Multifaceted and multifunctional tools

The participants expressed a need for a multifunctional tool. In fact, almost 90% of the experts stated that tools needed at least a minimum degree of flexibility. For example, one design expert referred to different types of tools and information depending on the complexity of the product:

[S2-06] ‘It depends on the product really; it depends on the scenario. Different levels of information are needed depending on these. Much of the information covers physical aspects, but what about sensory and cognitive factors?’

Those participants with extensive experience designing electronic products indicated that designing a more complicated product often involves more steps. In contrast, a more straightforward product (e.g., a cutlery set for infants) entails a much more condensed design process.

The design process does not involve only one step; rather, many tools can be used. Design practitioners are often faced with various difficulties when designing for a specific population (e.g., children or the elderly). Expert interviews served to identify issues related to incorporating HF/E information and visual resources into the design process. Initial coding revealed several emergent themes, and further analysis of the interviews identified the knowledge needs of design professionals and other experts. Critical issues related to toolset implementation included the lack of an accessible format, differences among groups involved in promoting safety, the current lack of coordination on the part of those groups, and various national and regional factors. Due to the very nature of their profession, designers have an enhanced understanding of visual resources; thus, they might approach data differently than those in other professions (McGinley et al., 2011, p.189).

This study evaluated the complexity of designing visual safety information for young children. The study has discussed and analysed this issue in terms of the initial coding structure and the scope of the risk-communication environment. Designing visual information for children is not well accounted for the literature has not explored this topic in great detail and designers do not carefully document the steps they follow; therefore, applying a systems approach provides a more holistic—and hence, a more comprehensive—view. In fact, recent studies have illustrated the potential of applying systems thinking (McLaughlin and Mayhorn., 2014). Indeed, this study has confirmed the utility of that approach. The next section continues by further examining the social and

157 environmental impacts (at all stages of the design lifecycle) of visual safety information designed for young children. Further testing and refinement of the risk management framework developed by the researcher has contributed to the future development of a toolkit. Implementation of the H/FE, design and evaluation methods from toolkit is essential across a range of professions, including marketing experts, industrial designers, design engineers, manufacturers, customs officials and importers, distributors, UK Trading Standards experts, and product testing professionals. This study’s outcomes suggest that a more comprehensive approach to designing products, systems, and services for children of different ages should be adopted. The UK Trading Standards Organisation have pointed to concerns related to monitoring and evaluating goods at the local level, rather than at the national level. One way to provide time- efficient toolkit in a more readily accessible format is via a website offering online resources. Another is to provide H/FE design and evaluation method cards as a tool to distribute methods used to inspire more appropriately targeted risk communication design, overall the preference is in providing more visual toolkits consisting of infographics, and animations.

The interviews highlighted the importance of considering the user and the task environment. Practitioners and experts commonly reported that the design requirements for young children were like those for adults and indicated that the user, task, and environment should also be taken into account. Five human factors and ergonomics experts with experience designing for children listed questions that design teams should ask when thinking about designing for a specific user group. One ergonomics expert claimed that the following questions should be asked: ‘What are the physical constraints that are defined by my user group? Who is my user group, what does it want to do, and where does it want to do it?’

An interview with the CAPT identified similar reasons for unsafe products including that described above, the differences among groups involved in promoting safety, the current lack of coordination on the part of those groups, and various national and regional factors. The primary outcome of this research was the definition of requirements for a toolkit intended to support designers and other experts working with young children aged 7–11 years. The data captured by this study helped to define the toolkit specifications. Gaps related to designers’ information needs and existing tools were identified. Resources may need to be available in different languages or in graphic format for individuals with poor literacy skills. This study’s findings reveal a lack of knowledge and evidence-based guidance regarding designing visual safety information for products

158 targeting young children of varying developmental stages. Thus, there is a need to further develop and distribute evidence-based supporting materials for designers; these materials should feature more accessible and usable formats. In addition, HFE should be implemented at the outset of the design process. The specific safety needs of young children and their caregivers are often not well understood.

Designers frequently lack resources or information at various key stages of the design process. In addition, standards and product design changes are generally not rigorously evaluated in terms of their effect on the injury rate. Products must fit the developmental stage of the child. Some designers attempt to develop products targeting different levels of coordination with inevitable negative results. The European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Non-Food Consumer Products (RAPEX) has indicated that in 2013, toys represented the product category with the second highest frequency of severe risk notifications. Childcare articles and children’s equipment ranked fourth (European Commission, 2013). Considering the entire environment and the design lifecycle, a systems approach to safety goes beyond ensuring that a product meets relevant standards. As the UK Trading Standards put it, ‘just because a product meets the relevant standards, it does not mean that product intrinsically safe.’ Consumer education may be one way to reduce these knowledge gaps and to ensure that products are not modified within the user environment to create further hazards. Interventions across social groups could take the form of information and guidance. For example, current HFE guidelines could be included in a ‘visual aid’ for designers, closing the gap between both groups. Consumer education represents another potential intervention, as there seems to be a lack of awareness surrounding product safety and the dangers of misusing products. The findings highlighted the key limitations of looking at a sub-group of young children, as resource solutions should not adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Rather, tools should to capable of addressing individual children’s needs and environments. Relevant and up-to-date knowledge is important, as is a theoretical basis; prior studies on sub-groups have been discussed, along with how this study contributes to the literature.