Accessing User Information for Use in Design

Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

School of Engineering and Design,

Brunel University, Uxbridge UB8 3PH, UK
{chris.mcginley,hua.dong}@brunel.ac.uk

Abstract. This paper investigates the issue of accessibility of data and end user
information in a typical design development project, the barriers that exist, and
how relevant user information might be presented through ergonomic data
tools. The barriers typically include a combination of financial outlet, time
expenditure and lengthy sourcing of suitable user groups, all of which could be
reduced through effective use of tools. Ergonomics information and data useful
for ‘inclusive’ design outputs can be underused in design development at a
professional level. This study reports on tool concept development, a co-design
workshop, and a live healthcare design case study, which were carried out as
part of ongoing research into effective communication of user data to designers
in more human and engaging ways.
Keywords: Inclusive design, universal access, tools, ergonomics, user data,

1 Introduction

1.1 User input incorporated into the design process

Data is used in varying ways through the course of a design project. It can be claimed
that user data typically follows a path where the information needs peak and trough,
as priorities in the development change. A hypothetical example of this occurrence is
illustrated below (Figure 1) in relation to user data, with user data needs plotted as a
dashed line against a double diamond model, produced by the Design Council UK, to
represent a typical design process.

Fig. 1. ‘Double Diamond’ design process model, with plotted level of user data input.
2 Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

Figure 1 illustrates the user data needs which begin high and continue through the
exploratory ‘discover’ phase, data needs become more specific through the ‘define’
phase, and with better understanding refinement occurs and the volume of data needs
reduce. During the ‘develop’ phase concepts are tested and development of
prototypes require testing, hence user data again peaks for interrogation and
evaluation of proposed solutions with user requirements, before the ‘deliver’ phase, at
which point all user data should be in place.

1.2 Ways of gathering user data with inclusive considerations

Where inclusive design is concerned, the underlying philosophy considers the needs
of those that are often overlooked in the design process; the most effective means of
doing this is to include ‘extreme users’ (Dong et al, 2005) in the design process, an
approach often undertaken in the Helen Hamlyn Centre (HHC), based in the Royal
College of Art, London. They use this approach in undergraduate projects through to
their annual Design Business Association (DBA) Challenge, which pairs design
companies with ‘extreme’ users in order to inform and inspire. This process often
produces notable results, and challenges designers to include the requirements of
underrepresented end users. However, this process can be difficult to set up without
established access to specific user groups such as the HHC has, and hence at times
proves both time-consuming and expensive.

2 Designing data for designers

The intention of this study was to investigate the most effective means of gathering
data and communicating it in a way that is easily accessible to designers helping to
inform their definition and solutions of design problems. It is also intended to make
the information inspiring and engaging, rather than lifeless, which tends to be a major
hurdle with available tools and literature. Engaging with such tools would not only
help designers interrogate issues during the design process, but would also assist them
in forming new connections and insights, and encourage use of the tool(s) to
supplement the creative phase of discovery at the front end of a design project.
There are many factors that are key to the uptake of information sources. It is
essential that data tools are both intuitive and transparent, but also readily available.
Ease of use is a huge factor, in the paper ‘The many faces of accessibility: engineers’
perception of information sources’ (Fidel and Green, 2004) this ease of information
search was described by engineers as “saving time, saving mental effort, convenience
of use of format, and maximum physical proximity”.
Existing information such as anthropometric data could be used as a resource for
detailing users' capabilities and limitations, but rarely is. To explore this phenomenon
research is underway within the Inclusive Design Research Group based at Brunel
University. Eleven UK based design consultancies were interviewed early in the
study to gain an insight into current use of anthropometric data (Nickpour and Dong,
 Accessing User Information for Use in Design 3

2008), and explore suggestions for presentation of such data and preferences for data
tools.
Throughout the design process designers gather a variety of information in
numerous ways, often on an ‘as needed’ basis. When initial briefs are set there is
often accompanying material relating to the subject area and/or design needs, this
information typically forms part of a collection of prior internal research experience
from within the design company, is supplied by the client group, or is a combination
of both. The level of detail can vary greatly. However, a large proportion of
information retrieval within design companies is not physically tangible, often
deriving from ‘designer intuition’ or prior knowledge as demonstrated during an
interview with Nina Warburthon, Managing Director of The Alloy (Nickpour and
Dong, 2008) –

“I think one of the problems with design is that a lot of what we know is embedded
in people we have in the company.”

The interviews identified that the use of anthropometric data sources by designers
is very limited, with experienced designers relying largely on experimental methods
such as physical prototyping and engagement with people. They had preferences for
more visually engaging and appealing means of data presentation, than the ‘scientific’
anthropometric data typically available to them. Based on these findings the
researchers developed a series of data tool concepts using a highly visual format, and
suggested means of data manipulation, which would be simple and intuitive. The
intention being that the tools, could be readily included in the design process as a
means of engaging designers with user information outside of their normal domain in
terms of interaction and access, in a way that is time efficient and productive.

3 The tool concepts

A collection of 8 concept tools were developed and illustrated, based on the feedback
received during the interviews mentioned in Section 2. The concepts were
deliberately left under-defined, suggesting an overall principle, number of possible
features and contents, but not detailing the data, means of manipulation, or means of
presentation. This allowed the participants to place their own interpretations onto the
concepts, which would help to flavour their feedback, allowing them to elaborate
during the assessment and add unplanned features during the co-design task. This
promoted development definition and change, whilst considered how the tools might
or might not work for them. The tool concepts presented were as follows –
4 Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

2DPeople (Figure 2)

2DPeople is a searchable database of

anthropometric data, with selectable variables such
as sex, age and ethnicity. Upon selecting criteria a
2D subject is generated that can be manipulated for
visualization, and accompanying data is generated
for use in design.
Fig. 2. 2DPeople

Posture Sourcebook (Figure 3)

Posture sourcebook is a pictorial resource of

common activities. It presents the full range of body
movements typically used in everyday tasks. Taken
from real life scenarios, instead of the rigid
representations often found in books, a more natural
‘lazy anthropometrics’ with people represented in
more natural way.
Fig. 3. Posture Sourcebook

ErgoLab (Figure 4)

ErgoLab is a physical laboratory staffed by

industry experts and extreme users, and brings
together cutting edge expertise, resources and tools for
user research and testing, a collaborative space for
user centred design.

Fig. 4. ErgoLab

People Universe (Figure 5)

People Universe is a user database of individual

video profiles, images and measurements. It uses a
highly visual browsing approach as well as
conventional keyword search. It contains initial
standard profiles but is also fully updatable, for new
user profiles and data.

Fig. 5. People Universe

 Accessing User Information for Use in Design 5

ErgoCES (Figure 6)

ErgoCES incorporates large quantities of existing

datasets based on people and products. These
datasets can be browsed through, or parameters can
be compared in a graphical manner. Axis categories
are defined by the designer, which produces fast 2D
data visualisation and comparisons.

Fig. 6. ErgoCES

3DPeople (Figure 7)

3DPeople is a 3D human model generator.

Variables such as sex, age and ethnicity can be input
to generate 3D scale subjects for use within 3D CAD
packages, and for visualisation and presentation
purposes. It also offers sensory representations,
through low vision render feature, which places
representative filters over 3D CAD models.
Fig. 7. 3DPeople

PeopleSpace (Figure 8)

Peoplespace is a social networking tool, an

online community and special interest group, with a
key goal of bringing together real people and real
designers. It allows discussion, assistance, and
news in a general and product specific way. It
allows the exploration of design issues without the
need to leave the home or studio.
Fig. 8. PeopleSpace

Product Universe (Figure 9)

Product universe is a searchable database of

design examples, which can be used for comparison
when designing. It lists the critical dimensions of
products, to give an insight into the sizes adopted.
Each sample has images, video and full dimensions,
amongst other useful data.

Fig. 9. Product Universe

6 Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

4. The evaluation workshop with designers

The tools were presented during 2 workshops, for discussion, assessment, and co-
design. For the first workshop invitations were delivered largely to student
participants, then academic and finally industry professionals; for the second the
opposite approach was adopted (Figure 10). This was to allow two perspectives to be
obtained, and if they differentiated enough the reasons behind this could be further
explored. For the purpose of this paper, the second workshop with industry focus will
be considered.

Fig. 10. Workshop participant ratios

Invitations were sent out to various design companies and to selected students,
with an overview of the study and the goals. Participants attended for a variety of
reasons –

• new contacts/networking
• insights into the research
• participation/contribution to new tool development

4.1 Introduction to tools

Workshop packs were given to each participant, which included an overview of the
project, tool descriptions, attendee list, post-its, and feedback forms. Initially the
overall project and previous research was presented to the audience, in order to set the
scene. The tool concepts were then presented followed by a brief question session for
any required clarification, before moving onto the more interactive sessions.

4.2 Individual comments and initial feedback

The participants then began the individual feedback task by giving their first
impression ratings, which were given using a traffic light system of ‘proceed’
‘proceed with caution’ and ‘stop’ represented by green, yellow and red post it notes
 Accessing User Information for Use in Design 7

consecutively. After the tool features were described during a presentation,

participants were asked to write comments about the tools under the three categories,
the intention being to assess which tools designers felt might be of benefit from first
impressions and gut instinct, according to their own criteria of what might be useful
for their work. The results of this session were used to create charts giving a quick
indication of which tools created most positive interest, an example is presented
below (Figure 11).

Red- No
Yellow- Maybe
Green- Yes

Fig. 11. Tool rating and derived feedback chart

The following are examples of some of the comments made under each category -

Stop – “Don’t think this is comprehensive enough”

Proceed with caution – “Could work if there's a way for data to grow in global
contributions”
Proceed – “I like the visual search capability and keeping it personal. Would the data
be person specific or more generic though?”

4.3 Group discussion, rating and co-design

After individual rating had been carried out, teams were formed for discussion of the
tools. Each participant had been give a colour coded name tag dependent upon their
company and role, people with different coloured tags were mixed in order that no
table would have a particular bias. The teams were asked to discuss and write down
the pros and cons of each concept and then to award a star rating (1 being the lowest,
5 being the highest) to the concepts. These discussions were recorded for later
analysis, and the information obtained was analysed for consideration in later tool
development.
The tools rating system varied immensely. Those that typically rated amongst the
highest were ‘ErgoLab’, ‘People Universe’ and ‘3DPeople’, and those typically rated
amongst the lowest were ‘2DPeople’ and ‘Product Universe’. However, with these
ratings there were suggestions for inclusions, exclusions and combinations. Some
8 Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

groups created their own rating systems, and example being a group that created their
own rating criteria of ‘usability’, ‘value to designer’ and ‘efficacy’.
The final workshop task was the co-design task. Having been presented with a
number of concepts to discuss and rate the participants were then asked to remain in
the teams which they had formed for discussion, to create a new tool concept,
borrowing and combining features from the tools presented or developing their own
ideas to create a completely new concept. The goal being to identify data tool features
that could be useful in a typical design process. The co-designed tools were later
presented by the teams, allowing them to explain the features they had included and
the benefits they predicted they might have for the design process.

Fig. 12. Co-designed ergonomic tool concept

The tool concept example shown above (Figure 12) is an updatable visual and
informational database, which combines the functionality of 4 of the tool concepts,
however it is still stated that this is not a substitute for actual physical interaction with
users, with statements such as, “do work yourself!” and “select volunteers for co-
design.”
 Accessing User Information for Use in Design 9

5 User data supply during a live project

5.1 Overview

In order to observe the data needs of a live design project and consider how tools
might be incorporated, the Brunel team assisted in producing a pitch for a design
project initiated by the Department of Health and the Design Council to design and
prototype new furniture, equipment or services for hospital wards to help to reduce
Healthcare Associated Infections (HCAIs) which according to the Department of
Health cost the NHS approximately 1 Billion each year. Design firms were paired
with manufacturers, and in the live project we participated in, researchers at Brunel
were engaged in order to inform the team on all issues relating to the stakeholders and
end users.
Hence the core team members represented 3 distinct groups. This led to a
triangulation approach (Figure 13) where separate research approaches were taken
reflecting the expertise of the group. Weekly meeting were held to communicate
findings and develop and discuss the impact of these findings on the holistic picture.

Fig. 13. Triangulated development process

5.2 Data needs

This case study proved to be an ideal test subject due to the sensitive nature of the end
users and the environment/use of the products. One product was within the realm of
the design teams previous experience, the bedside chair, however the other product
was a commode, which was unlike any previous products they had encountered, and
hence they had no prior data they could refer to. The designers found themselves in a
situation where their own prior knowledge was limited, availability of existing
10 Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

knowledge restricted and opportunities to compile new data both time-consuming and
difficult to arrange due to the sensitive nature of the hospital environment and ethical
issues. Access was a major obstacle for the early stages of the development.
Having been given the task of investigating and communicating stakeholder user
data, the Brunel research team used the project to record the user data requests of the
team, and to explore how some of the concepts for data communication could be
used. The team took advantage of existing hospital based gatekeepers and explored
new routes to ‘expert’ user groups, from which information could be gathered and
communicated, and some user engagement and experience prototyping could be
carried out.

5.3 Methods of capture and communication

During earlier research on the subject of methods for anthropometric data capture one
of the trends identified was the dominant use and preference for experimental
methods, this typically being engaging with users and prototyping both physical
objects and experiences (Nickpour and Dong, 2009). The team’s intentions were
therefore to capture information on behalf of the designers and where gaps existed
simulate the environment.
The design team were particularly interested in the ward environment. To gather
data from this environment interviews were carried out and picture and video
ethnographic methods were used to gather ‘relevant data in real-world environments’
(Lebbon et al, 2003).
Communications methods used to engage designers included scenarios derived
from shadowing nurses in hospital wards, which were detailed then illustrated.
Personas were also constructed using direct quotes from users, access to original
footage was available to the designers if they were interested in a particular case. The
most dynamic communication was a workshop in a simulation room, which allowed
the designers to engage with hospital equipment, patients, nurses and occupational
therapists, and participate in role-play of use scenarios.

5.4 Initial insights and recordings

Audio-recorded interviews were made on wards, pictures were taken of the

environment and the specific items discussed. Video footage was made of the
cleaning process typically carried out on commodes. This was the first insight into
what was later identified as the most common commode used in UK hospitals. The
video gave an overview of the features and construction, insight into the ways in
which nurses interacted with it, such as the techniques used for cleaning and problems
encountered.
It also helped identify issues that would otherwise been more difficult to recognize
just by examining the product, such as inter-relationships between staff, and details of
use such as -
 Accessing User Information for Use in Design 11

“It doesn’t take long (to clean). Obviously if someone has had an accident it takes
longer. Then sometimes it gets in here (wheels), which I have had and that takes
some time to clean”

5.7 Scenarios and personas

Interviews were carried out with 6 patients/carers from differing age groups to begin
to build a picture of the patient experience. Interviews based around 50 questions (10
general 20 bedside chair 20 commode) were carried out and filmed. As the interviews
were lengthy, personas were created based on each participant, and populated with
real quotes, in order to give the designers example users that they could consider in
concept creation. If any of the material from a persona was of particular relevance the
recordings could be accessed for further information. An example of the information
contained within the personas follows –
“… even when you’re dying you must sit on the chair, they’ll say – you’ll develop
sores, and water on the lungs”. He spent around 8 hours a day in his chair “I did
everything in that chair - read, ate, puked”. He liked the “nice cheery colour” of the
chair, but was suspicious that it might have been chosen to blend in with the muck.
As the product is dynamic, details of its static use and basic knowledge of
operation was not sufficient to understand the holistic use, therefore details of the
commode in use were presented to the design team, and the designers developed
storyboards (Figure 14) based on the scenarios.

Fig. 14. Illustrated scenario of typical use (© PL)

12 Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

5.8 Simulation and role-play

The simulation workshop was attended by several of the identified key stakeholders;
two staff nurses, 2 recent patients and an occupational therapist. Representatives
from the design team and manufacturing team attended, so the discussions could
cover all concerns. Group discussions were held followed by interaction with the
devices and role-play (Figure 15) where the full process of commode use was
demonstrated by a nurse, using team participants as the ‘patients’.

Fig. 15. Role-play in simulated hospital ward

The investigations helped to form a comprehensive view of the use of commodes

and bedside chairs, with all equipment at hand and nurses on site the process could be
interrogated fully and any unanswered questions addressed. The use of role-play gave
team members unique insight, as is demonstrated in the following comment –

“It’s really strange, when you sit in the commode you realise how difficult it must
be to go. The shape of the pan actually squeezes the buttocks together, it’s nothing
like sitting on a conventional toilet.”

6. Discussion

Although there is an abundance of books and data on ergonomics and particularly

anthropometrics, this opposes the fact that there are still information gaps in the
design process, and a reliance on intuition and less tangible aspects of difficult to
convey ‘experience’. There is a prevalence of designers utilizing prior knowledge,
unless the project is unique enough that they must engage with new scenarios, users
and data.
This is not to say that this is an incorrect way to tackle design problems, it is a
classic scenario found across most disciplines, with more experience people become
increasingly useful commodities. However, a tool that could collate this information
and make it accessible to the less experienced designer, or a point of reference and
tangible data source for the more experienced designer could have great value.
Typically designer skills and knowledge in the professional realm come from
experience based learning, with designers gaining more knowledge as they complete
more projects. Designers prefer to engage in experimental methods (e.g. prototypes
 Accessing User Information for Use in Design 13

and test rigs) and then interrogate these by working with actual users, even if this is
very limited, even to the point where they might merely involve studio colleagues.
The tool concepts proved very effective in stimulating discussion, the two
workshops had a high attendance, and engaged participants in a lively way
throughout, which demonstrates that topic itself provokes conversation. The eight
concepts were deliberately varied, to touch upon many aspects of ergonomics from
the more emotional to scientific, qualitative to quantitative. The hope was that this
might polarize opinion and provoke definite answers, however the outcome was that
there was value perceived in every tool, often relating to specific features,
demonstrating that user data needs are wide and varied.
There was some deviation dependant on the nature of the design group. Clearly
there is a wide range of design disciplines ranging from the more artistic design
outputs which we could call ‘designer’ designs, to those more closely related to
engineering, such as medical device design. The user needs vary greatly between
these, from the pleasurable and less tangible execution of a ‘cool’ design, to the tight
tolerances of surgical tools. There are two standpoints to consider, should a tool
change the way designers work, or should it supplement their current methods? Is it
even possible to impact a designer once they have reached the professional domain, or
is this something that would be more suited to the educational sector, where the
concepts and considerations can become part of the instinctive thinking that designers
typically use in their day-to-day thinking process?
The two quite distinct product briefs within the live project discussed in Section 5
proved interesting as one fell into the realm of prior knowledge with the requirements
being similar to tried and tested design routes familiar to the design consultancy.
However, the commode was a new realm of investigation hence there was a lack of
data. This also influenced the user investigations requested by the design group,
having little to refer back to, indicating that when a project is familiar there is more
confidence in intuition and prior knowledge, whereas if the brief is substantially
different from previous projects there is less confidence in applying prior knowledge.
Restricted information such as that derived from wards is perhaps of most interest to
designers, as it enters realms that prove difficult to access. There may be potential to
identify underrepresented scenarios and arenas and to detail them.
The live project allowed a holistic view of the design process and the typical user
related data requirements for such a project. It gave an indication of when user data
needs were high, and when they tapered off. The following (Figure 16) is derived
from the project Gantt chart developed by the design team. It is apparent that the user
data requirements are similar to the earlier plot for user data needs (Figure 1). It is
therefore worth considering how a tool could add value at these stages where the
graphs peak.
14 Chris McGinley & Hua Dong

Fig. 16. Live project tasks with plotted level of user data input.

As the main period of user data needs is at the front end of the design process
where designers should be at their most creative, how might the science of
ergonomics and anthropometrics be translated into something that can offer
inspiration to a design project?
Much of the feedback demonstrated a conflict of demands in regard to information
needs, often relatively detailed and specific information was desired. However, the
retrieval and communication of this information was expected to be heavily
summarised, easily digested and engaging.
“We are wired to feel things for people, not for abstractions,” (Heath and Heath,
2007). This was demonstrated through several features of the tools such as visual
impairment renderings, user videos, and figures based on real people, which
repeatedly received positive feedback. It can be assumed that this is due in part to the
fact that these features go some way towards creating a more ‘human’ representation.
It is clear that a major obstacle to the uptake of tools is the preference for
experimental and face-to-face interaction.
According to David Fisher, Creative Director of Seymour Powell (Nickpour and
Dong, 2008) –

“Product design is now more tuned to marketing then engineering. We have moved,
we are more part of a brand, and an absolute must within that is make a product as
good as possible. But better could be better functionality, better ergonomics or more
emotional connection! So emotional values are as important these days as good old
fashioned engineering.”
 Accessing User Information for Use in Design 15

7. Conclusions and further work

In summary this paper reported on ergonomic data requirements in professional

design practice. It described tool concepts based on feedback from a study of the use
of anthropometric data by professional designers in their design process. It then went
on to discuss one of two workshops held to evaluate the tool concepts and co-design
new tool concepts. Finally it presented work carried out during a live project, where
all user data collection was assigned to the research team, which allowed direct
observation of data needs of designers.
There is an abundance of ergonomic and anthropometric data currently available,
however it is largely inflexible and difficult to access. Even when appropriate to a
design project, most is not in a format that appeals to designers, hence there is scope
to make use of this body of data by communicating it in a more engaging way.
However, data on its own is not enough, it needs to be understood. The way data is
presented should make understanding implicit, and naturally build on knowledge a
designer already possesses. A major step is talking the designers data language to
allow them to add to the story of their design development in a natural way.
Ergonomics covers a huge range of information useful to design development
projects, and designers typically use many elements of ergonomics dependant on the
individual project. The concept of a holistic tool which meets all ergonomic needs in
a design project is at best complex, and at worst both inappropriate and unusable. The
criteria of an ‘appropriate’ and ‘usable’ tool, needs to be further explored. The
features of a tool also require further development considering more specific criteria
as indicated by designers, particular consideration being given to the stage of the
design process in which such tools should be employed.

References

1. Dong, H, Cassim, J, Clarkson, J.: Best Practice of Critical User Forums. Paper presented at
the Include Conference, Royal College of Art, London, UK (April 2007)
2. Green, M, Fidel, R.: The Many Faces of Accessibility: Engineers’ Perception of Information
Sources. Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.40 n.3, pp
563-581. (2004)
3. Nickpour, F., Dong, H.: Designing Anthropometrics: Insights Into Designers Use of People
Size Data. Technical Report, School of Engineering and Design, Brunel University (2008)
4. Nickpour, F., Dong, H.: Anthropometrics Without Numbers! An Investigation of Designers’
Use of People Data. Paper to be presented at the Include 2009 Conference, Royal College of
Art, London, UK (April 2009)
5. Lebbon, C., Rouncefield, M., Viller, S.: Observation for Innovation. In: Clarkson, Coleman,
Keates, Lebbon, (eds). Inclusive Design – Design for the Whole Population. UK: Springer-
Verlag, pp 402-419. (2003)
6. Heath, C. Heath D.: Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. USA: Random
House, p16. (2007)