Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu
From: gorman@acsu.buffalo.edu (anne-marie k gorman)
Newsgroups: comp.human-factors
Subject: Re: Human Factors or also called Ergonomics
Message-ID: <80115@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 15 Jun 91 22:15:43 GMT
References: <1991Jun12.091705.2823@actrix.gen.nz> <31211@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1991Jun13.000119.4664@cs.UAlberta.CA>
Sender: news@acsu.Buffalo.EDU
Organization: SUNY Buffalo
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu

In article <1991Jun13.000119.4664@cs.UAlberta.CA> cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes:

>Ergonomicists also have a bad habit of getting into the design loop way
>too late. Perhaps this is because early involvement is viewed as being
>methodologically impure, and because ergonomics is viewed as a product
>testing discipline. Both of these views work against design effectiveness
>simply because it's too late in the game.

Well, in many companies, ergonomists get into the design loop too late
because the corporate structure pigeonholes them as sort of in house
consultants, rather than as part of the "official" design team.  This
may be partly due to ignorance on the part of managers, project leaders, etc. 
as to what ergonomics can do, and ergonomists themselves may be responsible 
for some of that ignorance, so I'm not saying that they're only victims.
But I have never heard either of the two views you mention expressed by
any practicing ergonomist; most of them would probably disagree with both 
ideas.


Anne-Marie