Commentary From the Editor-in-Chief

Abstract

Dear readers, The arrival of 2023 brings a renewed sense of energy and focus after the challenges and changing circumstances of the past few years. Whether you are working in-person, hybrid, or remotely this year, I hope you find yourself in a good space and are eager to move forward on your 2023 goals and resolutions. As we begin a new year of Ergonomics in Design (EiD), I am pleased to present three very different but equally interesting articles. In the first of these articles, Eilouti considers the integration of ergonomics into kinetic architecture,which is still considered an emerging field, despite its underlying concepts datingback to ancient times. As an ergonomics application, kinetic architecture premises that the structural elements of the building (or at least some elements) can be moved or altered to meet users’ needs without impacting the overall structural integrity of the built environment. For the study presented in Eilouti’s paper, undergraduate architectural engineering students and instructors worked together to design ahouse for ahypothetical family consisting of a tall male, a short female, an elderly grandmother, a daughter, and a wheel-chair bound son. The house design integrated ergonomics and anthropometrics in an application of architectural kinetics. By applying ergonomics principles and guidelines, the designers could accommodate each user’s time and motion patterns within and between different spaces. They applied kinetics concepts so that changes or movements of furniture and other products could be accomplished with minimal physical effort, thus producing flexible multi-functional structures. Environmental and social sustainability criteria were also incorporated into the design process. Based on the findings, the author proposes a two-part framework for an ergonomics-driven design approach to architectural design. The first part addresses interactions of humans, buildings, and the environment, with a common intersection of these three leading to green ergonomics. The second part addresses the interaction between humans, buildings, and the environment, the design process, and the skills needed for ergonomics-driven architectural design. The paper demonstrates the feasibility of designing an inclusive, adaptive, and accessible kinetic built environment to meet the needs of various residents. It also shows how to engage students and instructors in a participatory educational design course. With increasing rates of obesity over the last decade, promoting physical activity as part of primary care ismore important than ever. In this issue’s second paper, Neudorf et al. examine the usability of a physical activity counseling tool (integrated into electronic medical records) to assist primary care providers with patient interactions. As part of this investigation, the authors recruited primary care providers without prior experience or knowledge of the counseling tool. The study design consisted of: think-aloud testing, a near-live scenario with a “mock” patient, and a semistructured interview. In addition, the authors quantitatively analyzed responses from the counseling tool’s physical activity screening questionnaire and care plan. Their analysis demonstrated that the large amounts of text and poor visibility of essential links interfered with the tool navigation and impeded usability. However, usability improved by adding simple prompting questions to guide primary care providers in their discussions with patients regarding physical activity. In the final article of this issue, Biondi addresses some of the challenges associated with advanced technologies in motor vehicles. As vehicles become more automated, the human requirements for information processing and decision-making are changing, often leading to adverse outcomes on the road. Biondi examines issues related to automation confusion and the impact of driver’smentalmodels on safe vehicle adoption, specifically: vehicle manufacturers’ use of confusing terminologies such as “autopilot” and “self-driving”; a lack of awareness of automated technology features among car sellers; and users’ attempts to understand new technologies using conventional learning approaches (i.e., traditional owner’smanual). Biondi presents three possible solutions: first, developing clear and distinctive naming conventions for advanced driver assistance systems; second, using well-informed and trained dealership staff to train consumers at the point of sale; and finally, facilitating driver selfeducation through in-vehicle personal assistants during operation of advanced driver assistance systems. This article by Biondi reminds me of the classic paper by Parasuraman and Riley (1997), which addressed the humanuse,misuse, disuse, and abuse of automation, and caused a surge of “human versus automation” literature. Biondi’s article highlights the importance of refining the mental model mapping that informs drivers’ expectations and predictions of vehicle automation at a time when these advanced technologies are becoming more and more widespread. Finally, I encourage you to read the issue’s In the News column featuring news tidbits related to human factors and ergonomics. And as always, I want to thank the editorial board and the ad-hoc reviewers who complete the peer review process in a timely fashion so we can disseminate the best content every quarter to our readers.