Ankrum, D.R.

(2001) Flat Panel Potential for Conformance to the Display Location Requirements of ISO 9241 Parts 3 & 5. Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of HCI International 01.

Flat Panel Potential for Conformance to the Display Location Requirements of ISO 9241 Parts 3 & 5
Dennis R. Ankrum Human Factors Research, Nova Solutions, Inc., 421West Industrial Ave., Effingham, IL 62401 USA Ankrum@aol.com ABSTRACT Flat panel displays (FPs) have become increasingly popular due to their increased brightness and reduced size, weight and power consumption when compared to conventional CRTs. A flat screen also has a narrower reflected angle than a conventional CRT, which makes it easier to control glare. Their reduced fore-aft depth allows them to be more easily located at farther viewing distances. While the benefits are clear, current FP pedestal designs have limited the options for display location. A survey was conducted to determine the potential for FPs to conform to the display location requirements and recommendations of ISO 9241, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part 3: Visual display requirements (ISO, 1992) and Part 5: Workstation layout and postural requirements (ISO, 1998) for the U.S. adult population. 1. ISO REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS To conform to ISO 9241, the entire area of the screen must be located between horizontal eye level and 60 below horizontal eye level. ISO recommends that the center of the screen be 35 below eye level. ISO also recommends that the face of the screen be at a 90 angle to the line of sight (Figure 1). 2. ANTHROPOMETRY ISO 9241 does not specify dimensions of workstation components because of the variation in body size among user populations. For the U.S. population, the 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personal (ANSUR) (Gordon et al., 1988) has been the most accepted for accommodating the U.S. adult population (Kroemer, 1999). The limiting dimensions for VDT screen height used in this study are the 5th percentile female: 1) distance between elbow height and eye height (47.8 cm,
Figure 1. Monitor location requirements, adapted from ISO 9241-5

497

Ankrum, D.R. (2001) Flat Panel Potential for Conformance to the Display Location Requirements of ISO 9241 Parts 3 & 5. Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of HCI International 01. rounded to 48 cm, 18.9) and 2) seated eye height from the floor (105.5 cm, 41.5). Both values were derived (within subjects) using the original ANSUR data. After subtracting a 4 cm (1.6) slump allowance from both the elbow-eye and seated eye height dimensions as recommended in ISO 9241-5, the result was an elbow-eye height of 44 cm (17.3) and a seated eye height of 101.5 cm (40). Only the 5th percentile female dimensions are considered because greater elboweye heights will always result in a more downward viewing angle. The evaluation assumes that the home row of the keyboard (KB) is at elbow height, although this is not the only acceptable location. 3. SURVEY Twelve widely available flat panel displays from 10 different manufacturers were measured: seven 15 diagonal and five 17 diagonal (nominal sizes). Screen angles were measured using a digital level (Smart Tool, Macklanburg-Duncan, USA). The dimensions collected were screen height (A), bottom bezel height (B), distance from the bottom of the FP to the worksurface (C) (Figure 2), maximum rearward screen angle (D), and the height of the center of the screen at a 35 rearward angle (E) (Figure 3). 4. WORKSTATION TYPES Eye level was calculated for the 5th percentile female for three common computer workstation configurations: 1) KB on same surface as VDT, 2) KB on a fixed-height, below-worksurface pullout keyboard drawer and 3) keyboard on a height-adjustable KB tray attached to the underside of a fixed-height worksurface. For the fixed-height pullout KB drawer (option 2), the distance from the top of the worksurface to the home row of the KB was considered to be 8 cm (3.2). The height-adjustable KB tray (option

A B C
Figure 2. Flat panel dimensions: Screen height (A), Bottom bezel (B), Distance from the bottom of the FP to the worksurface (C).

D Screen center t

Figure 3. Flat panel dimensions: Maximum rearward screen angle (D), Height of screen center at a 35 rearward angle (E).

498

Ankrum, D.R. (2001) Flat Panel Potential for Conformance to the Display Location Requirements of ISO 9241 Parts 3 & 5. Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of HCI International 01. 3) was evaluated when adjusted to accommodate the 5th percentile female elbow height (plus a 3 cm (1.2) shoe allowance) from the floor and attached to a 75 cm (29.5) high worksurface. 5. MAXIMUM SCREEN HEIGHT The maximum screen height that will allow conformance to the ISO requirement that the top of the screen be below eye level was calculated for the three conditions. With the KB and FP on the same surface (option 1), 2.5 cm (1) was added to the elbow-eye dimension for keyboard thickness. For the pullout KB drawer (option 2), 8 cm was subtracted from the elbow-eye dimension for the lowered KB home row. For the adjustable-height KB tray condition (option 3), the worksurface height (75 cm) was subtracted from the 5th percentile female seated eye height plus a 3 cm shoe allowance (104.5 cm, 41.1). That resulted in the following limits for the distance between the top of the screen and the worksurface: KB and FP on same surface (option 1): KB on fixed-height pullout drawer (option 2): KB on adjustable-height tray (option 3): 46.5 cm (18.3) 36.0 cm (14.2) 29.5 cm (11.6)

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION With the keyboard on the same surface as the FP, all of the models allowed the top of the screen to be below the 5th percentile female eye level. With the keyboard on the fixed-height, pullout drawer, 5 out of 7 of the 15 FPs could conform. None of the 17 FPs allowed the entire viewing area of the screen to be below eye level. With the keyboard on a height-adjustable KB tray, none of the 17 FPs, and only 1 out of 7 of the 15 FPs, could conform to the ISO requirement. At a viewing distance of 65 cm, the center of the screen must be 37 cm (14.6) below eye level to achieve the ISO recommended viewing angle of 35 to the center of the screen. All of the FPs evaluated in this survey would require a VDT support surface that is lower than the KB support surface to accommodate the ISO preferred location with the face of the screen at a 90 angle to the line of sight. Reducing the viewing distance would have allowed more of the FPs to conform to ISOs recommended screen location, however, the closer the screen, the greater the risk for visual discomfort. The farther away the screen, the less strain there is on both accommodation and convergence (see review by Ankrum, 1996). Research supports ISOs recommendation for a low screen location. Downward viewing angles at typical VDT viewing distances have been shown to reduce the risk of Dry Eye Syndrome and improve the visual systems ability to accommodate and converge (see review by Ankrum, 1997). In addition, locating the center of the screen in the neighborhood of 35 below horizontal eye level has been shown to result in head/neck postures that are closer to neutral (Ankrum,
499

Ankrum, D.R. (2001) Flat Panel Potential for Conformance to the Display Location Requirements of ISO 9241 Parts 3 & 5. Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of HCI International 01. 2000) and reduced complaints of postural and visual discomfort (Lie & Fostervold, 1995) when compared to higher screen placements. ISO recommends that the face of the screen be at a 90 angle to the line of sight. To accomplish that, the screen must be tipped back by one degree for every degree that the center of the screen is below eye level. Tipping the screen back so that the top of the monitor is farther from the eyes than the bottom has been shown to reduce both physical and visual discomfort (Ankrum, et al. 1995). Even if the center of the screen could be located low enough, only 6 out of 12 FPs allowed for 35 or greater rearward tilt adjustment.
Screen height (center) @ 35 (E) 14.0 19.0 NA 22.0 28.5 31.0 27.5 NA NA NA NA NA

FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Size 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 15" 17" 17" 17" 17" 17"

Screen height (top) (A) 27.8 30.0 33.1 33.3 35.7 36.6 38.7 40.7 42.0 41.5 41.1 42.1

Bezel height (B) 4.4 5.3 3.3 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.7 7.3 6.7 6.2 5.5 6.4

Flat panel to worksurface (C) 0.0 2.0 5.9 5.8 8.2 8.6 10.0 6.1 8.4 7.6 8.5 9.0

Potential height (A-B-C+3.3) 26.7 26.0 27.2 27.3 26.8 26.3 26.3 30.6 30.2 31.0 30.4 30.0

Maximum screen angle (rearward) (D) >90 35.0 30.0 45.0 45.0 40.0 46.0 17.0 30.0 28.0 30.0 31.0

Table 1. Flat panel dimensions, all measurements in cm, except D (degrees). For A-E, see Figures 2-3. NA: not applicable.

Screen tilt is even more critical with FPs because the image on some FPs begins to degrade if they are not viewed at close to a 90 angle to the line of sight. The bottom bezel height ranged from 3.3 (1.3) to 7.3 cm (2.9). The distance from the bottom of the FP to the worksurface ranged from 0 to 10 cm (3.9), with only one of the FPs surveyed allowing the bottom of the FP to be flush against the worksurface. If 3.3 cm is considered the maximum required bezel dimension, the screen heights of all the FPs surveyed are higher than necessary (B+C-3.3 cm, Table 1). The top of the screen in FP 7 (Table 1) is raised 12.4 cm (4.9) higher than would be possible with an alternative design. 7. CONCLUSION The main limitation to the ability of many flat panel displays to conform to the requirements of ISO 9241 parts 2 and 5, when used with standard workstation configurations, is the pedestal design.

500

Ankrum, D.R. (2001) Flat Panel Potential for Conformance to the Display Location Requirements of ISO 9241 Parts 3 & 5. Human-Computer Interaction: Proceedings of HCI International 01. If the bottom bezel were limited to 3.3 cm and the pedestal allowed the bottom of the FP to be flush with the worksurface, all of the FPs in this survey could be located with the entire viewing area of the screen below the 5th percentile female eye level either when the KB and FP are on the same worksurface or with a fixed-height, below-worksurface pullout KB drawer (see Table 1). 8. RECOMMENDATIONS To conform to ISO for the widest range of users, flat panel displays should 1) have the narrowest bottom bezel possible, 2) allow the screen to tip back at least 35 from vertical, and 3) allow the bottom bezel to be flush against the workface. Furthermore, 7 out of the 12 FPs could not be detached from their pedestals. FPs should be designed with removable pedestals and be 75/100 VESA mount compatible (VESA, 1999) to allow for other mounting options. REFERENCES Ankrum, D.R. (1996). Viewing Distance at Computer Workstations, Workplace Ergonomics, September, pp. 10-13. Ankrum, D.R. (1997). A challenge to eye-level, perpendicular-to-gaze, monitor placement. Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. 5, 3538. Ankrum, D.R., Hansen, E.E., & Nemeth, K.J. (1995). The Vertical Horopter and the Angle of View, In A. Grieco, G. Molteni, B. Piccoli & E. Occhipinti (Eds.), Work With Display Units 94 (pp.131-136). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Gordon, C.C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C.E., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J.T., Tebbetts, I., & Walker, R.A. (1989). 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personal: Summary Statistics Interim Report (Technical Report NATICK/TR-89-027). Natick, MA: United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center. ISO (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part 5: Workstation layout and postural requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. ISO (1992). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -Part 3: Visual display requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. Kroemer, K.H.E. (1999). Engineering Anthropometry. In W. Karwowski & W. S. Marras (Eds.), The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook (pp. 139-165). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Lie, I. & Fostervold, K. I. (1995). VDT-work with different gaze inclinations. In A. Grieco, G. Molteni, B. Piccoli & E. Occhipinti (Eds.), Work With Display Units 94 (137-142). Amsterdam: Elsevier. VESA (1999). VESA Flat Panel Monitor Physical Mounting Interface Standard. Milpitas, CA: Video Electronics Standards Association.
501