Work xx (20xx) x–xx 1

DOI:10.3233/WOR-203237
IOS Press

Ergonomics in design and design in

ergonomics: Issues and experience in
education
Stéphane Safina,∗ , Pinky Pintusb and Catherine Elsenc

f
a i3-SES,
CNRS, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France

oo
b Ecole
Supérieure des Arts (ESA) Saint-Luc, Liège, Belgium
c LUCID, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Liège, Belgium

Pr
Received 22 May 2019
Accepted 1 February 2020
ed
Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Articulating design and ergonomics skills through education is a major challenge for both fields. Indeed,
professional ergonomists are increasingly deeply involved in design processes, and ergonomics education should train them in
design skills. As courses in ergonomics education are often time-constrained, it is difficult to mobilize students in real-scale
ct

projects and to involve them in design processes. Conversely, activity analysis and active involvement of users in design
projects (through co-creation or co-design processes) are rarely convened in architecture and design curricula.
OBJECTIVE: It is therefore necessary to develop effective and relevant pedagogical settings, enabling students of both
fields to develop their abilities and equip them to act in concrete design situations.
re

METHODS: In this paper, we describe a large-scale pedagogical setting involving groups of students from different disci-
plines gathered around a real-scale design project (re-shaping the waiting room of a mental health center). The ergonomics
students’ main task is to analyze the needs and real activities of end-users; the interior design students’ task is to produce
the design project. This communication more precisely focuses on describing the ergonomics students’ fieldwork and the
or

practical and pedagogical innovations put in place to help them face the various challenges encountered during the project.
RESULTS: Based on formal feedback from students, teachers and stakeholders, we address three main challenges: (1) dealing
with the temporal constraints of the intervention, (2) documenting and observing a sensitive situation and (3) involving end-
users to place them at the core of the design process. For each challenge, we describe the issue at stake, the work conducted
C

to deal with this issue, and eventually the feedback collected from students, teachers and stakeholders.
CONCLUSION: The paper concludes with an analysis of success and failure factors for such pedagogical settings, in
particular for physical enquiry devices, co-creation processes, and co-constructed pedagogical settings. It shows the impact
of these settings for students, but highlight that collaboration between ergonomists and designers is a key issue for learning
in a positive experience.

Keywords: Creativity, design education, co-creation workshop, physical enquiry, co-constructed pedagogical setting

1. Introduction

∗ Address for correspondence: Stéphane Safin, 19 place Mar- It is well-known nowadays that both design and
guerite Perey, 91123 Palaiseau Cedex, France. Tel. : 01 75 31 98 ergonomic skills are essential in order to con-
71. E-mail: [email protected]. duct efficient design projects, based on properly

1051-9815/20/$35.00 © 2020 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
2 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics

documented empirical data. Yet, how to articulate patory co-creation workshop. We enrich each section
these skills, especially through education, still lacks with feedback provided by the various stakeholders.
clarification. This paper thus addresses three cru-
cial, intertwined issues: (1) training ergonomists to
intervene in design projects, (2) training designers 2. State of the art
to mobilize ergonomic empirical approaches in their
projects, and (3) training both to collaborate with 2.1. Ergonomics in design – design in
each other. Although these issues are essential for ergonomics
the education of young ergonomists and professional
practitioners, one has to observe that French and Bel- While the fields of ergonomics and design have
gian ergonomics training courses devote little time to been brought closer together in recent years, and the
immerse students in real-scale design projects. Con- link with design has been at the very core of the

f
versely, activity analysis and active involvement of ergonomics discipline since its inception, the explicit

oo
users in design projects (through co-creation or co- claim of the central role of ergonomics in innova-
design processes) are rarely convened in architecture tion and design projects remains relatively recent [1].
and design curricula. As courses in both fields are It is therefore necessary for ergonomic practitioners
often time-constrained, it is indeed difficult to involve to go one step beyond the high-level, abstract recom-
students in real-scale projects while engaging them mendations or formal use scenarios they traditionally

Pr
in testing different empirical methods. It is therefore formulate. As design projects grow more complex
necessary to develop effective and relevant peda- and systemic, the mere correction of existing solu-
gogical settings, enabling students to develop their tions and the criticism of projections made by others
abilities, and equip them to take action in concrete are no longer enough. For ergonomics propositions
design situations. This communication builds on this to be heard by design collectives, recommendations
ed
observation and paves a way towards this goal. need to be substantiated in concrete proposals (i.e.
In this paper, we describe an interdisciplinary to be supported by specific examples), conveying
teaching experiment conducted in Liège, Belgium, both implicit recommendations and practical exem-
where ergonomics and interior design students were plifications. Ergonomists must therefore urgently be
fully immersed in a real project, while collaborat- equipped to deal with unknown design areas and com-
ct

ing with each other and learning from their different, plex, ill-defined design problems.
but complementary, viewpoints. To do this, we seized Moreover, the field of design has become signif-
the opportunity on a real site, spanning two aca- icantly closer to the concerns of ergonomics over
re

demic years, and brought together students of various the last few decades. The place of the users as well
backgrounds in order to address the issue in com- as a certain form of empirical approach in under-
plementary ways. The project started with a broad standing their activities have indeed been more and
exploration of the problem and led to the concrete more precisely formalized in design. Disciplines such
or

delivery of a chosen solution on the construction site. as product, service or software design progressively
Our communication focuses on both the ergonomists’ shifted over the past four decades from “usability” to
and interior designers’ involvement in the project. “user-centred approaches” and eventually to “users-
C

In the first section, we briefly discuss the links driven experiences” [2]. Fields such as User-Centred
between architectural design and ergonomics, and the Design (e.g. Vredenburg, [3]), Interaction Design [4]
pedagogical implications. We then address three set- or Design Thinking [5] have blossomed, given the
ting challenges students had to face, namely (1) the growing implications of user-driven approaches in
time-constraining characteristics of the ergonomic product design [6]. Likewise, fields such as service
intervention process, (2) the documentation and design, marketing and even management, continue
observation of a sensitive situation, related to mental- to take inspiration from the human and social sci-
health and (3) the involvement of end-users at the very ences to develop new ways to deal with contemporary
heart of the design project. We detail the original solu- challenges [7]. Therefore, one has to observe that
tions brought to address these issues, respectively: designers tend to expand their roles towards tasks
co-construction of the intervention by students and traditionally carried out by ergonomists.
teachers; close collaboration between ergonomics Yet, while design essentially claims an empathic
and interior design students; mobilization of physical posture, explicitly mobilized in methods such as
enquiry devices and the set-up of an original partici- Design Thinking (and sometimes supplemented with
 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics 3

derived forms of ethno-methodologies), ergonomics providing constructive feedback, mostly verbally,

is based on a rigorous, precise, and structured empiri- on students’ work [15, 16]. Such a studio set-
cism. Designers, and more specifically architects, are ting encourages students to develop a process of
trained to transform “needs” into spaces, but are not reflection-in-action, which is an important compo-
specifically specialized in identifying these needs. nent of professional design processes [17]. Although
Ergonomists, on the other hand, use a battery of the studio setting is largely used in design curricula, it
methods to identify “needs” or “spaces of possible is less the case in psychology and ergonomics train-
future activities” [8], without, however, developing ing, where courses are often more theoretical, and
in their curriculum the ability to shape their “rec- where case-based reasoning is usually disconnected
ommendations” into concrete outlines of solutions. from real situations.
In short, while the designer’s observation aims to Secondly, since ergonomics in design requires a
provide him/her with inspiration or intention for the major part of collaboration with other projects’ stake-

f
project, the ergonomist aims, to a larger extent, at pro- holders (designers, users, clients, etc.), it is important

oo
viding scientific evidence supporting this intention. to establish a collective setting. This enables co-
In this paper, we consider this link between construction of meaning, especially in open-ended
ergonomics and design to be an essential condition learning situations, where students can help each
to insure end-users a central place throughout the other to acquire skills (within their Zones of Prox-
entire design process [9]. We are indeed convinced imal Development, as defined by Vygotsky [12]).

Pr
that, like Sanders and Stappers [10], the future of Moreover, collective argumentation processes can
design lies in the participation of users during design help deepen the understanding of problems and solu-
ideation, and that ergonomists have a specific role in tions [18]. Such collective settings might generate
this implication. sociocognitive conflicts, as commented by Perret-
In order to strengthen the link between both dis- Clermont [19], i.e. students may make cognitive
ed
ciplines, we argue that there is a need to shift the progress by confronting their viewpoints and striving
dividing-lines between them, enabling the design- to resolve their divergences.
ers to plunge into empirical data and enabling
ergonomists to be fully involved in the design process.
In order for these skills to take root, it is essential to 3. The pedagogical setting: Structure, goals,
ct

first implement them in the curricula. To this end, we methods and results
have developed an original pedagogical setting, based
on a practical exercise, a concrete project and strong 3.1. Global project structure
re

collaboration between students in interior design and

ergonomics. The pedagogical setting aims to involve students
from different backgrounds (ergonomics and inte-
2.2. Implementing a studio setting in ergonomics rior design) around a real-scale healthcare design
or

through socio-constructive learning project. The chosen site is the waiting room of a
mental-health-care centre in the Liège (BE) area,
The pedagogical setting described in this paper is which requires certain architectural redesign. This
C

rooted in a form of socio-constructivism (inspired by concrete situation offers several added values. First,
the work of Bruner [11] or Vygotsky [12]), and is the scale of the project is particularly appropriate, the
based on several features, each defined in terms of reduced size of the space allows the design project
pedagogical objectives. to be realistic enough given the limited time scale
Firstly, learning requires an active role on the of the educational setting (30 hours for the students
part of students, especially in the field of design, in ergonomics, 60 hours for the students in interior
where professional skills call for a large propor- design). Second, the project is rooted in the mental
tion of implicit knowledge and know-how [13]. In health field, which renders the students’ involvement
this case, active, project-based learning with effi- from various fields relevant, including psychology-
cient orchestration by the teacher is recognised to related disciplines. Third, the problem is rich enough
be relevant [14]. The design domain has thus a long to require an ergonomic intervention in order to fully
tradition of implementing design studios, where stu- understand the variety of situations at stake, as well as
dents autonomously produce design solutions for real to analyse the complex activity of the different users
or close-to-real problems, with teacher(s) regularly (patients, health staff, and administrative staff).
4 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics

3.2. Educational goals and the constraints of a real-scale design project,

was fuelled by rich debate over the right methods
The time span devoted to the ergonomists’ inter- to use. The complementary expertise of the teach-
vention has been limited to roughly 30 hours, given ers (one with a background in ergonomic psychology
the academic framework of their class, entitled and another in architectural and building engineering)
“Design Ergonomics and Creativity”. In this very also helped save time and consider the practical con-
short time frame, teachers pursued the following ped- straints of the intervention, which were not always
agogical objectives for their students: clearly identified by the ergonomics students. The
joint implementation of a single intervention was
– Discovering the design process, its main com- chosen, rather than work conducted in subgroups,
plexities and the role ergonomics can play keeping in mind the need to efficiently pool resources
(acting on the project and in the project, e.g. to ensure a consistent empirical documentation of the

f
Béguin [20]); situation while dealing with low time volume and

oo
– Collectively constructing and carrying out an limited access to the research field.
upstream ergonomic intervention with regards The ergonomics students used different com-
to a concrete design project, including an impor- plementary methods and made several significant
tant empirical field approach in order to analyse contributions to the design process:
real situations and needs, and feeding the design

Pr
process with relevant input; – through a state-of-the-art research, they searched
– Working closely with designers and develop- themes that could refine their understanding of
ing useful skills and abilities to take action in the formal demand (for instance about “snoeze-
multidisciplinary contexts. len spaces”, interior architecture of tiny spaces
or affordances) and created a list of criteria that
For the interior design students, their class, entitled could inspire the project;
ed
“Research and Project”, spanned roughly 60 hours of – they designed a stakeholders’ mapping, con-
supervised sessions and had the following pedagog- ducted six in-depth, semi-structured interviews
ical objectives: and an original patients’ survey (through physi-
– Learning to collaborate with other stakeholders cal enquiry, see below), which allowed them to
ct

(professional or students); build a list of issues relevant for the design pro-
– Learning to organize the work within one’s cess, as well as to document preferences, direct
own group (“intra-collaboration”) and with and indirect suggestions from patients and staff
re

students from various backgrounds (“inter- members;

collaboration”); – they conducted in-situ observations that facil-
– Learning to participate and to co-construct with itated the fine understanding of the local
others, specifically clients and end-users; situation. These observations enabled the draw-
or

– Carrying out a project on a real-scale field, until ing of a model of the reception path in the health
its implementation. centre, and structured the mapping of staff mem-
bers’ and patients’ micro-scale activities.
C

3.3. Educational methods The project thus enabled, in a relatively short time,
to involve ergonomists students in tasks similar to the
The main difficulty of both educational settings ones conducted in professional settings [8, 20, 21].
lay in the balance between their real-scale, real-time As for the interior design students, the class was
ambitions and the limited temporal resources at hand. organized in 10 distinct sessions. Among those, five
Reaching this delicate balance required building an gathered only the interior design students and their
efficient, fast, and relevant process in which students teacher and aimed at reviewing the on-going project
were directly involved in hands-on, rich learning sit- and its evolution. As for the five other sessions, the
uations. first was devoted to introducing the project; another
To this end, the ergonomic intervention was co- was a theoretical session addressing collaborative
constructed right from the start by the teachers and the practice and how to implement it; another briefly
entire group of ergonomics students (nine students). presented ergonomics and activity analyses, and the
This co-construction, which enabled the students to last two spanned the co-creation workshop (described
appreciate the stakes of an ergonomic intervention below).
 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics 5

Class sessions for the interior design and As for the final execution, the entire pedagogical
ergonomics students were thus organized separately, setting has enabled the health care centre to promote
given institutional and timetable constraints, but also the project to its board of directors and to obtain addi-
because the students organized several informal col- tional financial support, enabling a larger building site
laborative sessions (to pool information, co-construct (a project on the entire ground floor).
field work, etc.).
Moreover, the students collectively designed a co-
creation workshop, which lasted about four hours, 4. Research questions and methodologies
and gathered all the stakeholders (students from both
groups; teachers and health-care centre staff mem- We adopted an ethnographic bottom-up approach
bers). This enabled a detailed sharing of points of to define and address research questions emerging
view on three possible areas of creative exploration, from the pedagogical setting described above. Based

f
all pointing to various alternatives the project could on observations, we identified three key challenges

oo
lead to. This co-creation workshop is described in students and teachers had to face, for which original
detail below. responses have been designed, and which could be
of interest to Design and Ergonomics Research and
3.4. Results of the design project teaching communities, namely:

Pr
– Helping the students manage a rich, real-scale
The project request (initiated by the health care
experience given the very limited time span for
centre director) was to re-design the centre’s waiting
the courses, and the fact that the ergonomics
room, i.e. a short and narrow entrance hall mainly
students have no previous experience in design-
used by patients coming in for consultations. The
related fields;
project quickly widened to the entire ground floor
– Empirically documenting a potentially sensitive
ed
as the process proceeded. Students from both groups
situation, given our educational context, namely
observed that staff members also used the space
the waiting room in a mental health care cen-
devoted to this waiting area to walk through and
tre, where patients may suffer from various and
gain access to other connected rooms and functions,
serious mental pathologies;
which gave rise extending the design process to the
ct

– Involving users (here, health professionals) at

entire floor. The field work revealed that the waiting
the core of a design process.
area was not only a space to “wait”, but also a cen-
tral place for spatial circulation, in close connection These three challenges are detailed in the following
re

with the activities of taking appointments, including sections, and include a brief contextual description of
crossing paths with other patients and health care pro- the issue at hand, an outline of how each was dealt
fessionals and close interaction with the secretariat. with, an assessment of the solution, and perspectives
The project also extended towards the first floor, host- for further improvements of our pedagogical setting.
or

ing the consultation rooms, down to the cellar, which In order to assess the pertinence and efficiency
use and access were also part of the staff’s daily rou- of the proposed pedagogical solutions, we gathered
tine, and back to a small garden, including a short information from five complementary sources. First,
C

building extension used by the secretariat as well as feedback was collected through informal discussions
the archive room and the staff kitchen area. A global with the stakeholders (staff members and students) at
analysis was therefore conducted in order to welcome the end of the co-creation workshop. Second, a for-
and ensure the wellbeing of all user types (includ- mal assessment of the entire setting by the involved
ing the staff and its day-to-day working comfort), teachers (N = 3), co-authors of this paper, was con-
every individual being considered as a crucial part of ducted. Third, formal feedback was collected from
a larger system in operation and interaction, where the ergonomics students (N = 9) who had to produce
none of the sub-components should be ignored. a personal written reflective report after the course’s
The project thus expanded, and was nurtured by the end (on average three to four pages for each stu-
co-creation workshop presented next. For instance, dent). Fourth, the interior design students (N = 13)
one of the co-creation workshop’s outputs translated were required to produce written transcripts for each
into a design intervention conducted directly on the formal class session. Keeping such written records
staircase (colouring the stair steps to extend the wel- of what was said, done, and observed, helped stu-
coming area to the upper consultation rooms). dents to analyse how the project unfolded. Fifth, two
6 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics

semi-structured interviews were conducted one year between each session. Moreover, intensive sessions
after the experiment with two of the participating allowed more time for the definition of empirical
students, one ergonomist and one interior designer. methods and providing feedback on observations.
These 30–45-minute interviews allowed for inves- Secondly, in order to maximize students’ involve-
tigating long-term learning outcomes and explored ment and to foster learning about issues related to
several themes such as: the most lasting memories ergonomics interventions in design projects, the set-
after the course; the contribution of the course (and ting was fully co-constructed by both teachers and
the overall experience) to the general understanding students. Such co-construction constitutes a risk for
of the chosen curricula and of the chosen career path; teachers as it impedes any precise planning before
the benefits and drawbacks of the entire setting, of the the beginning of the course. To reduce this risk, spe-
collaboration with students from a different field, of cific orchestration activities [14] were managed by
the co-creation workshop involving all stakeholders, the teachers, before and during each session. Before

f
and of specific aspects of the setting (such as the phys- the course, the main challenge was to anticipate

oo
ical enquiry task, the content co-construction with the logistical constraints (observations and interviews on
professors, etc.). field, scheduling collaborative processes and princi-
ples, etc.), in order to ensure the endorsement of all
stakeholders and to limit the risks of time-consuming
5. Results section #1: The construction of the misunderstandings. The teachers moreover con-

Pr
setting, given the high temporal constraints ducted a fairly detailed analysis of the context prior
to the course and designed an overall structure of
5.1. Issues the pedagogical setting as well as the planning of
the sessions in close collaboration with the inte-
We focus here on the issue of time seen from rior design teacher. During the course, the focus
ed
the ergonomics course perspective, as the pedagogi- was rather on helping the students to build pertinent
cal setting organized for the interior design students actions: bouncing back on sound reflections, mod-
unfolded as a regular design studio and relied more erating students’ methodological design processes,
on off-class personal work than on classroom teach- highlighting pertinent reflections and observations,
ing, and therefore suffered less (or differently) from ensuring involvement in co-constructed methods, and
ct

the time constraint. so on.

As explained earlier, the time span for ergonomics Thirdly, in order to plan relevant on-field interven-
students is a 30-hour classroom setting, completed by tions in light of the limited temporal resources and
re

personal work between classes. This setting is very access to the field, we arranged for close collaboration
limited, given the ambitious pedagogical objectives: between ergonomists and interior designers. While
discovering design, learning to collaborate and man- the students engaged in an iterative process consist-
aging the field intervention, and specifically intervene ing of short empiric phases on the field (followed
or

in regard to ergonomics principles, i.e. heavily relying by rapid analysis to document the target situations),
on empirical data, which is very time-consuming to they also frequently conducted face-to-face or online
gather. Considering these objectives, the challenge is meetings with the interior design students (in order
C

to build an ergonomic intervention in a design project to adapt empirical methodologies with regard to the
with a short temporal scale, in which students carry interior designers’ needs and first design ideas, and
out empirical work, build a multidisciplinary collab- vice-versa). This coupling was conducted very tightly
orative approach, and fully participate to the design to ensure the collected data to be of real use for
project. the design process, the interior design students being
themselves involved in some field observations. And
5.2. Proposal while the addition of collaborative meetings reduced
their formal, academic character and helped save
The proposals for the time constraints are three- time, they also ensured a common understanding
fold. First, as there was some flexibility in managing of each other’s respective constraints. The interior
the class schedule, we defined intensive two-day ses- design students were, in this way, able to grasp the
sions with students and teachers, spread over a full stakes, methods, and benefits of an ergonomics inter-
semester, instead of teaching two hours a week. This vention, while ergonomics students were able to get
offered more time for empirical, iterative field studies to the heart of a design project, to grasp the ins and
 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics 7

outs, and to understand the process dynamics. Estab- Concerning the collaboration, relations with inte-
lishing this common understanding constitutes one of rior design students were judged in a very positive
the most complex educational objectives to be pur- way by eight out of nine students, although some
sued and is very much dependent on the students’ of them (N = 3) pointed out difficulties of coordi-
motivation and willingness to cooperate. nation, genuine collaborative work starting too late
in the project (N = 3), and collaboration somehow
unilateral (N = 1), as one student regretted not hav-
5.3. Feedback ing been involved slightly more in the design of the
project before the co-creation workshop. Organiz-
Globally speaking, the above-mentioned proposi- ing collective work with nine peers was considered
tions are deemed efficient. In their transcripts, the globally unusual and complicated by six students;
interior design students praised the richness of work- although two students felt that it was rich and worked

f
ing in close collaboration with ergonomists, and how well.

oo
this collaboration along with their direct participation Regarding the educational structure of the course,
to field observations helped them to understand the four students underlined the interest of having a
issues and the iterative added value of an ergonomic non-directive accompaniment and spaces of freedom,
intervention. The interviewed interior designer com- where the teachers “alternate between two postures:
mented, “It was really interesting to work with other peers and experts”, enabling them to build their

Pr
students, other than interior design students, who own methodologies and data collection tools as pro-
were also confronted to the question of adapting an fessionals would do. The interviewed ergonomist
environment to the person, but in a different way. mentioned “a sense of equity, with regard to what
This overlapping of perspectives, it was really what you can offer as a student, interesting for the other
attracted me the most in this course”. students and even for the teachers”. Nevertheless,
ed
Before any encounter with the ergonomists, these two of them pointed to the lack of information clar-
students had been sensitized to the challenges of col- ity when it came to professors’ expectations and two
laborative design and to the necessity to opt for a others expressed difficulties with regard to the coordi-
“meta” point of view while working in larger groups. nation with teachers between two intensive sessions.
They were also invited to conduct deep context anal- The students observed that it would have been helpful
ct

ysis themselves, but the expertise and scientifically to more frequently assess and validate intermediary
rooted methodologies of ergonomics students sup- steps of their intervention, in order to re-orient them
ported their own approach. The interviewed interior more efficiently in the case of imprecise methodolog-
re

designer noted, “What ergonomists brought to us, it ical drafting.

was more about the acquisition of a methodology to
conduct field work. They showed us how to do, to 5.4. Perspectives
apply such a method that we had previously never
or

learnt”. Considering this feedback, several improvements

Such a multidisciplinary collaboration, involving have to be made on the setting. First, as learning
students from various disciplines on a single project, about ergonomics interventions requires a great deal
C

helped them all to mutually understand the extent of input from the teachers, the overall schedule has
(and limitation) of their own skills and to identify to be redesigned by multiplying one-day intensive
why, and how they might need each other’s exper- sessions (instead of three two-day sessions), thus pro-
tise. As mentioned by the interior designer students, viding the students with more regular feedback in
“Together we moved forward at a slower pace, but between field sessions.
better”. Second, the professors should provide more
The ergonomics students, in their written reports, explicit explanations on their expectations, as well as
spontaneously mentioned several points. Seven out the potential added value of each deployed method-
of nine students stressed the difficulties related to the ology. For instance, ergonomics students designed
project’s temporal constraints; the timing was consid- personas (on basis of their field data) and later con-
ered globally too short given the scale of the project, sidered them of limited use, as the interior design
the sessions too rhythmic, and this temporality was students did not explicitly refer to those personas
hardly compatible with the calendar constraints of the during their final presentation. Personas, yet, have
interior designers and field partners. been pointed out by interior designers in their tran-
8 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics

scripts as particularly important as they shaped their (a)

understanding of the needs of various stakeholders.
Teachers should therefore make a clearer point about
which methodology might be useful at which step of
the process, and with respect to which goal. In the
course preparation, teachers should also pre-select
and frame the variety of methods to be used, in order
to focus on the co-construction with students on spe-
cific methodological details.

f
6. Results section #2: Documenting a sensitive
and complex situation

oo
6.1. Issues (b)

The project involved the observation and docu-

Pr
mentation of the particularly sensitive and complex
situation of patients with mental disorders waiting
in a tiny entrance hall before consulting a therapist.
Direct observation was deemed impossible because
the space was too small and the population difficult
to observe. Interviews raised delicate questions of
ed
privacy, while questionnaires had already been once
distributed in the past (by the health care centre staff)
but without success. Moreover, students could not
access the site as often as they had wished; the staff
ct

members, for the sake of their patients’ wellbeing, (c)

decided to limit entrance to two students at a time,
for short periods of time, and required students’ coor-
dination in order to avoid repeated solicitation (i.e.
re

stress, fatigue, and work overload for field partners).

Considering this particular context, it was challeng-
ing to determine how the students could empirically
or

document, in a nuanced and pertinent way, such a

potentially sensitive situation.
Fig. 1. (a) Overview of the whole installation. (b) Physical panel
asking patients to evaluate possible ambiances of waiting rooms.
C

6.2. Proposal
(c) Device for collecting information on the time spent in the
waiting room.
In order to collect useful data for the design process
while proposing an engaging participatory vector for
Four devices addressed three specific questions:
the people, and without interfering too much with the
local situation, a tangible and situated format of data – The first aimed to determine the time spent by
collection was proposed which we coined a “physi- patients in the waiting room. For this purpose,
cal enquiry”. This approach, following the trend of five small boxes were designed, and each one
data physicalization (e.g. Huron et al., [22]), consists were labelled with a time span. A box of small
of transforming intangible data into tangible, easy to tokens was provided (Fig. 1.c). Patients, when
handle, observable and engaging objects. In this con- leaving the centre, were invited to put a token in
text, the students created several rudimentary devices the appropriate box depending on the time spent.
(see Fig. 1 a, b, c) that were placed in the waiting room This data was later compared to information col-
for a week. lected by the secretary, who had been asked to
 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics 9

identify roughly how much time each patient had 6.4. Perspectives
spent in the waiting room;
– The second question was to address the In contrast with classic questionnaires that require
ambiance appreciated by patients in the wait- answers to questions that are uncoupled from the
ing room. Students designed a panel displaying artefacts or systems they focus on, the idea behind
several pictures of waiting rooms and spaces, “physical enquiry” is to have a situated enquiry.
corresponding to different ambiances. Patients Thus, physical enquiry devices can be displayed
were invited to put a sticker in front of the dif- onto objects, facilitating situated and contextualized
ferent photos, according to whether they judged reflection from the respondents.
these atmospheres pleasant or not; Considering this, perspectives will be threefold.
– The third question was about the activities First, we will investigate how physical enquiry may
patients were doing while they waited. A set of support emotional expression; engaging people with

f
images about different expected activities (using objects instead of words opens interesting possibili-

oo
a phone, reading, talking, listening to music) was ties in terms of emotional expressions. For example,
displayed, and people were invited to draw a feelings about objects or features of a given space
cross under images corresponding to their activ- can be addressed. Secondly, the balance between
ities. Blank spaces were also left for patients to public and private dimensions has to be more specifi-
write other activities; cally and systematically addressed. On the one hand,

Pr
– A classic suggestion box was also proposed, to displaying previously given answers can be detri-
allow people to leave qualitative comments or mental to the quality of inquiry, as the lack of
suggestions. privacy could influence responses. On the other hand,
publically displaying responses can yield collective
The setting was installed on site over a four-day expression, debate, and reflection. Thirdly, physi-
ed
period. Out of the 70 patients who were present in cal enquiry devices, while engaging, can also be
the waiting room (as counted by the secretary), stu- perceived as “childish”, especially considering their
dents gathered 10 responses about waiting time, 32 “quick and rough” visual aspect. It is thus very
for ambiances, 10 for activities and 5 suggestions. important, especially in a community of mentally ill
patients who suffer from stigmatization, to ensure the
ct

6.3. Feedback devices achieve a satisfactory balance between play-

ful engagement and perceived seriousness, in favour
While we had hoped for a higher quantity of of the legitimacy of the enquiry.
re

responses (e.g. only 14% of patients answered the

question about the waiting time), according to the
health professionals the presented devices enabled 7. Results section #3: The involvement of
patients’ engagement, which is generally difficult to users directly in the design project
or

obtain by other means. The design of these devices

and the following data analysis was no more com- 7.1. Issues
plex than for a questionnaire. The students were able
C

to experiment with this innovative way to collect data, The construction of such an intervention requires
which was compatible with the temporal, pragmatic, involving the users at the heart of the project, lim-
and ethical constraints related to their specific field. ited here to health professionals for ethical reasons.
The staff members and teachers considered that Although in a traditional situation, ergonomics stu-
many additional similar efforts could be made to dents would validate their recommendations with
improve data acquisition; students proposed only users through formal encounters (interviews and
very rudimentary, hand-made devices. From teach- focus groups), it was important here to increase
ers’ point of view, students could have offered more users’ level of engagement, notably with regard
elaborate, visually convincing physical devices. to the time constraints that did not allow exhaus-
In their individual reflective reports, five students tive empirical studies. As users “own the factual
positively mention physical inquiry devices, although problem” [23], in other words are experts of their
three students wished more time could have been own personal experiences and issues associated with
alloted to the development of the devices and the data their personal situation, their active participation in
collection. the project would ease the fine understanding of
10 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics

their needs, and thus nurture the design decision- (a)

making process while empowering them through this
decision-making process [24].
It was moreover expected that the increased
involvement of end-users would ease the acceptabil-
ity of architectural modifications, as the interviews
with staff members and patients demonstrated a high
degree of attachment to the context and some reluc-
tance to see the current situation evolve too much.
It is now acknowledged that designers and users are
inextricably related with regard to both the design
process and the design output. Designers, and espe- (b)

f
cially architects, indeed have a major impact on the

oo
quality of the built environment, i.e. on the quality
of life of many people. Designed artefacts, on the
other hand, become meaningless unless endorsed by
end-users (in power of taking ownership or rejecting
these artefacts) [25, 26]. If the intertwined relation-

Pr
ship between designers and users itself constitutes a
crucial part of the design process, involving users in
the design process becomes even more crucial to the
project success [10, 27], especially in this specific
context.
ed
7.2. Proposal (c)

To cope with these issues, the staff members and

the students took part in a half-day creative co-
ct

creation workshop, which allowed them to be directly

involved into the design process. This co-creation
workshop mobilized tangible expression supports
re

(1/20 scale mock-ups, inspirational interior architec-

ture magazines, and material samples) prepared in
collaboration with interior design students (Fig. 2),
which were expected to ease the participation of
or

“unknowing” participants (in terms of architectural

expertise) and to push the interaction beyond mere
verbal evaluation (as could have been the case if those
Fig. 2. Mock-ups for each of the three scenarios before the work-
C

participants were presented with only 2D representa- shop.

tions).
One characteristic of design expertise is designers’
visual way of knowing and working [5]. In architec- use is less compatible with the design of large-scale
ture and other design disciplines, it is quite standard artefacts such as inner and outer spaces. Among the
for designers to heavily rely on the use of external, or available external representations, 1/20 scale physi-
“intermediary” representations (sketches, CAD rep- cal mock-ups are generally considered as particularly
resentations, 3D models, etc.) as aids to communicate pertinent to engage non-designer stakeholders and
ideas both to themselves and to others [28, 29]. Yet, in to better understand users’ experiences during their
anticipating how future spaces will be experienced, co-construction [30]. It also allows for debates on
architects and interior designers have limited capa- users’ past work experiences and for the develop-
bility to test them full-scale. While in industrial or ment of activities conjointly with the development
product design full-scale prototypes are frequently of the design project [31]. This type of setting has
used to assess users’ reactions and behaviours, their already been mobilized previously [32, 33] and has
 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics 11

indeed shown its effectiveness in supporting interdis- work on them. Ergonomists and users have thus been
ciplinary collaborations for space design. able to have a better understanding of the spaces and
This workshop brought together three groups, each the design proposals, and to contribute to the differ-
composed of interior design students, ergonomics ent projects, in addition to the simple evaluation of
students and mental health centre professionals. Each suggested proposals. The transposition of their sug-
group was invited to contribute to the project in three gestions and ideas directly into materiality enabled
different steps, defined according to three scenarios, them to confront those ideas themselves, to assess
each step corresponding to a pre-built mock-up made their relevance and realism, and to consider other
by the interior design students and offering different points of view. In other words, their personal han-
degrees of abstraction. dling of the various mock-ups helped them manage
The first constrained scenario envisioned a re- the complexity of thought [28, 29] and, in doing so,
design process limited only to the waiting room area allow for the whole project evolve. That being said,

f
(as suggested in the project original brief). At the time the most interesting insights for the design process did

oo
of the workshop, the interior designers had reached not lie in the concrete proposals, but in the discussion
quite a complete design proposal and the mobilized process supporting the project co-creation. A post-
mock-up had thus a relatively high level of detail analysis of the videos recorded during the workshop
and realism (see Fig. 2a). The second scenario, on allows for identifying and listing concrete proposals,
the other hand, suggested a constraint-free, idealistic but, more importantly, the arguments behind these

Pr
situation; the ground floor of the building could be proposals. These arguments can be grouped and com-
entirely re-modelled, without considering the build- pared in order to compile a list of users-requirements
ing structural constraints nor the costs. The goal here (or design criteria), which can be later re-used by the
was to deepen the understanding of the needs of the designers.
users. During the workshop, the mock-up provided Involving not only staff members in the co-
ed
by the students was rudimentary (Fig. 2b), and the creation, but also ergonomists and interior designers,
project was poorly defined, leaving much room for supported fruitful debate based on complementary
ideation. The third scenario was the intermediary viewpoints; which is crucial to allow for the design
between the first two; in this case, it was possible process to evolve [26, 36]. Users brought their feel-
to freely shuffle all the functions between spaces of ings, opinions, and embodied knowledge of the
ct

the ground floor without affecting the structure of the situation and activities to the table; ergonomists pro-
building. The model was also relatively incomplete vided more formal knowledge about the activities
and welcoming large modifications (Fig. 2c). occurring in the space, as well as their personal
re

Each group collaborated during three 45-minute opinions; and designers contributed their sensitivity
sessions. In each session, each group focused exclu- and technical knowledge as well as their previous
sively on one of the three above-mentioned scenarios, reflections on the design project. The interviewed
and the groups moved from one project to another ergonomists stated, “At some point, we debated our
or

between the sessions. Participants had to reflect on the real purpose in the project. We wondered: ‘What
project at hand by modifying the in-process mock-up, are we really useful for, in the end?’. And dur-
sometimes pursuing the work started by the previous ing the workshop we realized: ‘Oh, yes, in fact we
C

group(s). Thus, each participant was invited to work can contribute with our own experience, not even as
on each of the three propositions. ergonomists, but simply as human beings”’. As for
the interior design students, the interviewed designer
7.3. Feedback added, “For us, this co-creation workshop was also
a foretaste of what we experience as professionals
The work on physical models proved to be effective because . . . we are confronted with this kind of situ-
in substantiating or representing, concrete propos- ation all the time, making the link with the customer,
als, but also in discovering unsuspected contextual the one who asks us to arrange something, and the
aspects, unexplored constraints as well as in bringing user, the one who will really be impacted by the
out elements related to the users’ work activity which project”. With respect to how ergonomics students
had not been previously identified. The open, scalable specifically contributed, one of the interior design
and easy-to-handle nature of the mock-ups triggered students relates in the transcripts, “The ergos [i.e.,
participation of all stakeholders, and not only the the ergonomics students] help us identify the weak
designers who are used to represent the spaces and to points of the project; they give us attention points
12 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics

and advices. We go into more detail, the contribution construction of knowledge and enhanced the project’s
is constructive and bilateral, as there is an exchange acceptability.
of knowledge”.
The three models were of a different level of com- 7.4. Perspectives
pletion and accuracy. We observe, interestingly, that
the simplest model and the least developed scenario Several perspectives are necessary if the co-design
(Fig. 2b) were the most conducive in generating workshop is replicated in the future. Firstly, the mock-
rich discussions, engaging everyone in generating ups, while considered an efficient support for the
innovative proposals. There are two likely explana- concretization of ideas and for collaborative mul-
tions. First, the granularity of the model may have tidisciplinary work, could be completed with other
an influence on the way it is, in itself, understood forms of representation. The observed design activity
and mobilized by the stakeholders (especially layper- indeed mostly limited to re-arrangement of pre-

f
sons in design). In the domain of architectural plans, existing components (e.g. furniture) coupled with

oo
it is recognized that sketchy representations (less verbal comments. Other modes of representation
accurate, less complete) are judged more open, less may trigger complementary reflections [32] such
finite and more effective supports for creativity than as sketching, immersive 3D models, mood-boards,
conventional CAD representations [37]. The second modelling clay etc. may indeed support other design
explanation may relate to the definition of the design processes, as different representations evoke differ-

Pr
problem; working on a single waiting room space ent kinds of properties of the architectural object
may be over-constrained, and not supporting rich dis- [38]. Research still has to be conducted on the artic-
cussions, whereas the other briefs opened a larger ulation between different representational objects as
space of exploration with regard to the right level of the support of design processes, especially with non-
constraints. designers.
ed
In their reflective reports, six out of nine of Second, organizing this workshop on-site, rather
ergonomics students mention the positive aspects of than in a classroom, could truly enhance the reflective
the co-creation workshop. It was considered an effec- quality. We have demonstrated in other work [39] that
tive way to materialize and embody their ideas, it different modes of representations, as well as the real
allowed for deep, multidisciplinary exchanges and space to be re-designed, are used as complementary
ct

was an appropriate culmination point, which nicely references to support collective discussion in design.
concluded the empirical research. The interviewed Thirdly, the schedule of the workshop should be
ergonomist pointed out that “it was the best part of the redesigned to support continuous reflection on the
re

entire course [ . . . ] it was really interesting to see the project, on a slightly larger time span, in order to
different points of view. It helped us create some com- involve deeper and wider design reflections. Sessions
plicity [ . . . ], helped us create something together, were indeed a bit too short to handle complex design
something we completely adhered to. At the end, we problems. In particular, moving from one project
or

all really wanted the project to evolve in the way to another was deemed quite inefficient; stakehold-
we had imagined it [ . . . ] this is the phenomenon of ers only had 45 minutes to understand the current,
building something together”. Two students regretted on-going, project as well as complete it. The co-
C

not having taken a more active role in the preparation design workshop structure should therefore evolve
and running of the workshop itself. into longer working sessions on a single setup.
Another interesting added value was identified by
the health care centre director, who stated, “The co-
creation exercise between my team and your students 8. Global critical feedback from the project’s
was very interesting. It enabled us to get invested stakeholders
in the project, to create cohesion within the team,
but also to appropriate the imagined space. [ . . . ] At the end of the project, each stakeholder was
The final project we will implement is the result of invited to openly share their feedback about the entire
all the shared thinking. The really surprising thing design process and/or pedagogical setting.
was how quickly we reached a general consensus” The mental health care centre staff considered
(extracted from a letter sent by the centre director). the students’ analyses were relevant and the design
The co-creation workshop, its external representa- proposals appropriate. They especially appreciated
tions and its process thus supported the collective being involved at the heart of the project through
 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics 13

the co-creation workshop, and even managed to find how the course changed their point of view on the cre-
additional funding to extend the project’s initial scope ative process, while four underlined how they learned
and to implement some of the students’ proposals, as to collaborate in a multidisciplinary way and how
explained above. they had the opportunity to integrate and apply more
From the teachers’ point of view, the pedagogical theoretical knowledge gained in other courses.
setting was successful. The strengths mainly relate to Yet, in their written reports the ergonomics stu-
previously-mentioned key aspects, namely the highly dents underlined three “culture shocks” susceptible to
coupled collaboration between ergonomics and inte- impede their participation. The first shock concerns
rior design students, the co-construction of efficient the project-based teaching methods, which are highly
data collection processes given the time constraints, unconventional for these students who are rather used
and the involvement of users at the heart of the design. to theoretical, ex-cathedra types of courses. The inter-
In particular, the physical enquiry devices and the viewed ergonomist commented, “There was a lot of

f
co-creation workshop proved to be considerably rel- complexity to tackle in this course. Realizing that we

oo
evant. had to work hard from the very first day . . . we had
Nevertheless, the relevance of the setting could be to produce something by ourselves . . . it’s something
improved. The physical enquiry devices could have we are not used to. It makes things difficult but help us
been further developed. Their design could involve realize that it is possible to approach a course differ-
a creative design thinking process that is also a ently than just saying “let’s study by heart and meet

Pr
part of the ergonomists’ training. Given their poten- in December for the final exam”. The second shock
tial, it would be interesting to spend more time on relates to the amount of empirical work to be car-
the development of these devices with the interior ried out - much higher than in any other course, but
design students. Likewise, the co-creation workshop also much closer to their future professional realities.
was highly informative and was a nice conclusion The third shock was the co-constructed pedagogi-
ed
to the pedagogical setting. However it lacked struc- cal setting, i.e. the fact that students were expected
tured data collection. A more formal and systematic to take an active role in the day-to-day pedagogi-
analysis of the needs, proposals, contextual elements cal design, alongside the professors. The interviewed
evoked by the users during the workshop on basis ergonomist argued that these accumulated shocks
of the three mock-ups should have been anticipated might have slowed their participation in the over-
ct

in order to further nurture the design project. Con- all project in comparison to interior design students,
versely, the multiplication of methods mobilized by who were much more at ease with these pedagogical
the ergonomics students induced some superfluous settings, especially the first two contexts. The inter-
re

work. The state of the art proposed by the students, viewed ergonomist stated, while reflecting back on
for instance, eventually had little impact on the work- the ergonomics and interior design students respec-
shop, the project, or the process. tive contributions, “I have the feeling they [i.e. the
Through their written reports, all the ergonomics interior design students] brought a lot to the table,
or

students provided a overall positive opinion of the that we have brought less . . . we were perhaps too
project. They expressed pleasure and pride in having much in the theoretical approach and uh . . . it was
carried out this project. Moreover, all the students still too hard for us the take the leap and change the
C

spontaneously emphasized the interest and satisfac- learning method. I think . . . yes it was a step harder
tion of working on a real-scale project. This type for us [ . . . ] as they were directly, already in a learning
of achievement is not usual in their training, and is process like that”.
considered unique and motivating. The interviewed
ergonomist commented, “It was an approach that I
really liked, and I find it unfortunate that we did not 9. Conclusions
have it earlier at the university [ . . . ] it was the course
that impacted me the most and which made me learn Professional ergonomists are frequently involved
the most”. in design projects. It seems evident that their edu-
With regards to their learning process, four stu- cation must prepare them for it. Design projects,
dents underlined how they appreciated discovering especially in architecture, spread over a great deal
the field of design “from the inside”; five of them of time, appeal to many actors from different back-
took note on how their knowledge and understand- grounds and are characterized by the co-evolution of
ing of the ergonomist’s job progressed; three noticed the definition of the problem and the solution [5, 27].
14 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics

As ergonomists bring information, the project evolves Humain. 2009;72:4. Presses Universitaires de France,
and new issues arise. It seems therefore necessary for pp. 311-31.
[3] Vredenburg K. Building ease of use into the IBM user expe-
ergonomists and designers to work together. This is rience. IBM Systems Journal. 2003;42(4):517-31.
the goal pursued by the educational framework and [4] Rogers Y, Sharp H, Preece J. Interaction design: beyond
pedagogical setting described in this paper. human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons. 2007.
The described project was ambitious and success- [5] Cross N. Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.
2006.
ful from various points of view, especially its main
[6] Brown T. Change by design, revised and updated. How
pedagogical objectives, i.e. working in a collabora- Design Thinking transforms organizations and inspires
tive and inter-disciplinary way on a real, complex, and innovation. HarperBusiness. 2019.
sensitive situation, with professional deadlines. From [7] Olsen TO, Welo T. Maximizing Product Innovation through
the ergonomics students’ point of view, the experi- Adaptive Application of User-Centered Methods for Defin-
ing Customer Value, Journal of Technology Management
ence seems to have truly fostered deep learning and

f
and Innovation. 2011;6(4):172-92.
the evolution of viewpoints on design and creativ- [8] Daniellou F. L’ergonomie dans la conduite de projets.

oo
ity. As for the interior design students, the interaction (Ergonomics in project management). In P. Falzon (ed.).
with ergonomists and the discovery of sound field Ergonomie. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France. 2004.
[9] Charrier M. Intégration de l’ergonomie dans le processus
work methodologies have heavily contributed to their de créativité du designer industriel : application à une con-
understanding of the users’ needs and desires. ception architecturale centrée sur l’usage. (Integration of
Of course, such a setting does not come with- ergonomics into the industrial designer’s creative process:

Pr
application to a use-centred architectural design.) Proceed-
out coordination challenges. In addition, several
ings of CONFERE 2013, Biarritz (FR) 4-5 July.
improvements can be made in future attempts, partic- [10] Sanders EB, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new land-
ularly with regard to the organization of the different scapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5-18.
activities and the temporal structure of the setting. [11] Bruner JS. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational
Review. 1961;31:21-32.
These issues, however, seem to be inherent to one of [12] Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
ed
the major pedagogical challenges of the setting itself, Psychological Processes. 1978. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard
that of letting the students build their own design University Press.
project, side-by-side with their teachers. [13] Ledewitz S. Models of Design in Studio Teaching. Journal
of Architectural Education. 1985;38(2):2-8.
[14] Hämäläinen R, Vähäsantanen K. Theoretical and pedagogi-
ct

cal perspectives on orchestrating creativity and collaborative

Acknowledgments learning. Educational Research Review. 2011;6(3):169-84.
[15] Goldschmidt G, Hochman H, Dafni I. The design studio
“crit”: Teacher–student communication. Artificial Intelli-
The pedagogical experiment has been partially gence for Engineering Design. Analysis and Manufacturing.
re

supported by the UE INTERREG projet THE !: 2010;24(3):285-302.

Technology in Healthcare Education. Authors wish [16] Oh Y, Ishizaki S, Gross M, Do E. A theoretical framework
of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies.
to thanks all the students for their involvement, 2013;34:302-25.
members of the mental health care centre for their
or

[17] Schön D. The reflexive practitioner : How professional think

enthusiasm as well as Jean-Philippe Possoz and in action. New York: Basic Books. 1983.
Roland Juchmes for their help and support. [18] Schwarz B, Baker M. Dialogue, Argumentation and Edu-
cation. History, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University
Press. 2017.
C

[19] Perret-Clermont A-N, Pontecorvo C, Resnick LB, Zittoun

Conflict of interest T, Burge B. Joining society: social interaction and learn-
ing in adolescence and youth. 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
None to report. [20] Beguin P. L’ergonome, acteur de la conception. (The
ergonomist, a key player in the design process). In P. Falzon
(ed.). Ergonomie. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.
2004.
References [21] Martin C. L’ergonome dans les projets architecturaux. (The
ergonomists in architectural projects). In P. Falzon (ed.).
[1] Robert JM, Brangier E. Prospective ergonomics : origin, Ergonomie. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France. 2004.
goal and prospects. Work. 2009;41(supplement 1):5235-42. pp. 421-435.
[2] Barcenilla J, Bastien JM. L’acceptabilité des nou- [22] Huron S, Gourlet P, Hinrichs U, Hogan T, Jansen Y. Let’s
velles technologies : quelles relations avec l’ergonomie, Get Physical: Promoting Data Physicalization in Workshop
l’utilisabilité et l’expérience utilisateur ? (The acceptabil- Formats. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Design-
ity of new technologies: what are the relationships with ing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17). ACM, New York. pp.
ergonomics, usability and user experience?) Le Travail 1409-1422.
 S. Safin et al. / Ergonomics in design and design in ergonomics 15

[23] Reymen I, Dorst K, Smulders F. Co-evolution in design [33] Dorta T, Safin S. Boudraâ S, Beaudry-Marchand E. (In
practice. In: McDonnell J, Llyod P, editors. About : Design- press). Co-designing in Social VR. Process awareness
ing. Analysing design meetings. CRC Press, Taylor and and suitable representations to empower user participation.
Francis Group. 2009. pp. 434. Proceedings of CAADRIA 2019 - Computer assisted archi-
[24] Kumar A, Maskara S, Chiang I-J. Building a prototype tectural design research in Asia. Wellington, NZ, April
using Human-Centered Design to engage older adults in 15-18, 2019.
healthcare decision-making. Work. 2014;49:653-61. [34] Kirsh D. Thinking with external representations. AI & Soci-
[25] Siva JP, London K. Habitus shock : a model for architect- ety. 2010;25(4):441-54.
client relationships on house projects based on sociological [35] Safin S. Processus d’externalisation graphique dans les
and psychological perspectives. In Proceedings of the activités cognitives complexes: le cas de l’esquisse
Future trends in architectural management international numérique en conception architecturale individuelle et col-
symposium. Taiwan. 2009; pp. 209-220. lective. (Graphical externalization processes in complex
[26] Narimoto LR, Camarotto JA. How do users design? The case cognitive activities : the case of digital sketch in individual
of sugar cane harvester machines. Work. 2017;57:421-32. and collective architectural design). PhD Thesis, University
[27] Lawson B. How designers think: the design process demys- of Liège, Belgium. 2011.

f
tified. Fourth Edition. Ed. Routledge, Architectural Press. [36] Détienne F, Martin G, Lavigne E. Viewpoints in co-design:

oo
2005; pp. 321. a field study in concurrent engineering. Design Studies.
[28] Vinck D, Jeantet A, Laureillard P. Objects and Other Inter- 2005;26:215-41.
mediaries in the Sociotechnical Process of Product Design [37] Hannibal C, Brown A, Knight M. An assessment of
: an exploratory approach, pp. 297-320, in J. Perrin & D. the effectiveness of sketch representations in early stages
Vinck (eds), The role of design in the shaping of technology, design. International Journal of Architectural Computing.
COST A4 Social Sciences, vol. 5, Bruxelles, EC Directorate 2005;3(1):107-25.

Pr
General Science, R&D. 1996. [38] Van de Vreken A, Safin S. Influence du type de
[29] Visser W. The cognitive artifacts of designing. Mahwha, NJ: représentation visuelle sur l’évaluation de l’ambiance d’un
Lauwrence Erlbaum Associates. 2006. espace architectural. (Influence of the type of visual rep-
[30] Lim YK, Stolterman E, Tenenberg J. The anatomy of pro- resentation on the evaluation of an architectural space’s
totypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations ambiance). In proceedings of the conference on the IHM
of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer.-Human 2010; pp. 49-56.
Interaction. 2008;15:2. [39] Safin S, Lesage A, Hébert A, Kinayoglu G, Dorta T. Anal-
ed
[31] Bittencourt JM, Duarte F, Béguin P. From the past to the yse de référents de l’activité de co-design dans un contexte
future: Integrating work experience into the design process. de Réalité Mixte. (Analysis of referents of the co-design
Work. 2017;57(3):379-87. activity in a context of Mixed Reality). In : dans Hachet
[32] Dorta T, Safin S. A new co-design workshop approach: M, Roussel N, editors. Proceedings of the 25th conférence
methodological principles and feedback from an experi- on l’Interaction Homme-Machine, IHM. Bordeaux, France.
ence. Proceedings of COOP 2014 Workshop on Collective 2013; pp. 23-32.
ct

Creativity. Nice, France. 2014.

re
or
C