1985a). The displayed information may be coded by the following means:

shapes, such as straight or circular

alphanumeric, that is, letters, numbers, words, abbreviations

figures, pictures, pictorials, icons, symbols, in various levels of abstraction, such as the outline of an airplane against the horizon

shades of black, white or gray

colours.

Unfortunately, many electronically generated displays have been fuzzy, often overly complex and colourful, hard to read, and required exact focusing and close attention, which may distract from the main task, for example, driving a car. In these cases the first three of the four “cardinal rules” listed above were often violated. Furthermore, many electronically generated pointers, markings and alphanumerics did not comply with established ergonomic design guidelines, especially when generated by line segments, scan lines or dot matrices. Although some of these defective designs were tolerated by the users, rapid innovation and improving display techniques allows many better solutions. However, the same rapid development leads to the fact that printed statements (even if current and comprehensive when they appear) are becoming obsolete quickly. Therefore, none are given in this text. Compilations have been published by Cushman and Rosenberg (1991), Kinney and Huey (1990), and Woodson, Tillman and Tillman (1991).

The overall quality of electronic displays is often wanting. One measure used to assess the image quality is the modulation transfer function (MTF) (Snyder 1985b). It describes the resolution of the display using a special sine-wave test signal; yet, readers have many criteria regarding the preference of displays (Dillon 1992).

Monochrome displays have only one colour, usually either green, yellow, amber, orange or white (achromatic). If several colours appear on the same chromatic display, they should be easily discriminated. It is best to display not more than three or four colours simultaneously (with preference being given to red, green, yellow or orange, and cyan or purple). All should strongly contrast with the background. In fact, a suitable rule is to design first by contrast, that is, in terms of black and white, and then to add colours sparingly.

In spite of the many variables that, singly and interacting with each other, affect the use of complex colour display, Cushman and Rosenberg (1991) compiled guidelines for use of colour in displays; these are listed in figure 7.

Figure 7. Guidelines for use of colours in displays

Other suggestions are as follows:

Blue (preferably desaturated) is a good colour for backgrounds and large shapes. However, blue should not be used for text, thin lines or small shapes.

The colour of alphanumeric characters should contrast with that of the background.

When using colour, use shape as a redundant cue (e.g., all yellow symbols are triangles, all green symbols are circles, all red symbols are squares). Redundant coding makes the display much more acceptable for users who have colour-vision deficiencies.

As the number of colours is increased, the sizes of the colour-coded objects should also be increased.

Red and green should not be used for small symbols and small shapes in peripheral areas of large displays.

Using opponent colours (red and green, yellow and blue) adjacent to one another or in an object/background relationship is sometimes beneficial and sometimes detrimental. No general guidelines can be given; a solution should be determined for each case.

Avoid displaying several highly saturated, spectrally extreme colours at the same time.

Panels of Controls and Displays

Displays as well as controls should be arranged in panels so they are in front of the operator, that is, close to the person’s medial plane. As discussed earlier, controls should be near elbow height, and displays below or at eye height, whether the operator is sitting or standing. Infrequently operated controls, or less important displays, can be located further to the sides, or higher.

Often, information on the result of control operation is displayed on an instrument. In this case, the display should be located close to the control so that the control setting can be done without error, quickly and conveniently. The assignment is usually clearest when the control is directly below or to the right of the display. Care must be taken that the hand does not cover the display when operating the control.

Popular expectancies of control-display relations exist, but they are often learned, they may depend on the user’s cultural background and experience, and these relationships are often not strong. Expected movement relationships are influenced by the type of control and display. When both are either linear or rotary, the stereotypical expectation is that they move in corresponding directions, such as both up or both clockwise. When the movements are incongruent, in general the following rules apply:

Clockwise for increase. Turning the control clockwise causes an increase in the displayed value.

Warrick’s gear-slide rule. A display (pointer) is expected to move in the same direction as does the side of the control close to (i.e., geared with) the display.

The ratio of control and display displacement (C/D ratio or D/C gain) describes how much a control must be moved to adjust a display. If much control movement produces only a small display motion, once speaks of a high C/D ratio, and of the control as having low sensitivity. Often, two distinct movements are involved in making a setting: first a fast primary (“slewing”) motion to an approximate location, then a fine adjustment to the exact setting. In some cases, one takes as the optimal C/D ratio that which minimizes the sum of these two movements. However, the most suitable ratio depends on the given circumstances; it must be determined for each application.

Labels and Warnings

Labels

Ideally, no label should be required on equipment or on a control to explain its use. Often, however, it is necessary to use labels so that one may locate, identify, read or manipulate controls, displays or other equipment items. Labelling must be done so that the information is provided accurately and rapidly. For this, the guidelines in table 4 apply.

Table 4. Guidelines for labels

Orientation	A label and the information printed on it shall be oriented horizontally so that it can be read quickly and easily. (Note that this applies if the operator is used to reading horizontally, as in Western countries.)
Location	A label shall be placed on or very near the item that it identifies.
Standardization	Placement of all labels shall be consistent throughout the equipment and system.
Equipment functions	A label shall primarily describe the function (“what does it do”) of the labelled item.
Abbreviations	Common abbreviations may be used. If a new abbreviation is necessary, its meaning should be obvious to the reader. The same abbreviation shall be used for all tenses and for the singular and plural forms of a word. Capital letters shall be used, periods normally omitted.
Brevity	The label inscription shall be as concise as possible without distorting the intended meaning or information. The texts shall be unambiguous, redundancy minimized.
Familiarity	Words shall be chosen, if possible, that are familiar to the operator.
Visibility and legibility	The operator shall be able to be read easily and accurately at the anticipated actual reading distances, at the anticipated worst illumination level, and within the anticipated vibration and motion environment. Important factors are: contrast between the lettering and its background; the height, width, strokewidth, spacing and style of letters; and the specular reflection of the background, cover or other components.
Font and size	Typography determines the legibility of written information; it refers to style, font, arrangement and appearance.

Source: Modified from Kroemer, Kroemer and Kroemer-Elbert 1994
(reproduced by permission of Prentice-Hall; all rights reserved).

Font (typeface) should be simple, bold and vertical, such as Futura, Helvetica, Namel, Tempo and Vega. Note that most electronically generated fonts (formed by LED, LCD or dot matrix) are generally inferior to printed fonts; thus, special attention must be paid to making these as legible as possible.

The height of characters depends on the viewing distance:

viewing distance 35 cm, suggested height 22 mm

viewing distance 70 cm, suggested height 50 mm

viewing distance 1 m, suggested height 70 mm

viewing distance 1.5 m, suggested height at least 1 cm.

The ratio of strokewidth to character height should be between 1:8 to 1:6 for black letters on white background, and 1:10 to 1:8 for white letters on black background.

The ratio of character width to character height should be about 3:5.

The space between letters should be at least one stroke width.

The space between words should be at least one character width.

For continuous text, mix upper- and lower-case letters; for labels, use upper-case letters only.

Warnings

Ideally, all devices should be safe to use. In reality, often this cannot be achieved through design. In this case, one must warn users of the dangers associated with product use and provide instructions for safe use to prevent injury or damage.

It is preferable to have an “active” warning, usually consisting of a sensor that notices inappropriate use, combined with an alerting device that warns the human of an impending danger. Yet, in most cases, “passive” warnings are used, usually consisting of a label attached to the product and of instructions for safe use in the user manual. Such passive warnings rely completely on the human user to recognize an existing or potential dangerous situation, to remember the warning, and to behave prudently.

Labels and signs for passive warnings must be carefully designed by following the most recent government laws and regulations, national and international standards, and the best applicable human engineering information. Warning labels and placards may contain text, graphics, and pictures—often graphics with redundant text. Graphics, particularly pictures and pictograms, can be used by persons with different cultural and language backgrounds, if these depictions are selected carefully. However, users with different ages, experiences, and ethnic and educational backgrounds, may have rather different perceptions of dangers and warnings. Therefore, design of a safe product is much preferable to applying warnings to an inferior product.

Back

Read 15847 times Last modified on Friday, 15 November 2019 16:58

Published in Work Systems Design

More in this category: « Tools Information Processing and Design »

" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content. Certain statistics have not been updated since the production of the 4th edition of the Encyclopaedia (1998)."

Ergonomics References

Abeysekera, JDA, H Shahnavaz, and LJ Chapman. 1990. Ergonomics in developing countries. In Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, edited by B Das. London: Taylor & Francis.

Ahonen, M, M Launis, and T Kuorinka. 1989. Ergonomic Workplace Analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

Alvares, C. 1980. Homo Faber: Technology and Culture in India, China and the West from 1500 to Present Day. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Amalberti, R. 1991. Savoir-faire de l’opérateur: aspects théoriques et pratiques en ergonomie. In Modèle en analyse du travail, edited by R Amalberti, M de Montmollin, and J Thereau. Liège: Mardaga.

Amalberti, R, M Bataille, G Deblon, A Guengant, JM Paquay, C Valot, and JP Menu. 1989. Développement d’aides intelligentes au pilotage: Formalisation psychologique et informatique d’un modèle de comportement du pologage de combat engagé en mission de pènètration. Paris: Rapport CERMA.

Åstrand, I. 1960. Aerobic work capacity in men and women with special reference to age. Acta Physiol Scand 49 Suppl. 169:1-92.

Bainbridge, L. 1981. Le contrôleur de processus. B Psychol XXXIV:813-832.

—. 1986. Asking questions and accessing knowledge. Future Comput Sys 1:143-149.

Baitsch, C. 1985. Kompetenzentwicklung und partizipative Arbeitsgestaltung. Bern: Huber.

Banks, MH and RL Miller. 1984. Reliability and convergent validity of the job component inventory. J Occup Psychol 57:181-184.

Baranson, J. 1969. Industrial Technology for Developing Economies. New York: Praeger.

Bartenwerfer, H. 1970. Psychische Beanspruchung und Erdmüdung. In Handbuch der Psychologie, edited by A Mayer and B Herwig. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Bartlem, CS and E Locke. 1981. The Coch and French study: A critique and reinterpretation. Hum Relat 34:555-566.

Blumberg, M. 1988. Towards a new theory of job design. In Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems, edited by W Karwowski, HR Parsaei, and MR Wilhelm. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Bourdon, F and A Weill Fassina. 1994. Réseau et processus de coopération dans la gestion du trafic ferroviaire. Travail Hum. Numéro spécial consacré au travail collectif.

Brehmer, B. 1990. Towards a taxonomy for microworlds. In Taxonomy for an Analysis of Work Domains. Proceedings of the First MOHAWC Workshop, edited by B Brehmer, M de Montmollin and J Leplat. Roskilde: Riso National Laboratory.

Brown DA and R Mitchell. 1986. The Pocket Ergonomist. Sydney: Group Occupational Health Centre.

Bruder. 1993. Entwicklung eines wissensbusierten Systems zur belastungsanalytisch unterscheidbaren Erholungszeit. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.

Caverni, JP. 1988. La verbalisation comme source d’observables pour l’étude du fonctionnnement cognitif. In Psychologie cognitive: Modèles et méthodes, edited by JP
Caverni, C Bastien, P Mendelson, and G Tiberghien. Grenoble: Presses Univ. de Grenoble.

Campion, MA. 1988. Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive replication with extensions. J Appl Psychol 73:467-481.

Campion, MA and PW Thayer. 1985. Development and field evaluation of an inter-disciplinary measure of job design. J Appl Psychol 70:29-43.

Carter, RC and RJ Biersner. 1987. Job requirements derived from the Position Analysis Questionnaire and validity using military aptitude test scores. J Occup Psychol 60:311-321.

Chaffin, DB. 1969. A computerized biomechanical model-development of and use in studying gross body actions. J Biomech 2:429-441.

Chaffin, DB and G Andersson. 1984. Occupational Biomechanics. New York: Wiley.

Chapanis, A. 1975. Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Coch, L and JRP French. 1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Hum Relat 1:512-532.

Corlett, EN and RP Bishop. 1976. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics 19:175-182.

Corlett, N. 1988. The investigation and evaluation of work and workplaces. Ergonomics 31:727-734.

Costa, G, G Cesana, K Kogi, and A Wedderburn. 1990. Shiftwork: health, sleep and performance. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Cotton, JL, DA Vollrath, KL Froggatt, ML Lengnick-Hall, and KR Jennings. 1988. Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Acad Manage Rev 13:8-22.

Cushman, WH and DJ Rosenberg. 1991. Human Factors in Product Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Dachler, HP and B Wilpert. 1978. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Adm Sci Q 23:1-39.

Daftuar, CN. 1975. The role of human factors in underdeveloped countries, with special reference to India. In Ethnic Variable in Human Factor Engineering, edited by Chapanis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Das, B and RM Grady. 1983a. Industrial workplace layout design. An application of engineering anthropometry. Ergonomics 26:433-447.

—. 1983b. The normal working area in the horizontal plane. A comparative study between Farley’s and Squire’s concepts. Ergonomics 26:449-459.

Deci, EL. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Decortis, F and PC Cacciabue. 1990. Modèlisation cognitive et analyse de l’activité. In Modèles et pratiques de l’analyse du travail, edited by R Amalberti, M Montmollin, and J Theureau. Brussels: Mardaga.

DeGreve, TB and MM Ayoub. 1987. A workplace design expert system. Int J Ind Erg 2:37-48.

De Keyser, V. 1986. De l’évolution des métiers. In Traité de psychologie du travail, edited by C Levy- Leboyer and JC Sperandio. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

—. 1992. Man within the Production Line. Proceedings of the Fourth Brite-EuRam Conference, 25-27 May, Séville, Spain. Brussels: EEC.

De Keyser, V and A Housiaux. 1989. The Nature of Human Expertise. Rapport Intermédiaire Politique Scientifique. Liège: Université de Liège.

De Keyser, V and AS Nyssen. 1993. Les erreurs humaines en anesthésie. Travail Hum 56:243-266.

De Lisi, PS. 1990. Lesson from the steel axe: Culture, technology and organizational change. Sloan Manage Rev 32:83-93.

Dillon, A. 1992. Reading from paper versus screen: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35:1297-1326.

Dinges, DF. 1992. Probing the limits of functional capacity: The effects of sleep loss on short-duration tasks. In Sleep, Arousal, and Performance, edited by RJ Broughton and RD Ogilvie. Boston: Birkhäuser.

Drury, CG. 1987. A biomechanical evaluation of the repetitive motion injury potential of industrial jobs. Sem Occup Med 2:41-49.

Edholm, OG. 1966. The assessment of habitual activity. In Physical Activity in Health and Disease, edited by K Evang and K Lange-Andersen. Oslo: Universitetterlaget.

Eilers, K, F Nachreiner, and K Hänicke. 1986. Entwicklung und Überprüfung einer Skala zur Erfassung subjektiv erlebter Anstrengung. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft 40:215-224.

Elias, R. 1978. A medicobiological approach to workload. Note No. 1118-9178 in Cahiers De Notes Documentaires—Sécurité Et Hygiène Du Travail. Paris: INRS.

Elzinga, A and A Jamison. 1981. Cultural Components in the Scientific Attitude to Nature: Eastern and Western Mode. Discussion paper No. 146. Lund: Univ. of Lund, Research Policy Institute.

Emery, FE. 1959. Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems. Document No. 527. London: Tavistock.

Empson, J. 1993. Sleep and Dreaming. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Ericson, KA and HA Simon. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports As Data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 1990. Ergonomic Principles of the Design of Work Systems. EEC Council Directive 90/269/EEC, The Minimum Health and Safety Requirements for the Manual Handling of Loads. Brussels: CEN.

—. 1991. CEN Catalogue 1991: Catalogue of European Standards. Brussels: CEN.

—. 1994. Safety of Machinery: Ergonomic Design Principles. Part 1: Terminology and General Principles. Brussels: CEN.

Fadier, E. 1990. Fiabilité humaine: méthodes d’analyse et domaines d’application. In Les facteurs humains de la fiabilité dans les systèmes complexes, edited by J Leplat and G De Terssac. Marseilles: Octares.

Falzon, P. 1991. Cooperative dialogues. In Distributed Decision Making. Cognitive Models for Cooperative Works, edited by J Rasmussen, B Brehmer, and J Leplat. Chichester: Wiley.

Faverge, JM. 1972. L’analyse du travail. In Traité de psychologie appliqueé, edited by M Reuchlin. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Fisher, S. 1986. Stress and Strategy. London: Erlbaum.

Flanagan, JL. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 51:327-358.

Fleishman, EA and MK Quaintance. 1984. Toxonomies of Human Performance: The Description of Human Tasks. New York: Academic Press.

Flügel, B, H Greil, and K Sommer. 1986. Anthropologischer Atlas. Grundlagen und Daten. Deutsche Demokratische Republik. Berlin: Verlag tribüne.

Folkard, S and T Akerstedt. 1992. A three-process model of the regulation of alertness sleepiness. In Sleep, Arousal and Performance, edited by RJ Broughton and BD Ogilvie. Boston: Birkhäuser.

Folkard, S and TH Monk. 1985. Hours of work: Temporal factors in work scheduling . Chichester: Wiley.

Folkard, S, TH Monk, and MC Lobban. 1978. Short and long-term adjustment of circadian rhythms in “permanent” night nurses. Ergonomics 21:785-799.

Folkard, S, P Totterdell, D Minors and J Waterhouse. 1993. Dissecting circadian performance rhythms: Implications for shiftwork. Ergonomics 36(1-3):283-88.

Fröberg, JE. 1985. Sleep deprivation and prolonged working hours. In Hours of Work: Temporal Factors in Work Scheduling, edited by S Folkard and TH Monk. Chichester: Wiley.

Fuglesang, A. 1982. About Understanding Ideas and Observations on Cross-Cultural
Communication. Uppsala: Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation.

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gilad, I. 1993. Methodology for functional ergonomic evaluation of repetitive operations. In Advances in Industrial Egonomics and Safety, edited by Nielsen and Jorgensen. London: Taylor & Francis.

Gilad, I and E Messer. 1992. Biomechanics considerations and ergonomic design in diamond polishing. In Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, edited by Kumar. London: Taylor & Francis.

Glenn, ES and CG Glenn. 1981. Man and Mankind: Conflict and Communication between Cultures. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gopher, D and E Donchin. 1986. Workload—An examination of the concept. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, edited by K Boff, L Kaufman, and JP Thomas. New York: Wiley.

Gould, JD. 1988. How to design usable systems. In Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, edited by M Helander. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Gould, JD and C Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28:300-311.

Gould, JD, SJ Boies, S Levy, JT Richards, and J Schoonard. 1987. The 1984 Olympic message system: A test of behavioral principles of the design. Commun ACM 30:758-769.

Gowler, D and K Legge. 1978. Participation in context: Towards a synthesis of the theory and practice of organizational change, part I. J Manage Stud 16:150-175.

Grady, JK and J de Vries. 1994. RAM: The Rehabilitation Technology Acceptance Model as a Base for an Integral Product Evaluation. Instituut voor Research, Ontwikkeling en Nascholing in de Gezondheidszorg (IRON) and University Twente, Department of Biomedical Engineering.

Grandjean, E. 1988. Fitting the Task to the Man. London: Taylor & Francis.

Grant, S and T Mayes. 1991. Cognitive task analysis? In Human-Computer Interactionand Complex Systems, edited by GS Weir and J Alty. London: Academic Press.

Greenbaum, J and M Kyng. 1991. Design At Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Greuter, MA and JA Algera. 1989. Criterion development and job analysis. In Assessment and Selection in Organizations, edited by P Herlot. Chichester: Wiley.

Grote, G. 1994. A participatory approach to the complementary design of highly automated work systems. In Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management, edited by G Bradley and HW Hendrick. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Guelaud, F, M-N Beauchesne, J Gautrat, and G Roustang. 1977. Pour une analyse des conditions du travail ouvrier dans l’entreprise. Paris: A. Colin.

Guillerm, R, E Radziszewski, and A Reinberg. 1975. Circadian rhythms of six healthy young men over a 4-week period with night-work every 48 h and a 2 per cent Co2 atmosphere. In Experimental Studies of Shiftwork, edited by P Colquhoun, S Folkard, P Knauth, and J Rutenfranz. Opladen: Westdeutscher Werlag.

Hacker, W. 1986. Arbeitspsychologie. In Schriften zur Arbeitpsychologie, edited by E Ulich. Bern: Huber.

Hacker, W and P Richter. 1994. Psychische Fehlbeanspruchung. Ermüdung, Monotonie, Sättigung, Stress. Heidelberg: Springer.

Hackman, JR and GR Oldham. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. J Appl Psychol 60:159-170.

Hancock, PA and MH Chignell. 1986. Toward a Theory of Mental Work Load: Stress and Adaptability in Human-Machine Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference On Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. New York: IEEE Society.

Hancock, PA and N Meshkati. 1988. Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hanna, A (ed.). 1990. Annual Design Review ID. 37 (4).

Härmä, M. 1993. Individual differences in tolerance to shiftwork: a review. Ergonomics 36:101-109.

Hart, S and LE Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Human Mental Work Load, edited by PA Hancock and N Meshkati. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hirschheim, R and HK Klein. 1989. Four paradigms of information systems development. Commun ACM 32:1199-1216.

Hoc, JM. 1989. Cognitive approaches to process control. In Advances in Cognitive Science, edited by G Tiberghein. Chichester: Horwood.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Univ. Press.

—. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. J Int Stud :75-89.

Hornby, P and C Clegg. 1992. User participation in context: A case study in a UK bank. Behav Inf Technol 11:293-307.

Hosni, DE. 1988. The transfer of microelectronics technology to the third world. Tech Manage Pub TM 1:391-3997.

Hsu, S-H and Y Peng. 1993. Control/display relationship of the four-burner stove: A reexamination. Hum Factors 35:745-749.

International Labour Organization (ILO). 1990.The hours we work: new work schedules in policy and practice. Cond Wor Dig 9.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 1980. Draft Proposal for Core List of Anthropometric Measurements ISO/TC 159/SC 3 N 28 DP 7250. Geneva: ISO.

—. 1996. ISO/DIS 7250 Basic Human Body Measurements for Technological Design. Geneva: ISO.
Japan Industrial Design Promotion Organization (JIDPO). 1990. Good Design Products 1989. Tokyo: JIDPO.

Jastrzebowski, W. 1857. Rys ergonomiji czyli Nauki o Pracy, opartej naprawdach poczerpnietych z Nauki Przyrody. Przyoda i Przemysl 29:227-231.

Jeanneret, PR. 1980. Equitable job evaluation and classification with the Position Analysis Questionnaire. Compens Rev 1:32-42.

Jürgens, HW, IA Aune, and U Pieper. 1990. International data on anthropometry. Occupational Safety and Health Series. Geneva: ILO.

Kadefors, R. 1993. A model for assessment and design of workplaces for manual welding. In The Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by WS Marras, W Karwowski, and L Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Karhu, O, P Kansi, and I Kuorinka. 1977. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis. Appl Ergon 8:199-201.

Karhu, O, R Harkonen, P Sorvali, and P Vepsalainen. 1981. Observing working postures in industry: Examples of OWAS application. Appl Ergon 12:13-17.

Kedia, BL and RS Bhagat. 1988. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management. Acad Manage Rev 13:559-571.

Keesing, RM. 1974. Theories of culture. Annu Rev Anthropol 3:73-79.

Kepenne, P. 1984. La charge de travail dans une unité de soins de médecine. Mémoire. Liège: Université de Liège.

Kerguelen, A. 1986. L’observation systématique en ergonomie: Élaboration d’un logiciel d’aide au recueil et à l’analyse des données. Diploma in Ergonomics Thesis, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, Paris.

Ketchum, L. 1984. Sociotechnical design in a third world country: The railway maintenance depot at Sennar in Sudan. Hum Relat 37:135-154.

Keyserling, WM. 1986. A computer-aided system to evaluate postural stress in the workplace. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:641-649.

Kingsley, PR. 1983. Technological development: Issues, roles and orientation for social psychology. In Social Psychology and Developing Countries, edited by Blacker. New York: Wiley.

Kinney, JS and BM Huey. 1990. Application Principles for Multicolored Displays. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kivi, P and M Mattila. 1991. Analysis and improvement of work postures in building industry: Application of the computerized OWAS method. Appl Ergon 22:43-48.

Knauth, P, W Rohmert and J Rutenfranz. 1979. Systemic selection of shift plans for continuous production with the aid of work-physiological criteria. Appl Ergon 10(1):9-15.

Knauth, P. and J Rutenfranz. 1981. Duration of sleep related to the type of shift work, in Night and shiftwork: biological and social aspects , edited by A Reinberg, N Vieux, and P Andlauer. Oxford Pergamon Press.

Kogi, K. 1982. Sleep problems in night and shift work. II. Shiftwork: Its practice and improvement . J Hum Ergol:217-231.

—. 1981. Comparison of resting conditions between various shift rotation systems for industrial workers, in Night and shift work. Biological and social aspects , edited by A Reinberg, N Vieux, and P Andlauer. Oxford: Pergamon.

—. 1985. Introduction to the problems of shiftwork. In Hours of Work: Temporal Factors in Work-Scheduling, edited by S Folkard and TH Monk. Chichester: Wiley.

—. 1991. Job content and working time: The scope for joint change. Ergonomics 34:757-773.

Kogi, K and JE Thurman. 1993. Trends in approaches to night and shiftwork and new international standards. Ergonomics 36:3-13.

Köhler, C, M von Behr, H Hirsch-Kreinsen, B Lutz, C Nuber, and R Schultz-Wild. 1989. Alternativen der Gestaltung von Arbeits- und Personalstrukturen bei rechnerintegrierter Fertigung. In Strategische Optionen der Organisations- und Personalentwicklung bei CIM Forschungsbericht KfK-PFT 148, edited by Institut für Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Karlsruhe: Projektträgerschaft Fertigungstechnik.

Koller, M. 1983. Health risks related to shift work. An example of time-contingent effects of long-term stress. Int Arch Occ Env Health 53:59-75.

Konz, S. 1990. Workstation organization and design. Ergonomics 32:795-811.

Kroeber, AL and C Kluckhohn. 1952. Culture, a critical review of concepts and definitions. In Papers of the Peabody Museum. Boston: Harvard Univ.

Kroemer, KHE. 1993. Operation of ternary chorded keys. Int J Hum Comput Interact 5:267-288.

—. 1994a. Locating the computer screen: How high, how far? Ergonomics in Design (January):40.

—. 1994b. Alternative keyboards. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Scientific Conference WWDU ‘94. Milan: Univ. of Milan.

—. 1995. Ergonomics. In Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene, edited by BA Ploog. Chicago: National Safety Council.

Kroemer, KHE, HB Kroemer, and KE Kroemer-Elbert. 1994. Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease and Efficiency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kwon, KS, SY Lee, and BH Ahn. 1993. An approach to fuzzy expert systems for product colour design. In The Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by Maras, Karwowski, Smith, and Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

Lacoste, M. 1983. Des situations de parole aux activités interprétives. Psychol Franç 28:231-238.

Landau, K and W Rohmert. 1981. AET-A New Job Analysis Method. Detroit, Mich.: AIIE Annual Conference.

Laurig, W. 1970. Elektromyographie als arbeitswissenschaftliche Untersuchungsmethode zur Beurteilung von statischer Muskelarbeit. Berlin: Beuth.

—. 1974. Beurteilung einseitig dynamischer Muskelarbeit. Berlin: Beuth.

—. 1981. Belastung, Beanspruchung und Erholungszeit bei energetisch-muskulärer Arbeit—Literaturexpertise. In Forschungsbericht Nr. 272 der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Unfallforschung Dortmund. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.

—. 1992. Grundzüge der Ergonomie. Erkenntnisse und Prinzipien. Berlin, Köln: Beuth Verlag.

Laurig, W and V Rombach. 1989. Expert systems in ergonomics: Requirements and an approach. Ergonomics 32:795-811.

Leach, ER. 1965. Culture and social cohesion: An anthropologist’s view. In Science and Culture, edited by Holten. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Leana, CR, EA Locke, and DM Schweiger. 1990. Fact and fiction in analyzing research on participative decision making: A critique of Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, and Jennings. Acad Manage Rev 15:137-146.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.

Liker, JK, M Nagamachi, and YR Lifshitz. 1988. A Comparitive Analysis of Participatory Programs in US and Japan Manufacturing Plants. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan, Center for Ergonomics, Industrial and Operational Engineering.

Lillrank, B and N Kano. 1989. Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in Japanese Industries. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Michigan, Center for Japanese Studies.

Locke, EA and DM Schweiger. 1979. Participation in decision making: One more look. In Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by BM Staw. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Louhevaara, V, T Hakola, and H Ollila. 1990. Physical work and strain involved in manual sorting of postal parcels. Ergonomics 33:1115-1130.

Luczak, H. 1982. Belastung, Beanspruchung und Erholungszeit bei informatorisch- mentaler Arbeit — Literaturexpertise. Forschungsbericht der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Unfallforschung Dortmund . Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag NW.

—. 1983. Ermüdung. In Praktische Arbeitsphysiologie, edited by W Rohmert and J Rutenfranz. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag.

—. 1993. Arbeitswissenschaft. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Majchrzak, A. 1988. The Human Side of Factory Automation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Martin, T, J Kivinen, JE Rijnsdorp, MG Rodd, and WB Rouse. 1991. Appropriate automation-integrating technical, human, organization, economic and cultural factors. Automatica 27:901-917.

Matsumoto, K and M Harada. 1994. The effect of night-time naps on recovery from fatigue following night work. Ergonomics 37:899-907.

Matthews, R. 1982. Divergent conditions in the technological development of India and Japan. Lund Letters on Technology and Culture, No. 4. Lund: Univ. of Lund, Research Policy Institute.

McCormick, EJ. 1979. Job Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: American Management Association.

McIntosh, DJ. 1994. Integration of VDUs into the US office work environment. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Scientific Conference WWDU ‘94. Milan: Univ. of Milan.

McWhinney. 1990. The Power of Myth in Planning and Organizational Change, 1989 IEEE Technics, Culture and Consequences. Torrence, Calif.: IEEE Los Angeles Council.

Meshkati, N. 1989. An etiological investigation of micro and macroergonomics factors in the Bhopal disaster: Lessons for industries of both industrialized and developing countries. Int J Ind Erg 4:161-175.

Minors, DS and JM Waterhouse. 1981. Anchor sleep as a synchronizer of rhythms on abnormal routines. Int J Chronobiology : 165-188.

Mital, A and W Karwowski. 1991. Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Monk, TH. 1991. Sleep, Sleepiness and Performance . Chichester: Wiley.

Moray, N, PM Sanderson, and K Vincente. 1989. Cognitive task analysis for a team in a complex work domain: A case study. Proceedings of the Second European Meeting On Cognitive Science Approaches to Process Control, Siena, Italy.

Morgan, CT, A Chapanis, JS III Cork, and MW Lund. 1963. Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mossholder, KW and RD Arvey. 1984. Synthetic validity: A conceptual and comparative review. J Appl Psychol 69:322-333.

Mumford, E and Henshall. 1979. A Participative Approach to Computer Systems Design. London: Associated Business Press.

Nagamachi, M. 1992. Pleasantness and Kansei engineering. In Measurement Standards. Taejon, Korea: Korean Research Institute of Standards and Science Publishing.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1981. Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting. Cincinnati, Ohio: US Department of Health and Human Services.

—. 1990. OSHA Instruction CPL 2.85: Directorate of Compliance Programs: Appendix C, Guidelines Auggested By NIOSH for Videotape Evaluation of Work Station for Upper Extremities Cumulative Trauma Disorders. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Navarro, C. 1990. Functional communication and problem-solving in a bus traffic-regulation task. Psychol Rep 67:403-409.

Negandhi, ART. 1975. Modern Organizational Behaviour. Kent: Kent Univ..

Nisbett, RE and TD De Camp Wilson. 1977. Telling more than we know. Psychol Rev 84:231-259.

Norman, DA. 1993. Things That Make Us Smart. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Noro, K and AS Imada. 1991. Participatory Ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis.

O’Donnell, RD and FT Eggemeier. 1986. Work load assessment methodology. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Cognitive Processes and Performance, edited by K Boff, L Kaufman, and JP Thomas. New York: Wiley.

Pagels, HR. 1984. Computer culture: The scientific, intellectual and social impact of the computer. Ann NY Acad Sci :426.

Persson, J and Å Kilbom. 1983. VIRA—En Enkel Videofilmteknik För Registrering OchAnalys Av Arbetsställningar Och—Rörelser. Solna, Sweden: Undersökningsrapport,Arbetraskyddsstyrelsen.

Pham, DT and HH Onder. 1992. A knowledge-based system for optimizing workplace layouts using a genetic algorithm. Ergonomics 35:1479-1487.

Pheasant, S. 1986. Bodyspace, Anthropometry, Ergonomics and Design. London: Taylor & Francis.

Poole, CJM. 1993. Seamstress’ finger. Brit J Ind Med 50:668-669.

Putz-Anderson, V. 1988. Cumulative Trauma Disorders. A Manual for Musculoskeletal Diseases of the Upper Limbs. London: Taylor & Francis.

Rasmussen, J. 1983. Skills, rules, and knowledge: Sinds, signs, symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE T Syst Man Cyb 13:257-266.

—. 1986. A framework for cognitive task analysis in systems design. In Intelligent Decision Support in Process Environments, edited by E Hollnagel, G Mancini, and DD Woods. Berlin: Springer.

Rasmussen, J, A Pejtersen, and K Schmidts. 1990. In Taxonomy for Analysis of Work Domains. Proceedings of the First MOHAWC Workshop, edited by B Brehmer, M de Montmollin and J Leplat. Roskilde: Riso National Laboratory.

Reason, J. 1989. Human Error. Cambridge: CUP.

Rebiffé, R, O Zayana, and C Tarrière. 1969. Détermination des zones optimales pour l’emplacement des commandes manuelles dans l’espace de travail. Ergonomics 12:913-924.

Régie nationale des usines Renault (RNUR). 1976. Les profils de poste: Methode d’analyse des conditions de travail. Paris: Masson-Sirtes.

Rogalski, J. 1991. Distributed decision making in emergency management: Using a method as a framework for analysing cooperative work and as a decision aid. In Distributed Decision Making. Cognitive Models for Cooperative Work, edited by J Rasmussen, B Brehmer, and J Leplat. Chichester: Wiley.

Rohmert, W. 1962. Untersuchungen über Muskelermüdung und Arbeitsgestaltung. Bern: Beuth-Vertrieb.

—. 1973. Problems in determining rest allowances. Part I: Use of modern methods to evaluate stress and strain in static muscular work. Appl Ergon 4(2):91-95.

—. 1984. Das Belastungs-Beanspruchungs-Konzept. Z Arb wiss 38:193-200.

Rohmert, W and K Landau. 1985. A New Technique of Job Analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Rolland, C. 1986. Introduction à la conception des systèmes d’information et panorama des méthodes disponibles. Génie Logiciel 4:6-11.

Roth, EM and DD Woods. 1988. Aiding human performance. I. Cognitive analysis. Travail Hum 51:39-54.

Rudolph, E, E Schönfelder, and W Hacker. 1987. Tätigkeitsbewertungssystem für geistige arbeit mit und ohne Rechnerunterstützung (TBS-GA). Berlin: Psychodiagnostisches Zentrum der Humboldt-Universität.

Rutenfranz, J. 1982. Occupational health measures for night- and shiftworkers. II. Shiftwork: Its practice and improvement. J Hum Ergol:67-86.

Rutenfranz, J, J Ilmarinen, F Klimmer, and H Kylian. 1990. Work load and demanded physical performance capacity under different industrial working conditions. In Fitness for Aged, Disabled, and Industrial Workers, edited by M Kaneko. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics Books.

Rutenfranz, J, P Knauth, and D Angersbach. 1981. Shift work research issues. In Biological Rhythms, Sleep and Shift Work , edited by LC Johnson, DI Tepas, WP Colquhoun, and MJ Colligan. New York: Spectrum Publications Medical and Scientific Books.

Saito, Y. and K Matsumoto. 1988. Variations of physiological functions and psychological measures and their relationship on delayed shift of sleeping time. Jap J Ind Health 30:196-205.

Sakai, K, A Watanabe, N Onishi, H Shindo, K Kimotsuki, H Saito, and K Kogl. 1984. Conditions of night naps effective to facilitate recovery from night work fatigue. J Sci Lab 60: 451-478.

Savage, CM and D Appleton. 1988. CIM and Fifth Generation Management. Dearborn: CASA/SME Technical Council.

Savoyant, A and J Leplat. 1983. Statut et fonction des communications dans l’activité des équipes de travail. Psychol Franç 28:247-253.

Scarbrough, H and JM Corbett. 1992. Technology and Organization. London: Routledge.

Schmidtke, H. 1965. Die Ermüdung. Bern: Huber.

—. 1971. Untersuchungen über den Erholunggszeitbedarf bei verschiedenen Arten gewerblicher Tätigkeit. Berlin: Beuth-Vertrieb.

Sen, RN. 1984. Application of ergonomics to industrially developing countries. Ergonomics 27:1021-1032.

Sergean, R. 1971. Managing Shiftwork. London: Gower Press.

Sethi, AA, DHJ Caro, and RS Schuler. 1987. Strategic Management of Technostress in an Information Society. Lewiston: Hogrefe.

Shackel, B. 1986. Ergonomics in design for usability. In People and Computer: Design for Usability, edited by MD Harrison and AF Monk. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Shahnavaz, H. 1991. Transfer of Technology to Industrially Developing Countries and Human Factors Consideration TULEÅ 1991: 22, 23024. Luleå Univ., Luleå, Sweden: Center for Ergonomics of Developing Countries.

Shahnavaz, H, J Abeysekera, and A Johansson. 1993. Solving multi-factorial work-environment problems through participatory ergonomics: Case study: VDT operators. In Ergonomics of Manual Work, edited by E Williams, S Marrs, W Karwowski, JL Smith, and L Pacholski. London: Taylor & Francis.

Shaw, JB and JH Riskind. 1983. Predicting job stress using data from the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). J Appl Psychol 68:253-261.

Shugaar, A. 1990. Ecodesign: New products for a greener culture. Int Herald Trib, 17.

Sinaiko, WH. 1975. Verbal factors in human engineering: Some cultural and psychological data. In Ethnic Variables in Human Factors Engineering, edited by A Chapanis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ..

Singleton, WT. 1982. The Body At Work. Cambridge: CUP.

Snyder, HL. 1985a. Image quality: Measures and visual performance. In Flat Panel Displays and CRTs, edited by LE Tannas. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

—. 1985b. The visual system: Capabilities and limitations. In Flat Panel Displays and CRTs, edited by LE Tannas. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Solomon, CM. 1989. The corporate response to work force diversity. Pers J 68:42-53.

Sparke, P. 1987. Modern Japanese Design. New York: EP Dutton.

Sperandio, JC. 1972. Charge de travail et régulation des processus opératoires. Travail Hum 35:85-98.

Sperling, L, S Dahlman, L Wikström, A Kilbom, and R Kadefors. 1993. A cube model for the classification of work with hand tools and the formulation of functional requirements. Appl Ergon 34:203-211.

Spinas, P. 1989. User oriented software development and dialogue design. In Work With Computers: Organizational, Management, Stress and Health Aspects, edited by MJ Smith and G Salvendy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Staramler, JH. 1993. The Dictionary of Human Factors Ergonomics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Strohm, O, JK Kuark, and A Schilling. 1993. Integrierte Produktion: Arbeitspsychologische Konzepte und empirische Befunde, Schriftenreihe Mensch, Technik, Organisation. In CIM—Herausforderung an Mensch, Technik, Organisation, edited by G Cyranek and E Ulich. Stuttgart, Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine.

Strohm, O, P Troxler and E Ulich. 1994. Vorschlag für die Restrukturierung eines
Produktionsbetriebes. Zürich: Institut für Arbietspsychologie der ETH.

Sullivan, LP. 1986. Quality function deployment: A system to assure that customer needs drive the product design and production process. Quality Progr :39-50.

Sundin, A, J Laring, J Bäck, G Nengtsson, and R Kadefors. 1994. An Ambulatory Workplace for Manual Welding: Productivity through Ergonomics. Manuscript. Göteborg: Lindholmen Development.

Tardieu, H, D Nanci, and D Pascot. 1985. Conception d’un système d’information. Paris: Editions d’Organisation.

Teiger, C, A Laville, and J Durafourg. 1974. Taches répétitives sous contrainte de temps et charge de travail. Rapport no 39. Laboratoire de physiologie du travail et d’ergonomie du CNAM.

Torsvall, L, T Akerstedt, and M. Gillberg. 1981. Age, sleep and irregular workhours: a field study with EEG recording, catecholamine excretion and self-ratings. Scand J Wor Env Health 7:196-203.

Ulich, E. 1994. Arbeitspsychologie 3. Auflage. Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine and Schäffer-Poeschel.

Ulich, E, M Rauterberg, T Moll, T Greutmann, and O Strohm. 1991. Task orientation and user-oriented dialogue design. In Int J Human-Computer Interaction 3:117-144.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1992. Ergonomics Impact of Science on Society. Vol. 165. London: Taylor & Francis.

Van Daele, A. 1988. L’écran de visualisation ou la communication verbale? Analyse comparative de leur utilisation par des opérateurs de salle de contrôle en sidérurgie. Travail Hum 51(1):65-80.

—. 1992. La réduction de la complexité par les opérateurs dans le contrôle de processus continus. contribution à l’étude du contrôle par anticipation et de ses conditions de mise en œuvre. Liège: Université de Liège.

Van der Beek, AJ, LC Van Gaalen, and MHW Frings-Dresen. 1992. Working postures and activities of lorry drivers: A reliability study of on-site observation and recording on a pocket computer. Appl Ergon 23:331-336.

Vleeschdrager, E. 1986. Hardness 10: diamonds . Paris.

Volpert, W. 1987. Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten. In Arbeitspsychologie. Enzklopüdie der Psychologie, edited by U Kleinbeck and J Rutenfranz. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Wagner, R. 1985. Job analysis at ARBED. Ergonomics 28:255-273.

Wagner, JA and RZ Gooding. 1987. Effects of societal trends on participation research. Adm Sci Q 32:241-262.

Wall, TD and JA Lischeron. 1977. Worker Participation: A Critique of the Literature and Some Fresh Evidence. London: McGraw-Hill.

Wang, WM-Y. 1992. Usability Evaluation for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Luleå, Sweden: Luleå Univ. of Technology.

Waters, TR, V Putz-Anderson, A Garg, and LJ Fine. 1993. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual handling tasks. Ergonomics 36:749-776.

Wedderburn, A. 1991. Guidelines for shiftworkers. Bulletin of European Shiftwork Topics (BEST) No. 3. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Welford, AT. 1986. Mental workload as a function of demand, capacity, strategy and skill. Ergonomics 21:151-176.

White, PA. 1988. Knowing more about what we tell: ‘Introspective access’ and causal report accuracy, 10 years later. Brit J Psychol 79:13-45.

Wickens, C. 1992. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New York: Harper Collins.

Wickens, CD and YY Yeh. 1983. The dissociation between subjective work load and performance: A multiple resources approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, Calif.: Human Factors Society.

Wieland-Eckelmann, R. 1992. Kognition, Emotion und Psychische Beanspruchung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Wikström.L, S Byström, S Dahlman, C Fransson, R Kadefors, Å Kilbom, E Landervik, L Lieberg, L Sperling, and J Öster. 1991. Criterion for Selection and Development of Hand Tools. Stockholm: National Institute of Occupational Health.

Wilkinson, RT. 1964. Effects of up to 60 hours sleep deprivation on different types of work. Ergonomics 7:63-72.

Williams, R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow: Fontana.

Wilpert, B. 1989. Mitbestimmung. In Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie. Internationales Handbuch in Schlüsselbegriffen, edited by S Greif, H Holling, and N Nicholson. Munich: Psychologie Verlags Union.

Wilson, JR. 1991. Participation: A framework and foundation for ergonomics. J Occup Psychol 64:67-80.

Wilson, JR and EN Corlett. 1990. Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology. London: Taylor & Francis.

Wisner, A. 1983. Ergonomics or anthropology: A limited or wide approach to working condition in technology transfer. In Proceedings of the First International Conference On Ergonomics of Developing Countries, edited by Shahnavaz and Babri. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå Univ. of Technology.

Womack, J, T Jones, and D Roos. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Macmillan.

Woodson, WE, B Tillman, and P Tillman. 1991. Human Factors Design Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zhang, YK and JS Tyler. 1990. The establishment of a modern telephone cable production facility in a developing country. A case study. In International Wire and Cable Symposium Proceedings. Illinois.

Zinchenko, V and V Munipov. 1989. Fundamentals of Ergonomics. Moscow: Progress.

Controls, Indicators and Panels

Contents

Ergonomics References