Advertisement

Bridging Gaps Between Ergonomics and Creative Design: A Pedagogical Experiment

  • Stéphane Safin
  • Catherine Elsen
  • Pinky Pintus
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a large-scale pedagogical setting involving groups of students from different profiles gathered around a real-scale design project (re-shaping the waiting room of a mental health center). Ergonomics students’ main task is to analyze the needs and real activities of end-users; high school students’ task is to propose inspiring design tracks; interior architecture students’ task is to produce the design project; industrial drafting students’ task is to realize execution plans while construction students’ task is to implement the project on site. This communication more precisely focuses on the role of ergonomists in the setup, describing their intervention and the practical and pedagogical innovations put in place to help them face the various challenges encountered during the project, namely dealing with the temporal constraints of the intervention, documenting and observing a sensitive situation and involving end-users to make them heart of the design process. The paper concludes with feedback gathered from the different stakeholders.

Keywords

Creativity Ergonomics education Co-design 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The pedagogical experiment has been partially supported by the INTERREG projet THE!: Technology in Healthcare Education. Authors wish to thanks all the students for their involvement, members of the mental health care center for their enthusiasm as well as Jean-Philippe Possoz and Roland Juchmes for their help and support.

References

  1. Folcher V, Bationo-Tillon A, Duvenci-Langa S (2017) Conduire et construire l’intervention en ergonomie, questions pour la formation professionnelle. @ctivités 14-1Google Scholar
  2. Brangier E, Robert J-M (2014) L’ergonomie prospective: fondements et enjeux. Le Travail Humain 77(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Vredenburg K (2003) Building ease of use into the IBM user experience. IBM Syst J 42(4):517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Rogers Y, Sharp H, Preece J (2007) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Charrier (2013) Intégration de l’ergonomie dans le processus de créativité du designer industriel: application à une conception architecturale centrée sur l’usage. In: Proceedings of CONFERE 2013, Biarritz (FR), 4–5 July 2013Google Scholar
  7. Beguin P (2004) L’ergonome, acteur de la conception. In: Falzon P (ed) Ergonomie. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Martin C (2004) L’ergonome dans les projets architecturaux. In: Falzon P (ed) Ergonomie. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Huron S, Gourlet P, Hinrichs U, Hogan T, Jansen, Y (2017) Let’s get physical: promoting data physicalization in workshop formats. In: Proceedings of the 2017 conference on designing interactive systems (DIS 2017). ACM, New York, pp 1409–1422.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064798
  10. Dorta T, Safin S (2014) A new co-design workshop approach: methodological principles and feedback from an experience. In: Proceedings of COOP 2014 workshop on collective creativity, Nice, France, May 2014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Safin
    • 1
  • Catherine Elsen
    • 2
  • Pinky Pintus
    • 3
  1. 1.I3-SES, CNRS, Télécom ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.LUCID, Faculty of Applied SciencesUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  3. 3.Ecole Supérieure des Arts (ESA) Saint-Luc – LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations