Ergonomics and UX Research

After a degree in Psychology, a master's degree in Ergonomics, some professional experience in the field of occupational health and then a bifurcation in the field of user experience, I offer you an article allowing you to see more clearly on Ergonomics and the link with UX-Research.

During this famous “bifurcation”, I had the opportunity to meet various professionals who were very skeptical about the idea of ​​moving from the field of health to the field of UX.
Convinced at that time of a certain logic in my career, today I have as an additional weapon to the theory my experience to confirm it.

# Ergonomics: a small historical point

The term “Ergonomics” was coined in 1857 by W. Jastrzębowski who thus named the “science of work”. Initially very centered on the physiological component of Man, the definition of ergonomics has evolved following the footsteps of that of health (widening to dimensions other than physical). Thus, in 1949, the word was reused and used in a sense much closer to that of today. One of the first definitions spoke of “the adaptation of the machine to the Man” (Faverge, Leplat and Guiguet in 1958). 

Then over time, the notion evolves, the concepts become clearer (tasks, activities, etc.), the methods of analysis emerge, and the fields of study and application extend (working conditions, daily life, situation disability, organization, etc.). 

Moreover, 2 currents in ergonomics have distinguished themselves: the Human Factor current, Anglo-Saxon, and the activity current, from French-speaking countries. The first, rather normative, is based on the use of scientifically accepted knowledge and established standards (for example, the design of a chair by taking into account the average height of a man, the average length of his members, etc.). The second considers real activity, without generalization, taking into account the diversity and variability of people and situations. 

Finally, wherever there is human activity, the ergonomist has material to intervene. 

#1. The basic concepts of ergonomics

In 2000, the IEA (International Ergonomics Association) proposed as a definition of ergonomics “the scientific discipline which aims at the fundamental understanding of the interactions between humans and other components of a system, and the profession which applies theoretical principles, data and methods with a view to optimizing the well-being of people and the overall performance of systems – Practitioners of ergonomics, ergonomists contribute to the planning, design and evaluation of tasks, jobs, products, organizations, environments and systems with a view to making them compatible with the needs, capabilities and limitations of people.”

What must be remembered is that the role of the ergonomist, wherever he intervenes, is to understand to transform. Ergonomics is therefore a discipline of action: it is not just a matter of seeking or researching, but of acting, optimizing, modifying, improving.

What should the ergonomist understand? 

The ergonomist must understand the activity, its determinants and its consequences. 

The activity here is understood in the broad sense. To define it, we must first talk about the task: the task is what is defined in advance, a sort of guide to action. Activity is the mobilization of Man to respond to this task in a given situation. It can be physical, but also cognitive, social, and psychic.

For example, if the task is “Buy an apple”, the activity will be as much to catch an apple as to choose a sufficiently ripe apple, whose variety is known or even on the advice of the greengrocer. 

The activity is underpinned by a set of factors inherent to the person who carries it out (for example his culinary tastes) but also by external factors (location of the product in the store). 

The activity itself will have impacts, positive or negative, on the Man (for example satisfaction at having achieved the objective) and on the situation (if he has taken the last apple, there are none left ). 

A fairly thorough analysis must therefore be carried out to understand all this. But what is it for? 

The ergonomist has the objective of transforming the human environment to make it more adapted to it. By environment we mean here everything that surrounds Man, tangible or not, ranging from the workstation to an organization, to auditory stimuli, or even to digital interfaces. It is on all these elements that we act to ensure that Man is the most comfortable in his environment. 

Considering different environments, today we distinguish 3 types of ergonomics : 

  • Physical ergonomics aimed at adapting the physical environment to the physiological and morphological characteristics of humans 
  • Cognitive ergonomics aimed at adapting the environment to the characteristics and cognitive functioning of humans (memory, concentration, etc.)
  • The ergonomics of organizations aimed at adapting the organizational environment to humans (working hours, rules, processes, etc.)

#2 An evolution towards the emergence of UX

UX-Research is a part of cognitive ergonomics, which focuses on humans as users in their interaction with an environment. Here we will focus particularly on the digital environment. The computerization of work from the 1970s and 1980s largely contributed to the development of cognitive ergonomics. Indeed, the rise of digital technologies has considerably modified both personal and professional activities. Interactions with computer systems have developed, increasing cognitive activity to the detriment of physical activity. At the same time, physical ergonomics has been deployed, allowing the development of aid/relief systems for physical activity (robots for handling aids, for example). 

A priori, one might think that over time, the environments tend to be less painful for humans… Wrongly?  

#3 From physical strain to cognitive overload

The ergonomics of working conditions aims to provide the employee through the working environment comfort, to preserve its health and allow it to be effective. The user experience aims to guarantee the latter, the user, optimal usability, i.e.: efficiency, efficiency, satisfaction… We are on rather close notions, aren't we? 

For humans, not achieving the objectives mentioned above (comfort, health, efficiency, usability, etc.) means suffering a form of hardship. This can be, like the activity, of several kinds: physical, cognitive, emotional, psychological. Just as we speak of arduous work during an over-solicitation of the physical activity of Man (carrying heavy and/or repeated loads for example), it is advisable to broaden this term to also consider the oversolicitation of human cognitive activity (memorization of a large amount of information, for example). We will then speak rather of overload than of arduousness. 

Moreover, despite the progress mentioned, physical hardship remains a concern for many, in particular skilled and unskilled workers, and unskilled employees, who represent more than a third of the working population in France. You would be surprised to see how many tools available to workers / employees, intended to limit their physical hardship, are not used. Why ? An intervention by an ergonomist makes it possible to establish, in a given context, a diagnosis, which differs from one situation/company to another. However, we can a priori establish the observation of an inadequacy with the external resources (time imposed to carry out the task) as well as internal ones (knowledge, skills, physical characteristics, etc.) of the person. It also happens that it is not used because the operator believes that it is not needed.

Although the subject here is not to compare physical hardship to cognitive overload, an example seems rather appropriate to illustrate the analogy between these 2 concepts. A website, like software, will only be used if it is in line with what the user has and his needs. For example :

  • a site that takes several minutes (or even seconds) to load a page will not be adequate for the time the user wishes to devote to it
  • an application whose handling requires advanced skills in a domain (for example, a specific vocabulary) will be unsuitable for the knowledge of certain users 
  • A web page accessible only on mobile will be unsuitable for use on a computer, and therefore unusable by people who do not have a smartphone
  • ...

Thus, an overload cognitive felt on a website can lead to a high bounce rate, a low conversion rate...  

Finally, given the range of situations that could be optimized to be more human-centred, ergonomists have their place today more than ever in the world of work! 

It is then a question of terminology as to the professional intervening in one or the other situation. A person analyzing user activity to optimize digital interfaces will be a UX-Researcher, a person analyzing the activity of employees or people more generally to optimize a physical or organizational work environment will be an ergonomist... as simple as that (or not)… 🙂 

#4 Ergonomist and/or UX-Researcher? 

So why use different terminologies? The answer is not yet entirely clear, and several hypotheses can be made:

  • A lack of knowledge on the subject. There are still (too) many questions about this profession, as evidenced by the job offers. Over time, the evangelization of UX-Research has paid off and we see more and more searches for UX-Researcher profiles appearing. However, a few years ago, if user research was recognized as an added value, it was very rare to find companies wishing to recruit this type of profile. We were looking more for UX (designer-researcher), UX-UI… 
  • A lack of delineation of skills associated with UX-Researcher and UX-Designer. UX-Research making explicit reference to the user experience implies a priori a notion of pleasure that is more important than “pure” ergonomics. In ergonomics, we focus on comfort, simplicity, ease... While a good user experience also involves an emotional aspect: the goal is that the user appreciates the interface with which he interacts, that he enjoy it. But isn't the notion of pleasure what UX and UI designers (and not UX-Researchers) must guarantee..? This question is all the more complex in that by improving the ergonomics of a site, it is made more appreciable. In addition, the UX-Researcher is sometimes asked to model prototypes, a skill that falls within the UX-Designer profile... 
  • The non-existence of training bearing this name (licence or master's degree in UX-Research). Specialized training in UX-Research is provided on MOOC-type online platforms, or in agencies specializing in user experience (find our training here: https://www.ux-republic.com/toutes-nos-formations/). There are also longer training courses (Master, DU, etc.) allowing you to specialize in UX-Research; but they do not explicitly bear the name. The master's degree in ergonomics is one of the gateways.
  • The use of the term “ergonomics” in the field of computing to designate normative and conventional aspects (which joins the Anglo-Saxon current). From this point of view, the analysis of the activity of the user, that is to say application of French-speaking ergonomics, is not considered as ergonomics. It is probably on this point that differences of opinion are consolidated: in digital, the ergonomics of a site is considered through criteria that can be generalized from one site to another, while people practicing so-called French-speaking ergonomics will consider the ergonomics of a site with regard to its interaction with users. 
  • ... 

There are probably other potential explanations as well. Still, these misunderstandings and questions demonstrate a need for this discipline to make itself better known and to consolidate.

#5 Methods that come together 

So, if user research and ergonomics are so close, what about the methods applied? Ergonomics being a very broad field, the training provided in ergonomics provides more or less precise knowledge and skills on the subject of user experience. As with any job, there are many things to learn as a novice, including vocabulary, more in-depth knowledge, and sometimes training in the use of tools, software, or even methods in their own right. The objective is always the same: analyze the activity to understand it and propose relevant optimizations of the environment. Personally, my training in ergonomics allowed me to master different methods that simply had to be transposed to the context when arriving in the field of digital and design: 

  • I was realizing interviews whereas in UX we rather speak ofinterviews
  • I was talking aboutobservation as for the term shadowing is employed by my UX colleagues
  • I had already practiced techniques ofobservation, simultaneous verbalization andsemi-structured interview, and I learned to combine them to moderate user tests 
  • ... 

Among the best known and applied methods in UX-Research, expert auditing is the most specific to the field of user experience. The Bastien and Scapin criteria, renowned for carrying out this type of analysis, allow a good appropriation of the subject of user experience with regard to interfaces. However, users are not involved when an audit is carried out: this is the expert's point of view with regard to the standards, but the very activity of the user is not questioned in a real situation. This type of audit is also sometimes called “ergonomic” audit, which could be considered as an abuse of language if we stick to the definition of French-speaking ergonomics. In fact, it's a bit like carrying out an ergonomic intervention to redevelop a workstation, without the operator: elements can be adjusted there thanks to knowledge that can be applied in any situation (for example, measuring the brightness or the sound…), but many elements can only be really optimized with regard to the analysis of the operator and his interactions in this environment. An analysis without its presence will then make it possible to develop hypotheses that will have to be confronted in the field: it is exactly this principle that is applied by carrying out an ergonomic audit, which, in an exhaustive approach, should be followed. other methods of analyzing reality (observation, user tests, etc.).

Arriving in the field of user experience, my acquired knowledge and skills could therefore be easily re-modeled to be more adapted to the environment, here digital, of users. However, I did not feel landed on completely unfamiliar ground. We quickly find our bearings, we adapt, and we quickly take the fold in a new environment. 

Finally, trained in ergonomics, UX-Research is relatively quickly demystified once the notions of design are acquired.   

# Conclusion 

The debate remains open as to the differences between ergonomics and UX-Research. Many prejudices deserve to be highlighted in order to move forward on the consolidation of these (or this?) discipline(s?). 

Let's remember that in search of ever more progress in today's world, ergonomists and UX-Researchers are the allies of people to enable the adaptation of this changing world to their needs and limits. 

 

 

Florine AUFFRAIT, UX Researcher @UX-Republic

Our next trainings