Talk:Human factors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
The difference between human factors and ergonomics should probably be discussed, though I know I am not the one to do so. --Myles Long 23:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Additional Information to Add
Human factors practitioners can come from a variety of backgrounds; though predominately they are Psychologists (Cognitive, Perceptual, and Experimental) and Engineers. Designers (Industrial, Interaction, and Graphic), Anthropologists, and Computer Scientists also contribute.
Where as ergonomics tends to focus on the anthropometrics for optimal human-machine interaction, human factors is more focused on the cognitive and perceptual factors.
Areas of interest for human factors practioners include the following: workload, fatigue, situational awareness, usability, learnability, attention, vigilance, human performance, control and display design, stress, visualization of data, individual differences, aging, accesibility, shift work, work in extreme environments, and human error.
Human Factors is only one element of the broad category of Critical Systems Research, in which human performance (accurate, difficult and error-prone) and machine performance (accurate, difficult and error-prone), are critically studied to reveal patterns of outcome that can be labelled as 'successful,' 'somewhat reliable,' 'error-prone' or 'failing completely.' When systems, both biological and mechanical/artificial, reach system critical conditions they fail to operate as intended by humans. This moment of criticality defines the upper limit of the system's functional utility. Study of critical systems helps humans find ways of improving their desired function and outcomes. Both human factors and ergonomics fall into subset studies within the study of critical systems. Critical systems also include fields of study that are not necessarily man-machine interaction specific (such as linguistics, medicine, the law, business management and all applied fields of study). Failures in these areas often prejudices direct man-machine interaction.
[edit] Regional Semantics
I disagree with the above statement that ergonomics tends to focus on the anthropometrics while human factors is more focused on the cognitive and perceptual factors. I think this distinction, if it exists, exists mainly in the USA. In Canada and Europe, the term ergonomics certainly includes cognitive and perceptual factors, as explained on the ergonomics page. As far as I know, the terms are treated as synonymous by the professional organizations such as the IEA, HFES, ACE, etc.
[edit] Suggested merge
It looks like the right idea to me; even if the terms are used slightly differently, that should be explained in an article that deals with them both. I support the merge. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I support the merge as well. In my graduate-level Human Factors class, it was emphasized that human factors and ergonomics are the same thing. In fact, it had previously been called ergonomics. If a merge does take place, my preference is that the title of the article be "Human factors" since I suspect that is the more common name for the discipline and the one more likely to be searched. --Cswrye 03:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I support the merge. Ergonomics is the more widely used term, it is almost certainly more likely to be searched. Human factors is United States ergonomics industry jargon, and is not used even by non-professionals (i.e. "Ergonomic keyboard", etc.) -- Tyrannicide 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have some real concerns about the proposed merge. In the U.S., the terms are quite different. The statement "ergonomics tends to focus on the anthropometrics while human factors is more focused on the cognitive and perceptual factors" is accurate in the U.S. If I wanted to know, for example, about Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), it would never occur to me to look for it in Wikipedia under "ergonomics." Americans would never say that a user-friendly interface or software design is "ergonomic." The word "ergonomic" is more common in the U.S. than the phrase "human factors," but they mean different things; the average American would say that "ergonomic" applies to the physical body. If someone in the U.S. knows the phrase "human factors" and searches for it on Wikipedia, and finds it (after this proposed merge) as a section under "ergonomics" (after redirect), he will think it quite odd, as he would have expected it to be the other way around (if they had to be combined for some reason). He would find it even more strange being told that "human factors" and "ergonomics" are the same. On the other hand, it sounds like a merge would make perfect sense for those following the usage in Europe/Canada. What to do? -DoctorW 07:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Redirects deal with people looking up "human factors"; the question is whether there should be one article that deals with the range of closely related and overlapping topics, or two or more articles with concomitant duplication of material. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- My concern was not that people can't be redirected (which was clear in my comment), only whether this is the best solution. I assumed that those following the British meanings would prefer the merge to redirect from "human factors" to "ergonomics," which causes no problems except for U.S. visitors. A very small number of them who use their mouse button as though it has a hair trigger may not stay for an expanation and will just leave Wikipedia and look elsewhere, thinking either that Wikipedia doesn't know what its talking about or that there's no info on Human Factors so they got redirected to the closest topic Wikipedia has. A larger group of U.S. visitors may stay for an explanation (which in my opinion would have to be in the first few words of an italicized one-sentence paragraph at the top of the merged page), but some of them might also have a similar reaction.
- Those following the "Commonwealth" usage may say the terms are the same, but that's not the perspective of the U.S. user who typed in "human factors." Redirect to a page which attempts to explain these issues before the user leaves is not necessarily the best solution. What do people think about keeping the Human factors page (without redirect) for U.S. visitors who typed in "human factors," remove all duplicated material to the Ergonomics page, and explain that Wikipedia is following the European/Canadian (or whatever it may be called) usage, and provide a link to the Ergonomics page, either to the main page or to a section that deals with cognitive and perceptual factors (or both)? -DoctorW 17:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support The term "Erogonomics" is becoming more and more widespread in the United States. --Naha|(talk) 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
What is the next action for this merge? There are four votes supporting it and one vote with real concerns about it. 80% support is definitely a majority, but is there anyone willing to step up to handle the merge? --Cswrye 07:04, 12 January 2006
- Support the merge under the most common term Ergonomics. As to the suggestions from @Doctor: someone looking under the term "human factors" being redirected to "ergonomics" will be educated to a broader spectrum of knowledge and may be inspired to look further under the term "ergonomics". --JohJak2 12:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support There is a discussion about this topic on ErgoWeb, including my comments why I think they are obviously equivalent. See link below for the discussion, and for the page in the Australian Ergonomics Society that posted that they are essentially the same.
- Next action I agree that it looks like there is enough support, so the next step is to discuss how to handle it or for someone to be bold and just do it! I think most of the stuff in the human factors article is introductory, so could go in the introduction, and the links and references just moved over - shouldn't be any big deal, since a redirect at human factors will take care of the links to it, and people could then bypass the redirects later. I may jump in and do it if no one else does in the next week or so - there doesn't appear to be any substantial reason for opposition that can't be compromised. I am used to the US human factors term, but I think it's more important that the articles don't stay independent and get repetitive with the potential to acquire conflicting information. To me it makes sense to refer to human factors as the mental or non-physical part of ergonomics, although the boundary does get blurry on things like shape-coding.
- Actually now that I've thought about DoctorW's proposal of making the Human Factors article a very short description of the naming situation and then linking to ergonomics, sort of like a disambig page, is the best solution because it still prevents any duplication (unless someone decides to expand human factors, but we could leave a note requesting people to not do that on the talk page or via an in-line comment, so I think that is best. Spalding 18:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.ergonomics.org.au/mainerginfo.htm
I Support the merge as well, both are basically the same thing with different emphasis. Just mention that it's called "human factors" in the ergonomics article.
Maybe a little late, but I Oppose the merge. I work with grad students in Human Factors from a leading university in the field, and they'd be furious over the idea of combining the two terms. Simply put, ergonomics deals with physical objects and their anthropometric usage; human factors with cognitive-perceptual issues like human-computer interaction. A little overlap doesn't warrant a merge. -VJ 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know it's late but I oppose it too - as it is my line of work, nothing in human factors engineering has to do with ergonomics. They are 2 totally different things. - JG (This comment added by 192.55.52.3 on 18 Oct 2006)
I oppose the merge as well as they are two similar things but focus specifically on differences. They share similarities but dont connect completely with one another.
I Support the merge because the definition of ergonomics encompasses both the cognitive and physical portions. The distiction is made by practioners in each field to help them distinguish them apart from each other. With ergonomics being the forerunner and human factors trying to gain a foothold in industry as far as terminology. Do we really need to say we only look at humans because that relates again to the physical and cognitive. Is there really cognition with anything other than humans? Seems to redundant
I support the change. I have been in the field for 30 years in the U.S. coming through experimental psychology. The field has always included both physical and cognitive components. Check out the original standard textbook by McCormick. The major professional organization in the U.S. is the Human Factors AND Ergonomics Society. The major professional accreditation organization the Board of Certification in Professional ERgonomics includes both cognitive and physical components in their examination. The current standard reference works are Salvendy's Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics and Karwowski's Encylopaedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics. The current reality is simple: The differences in terms are an accident of history. To show respect to both origins, they should simply be linked. As a further example, perhaps the most solid and replicable finding in the field is Fitts' Law. Is this cognitive or physical? Got news, folks, its both!!
I oppose the merge. In the U.S., the terms are certainly not used interchangeably. For instance, the Master's of Ergonomics at Indiana University states: Ergonomics defines human physical and mental capabilities and provides qualitative/quantitative methods to evaluate the workplace relative to those capabilities. An ergonomist uses these tools to make recommendations to improve the overlap between worker capability and task demands. source It is also offered by the Department of Kinesiology, not the Department of Psychology or Engineering. By contrast, the Master's of Human Factors at the University of Illinois is truly interdisciplinary: The science of how people interact with technology to perform tasks efficiently and safely draws upon and creates knowledge in at least three traditional academic disciplines. First, the mental component of those interactions draws upon psychology and the study of the mind. Second, the physical component of those interactions, the techniques of systems analysis, and the quantitative modeling of both physical and mental interactions for the design of safe and usable products draws heavily upon and contributes to the engineering sciences. Third, the representation of the flow of information between human and system draws upon disciplines in communication and information science. Finally, the systems themselves that are the context of human factors analyses reflect diverse areas such as aviation, healthcare, computers, cellular phones, medical devices, voting systems, criminal justice, manufacturing, and fire fighting. source This discrepancy supports the opinions of previous dissenters that Human Factors attacks this issue from a more cognitive/psychological perspective. I think it is undeniable that the terms are not used interchangeably in the U.S. Now, to account for the rest of the English-speaking world. From the University of New South Wales' Master of Ergonomics website: The Master of Science and Technology in Ergonomics is a graduate Program intended for students wishing to become professional ergonomists. It provides students with the competencies to identify hazards in human-technology-environment systems, to assess their associated risks and to use a user-centred, systems approach to develop controls for the hazards. source This master's program in ergonomics contains zero work in psychology or cognitive sciences. As further evidence of the fact that the terms are not generally used interchangeably by academics even outside of the U.S., take the following, from the University of South Australia: Human Factors is a multi-disciplinary applied science that integrates the fields of psychology, engineering, ergonomics, management and industrial design. source Thus at the University of South Australia, ergonomics is seen as a segment of the umbrella term that is human factors -- something that contradicts what we have currently written in the human factors article, which is a claim that the rest of the world outside of the United States uses the term "ergonomics" instead of "human factors." The linguistics of usage is an ever-changing world, especially in science and technology. It appears to me at this time that, every day, the term "ergonomics" applies more toward issues of physical use: safety, fatigue, and comfort. Ergonomics as a field of graduate study is far less likely to include cognitive psychology, interface design, and human computer interaction. Meanwhile, these are major footholds of Human Factors as a field of graduate study. Thus, as has happened in numerous cases, the American colloquial has already started to become the worldwide academic usage standard. It is not the standard yet, but it appears to me that worldwide usage has started drifting that way. It would be regressive of us to combine these two articles while the terms continue to further diverge in their modern usage. --KyleWild 15:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose a merge. It may be that human factors slowly is morfing into ergonomics, or vice versa. But we should not forget that the origin of the term is in human factors engineering, i.e. the engineering of the human factor to fit into the overall work system. This is quite different from ergonomics, which is the study of work.Hollnagel 11:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I strongly support the merge. This would be so much simpler if HFES had dropped "human factors" from their name. It was a mistake that they did not. Just put a paragraph or two discussing how either phrase can be used with different meanings, but both phrases can be used to mean the encompassing discipline. (Ronz 01:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
I strongly oppose the merge as well, for all of the reasons already stated.
I oppose the merger. Note that even when the Human Factors Society changed their name, they became the Human Factores and Ergonomics Society (HFES) and did not use a single term. I think we should be inclusive and not exclusive. Let the definition survive!
I strongly oppose the merge. There may be commonality, but there is not interchangability. The engineering that went into the creation of the Aeron chair made it ergonomically correct. But the Human Factors made it such a comfortable and intuitive chair for humans to sit in. I don't think Human Factors always has to end in Engineering, it could be Design. But I oppose making it simply synonomous with Ergonomics. --199.67.138.84 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Jim
I strongly oppose the proposed merge. Human factors and ergonomics are distinct. The name of our organization (HFES) reflects this distinctness. --Cassavau 22:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the merger because ergonomics is merely one area within the larger field/study of Human Factors. Merging the two concepts would be inappropriate and inaccurate.
I strongly oppose the merge. Ergonomics USED to be an interchangable name but now Ergonomics is only one part of what Human Factors has to offer.
I strongly oppose the merge (changed from "real concerns"). Even if those above are correct in describing the UK/Canadian meaning of the phrase (and in the conclusions they come to as a result), its meaning in the U.S. must also be respected. Frankly, I believe this is not negotiable. (You can't simply ignore the U.S. meaning.) -DoctorW 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I support the merge. What about other less popular or outdated terms like Engineering Psychology or Human Engineering? They most certainly can be assumed to synonomous with our current definition of Human Factors. A Mechanical Engineer who focuses on thermodynamics and one who focuses on machine design are both still Mechanical Engineers - similarly, no distiction is needed between physical and cognitive emphases of the field of Ergonomics. -[unsigned comment by anonomous user 155.9.10.2]
- There is a difference between what you might think is "needed" and what is the case in actual use. My understanding it that, at least in the US, there IS a difference, whether needed or not. So I oppose a merger. Pzavon 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It sounds like anonomous user 155.9.10.2 is saying that the entire life work of a cogntive psychologist who specializes in human factors (such as HCI) is superfluous (as it depends entirely on the distinction he says is unnecessary). I'm sure that's not what he means.
I strongly oppose the merge. Most Human Factors and Ergonomics practitioners understand that there are many differences in the work they do. In some areas the definitions are interchangeable but, for the most part, Human Factors and Ergonomics are different animals.
- Human Factors Engineering (HFE), also know as Human Systems Engineering, and Ergonomics are definetly two separate disciplines. HFE is focused on the integration of man into a system, know in the defense industry as the WMI, or warfighter-machine interface. Ergonomics is best considered secondary to HFE; whereas HFE is purely functional, ergonomics considers the long-term impact of the system on the human body, not just the ability to interact. Consider the B-52 Bomber, it is not friendly on its human occupants body (the seats are compared to sitting on a 2x4 for 24-hours at a time; however, it was designed using Human Factors Engineering, as all insturments are within reach of the corresponding crew member. Ergonomics would suggest installing a window in the Radar Operators compartment to satisfy the human need to see beyond their enclosed, cramped space. HFE suggests selecting individuals that are mentally tolerent of spending long periods of time in a cramped space with no direct view into the outside world. Today, Ergonomics has been integrated into HFE as a consideration in the design process. Ergonomics reduces operator fatigue, and is therefore a trade variable with system cost; whereas HFE is a neccessity and not tradeable. HFE ensures that a Pilot can reach all instruments as required to perform the mission; Ergonomic ensures that the Pilot can also do so comfortably and with minimal wear and fatigue on the body. A mouse and keyboard are required on my home computer to satisfy HFE requirements. An Ergonomic keyboard and mouse reduce the impact of repetitive motion on the body. Thus, HFE is a requirement and Ergonomics is additional benefit. I could go on, but this should be sufficient. -Dennis K. Van Gemert —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketscientist (talk • contribs)
I am not strongly supporting the merge or opposing the merge because the topic isn't of much importance. Eronomics is mostly used to describe human factors in Europe and Human factors and ergonomics are used somewhat interchangably here in the US, we all know this. Ergonomics is not necessarily the same thing as human factors though in the sense that Human Factors does not just concern itself with anthropometric data but encompases anything anything and everything that can make something something work better. The terms are definately related and those who know enough on the subject to care about the merge should know the difference anyways. I am about to graduate in a couple months with degree in Human Factors and would like that to remain the name it is referred to but if it were changed to ergonomics I don't think the same emphasis would be had. Some other term would have to be added to ergonomics in order for it to fit as a the general term for both. So I guess I lied and I do oppose the merge but leave it open for discussion so that a compromise may be had and no feathers are ruffled. -Joe Mama, ha never used that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.241.16 (talk • contribs) on 15 June 2007
I The merge notice has been on this article for more than a year. There's more opposition than support for the merge, especially in the past few months, and I don't think that much more will be added to the discussion. Therefore, I am going to go ahead and remove the merge banner from both articles. —Cswrye 22:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Late in the debate, I tend to agree with Cswrye. But much as informed debate is the cornerstone of wikipedia, is there not a defined ballot procedure for merge decisions that might be fairer and more transparent? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Earlier roots
Human Factors and Ergonomics have as a common root the Time-And-Motion_Study work of Frederick_Winslow_Taylor (1856 - 1915) which was further built on by Frank Bunker Gilbreth (1868 - 1924) and Lillian Moller Gilbreth (1878 - 1972). To say Human Factors got its start in WW2 is undershooting the mark by decades.
Comment: The "common root" referred to above is more a root of Industrial Engineering - which has similarieties to Human Factors but seems less interested in cognition.
[edit] Linkspam
This article has been having reoccurring problems with linkspam. Discuss here if you feel otherwise. Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM concerning linkspam. --Ronz 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So if the three leading Societies recommend my pages as resources, why is Wikipedia calling them spam?
I had added Office-ergo.com as a recommended website, and I'm glad at least that one was kept on. By why was ErgoWeb repeatedly taken off? The web page listed below is shows the leading ergonomics forum there is, and it's used by people around the country.
http://forum.ergoweb.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?forum=1
Rani Lueder, CPE
- The "someone" is me. Please read WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM. I agree though that the forums are worth keeping. --Ronz 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ronz, please explain why the http://humanics-es.com/ergonomics.htm link is not worth including when it includes a number of original reports on it that review alternate keyboards, seating postures, vision and other topics. These are posted on the site and are not found anywhere else.
At the same time, you saw fit to keep two website links for consulting services directly below it that are basically just consulting services.
Rani
- Hi Rani. (Addressing your questions from here and from Talk:Ergonomics). While your site provides some useful information the links to it violate Wikipedia guidelines in multiple ways because: it is a commercial site, it was recently linked to numerous times, you're added the link yourself, a direct link to the home page of the website was added, and the links have been added anonymously. Good point about the other links. --Ronz 14:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, Ron. I am glad you put ErgoWeb back in, at least.
And I think baddesigns was worth considering - just a regular guy going through his life pointing out the things he sees everywhere that make no sense.
I had no agenda by being anonymous, I just hadn't logged in. I listed it because I genuinely thought these pages (including mine) contributed. I added it several times because I was still working on it and didn't think it mattered if I made changes in the review or final mode.
I had thought the ergonomics papers page http://humanics-es.com/ergonomics.htm#ergo contributed because it is an attempt to get people to revisit our common everyday assumptions about posture, vision, lighting and products - and to break through the massive amount of misinformation on these topics out there by methodically reviewing research that showed that common assumptions - including ones often made by ergonomists - are questionnable and often disproven years ago.
By listing the page http://humanics-es.com/recc-ergonomics.htm, I was trying to point to the most important resources for different kinds of information on ergonomics.
Rani Lueder, CPE
- I've just restored forum.ergoweb.com to the external links per the discussion above. Maybe I compromised more than I should have with this original discussion? I don't think anyone will have a problem with the about.com link being removed though. --Ronz 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EL Academic programs
I don't see how a list of academic programs in Human Factors can be continued in the article given the number that could be listed and WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. --Ronz 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. They should all be deleted. If someone feels this is an important feature, a single link to a comprehensive list might be an acceptable alternative. -DoctorW 18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible copyvio
While investigating a copyvio in Ergonomics, I found what appears to be one here as well taken from Encyclopædia Britannica [1] --Ronz 15:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm convinced Britannica is the source, so I'm removing it. --Ronz 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] USS Vincennes paragraph/example
The para about the USS Vincennes is poorly written, sensationalized, replete with grammar errors, and egregious personal POVs. It's also unclear to me exactly how this incident pertains to, and adds cogent, edifying, illustrative information to the benefit of the article. I am tempted to remove the whole para, but after a review of the History, I note y'all are actively working on the article, so I'll forebear to meddle at this time... but wanted to point this para out in hopes someone associated with the article will agree and take action to fix the para or remove it. Thanks! Akindofmagick (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you completely and note also that it is the first paragraph of a section called "Introduction." My understanding of Wikipedia style is that the introductory part of an article is not supposed to have a section title, etc. I will therefore be removing this paragraph and looking at returning the rest of that section to the actual introduction, or deleting it if it duplicates materials already there. Pzavon (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poor Article
I feel this entire article requires a considerable cleanup, perhaps even a rewrite. The structure does not follow, nor link together cohesively. The bullet points at the start provide a terrible start to the article and a to poor formatting in general. There are no references and, frankly it is a disgrace. Would anyone object to me rewriting the (vast) majority of this and stringing it together in a vaguely sane order? I may even be able to find some references! Wouldn’t that be something? Cheers.
Bozzelo (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- The article has always needed work, but a series of edits in the first week of April 2008 sent it (in my opinion) even further downhill. I agree with you completely, but it's a bit too grand of a scope for me to be willing to take the initiative. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I just added a historical reference (which I could significantly expand if you are interested) to it a few days ago. A rewrite would be welcome in my opinion. Seems to me that there are two major themes, humans factors training (more related to psychology than engineering) and human factors engineering (giving us humans fewer opportunities to mess up the system). I am most familiar (but not a subject matter expert) with the study of causes of Human Factors in Errors and related training to prevent said errors, which I believe to be the origin of the term - and the nature of the 1964 reference I added. It is still part of almost every flight-safety training program and gaining ground in medical training and other fields. PS - an article I submitted, Elias Porter's biography (author of the 1964 reference I added to this article), is up for peer review. I would appreciate any comments, ratings or improvements. Tscud (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
