Designing Tools to Be Used by Consumers

¶ … designing tools to be used by consumers or workers, it is widely assumed that the product must be both visually appealing as well as ergonomically functional. In certain workplace applications, if specific tools are not used, injuries may occur. Previous research on hand tools required in factory work, such as gripping tongs, have found that the product may be ignored if it is perceived to be cumbersome to use. According to the article, "The influence of different hand tool designs on the perception of aesthetics, ergonomics and usability," a "hand tool must be perceived to be usable, ergonomic and visually appealing in order for the users to benefit from the tools" and knowledge of how to enhance the perception of the user of the product's value is an essential component in ensuring that the tool is used properly (Syed 2012: 241)

A statement of the research problem

"It has been proven that there is a connection between the design of hand tools and the occurrence of upper limb disorders" (Syed 2012: 241). The study attempted to understand how to create a hand tool that was both perceived as having greater utility and which actually possessed such utility. Two types of tongs were evaluated over the course of the study, one which was a proposed workplace tong, the other of which was in current use in the workplace.

A description of research procedures

Fifty undergraduates were given questionnaires in which they were asked to compare the proposed design (R2) and the existing design (R1) for the tongs. The respondents evaluated the two objects based upon pictures of R1 and R2. The figures were rated on a Likert type scale, from 1 (least agreeable) to 6 (most agreeable), without a neutral option. The aesthetics of the tongs were also rated, using a scale from 1 to 10, in which 1 indicated least beautiful and 10 the most beautiful.

Flaws in the procedural design

The most obvious potential flaw in the design is the relatively small sample of undergraduates polled. Only fifty students is not a significant enough test population to draw sweeping conclusions. A second problem is that undergraduates, rather than factory workers were selected. Although undergraduates might be more convenient subjects, the perceptions of factory workers might be very different, in terms of how they perceived the ergonomic and aesthetic value of the item. Workers would have more experience in the field by which to evaluate both qualities.

Analysis of the data

There was a preference for the R2 design, both in terms of perceived ease of use and ease of performing the task (ergonomics) as well as for its greater aesthetic appeal. There was a weak correlation between the perceived ease of use and the aesthetic appeal of the product.