This section discusses expert opinions regarding the tools, resources, and models used in practice, and it also describes the activities in which H/FE information for design is used.
Notably few resources were used when designing for children. A vast knowledge gap exists regarding child-development resources and their use in design. Various reasons were given for this lack of knowledge, including time constraints, market competition, a lack of funds, and the complexity of navigating standards. One interviewee [S2-12] working at a well-known testing house had multiple years of experience with testing products. The participant suggested that although standards exist and represent good practice, they must be intelligently employed by the user during the design phase, which does not always happen. Standards are not static, as new versions appear and are regularly updated. The safety experts noted that standards are often not a legal requirement. Another limitation they mentioned is that merely complying with a
148 standard does not automatically create a safe product, as such standards must be used intelligently.
[S2-12] ‘Another source of data analysis is the product recall data, where the product is failing to meet compliance requirements, but other times, the product will have already met all existing and applicable compliance requirements yet still present an unreasonable risk of injury to the consumer. We also monitor that and utilise this information when we are trying to assess the hazards associated with the product.’
Risk management models were used in some instances. One example is the model cited by participant [S2-11]. This individual shared that model with engineering students while instructing them regarding how to redesign a product to make it safe for children. The view of this safety expert was that it is essential for design students to be educated on how to incorporate safety from the beginning of the design process, rather than waiting for a costly mistake. The steps in the model illustrated in Figure 5.2 indicate that once a project has been conceived and initial funding secured, the next step is to gather hazard information before moving to the development and testing stages.
Figure 5.2 Risk assessment model. From: The Hazard Information Foundation, 2008
http://www.elcosh.org/document/1866/d000825/Construction%20Design%20Safety%20in%20the%20 Marketplace.html?show_text=1
The model provides an example of a process that designers can utilise to incorporate safety during the design phrase. Integrating safety into the design process from the start via the use of design resources can potentially reduce or eliminate injuries, and doing so also limits the need to navigate complex compliance standards and to incur other costs not visible to the marketplace.
Visualisation tools were not used by the designers; however, they were employed by a number of the safety experts. Testing houses were more likely to use quantitative analysis and analytical tools than other types of entities. Most designers relied on various prototyping approaches, but the exact method typically depended on time and budget.
149 Some stakeholders discussed possible barriers to the use of tools or information resources when designing for child safety. For example, differences in terminology were noted across the groups. The H/F experts frequently discussed task analysis, while many of the designers were not familiar with that term. Nonetheless, some designers did engage in similar activities:
[S2-01] ‘Yes, the kind of task analysis we use is called “fitness for purpose”— what is the purpose of what they are trying to achieve; how they are trying to achieve it? Yes, that is the crucial part of how we assess it or when we design it; we just write those and then aim to fulfil that.’
The HF/ergonomics investigators and industrial stakeholders had differing levels of experience in designing and evaluating products for children. For example, the child safety experts were particularly sensitive to the varying developmental stages of children:
[S2-16] ‘Interventions must be developed to be sensitive to the stage of mental development of the child.’
Another barrier to the uptake of standards is the cost to the company of buying standards and replacing them with new versions as needed. Companies were not always aware of when standards changed and often did not possess not up-to-date guidance. Time is often spent searching for relevant sources.
5.5.1 Usability
Participants consistently reported that the current safety resources are lacking in terms of usability. These resources were not especially useful for them in practice, and in fact, one participant commented that ‘you cannot easily use’ the currently available materials.
[S2-03] ‘There are standards for safety, of course, but the types of materials you cannot use—both British and European standards that you can look at, but that are relatively vague.’
Certain groups lacked knowledge as to where to find information:
[S2-01] ‘I know where many of these sources come from, but most manufacturers, of course, do not even know these things exist or do not even look into it; it is rare.’
150
5.5.2 Experienced in design for children (5–11 years)
The interviewees had varied levels of experience in designing for children and child safety, and the majority of the participants were experts in their fields. Their companies designed products such as pushchairs, baby bottles, playgrounds, play spaces, and toys. The ergonomists had a clear view of testing and evaluation requirements.