Are “Sit-Stand” solutions real stand up options?

I did this for my amusement when confronted yet again by a product (in this case monitor arms) that purports to be “Sit to Stand”.

This is again becoming important as government and some business restrict the use of adjustable tables but still want/need a workable sit-stand option for computer work.

I dug into our database of standard evals which had both recommended sitting and standing measurements (using standard office chairs) and did some number crunching.

Bottom line: while the apparent design target for manufacturers seems to be about 12 to 13” of total range, for our population, the AVERAGE needed range is closer to 14”. Further, even at 14” range, the standard deviation is large enough so that more than 30% need a range of 15” or more.

A reasonable design target would be about 16” of range, provided that 16”of overall range can be adjusted to match the needed absolute heights of the end user. In other words: 16” of range would be OK only if the very bottom setting is a good setting for seated work for a specific user. Our 7500 arms (our more expensive option) is capable of a 16” range, but have limited absolute height adjustment using 6” extensions. The new Concerto arms and most other pole mount arms seem to have only 12 to 13” ranges, but can adjust the absolute heights to better match the user.

In the case of monitor arms, a pole mounted arm with a “dynamic range” of 16 inches, and “fixed” height adjustment on the pole to set the range to match the user would be our Holy Grail. I have yet to see such a beastie on the market at any reasonable cost.

While one might decide to compromise a little on gaze angle to facilitate the ability to work standing for brief periods, we haven’t even begun on the limitations of sit/stand keyboard supports.

Like monitors, their adjustment range tends to be about 10 to 12”. As this usually includes a few inches under the worksurface, they almost never go high enough to use while standing without creating a significant amount of wrist extension. Doing anything longer than a very brief input task is posturally problematic. The rare exceptions include very short workers, or when sit/stand arms are used in conjunction with a workstation configured for use with saddle seating (a posture half way between traditional sitting and standing).

There are now some new combo devices that attempt to solve this problem. However, in their efforts to keep costs down, they inevitably compromise on keyboard tray slope adjustment and/or focal range and/or space for placement of all those reference materials that are still used despite many workplaces going “paperless”.

The solution that gets the best results for the best value is still the user adjustable worksurface: ideally a table that has a footprint large enough to cover the entire functional workspace needed to do the tasks required.

An Ergonomic Ergonomics Evaluation

Ergonomics EvaluationWelcome to Office ErgoSpeak, the new Situs blog of all things office ergonomics.

– an ergonomic ergonomics evaluation?

In building our new website, an interesting question came up again that is a great place to start our conversation: “When is it proper to use the term ergonomic versus the term ergonomics?”

The simple answer is:

Ergonomic (adjective) = as in preceding something that has the characteristics of something designed for human use to do work.  For example, the usage “ergonomic keyboard.”

Ergonomics (noun) = as in the field of study or pertaining to the science of how humans do work.  For example, the usage “ergonomics evaluation”.

An “ergonomic evaluation” would be an evaluation done in an ergonomic way, not necessarily about the field of ergonomics. In fact, how to do ergonomics evaluations ergonomically is one of the things I cover when I teach the Train the Evaluator class. I am a big fan of the 3-point stance, provided that the knees can handle it, to help protect the evaluator’s neck and back while measuring and adjusting chairs and keyboard trays. There are also the postural and psychological benefits of the worker not needing to crane their neck to look at the evaluator looming over them.

That said, I usually avoid using the adjective “ergonomic.” You might be surprised to hear this from a company specializing in office ergonomics. The problem with the word “ergonomic” is that it is so often misused and abused. When I started focusing on ergonomics twenty years ago, we still had to explain what ergonomics was. Now ergonomics related words are used ubiquitously to describe almost everything.

One of my favorite props at the start of a training class is to hold up a Microsoft Natural Ergonomic 4000 Keyboard, and ask the class, “Is this an ergonomic keyboard?” To this day I still get a delightfully mixed bag of responses. Some nod yes. Others voice of vehement no. The cagey ones aren’t sure, and yet others even produce the (I believe correct) answer of “depends”.

Why the great disparity of responses? Because to answer whether something is ergonomic, you must first know who is going to be using it, what task they are doing, and where they are doing it. The MSN4000 can be a very effective and cost efficient tool to address certain ergonomics risk factors, particularly for computer workers who find themselves rolling their shoulders forward, squeezing their thumbs together and bending their wrists sideways toward the pinkies to access a standard keyboard. These are the people who often answer with a most enthusiastic yes to the “is this ergonomic” question. However, what would happen if we then gave Naturals to everyone? Some more petite workers who do not exhibit the sideways wrist bend at a standard keyboard will instead on the MSN4000 need to abduct their arms (think flapping wings) to accommodate the wide keyboard. We have now created a problem where there was none. Further, since the arrow and number sections of the MSN4000 are more extended, workers will need to reach even more to the right if mousing right handed, creating reaching issues. And what if the worker needs to look at the keys to type? (There are still some hunt-and-peckers out there!) Having a big gap in the middle of the keyboard is going to drive them batty.

Ergonomic Wrist Strain Standard Wrist Strain

 

 

 

 

 


So, to determine if some device or modification will be ergonomic, you must always address all three of the WHO/WHAT/WHERE:

  • The worker
  • The task
  • The work space

If all three are not addressed, then we can’t determine whether a particular product or solution will be ergonomic or not. And that’s ergonomics.

Chris Krebs

Situs Ergonomics