Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 148

Display Screen Regulations

An employer's guide to getting the best out of the regulations

Tom Stewart, System Concepts

Updated February 2000


CONTENTS

PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. AN OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATIONS

3. DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN

3.1 Establish who is involved


3.2 Identify display screen equipment and exclusions
3.3 Update existing health and safety policies
3.3.1 Plan display screen work to provide regular breaks or changes of activity
3.3.2 Offer users eye and eyesight tests and, if necessary, special eyesight
correction
3.3.3 Inform, train and consult users
3.4 Review current practice and determine appropriate action
3.4.1 Assess workstations and reduce risks
3.4.2 Ensure workstations meet minimum ergonomics requirements

4. UNDERSTAND DISPLAY SCREEN ERGONOMICS

4.1 Display
4.2 Keyboard
4.3 Work desk or work surface
4.4 Work chair
4.5 Environment
4.6 User/computer interface
5. USE ERGONOMICS STANDARDS FOR PROCUREMENT AND DESIGN

5.1 Introduction to ergonomics standards


5.2 Ergonomics standards making bodies
5.3 Current ergonomics standards mainly dealing with hardware
5.4 Future ergonomics standards mainly dealing with software
5.5 Develop an ergonomics standards policy

6. WHAT IF ...

6.1 What if you wish to address software usability?


6.2 What if staff complain?
6.3 What if you are planning a new installation?
6.4 What if you wish to involve users in the system development process?
6.5 What if it is a special or non-standard environment?

7. CONCLUSION

APPENDICES
A. Checklists
A1 Level 1 assessment checklist
A2 Level 2 assessment checklist (problem solving aid)
B. Sources of help references etc
PREFACE

From 1st January 1993, employers have a number of specific obligations to users of
display screens in their undertakings, under the Health and Safety (Display Screen
Equipment ) Regulations 1992. The purpose of this management guide is to help
employers fulfil their obligations and understand the implications of the Regulations
for the way they introduce, manage and use display screens in their organisations.
For many employers, this document should be sufficient. However, the focus on
practical issues means that some topics receive little attention or some complex
situations may be oversimplified and therefore in cases of doubt, the full Regulations
should be consulted.

Although the Regulations are important as part of the law of the land and are
therefore legally enforceable with a wide range of penalties, there are also more
positive reasons why employers should understand display screen ergonomics.
Computer displays have become an indispensable business tool, almost as
ubiquitous as the telephone. For many organisations, computer systems have
progressed from being a convenient support for administration to becoming the
prime ‘engine’ of the business process itself. Manufacturing concerns could no
longer operate without computer driven parts ordering, scheduling and inventory
control. Service industries such as insurance, banking, finance, travel could not
operate without integrated computer based systems providing information and
recording the business activity. Yet many users find computer based work
unnecessarily tiring and many computer systems unfriendly and intimidating.

The Regulations contain many sensible and practical provisions to help make display
work safer, more comfortable, more efficient and more productive. Understanding
the reasons behind these provisions will enable employers to prioritise their efforts
and gain maximum advantage from the changes the Regulations may require.

The prime focus of this guide is not simply ‘how can I avoid being sued?’, valid
though that is as a concern. Rather the prime focus is ‘how can employers make
best use of the Regulations to improve the safety, comfort, efficiency and
productivity of display screen work?’ This does not mean that you must employ
consultants or that it must be very expensive or complex. Many organisations have
already found that the requirements are quite straightforward and that with a little
help and training their own staff can carry out much of the work themselves. They
have also found that taking the opportunity to improve display screen work makes
good business sense.
We start the guide with an executive summary of the Regulations, then we spell out
an action plan to comply with the employer's obligations. Next, we discuss the
minimum ergonomics requirements for workstations in sufficient detail for the
reader to understand what is required and why. Then we explain how national and
international ergonomics standards may be used to guide procurement and then
offer some advice on dealing with some key software ergonomics issues. In the last
main section, we discuss what an employer should do if, for example, staff complain,
or a new installation is planned. Finally, the Appendix contains a number of practical
checklists and details about sources of help.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Having worked in the field of display screen ergonomics for nearly twenty five
years, I have an enormous debt to acknowledge to the many colleagues and clients
who have contributed to my knowledge, shaped my ideas and listened to my views.

In some ways, little changes in the world of display screen ergonomics and some of
the source material for this book has appeared in different forms over a long period
of time. None the less, I have attempted to pull together several different strands
into one volume for the first time. I have also tried to make the information and
explanation as accessible as possible. It has not always been possible and I know
this book cannot be regarded as an easy read. But I believe it is important for
employers and all those concerned with improving display screen work to try to
understand what lies behind the concerns, the discomforts and the health problems.

In an attempt to ‘user test’ the book, I have inflicted earlier versions of this
manuscript on many people and I would like to acknowledge some of them here in
alphabetical order. Stephen Gray of the Federation of Electronics Industry and John
Hughes of IBM have helped to keep me aware of the industry perspective and the
views of the responsible manufacturers. Dr Doreen Miller, Registrar of the College
of Occupational Medicine has helped with advice on occupational health aspects and
Dr Janet Asherson of the CBI advised on the employer’s perspective. Anne
Greaves of UNISON provided a down to earth trade union viewpoint and Peter
Smith of the Association of Optometrists advised on eye tests and optometric
issues. Mr Peter Crabbe at BSI who acted as secretary to the Applied Ergonomics
Committee for many years and was an active supporter of ergonomics and
ergonomics standardisation. Dr Colin Mackay at the Health and Safety Executive
has long been a friend and a valuable source of guidance and information about the
legislation and official viewpoint.

Over the years, many clients have helped me understand display screen ergonomics
problems and have allowed me to use material based on earlier work for them. I
would particularly like to acknowledge Pat Mitchell of Project Office Furniture,
Colin Smith of the National Health Service Information Management Group, Ferry
Koer of the European Patent Office and his colleague Thomas Muller who drew the
excellent cartoons.

The practical ideas and checklists have also been developed by colleagues within
System Concepts and I would particularly like to acknowledge the help and input
from Marilyn Joyce, President of the Joyce Institute, our US collaborators based in
Seattle. I would also like to thank the large army of anonymous users whose
experiences have contributed to this book.

Finally I must thank four important women in my life. My daughter Amy Stewart
who has helped me with advice and inspiration for some time with a maturity
beyond her sixteen years (she has been my personal ‘help desk’ when dealing with
obtuse software for several years). My business colleague and fellow director of
System Concepts, Andrea Caws, with whom I have worked for longer than either
of us care to admit. She has read all the manuscript, sorted out lots of errors,
helped develop many of the ideas and practical procedures and she has kept a tight
rein on some of my more outspoken comments. My wife, Fiona Stewart, who has
read almost everything I have ever written - sometimes several times. She has
probably learned far more about display screen ergonomics over the last twenty
five years than she ever wanted to. She has certainly been a strong support and
invaluable partner. I owe her a great deal. Finally, I must thank my mother, Agnes
Stewart, for her unfailing faith in me, her encouragement and her positive outlook.
She has a readiness to listen and to accept new ideas which puts those half her age
to shame.

Of course I have not always listened to the advice of my friends and colleagues and
so cannot blame them for any errors or omissions in the text, they remain my
responsibility.
1. INTRODUCTION

Information technology is rapidly becoming the enabling technology for many


industrial and commercial processes. Just as the electric motor is a common power
component in all manner of machines, so the computer is an information
component in vehicles, machine tools, consumer products, office equipment and so
on. For many staff, this means a move away from paper-based methods towards
work with display screen equipment.

Rigorous scientific research studies have identified a number of potential problems


which reduce the comfort, well-being and efficiency of display screen users.
Although the vast majority of these problems can be avoided relatively easily,
computer manufacturers and employers have been criticised for being slow to take
effective action.

Over the last few years, regulatory and other official bodies have developed
standards, guidelines and regulations in order to protect the health, safety, comfort
and efficiency of display screen users. Although, they have largely failed to endorse
the more extreme, scientifically unsupported, claims in the mass media, they have
recognised the importance of good ergonomics in the design and use of display
screen equipment.

Ergonomics, from Ergon and Nomos, the Greek words for work and
laws respectively, is the multi-disciplinary science which involves
applying knowledge about the strengths and limitations of people to
the design of equipment, workplaces and environments

The Display Screen Directive is one of a series of European 'daughter' Directives


dealing with specific aspects of health and safety. The 'parent' or 'Framework'
Directive (89/391/EEC) sets out the general principles of the European
Community's approach to Health and Safety.

The first six of these Directives (known as the six-pack) have been implemented in
Great Britain as Regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

EUROPEAN-BASED HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

THE 'SIX-PACK'
• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992
• Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
• Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
• Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
• Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
• Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992

Although they address quite different aspects of working life and very different
levels of risk, these Directives are based on a common set of health and safety
principles. These common principles include the avoidance of risk by eliminating the
source, where possible, and by the encouragement of collective protective
measures instead of individual protective measures. Where risk is unavoidable, it
must be properly evaluated and measures must be taken which are appropriate to
the level of risk. Thus if the assessment shows that the level of risk is slight,
informal measures may be entirely adequate. However, where significant risk is
identified, then stringent measures must be taken.

KEY POINTS OF THE OTHER REGULATIONS

• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992


• Assess risks to health and safety
• Plan, organise, control, monitor and review measures
• Provide health surveillance
• Appoint competent people
• Set up emergency procedures
• Provide information and training

Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992


• Select safe equipment for working conditions
• Ensure it is suitable and maintained
• Provide information, instruction and training
• Specifics on
o dangerous parts
o hazards
o temperature
o controls
o power sources
o stability
o lighting
o warnings and marking
Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
• Working environment - heat, light, space, seating
• Safety - passage, windows, doors, floors, falls
• Facilities - toilets, washing, eating, rest areas
• Housekeeping - maintenance, cleaning, waste

Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992


• Provide suitable personal protective equipment as a last resort
• Ensure compatibility of PPE
• Assess suitability of PPE
• Maintain and replace PPE as required
• Provide storage for PPE
• Provide information and training on proper use
• Supervise proper use

Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992


• Avoid manual handling operations where possible
• Assess and reduce risks of remaining operations
• task
• load
• working environment
• individual capability
• Employees must take care and co-operate

Concern about display screen equipment should not be seen in isolation from more
general concern about the safety, health and well-being of staff. Traditionally, office
work has been regarded as safe, and indeed compared to work in factories or on
building sites it is extremely safe. Nonetheless, the increased pace of modern office
work and changed attitudes to stress and health now put health and safety in the
office firmly on management's agenda.

There are a growing number of display screen equipment users reporting


discomfort and other short term problems. Whilst many of these are temporary
and disappear after work, they are nonetheless unpleasant and should be avoided in
the interests of the user' s health. If ignored, such symptoms can escalate into
longer term and chronic health problems.

However, a sense of proportion is important. The requirements of staff who work


intensively with display screen equipment, performing highly complex work with
little variation are quite different from those of a senior manager who occasionally
uses a personal computer to revise his budget on a spreadsheet. The technology
may be similar or even identical but the nature of the task and the circumstances
are quite different. Therefore different levels of concern and safeguard are
appropriate and these Regulations reflect this reality.

The display screen health debate has been clouded by a failure to distinguish
between health risks, for example visual and postural discomfort, and potential or
perceived health risks, for example from display screen radiation. It is
unquestionable that there has been much concern amongst users about reports of
long term effects of display screen work. Some of the reports which gave rise to
widespread publicity have been ill-founded.

FIGURE 1.1 NEAR HERE


Nonetheless, there are many well researched real problems and the concern
experienced by users is also real and should be taken seriously by responsible
employers. Failure to take employee concerns seriously has been extremely
damaging both to staff morale in general and to anxious individuals in particular.

Although the prime focus of the Regulations is to protect users, there are also good
commercial reasons for applying ergonomics to display screen systems.
Organisations which have taken ergonomics seriously in the past have not done so
because the law forced them. They have applied ergonomics in order to get the
best out of their investment in people and in technology. They have also avoided
the consequential costs of accidents and ill-health which include the costs of
medical treatment, staff cover, insurance premiums, compensation and the largely
hidden cost of management time and effort dealing with problems.

This remains a worthwhile objective and a cost effective way of gaining business
benefit from ergonomics and information technology.
2. AN OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATIONS
2.1 There are six main obligations on employers

The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 set out six
main obligations on employers of those who work with display screen equipment.

• Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992


• analyse workstations and reduce health and safety risks
• ensure workstations meet minimum ergonomic requirements
• provide information about risks and measures
• plan daily work routine for users
• offer eye tests and special glasses if necessary
• provide health and safety training

The Regulations only apply where there are 'users' or ‘operators’. Although both
these terms are common in the computer industry, the Health and Safety Executive
has chosen to give them specific meanings under the Regulations. A 'user', in terms
of the Regulations, is an employee who habitually uses display screen equipment as
a significant part of his normal work. Some of the employer’s responsibilities extend
to users employed by others (eg Temp agency staff) who are working on the
employer’s premises or equipment.

The Regulations also apply to the self-employed. An ‘operator’ in terms of the


Regulations, is any self-employed person who habitually uses display screen
equipment as a significant part of his normal work. As a self employed person, some
of the obligations are their own responsibility e.g. training. However, other
responsibilities fall on the employer who has hired them for display screen work.

Thus the first step in understanding the obligations is to identify all the users,
operators and potential display screen equipment workstations in the organisation.

Some definitions from the Regulations


• "display screen equipment" means any alphanumeric or graphic display screen,
regardless of the display process involved;
• "user" means an employee who habitually uses display screen equipment as a
significant part of his normal work;
• "operator" means any self-employed person who habitually uses display screen
equipment as a significant part of his normal work;
• "workstation" means an assembly comprising -
• display screen equipment (whether provided with software determining the
interface between the equipment and its operator or user, a keyboard or any
other input device),
• any optional accessories to the display screen equipment,
• any disk drive, telephone, modem, printer, document holder, work chair, work
desk, work surface or other item peripheral to the display screen equipment;
and
• the immediate work environment around the display screen equipment.

For each user and operator working in his undertaking, the employer must:

a. assess the risks arising from their use of display screen workstations and take
steps to reduce any risks identified to the 'lowest extent reasonably practicable'

b. ensure that new workstations ('first put into service after 1st January 1993') meet
minimum ergonomics standards set out in a schedule to the Regulations. Existing
workstations have a further four years to meet the minimum requirements,
provided that they are not posing a risk to their users.

c. inform users about the results of the assessments, the actions the employer is
taking and the users' entitlements under the Regulations

For each user, whether working for him or another employer (but not each
operator)

d. plan display screen work to provide regular breaks or changes of activity

In addition, for his own employees who are users,

e. offer eye tests before display screen use, at regular intervals and if they are
experiencing visual problems. If the tests show that they are necessary and normal
glasses cannot be used, then special glasses must be provided.

f. provide appropriate health and safety training for users before display screen use
or whenever the workstation is 'substantially modified'
TABLE 2.1 Employer’s obligations towards display screen users and
operators

Obligation towards own towards other towards self


employee who is a employee (eg employed person
user works for Temp who is an operator
agency) who is a
user
Assess risks at YES YES YES
display screen
workstation
Ensure YES YES YES
workstation meets
minimum
ergonomics
requirements
Inform staff about YES YES YES
rights and what has
been done
Plan work and YES YES NO (individual
provide breaks responsibility)
Offer eyetest and YES NO (main NO (individual
special glasses if employer is responsibility)
necessary responsible)
Provide training in YES NO (main NO (individual
safe use employer is responsibility)
responsible)

2.2 The Regulations are a political response to public concern

The Regulations represent the implementation in Great Britain of the European


Directive (90/270/EEC) on display screen work. The Display Screen Directive was
one of a series of 'daughter' Directives dealing with specific aspects of health and
safety. The Directives were essentially political and legal documents. They were
intended to set general requirements and not to require revision as the technology
developed. In the recitals to the Display Screen Directive, there was an obligation
on the employer to keep up to date with ergonomics and health and safety findings
in order to achieve the objectives of the Directive rather than simply follow the
letter of the law.
There are many work activities which are clearly much more dangerous, eg work
on construction sites, which were apparently lower in priority in the European
legislative process. In justifying its decision to introduce a Directive on display
screen equipment, the Commission emphasised that it did not regard display screen
equipment work as particularly dangerous for the individual. However, it argued
that taking account of the impact of potential ergonomic problems on the comfort
and well-being of workers and the increasing number of display screen workers
justified such a measure.

Managers and clerical workers account for 14% of


reportable occupational accidents (according to the HSE
report 'The costs to the British Economy of work
accidents and work-related ill health', HSE Books 1994).

Failure to take employee concerns seriously has been extremely damaging both to
staff morale in general and to anxious individuals.

2.3 The main responsibility lies with the employer

The Regulations set out obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act
(1974) for employers responsible for display screen users and operators. As with
other aspects of health and safety, many of the duties fall to individual managers.
However, the users and operators themselves have a responsibility to co-operate
with management on appropriate measures and to play their part in avoiding risks
by following safe systems of work, reporting faults and using equipment sensibly.

Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (which


transposed the Framework Directive), employers must consult with staff and their
representatives, especially safety representatives if they exist in the organisation, on
matters of health and safety.

2.4 The Regulations are implemented and enforced in Great Britain as part of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974

The Regulations were made under Section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work Act
1974. Thus they have the full force of the law behind them and are part of the
statutory duty of employers to their employees. Enforcement is through the Health
and Safety Executive's Factory Inspectorate and Local Authority Environmental
Health Officers as appropriate.
The Regulations and the Schedule of minimum requirements for workstations
contain little that is not already covered by the existing legislation and guidance.
However, in view of the greater level of detail and specification in the Regulations,
it is anticipated that the initial emphasis of the Inspectorate will be on providing
guidance and information. Nonetheless, the full range of penalties associated with
the HSAW are available to inspectors including improvement notices, prohibition
orders and legal proceedings, in extreme cases.

2.5 The Regulations came into effect on 1st January 1993

The Regulations came into force on 1st January 1993. From that date, employers
have been obliged to assess and reduce risk, provide information and training, plan
display screen work for users and offer suitable eye and eyesight tests. They are
also obliged to ensure that new workstations meet the minimum ergonomics
requirements in the Schedule.

Existing workstations must be assessed for risks to the user's or operator’s health.
Where this assessment shows no risk, the workstation does not need to brought
into line with the minimum requirements until 1st January 1997. However, if the
assessment reveals a risk, then the risk should be reduced to the lowest extent
reasonably practicable as soon as possible.
3. DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN

• Establish who is involved


• Identify display screen equipment and exclusions
• Update existing health and safety policies
• Plan display screen work to provide regular breaks or changes of activity
• Offer users eye and eyesight tests and, if necessary, special eyesight correction
• Inform, train and consult users
• Review current practice and determine appropriate action
• Assess workstations and reduce risks
• Ensure new workstations meet minimum ergonomics requirements

The scope of the Regulations is very broad and they are already having a significant
impact on many different aspects of organisational life. Some of these impacts were
intended by the legislators, for example, more communication about health and
safety issues between employer and employee.

However, other impacts may be more subtle and were probably never anticipated
let alone intended eg a trend towards designing automatic features into systems
such as time-outs and activity monitors to force users to follow arbitrary rules
about work time on screen.

In order to ensure that you not only comply fully with the Regulations but also gain
maximum benefit from the inevitable investment, this change process must be
planned and managed carefully.

Developing an action plan will also demonstrate to enforcers and to staff that you
are taking your responsibilities seriously. The plan should cover how you will:

• establish who is involved


• identify display screen equipment and exclusions
• update existing health and safety policies
• review current practices and determine appropriate action

We consider these steps in detail in sections 3.1 to 3.4 below in relation to the
obligations set out in the Regulations.
TABLE 3.1 The Action Plan and the Regulations

Regulation Number Action to meet


obligations
1. Citation, Establish who is
commencement, involved
interpretation and
application
Identify display
screen equipment
and exclusions
2. Analysis of Assess risks at
workstations display screen
workstation
3. Requirements for Ensure workstations
workstations meet minimum
ergonomics
requirements
4. Daily work Plan display screen
routine of users work to provide
regular breaks or
changes of activity
5. Eyes and eyesight Offer users eye and
eyesight tests and, if
necessary, special
eyesight correction
6. Provision of Inform, train and
training consult users
7. Provision of Inform, train and
information consult users
8. Exemption allows exemption to
Certificates military forces in the
interests of national
security
9. Extension outside explains how they
Great Britain apply outside Great
Britain
In addition, the Action Plan should cover how you will make financial and other
provision for implementing changes and keep up-to-date with changing
requirements.

Many organisations fix budgets far in advance and these may be difficult to change
when new requirements emerge. It is therefore important to anticipate the extent
to which the organisation and its current practices, equipment and furnishings may
have to change. For example, a brief sample audit, in advance of full assessments,
can give a good indication of the scale of the changes necessary, if any. This will
allow suitable provision to be made in budgets and development plans.

It is also important for the employer to keep up to date with the state of the art to
achieve the objectives of the Regulations rather than simply follow the letter of the
law. Display screen work is increasing round the world and as the technology
advances, so too does our understanding of how to use it properly. Employers are
not expected to change their policies and practices with every new and
unsubstantiated research finding. Nonetheless, they are expected to be aware of
HSE guidance, of developments in standards and of recognised industry practice.

3.1 Establish who is involved

The Regulations set out a wide range of duties for employers which cut across
traditional responsibilities. Although Health and Safety specialists might be expected
to take the lead, they are seldom involved in such issues as working patterns, staff
consultation and software design. Many are not involved in procurement or
refurbishment programmes on a routine basis.

Thus the first step is to establish who is responsible for:

• managing display screen users and operators


• procuring display screen equipment, furniture, accessories and software
• installing systems and furniture
• managing premises including refurbishing and planning new accommodation
• managing environmental services
• health and safety
• occupational health
• personnel policies
• staff consultation
• staff training and selection
• software development
• job design and work organisation
and ensure that they are aware of their duties and responsibilities.

The Regulations only apply formally where there are users or operators (self
employed ‘users’) of display screen workstations. However, in practice, many of the
measures are appropriate for anyone who uses (in the conventional sense) display
screen equipment or similar equipment. It is therefore sensible to identify
potential users and workstations. This will allow you to decide at a later date
whether it is more practical for administrative or employee relations reasons to
extend the provisions to other staff. Indeed, all staff are covered by the
Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992 and the Health and Safety
(Workplace) Regulations 1992. These also require employers to assess risks arising
from the nature of the work or the equipment used. It is reasonable to assume that
staff who use similar equipment may be exposed to similar risks, even though
technically their equipment is excluded from the Display Screen Regulations.

Who is a user?

A user, in terms of the Regulations, is defined as 'an employee who habitually uses
display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work'. However, some
of the employer's responsibilities extend to users employed by others or to the self
employed who work in a similar way to users on the employer's premises or
equipment..

In terms of health, the most widespread problems are visual and muscular fatigue
and stress, all of which are related to the duration and intensity of work. It is self
evident, although often not fully appreciated when work is planned, that the harder
and longer you work the more tired you become. Thus the main focus of the
Regulations is to protect those most at risk ie prolonged, intensive users. However,
it is not just hours of display screen work which are important.

The Guidance published with the Regulations identified a number of factors which
should be considered in cases where there is doubt about whether an individual
should be considered as a user.

These include:
• degree of dependence on the equipment to do the job
• lack of discretion over whether to use display screens or not
• use of special skills or high levels of attention or concentration
• use most days for more than one hour at a time
If most of these apply, then they suggest that the individual should be classified as a
user.

One of the basic principles of ergonomics is that the workstation should be


designed around the user's tasks. The most frequent or critical activities should take
place within easy reach and without undue stretching or twisting. Thus in thinking
about who are users, we should ask ourselves if it makes sense to organise their
workstation around the display screen work.

If their primary task (or tasks) involves display screen use, then they are clearly
users.

Typical jobs types which are likely to be considered as users include:


• telesales staff entering customer orders into a computer based sales system
• data entry operators
• insurance clerks maintaining computer based records
• engineers designing components on a CAD/CAM system
• dealers using multiple display screens to access financial markets and to process
transactions
• journalists writing their copy or editing on display screens.

PHOTO 3.1 NEAR HERE

If their use of the display screen is very infrequent, of short duration and incidental
to their main tasks, then they are not users, for example, a manager who uses a
display screen to check the company's share price once a day for a few minutes, a
salesman who only occasionally refers to a computer based price list or a doctor
who briefly accesses pharmacy records.

If it is not clear, then a more detailed analysis may be required. In many cases, it
may be more practical to consider everyone with a display screen on their desk as a
‘user’ unless there are good reasons for excluding them. Also excluded are those
who are simply manufacturing, selling, maintaining or cleaning the equipment, rather
than using it themselves.

But for many organisations, it makes little sense to be restrictive in defining users.
The managerial and administrative burden of distinguishing display screen equipment
users and others can be considerable, given the reality that display screen work is
increasing and rapidly displacing other types of office work.

Any definition or formula based on the amount of time spent on 'display screen
equipment work' immediately runs into enormous difficulties of definition, for
example, what about time spent not looking at the screen? if a telephone call
interrupts the work should allowance be made? must the screen be switched off?
The administrative burden in monitoring such matters will encourage many
organisations to regard the Regulations as applying to all staff who use display
screens in the conventional sense of the word.

The same factors which affect our decision to classify individuals as ‘users’ under
the Regulations, also apply to the self employed ‘operators’.

3.2 Identify display screen equipment and exclusions

The Regulations define display screen equipment as 'any alphanumeric or graphic


display screen, regardless of the display process involved'. As written, even a 35mm
slide projector used in a presentation to display text or graphics could be
interpreted as 'display screen equipment'. However, this is not the intention of the
Regulations.

The main focus of the Regulations is visual display terminals, whether based on
cathode ray tube displays, flat panel or any other display technology, whether in use
in the office, factory, control rooms or elsewhere. The Regulations are not
restricted to electronic displays and include microfiche and microfilm viewers.

The terms 'alphanumeric or graphic' display screens include line drawings, graphs
and charts but excludes displays solely for showing moving television images and
close circuit security displays. If the main use of the screen is to display text or
graphics, then it is covered, even if it also shows TV images. In general, multimedia
displays are included (which allow text, graphics, television, animation and sound to
be presented on a computer display).

The use of the term workstation can be misleading. Clearly the entire working
conditions are important in ergonomics terms. However, in the computer industry,
workstation usually means a high powered personal computer and does not include
the desk, chair, environment and so on. In these Regulations, the usage is closer to
that in the furniture industry, and includes:

• the display screen equipment itself, including:


• peripherals
• accessories
• interface software
• the furniture, chair, desking and other worksurfaces
• the immediate working environment
• lighting
• acoustics
• humidity
• heating and ventilation

FIGURE 3.1 NEAR HERE

The Regulations are therefore far reaching in their scope and application. They
apply to all users and operators of display screen equipment, with a number of
specific exclusions.

• drivers' cabs or control cabs for vehicles or machinery


• display screen equipment on board a means of transport
• display screen equipment mainly intended for public use
• portable systems not in prolonged use as part of a workstation
• calculators, cash registers or any equipment having a small data or measurement
display required for direct use of the equipment
• window typewriters

These exclusions do not mean that ergonomics is unimportant for users of such
systems. Indeed, arguably, the ergonomics requirements in some of the excluded
areas are even more important and should be applied more stringently than in the
areas covered by the Regulations. For example, the ergonomics of a railway engine
cab, which may well contain display screen equipment, can have a direct
consequence on the safety of large numbers of passengers.

Why then are there exclusions?

The reasons are partly technical and partly historical. The Directive on which the
Regulations are based, like many measures in display screen health and safety, has
its origins in a well intentioned desire to protect display workers from the kind of
'sweat shop' conditions which were common in the early days of computing.

In these ‘office factories’, large numbers of operators would in effect work as part
of the equipment, often in physically cramped conditions, for long periods of time
without breaks and would be under considerable pressure to enter data accurately
and quickly. Such working environments and practices led to problems caused by
constrained postures, poor visual quality of screens, repetitive and intensive
keyboard operation and highly paced and controlled patterns of work. Similar
problems to those experienced in industrial assembly lines.
Many of the specific requirements in the Directive and in its Annex still reflect such
a concern. However, the technology has moved on and there are many other types
of workstation using display screen equipment. Although the same general
ergonomics principles apply, the specific requirements and their importance relative
to other factors vary.

PHOTO 3.2 NEAR HERE

Thus, for example, although control cabs for vehicles or machinery may contain a
display screen and even a keyboard which appear familiar to an office worker, the
effects of vibration and acceleration may require very different key-top sizes and
operation forces. Similarly, the requirements for safety would take priority over
other factors.

The exclusion of display screen equipment on board a means of transport is


intended to remove from the scope of the Regulations both specialised systems
involved in the operation of the transport as well as portable equipment used by
travellers eg railway passengers using laptop computers. Such users still require
good ergonomics and suitable equipment (as required under existing health and
safety legislation) but they are excluded from the specific requirements of the
Display Screen Regulations.

Display screen equipment mainly intended for public use, includes Automatic Teller
Machines in banks and Ticket Vending Machines. In some situations, eg libraries,
display screens attached to information systems for the public may also be used by
staff. Under these circumstances, they would be covered by the Regulations,
although members of the public would not count as users.

Portable equipment is only excluded if it is not in prolonged use at a workstation.


Clearly, if a personal computer is to be carried about and used frequently on trains,
planes and elsewhere, then weight and practicality may outweigh the need for the
keyboard to be separate from the display screen. However, if it is to be used for
more than one or two hours at a time, then it should be regarded as covered by
these Regulations and an external monitor (or keyboard) and suitable furniture may
be required.

The exclusion of calculators, cash registers, equipment with small data or


measurement displays and window typewriters is problematical. Regular display
screen equipment can be, and increasingly is being, used for all these purposes, and
remains covered by these Regulations. The reason for the exclusion is to avoid
unnecessary constraints on the use of pocket or desk top calculators, shop tills,
oscilloscopes, laboratory and medical equipment.
Where the display screen is only used within such equipment and cannot be used
for other tasks, then it makes sense to exclude it from consideration under these
Regulations. However, the technology is developing faster than the regulators and
standards makers can act. For example, when the Directive was first drafted,
window typewriters had one or two line displays. Nowadays, they may have ten or
more lines and are becoming indistinguishable from display screen equipment. What
seemed like sensible definitions rapidly became tortuous and misleading. If the
window typewriter displays more than a few lines of text, then it should be treated
as display screen equipment and meet the minimum ergonomics requirements, for
example by having the keyboard tiltable and separate from the screen.

The essential point is that good ergonomics depends on the tasks of the users, the
environment and other contextual factors. Employers still have obligations under
the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Provision and
Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 to provide safe work equipment even
where the items are excluded under the Display Screen Regulations. It therefore
makes sense to follow similar ergonomics guidelines in buying or installing such
equipment, for example, ensuring that displays are legible and keyboards can be
used comfortably.

Are there special requirements?

When identifying which display screen equipment is covered by the Regulations, be


aware of special requirements which may affect the appropriateness of the
minimum requirements specified in the Schedule. The most important obligation is
to ensure that the use of the display screen equipment does not pose a risk for the
health of the user.

In some tasks or environments, or for some users, the Schedule may be


inappropriate. In a chemical plant control room, it may be necessary to cover
keyboards with plastic membranes to avoid sparks or to protect them from
corrosive chemicals. These may be more important safety requirements than
ensuring that the keyboard has a good typing action. Some users may have specific
requirements which should be accommodated. For example, users in wheelchairs
or with disabilities may require special adaptations to the workstation in order to
comply with the spirit of the Schedule.

PHOTO 3.3 NEAR HERE

In other environments, the safety of the public may override concerns about the
comfort of the individual. For example, an emergency control display may have a
limited range of adjustment to avoid it being turned down too much or an
emergency keyboard may not be detachable from its screen to ensure that it is
always consistently accessible to all users.

The Regulations are intended to be applied intelligently and with common sense. If
in intepreting these requirements, they seem neither reasonable nor practical, then
you have probably misunderstood them. They are broadly in line with the previous
HSE Guidance on the subject and existing duties under the Health and Safety at
Work Act, and largely make explicit what was previously implicit.

Action list
• Identify all display screen equipment in use
• Identify all display screen equipment users
• Determine possible exclusions
• Establish which workstations have special requirements
• Assess the costs and benefits of applying Regulations to all staff
• Assess the costs and benefits of applying Schedule to all workstations

3.3 Update existing health and safety policies

It is a statutory duty for employers with more than 5 employees to have a written
health and safety policy. This should therefore be updated to include the obligations
under these Regulations. Some organisations will find that they already address
many of the requirements and will need to change little. Others may find that
although they already do much that is required, they fall short in some areas, for
example they may not keep adequate records.

Other policy issues which may need to be reviewed include financial and physical
write-off periods for display screen equipment and workstations. It is quite
common for computer equipment to be written-off financially in three years and
physically in four or five. Replacing it early to meet the minimum requirements is
therefore unlikely to be a major problem. However, furniture is expected to last
much longer and any replacement justified much more carefully. Nonetheless,
retaining a mixture of suitable and unsuitable furniture or equipment places an extra
load on management to ensure that it is used correctly. Some organisations may
choose to avoid this problem by bringing forward replacement schedules.

PHOTO 3.4 NEAR HERE

There are three obligations in the Regulations which some companies already
address in their health and safety policies. These concern the requirement to:
plan display screen work to provide regular breaks or changes of activity
offer users eye and eyesight tests and, if necessary, special eyesight correction
inform, train and consult users

We discuss the implications of these policy issues next.

3.3.1 Plan display screen work to provide regular breaks or changes of


activity

It is self evident that the longer people work at a display screen, the more fatigued
they will become and the less productive they will be. Breaks, ideally before the
onset of symptoms, can reduce fatigue or help to avoid it completely as well as
maintain productivity.

Prolonged display screen work, like any other visually demanding work, is tiring on
the eyes. Breaks or changes of activity are necessary to allow users to focus at a
distance and relax their eye muscles. Most of the visual work takes place with the
eyes focused at around 500 to 600 mm. Opportunities to re-focus at a distance
restore the natural longer focus of the eyes and reduce muscle tension.

FIGURE 3.2 NEAR HERE

Display screen work also encourages fixed postures. Using the keyboard virtually
fixes the position of the hands. Reading the screen determines head position and
sitting on a chair locates the rest of the body. There is little scope for movement
and with increasing facilities available through computer systems, little opportunity
for the incidental breaks which accompanied paperwork, eg collecting files, changing
paper in typewriters, referring to ledgers and so on.

To make matters worse, the postures people are forced to adopt when using
displays are sometimes awkward and involve twisting and stretching as people
adjust themselves to suit the technology and workstation layout. But even when
seated, the muscle system has to work to support the head, to hold the body
upright, to keep the arms and hands in the right position to operate keyboards and
so on. Surprisingly, this static muscle work is more tiring than the dynamic muscle
work involved in walking, lifting and moving about. In static postures, there is less
opportunity for the chemical by-products from muscle contraction and extension of
muscles to be flushed away and they build up and produce pain.

A further reason for introducing breaks or changes of activity is to reduce stress by


interrupting the intense concentration which often characterises display screen
work. Many people find computers almost addictive and get 'carried away' not
realising that they have been working intensely at the screen for several hours.
Unfortunately the short term productivity gains tend to be diminished by the fatigue
and discomfort which such patterns of work produce.

Thus introducing breaks or changes of activity (which use different skills, muscles,
postures etc) not only contributes to user health and well-being but actually
increases productivity.

What breaks are required?

Early research on working time at display screens looked at how performance and
discomfort were affected by up to four hours of work. This was the maximum
period of time studied in the experiments. The results showed that after four hours
work subjects were tired.

These findings have been used to substantiate the view that four hours should be
the maximum amount of time for display screen work. However, such an arbitrary
period of work time is inappropriate for several reasons.

First, work at a display screen varies enormously in intensity, visual and mental load
and postural strain. Some display screen work is so demanding that breaks are
required after 30 minutes eg air traffic control. Other work is little different from
any other office type activity.

Secondly, there is considerable research evidence that it is not only the total time
that is important but also the pattern of work. Thus short, frequent, breaks taken
before the onset of fatigue may allow users to work without problems for a normal
working day. For example, a 5 to 10 minute break after 50 to 60 minutes intensive
display screen work is likely to be more effective than a 15 minute break after 2
hours. Indeed, even a 1 to 2 minute break, taken at the workstation can be
recuperative and avoid the build-up of fatigue.

FIGURE 3.3 NEAR HERE

Imposed break schedules and fixed working times may be appropriate in some
environments eg in a data preparation office where opportunities for natural breaks
are limited due to the restricted variety of different activities taking place. However,
in other environments, imposing breaks would actually be a significant source of
stress. Engineers involved in complex calculations or journalists working to meet
tight deadlines do not relax and reduce their stress by being prevented from
working at fixed times or at a time which clashes with their tasks.
Furthermore, rigid rest break regimes require precise timing of display screen
work. This in turn requires precise definition of display screen work and raises
more problems than it answers. It has led to the kind of 'rule driven' extremes
where bizarre work patterns have been created with staff switching off their
computers after every use so that work time can be calculated precisely.

The final result of such extreme regimes may be the exact opposite of what the
Directive and hence the Regulations are aiming to achieve. Rather than improve the
quality of display screen work, it may result in the work being tightly defined,
closely monitored and externally controlled - the very factors which most research
shows reduce job satisfaction and cause stress.

What is required is a corporate culture where staff take appropriate breaks, ideally
before the onset of fatigue and under their own control. However, staff should be
discouraged from skipping short breaks and amalgamating them into a few long
breaks. These are much less effective at avoiding undue fatigue. Indeed, employers
have a responsibility to ensure that staff take suitable breaks and may, in some
circumstances, find it necessary to set out minimum break patterns.

However, the responsibility to plan display screen work does not imply a need for a
precise timetable of display screen work and breaks. Providing a degree of flexibility
and some training to encourage users to organise their own work patterns will not
only satisfy the statutory requirements but is likely to be more productive and
effective.

Suitable activities in breaks

It should be obvious that the changes of activity or breaks must involve different
types of activity, postures and skills. It is certainly not appropriate to regard
switching from display screen work to playing a computer game or reading
electronic mail on the same type of equipment as a suitable break.

Take frequent breaks from intensive display screen and keyboard work.

Consider:
• gentle exercise
• walking about
• stretching
• looking into the distance

to help you use different muscles in the hands, arms, back and eyes
Avoid:
• computer games
• similar tasks eg checking email
• fine manual activities eg knitting
• too much tea, coffee or smoking

to get maximum benefit from the break or change of activity

Similarly, non-display screen work may involve similar postures or skills and
therefore what is required is a completely different activity. Staff who work
intensively on keyboards may find that activities such as knitting during breaks do
not provide sufficient relaxation for the arms and wrists. Tea and coffee breaks are
obviously helpful but again care should be taken to avoid excessive consumption of
caffeine or clearly unhealthy activities such as smoking if the objective is to protect
and promote health.

Should breaks be forced by software?

Controlling work time at display screens can be difficult and even when
management wish to encourage users to take breaks, it is not clear how this can be
achieved. Software packages have been developed to calculate keyboard 'idle time'
so that they can lock the keyboard and hence force staff to take 'rest breaks'.

This is a result of a complete failure to understand the reasons behind rest breaks
and the importance of control in users' perception of pressure and stress. The
purpose of breaks is to allow people to use different muscles and skills and to
receive some respite from machine intensive work. Such software treats the human
beings as little more than another component in the system and is likely to
encourage inappropriate management styles and staff attitudes.

Action list
• Identify jobs which solely involve display screen work
• Assess scope for building in more variety in skills and tasks
• Review facilities for rest breaks away from workplace.

3.3.2 Offer users eye and eyesight tests and, if necessary, special eyesight
correction
The purpose of this Regulation is to prevent users from experiencing problems as a
result of uncorrected visual defects, not to protect their eyes from the display
screen.

One of the early concerns about display screen work was that it could lead to long
term damage to eyes or eyesight. Studies of users over several years have not found
any evidence of such effects. There is evidence of short term visual discomfort and
this should be avoided by good ergonomics design of displays and working
environments as well as appropriate work patterns.

Inadequate visual correction may be a source of additional strain. Therefore it


makes sense to ensure that users have any visual defects corrected before display
screen use and their eyes checked at regular intervals.

Surveys have shown that, at any one time, approximately 30% of the working
population have an uncorrected or under-corrected visual defect. On starting
display screen work, such staff may report discomfort, seek an optometric
examination and discover that they require corrective glasses. This leads them to
believe that their eyes have deteriorated as a result of display screen use. For a
number of years, many employers have offered some form of testing before use to
prevent such misunderstandings.

What tests are necessary?

The Regulations give users an entitlement to an appropriate eye and eyesight test to
be provided by their employer (in the absence of free tests under the National
Health Service).

In Great Britain, this means a 'sight test' as defined in the Opticians Act 1989. The
sight test includes an examination of the eye as well as a test of vision. Only
registered optometrists or medical practitioners are entitled to perform such tests.
Employers may offer this entitlement by arranging for users to visit an optometrist
or medical practitioner individually or by providing facilities at their own premises
for a visiting optometrist or occupational health physician.

If the 'sight test' indicates that the user is suffering eye injury or disease, then they
will be referred to a registered medical practitioner for arrangements to be made
for an opthalmological examination (under the General Optical Council Rules, SI
1960 No 1936). These examinations are free of charge under the National Health
Service.
If the 'sight test' identifies a requirement for 'special corrective appliances' for
typical display reading distances (usually spectacles), then these must be paid for by
the employer.

Can visual screening be used?

Visual screening using a specially designed screening machine can be useful for
identifying individuals with defective vision who require a sight test. Screeners do
not, however, identify eye injury or disease although they will detect such
conditions if they affect vision, nor do they detect all visual defects or measure
them.

Some employers already offer or even require employees to undergo screening and
in such organisations, some users may use the results of the screening to decide
whether they wish to exercise their entitlement to a full sight test. It is important
that screening instruments are capable of testing at appropriate display screen
reading distances (500 to 600mm) and that users are advised about the results and
the limitations of screening tests. The screening instrument operators should have a
basic knowledge of the eye and its function. The test results and the need for
further referral should be assessed by those with medical or paramedical skills (eg
doctors, occupational health nurses etc)

Screening may be offered as a precursor to a sight test but cannot be used to


restrict the entitlement of a user to a full sight test.

When, and how often?

Existing users at 1st January 1993 were entitled to a test as soon as practicable after
that date. The employer must also provide, if requested, tests for employees who
are to become users and for users who are experiencing visual difficulties.

Under the Regulations, users are entitled to tests at regular intervals, which should
be based on the guidance of the optometrist or doctor. The British College of
Optometrists has produced a Code of Practice to guide its members on
appropriate frequency and other matters relating to testing display screen users.

Note that the employer is only responsible for examinations or corrections which
are directly related to display screen work, not for the normal eye care of the user.

What are special corrective appliances?


Many users read their display screens at a distance from the eyes of around 500 to
600mm. This can be an awkward distance for some users who need glasses with a
limited depth of field for normal reading or for long distance viewing. Some users
who wear bifocals may find that the height of the screen is difficult for them. Thus
the Regulations require employers to provide special glasses if required for such
users.

Only a minority of users who require glasses will require such 'special corrective
appliances'. Estimates vary, and it will depend on the age of the users, but typically
no more than 10% of users overall should require special glasses.

FOR QUALIFYING USERS EMPLOYERS MUST PAY FOR


• eye and eyesight test
• basic prescription glasses for DSE reading distance (where normal reading
glasses are unsuitable or not required)

EMPLOYERS ARE NOT OBLIGED TO PAY FOR


• normal reading glasses
• designer frames
• anti-reflection coatings
• tinting
• (but may choose to as a staff benefit)

The employer's liability for the costs only extends to a basic appliance of a type and
quality adequate for its function. In practice, users may choose more costly
appliances (eg designer frames or anti-reflection coatings) or combine correction
for display screen work with correction for other activities. In such cases, the
employer is only required to pay the costs attributable to display screen work.
However, some employers may choose to be more flexible in their interpretation
and regard such costs a staff benefit.

Note that ‘special corrective appliances’ do not include specially tinted 'VDU
glasses', which may be little more than fancy sunglasses with a hefty price tag.

Some recent research has suggested that people who experience headaches and
discomfort from flicker sensitivity may find tinted glasses helpful. This is largely a
problem with fluorescent tubes, though the flicker itself (at 100Hz) is not obvious
to the naked eye, even in the periphery of the visual field which is most sensitive to
flicker. The brain registers the 100 Hz signal of the tube and the effects of this
flicker can be reduced by reducing the brightness of the lighting by turning it down
or by using tinted glasses. Some so-called 'VDU' glasses do improve on this effect by
selectively suppressing the certain wavelengths common in fluorescent lighting.
However, some suppliers go further and claim significant benefits for display screen
use. This is far more questionable and seems unjustified on current evidence.
Certainly claims such as '*** enable employers to legally comply with the regulations
instantly and inexpensively' are misleading and ridiculous.

As with other provisions in these Regulations, a common sense approach may


result in some of the entitlements being extended to other staff. Many employers
already provide eye care under the Protection of Eyes Regulations and regard such
benefits as appropriate for ensuring a healthy, comfortable and efficient workforce.

Action list

• Review policy on the provision of eye tests


• Consider offering testing in-house
• Identify suitable optometrist(s)
• Negotiate rate and level of service required
• Ensure users are aware of provisions
• Monitor take-up
• Monitor results especially ‘special corrective appliances’
• Arrange re-testing at suitable intervals

3.3.3 Inform, train and consult users

Employers are required by the Display Screen Regulations to provide information


to all users and operators working in their undertaking. In addition, they must
provide training for their own employees who are users.

The Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992 make it clear that health
and safety should involve co-operation between management and staff. Both parties
have responsibilities and duties. However, for the staff to carry out their
responsibilities, they must receive training and information in all aspects of
ergonomics and health and safety which relate to their display screen equipment
workstation.

Many organisations already provide such training and benefit from it, both in terms
of productivity and staff well-being. Employers must also inform users and
operators of the results of their assessments of workstations, of any risks identified
and of any remedial actions taken. The modern office is becoming more complex
and staff need additional skills to get the best out the organisation's investment in
the workstation.
There are many well documented examples of surveys where the problems
experienced by the users could be solved completely if they only knew how to use
the equipment and furniture that they already possess. It is all too common for
display screen equipment users to suffer backache because they did not know how
to adjust their expensive, ergonomically sound, chair.

PHOTO 3.5 NEAR HERE

Under the Management of Health and Safety Regulations, employers have a


responsibility to provide information on risks to health to all their own employees,
the self employed and the employers of anyone working on their premises. The
Display Screen Regulations go further and require employers to provide specific
information on risks, assessment results including any remedial action, breaks,
training and the provision of eye and eyesight tests to employees who are users.
Other users and operators using their equipment or on their premises should be
provided with similar information, although the eye tests and information about
them are the responsibility of their employers.

What should training cover?

Regulation 7 requires employers to ensure that all users who work in their
undertakings receive health and safety training before using display screens and
whenever the workstation is substantially modified.

The training is in addition to any training required simply to perform the work
although in practice there is obviously some overlap. For example, keyboard
training often includes some guidance on how to sit and adopt a correct posture,
ergonomics training will usually promote efficiency as well as health and comfort.

The level and extent of the training will depend on the users and their tasks. For
some users, where the level of risk is low, a video followed by guided discussion
may be sufficient. In other situations, a formal classroom session will be more
appropriate. The more extensive the training, the more the user can take
responsibility for assessments and for avoiding potential risks at source.

The training should concentrate on reducing or minimising the visual, postural and
stress risks and should emphasise the importance of the user's role in health and
safety.

In particular, the training should help the user:

• understand their entitlements and responsibilities under these Regulations


• understand and identify potential visual, postural and stress risks
• know the importance of changing postures to avoid discomfort
• use adjustability in equipment, furniture and environment appropriately
• organise their own workstation to avoid awkward and constrained postures
• set up their screen to avoid glare and reflections
• keep their screen clean and properly adjusted
• organise their own work patterns and breaks (where possible)
• find out who to contact if they experience problems or need help (eg to replace
a broken chair)
• take part in assessments (if the training is sufficiently detailed, the users may be
able to conduct the assessment and document it themselves)

Who is competent to offer it?

There are several public and commercial training organisations which offer suitable
ergonomics training aimed at users, at potential assessors and managers. As with
any training, it is important to ensure that those providing the training have the
necessary expertise. Unfortunately, anyone can call themselves an ergonomist just
as anyone can call themselves an engineer.

However, there is a professional body - The Ergonomics Society - and it has a


register of recognised practitioners who have to be professionally qualified in
ergonomics, have relevant practical experience and are bound by a code of practice.
(Information on how to contact the Society is given in Appendix B) Of course, you
can get good advice and training from other sources also. Many suppliers of display
screens and furniture will provide training if you buy their products. Although, if it
comes free with the furniture, it is unlikely to be completely unbiased or
independent.

Forms of consultation

The original Directive had an Article which dealt specifically with involving and
consulting staff. This has not been transposed in the British Display Screen
Regulations - not because consultation is not important - but because it is also
covered in the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992. The Directive is
a component of the Social Programme within the European Community which
encourages more co-operation between employers and employees - a principle
already enshrined in British Health and Safety legislation.

Consultation does not necessarily mean that managers must incorporate


employees’ views. However, organisations which have adopted a co-operative
approach have found it much more successful. In some organisations, display screen
work has been a source of dispute between managers and staff and it is clear that
this is both unnecessary and unhelpful.

Staff consultation is a vital ingredient in achieving safe, comfortable and effective


working conditions. However, mechanisms for consultation through representatives
or committees may not be adequate for the additional load these and other recent
Regulations will bring. Procedures should be reviewed to ensure that display screen
health and safety do not become an industrial relations football.

In unionised workplaces, Trades Union Safety Representatives can play an


important part in encouraging a positive attitude to health and safety and in
identifying and reducing risks.

Action list
• Establish what information and training is already provided
• Collate information on publicly provided training
• Assess range of training requirements for different users
• Plan training programme for users and assessors
• Monitor effectiveness and take-up of training

3.4 Review current practices and determine appropriate action

There is little that is in the Regulations or the Schedule that was not already
required under the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). However, the
obligations are now much more explicit and even good employers may find that
they need to make some changes.

The two main obligations are to:

• assess workstations and reduce risks


• ensure workstations meet minimum ergonomics requirements

We discuss these below.

3.4.1 Assess workstations and reduce risks

Every employer must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the
health and safety of all users and operators working on display screen equipment in
his undertaking. Any such risks identified must be reduced to the lowest extent
reasonably practicable.

The concept of risk assessment and reduction is common to all the Regulations
transposing the Framework and its daughter Directives. The employer has an
explicit obligation to assess risk and not simply follow up employee complaints or
accident reports. This proactive approach aims to prevent a risk, eg from an
unstable chair, resulting in injury or ill-health eg backache. Thus the assessor aims to
identify potential problems and prevent them from escalating. Of course, someone
may sit on a faulty chair and through good luck avoid an accident or injury
occurring. The purpose of risk assessment is to avoid relying on luck.

What are the risks from display screen work?

The principal risks identified in the Guidance accompanying the Regulations concern
musculo-skeletal problems, visual discomfort and mental stress.

Musculo-skeletal problems, ie problems in the muscles, tendons, nerves and


joints, can arise from prolonged intensive work in awkward or constrained
postures. Display screen work encourages fixed postures, which are sometimes
awkward as people adjust themselves to accommodate the technology, the
furniture or the environment. Even when seated, the muscle system has to work to
support the head, to hold the body upright, to keep the arms and hands in the right
position to operate keyboards and so on. Surprisingly, this static muscle work is
more tiring than the dynamic muscle work involved in walking, lifting and moving
about.

FIGURE 3.4 NEAR HERE

These musculo-skeletal problems may be no more than short term aches and pains,
a normal occurrence after muscle work, or they may develop into chronic
disorders loosely referred to as 'RSI' - repetitive strain injuries. Although the
precise cause of such problems are often unclear in individual cases, avoiding
prolonged and excessive short term discomfort are key factors in risk reduction
and problem prevention.

Although properly conducted scientific studies in a number of countries show no


long term damage to visual function, short term visual discomfort is common
amongst users of display screen equipment. Such problems typically arise from
insufficient attention to ergonomics in equipment design leading to poor image
quality, inadequate control over natural light - especially direct sunlight,
inappropriate artificial lighting, prolonged visually intensive work without any
opportunity to rest the eyes and to uncorrected visual defects.

FIGURE 3.5 NEAR HERE

The risks of mental stress are more difficult to assess but include stresses from
environmental problems such as insufficient ventilation as well as poor job design,
'unfriendly' computer interfaces and organisational problems. There is a growing
body of literature on the importance of designing jobs, not just display screen jobs,
to take account of human needs. Many display screen jobs are the result of
software design decisions taken for reasons of computing efficiency and may take
little account of such human needs as autonomy, self esteem, variety, control over
work pace or social interaction.

FIGURE 3.6 NEAR HERE

Although most of these risks do not appear to result in permanent damage to


users,
such problems should be regarded as health problems and should be avoided where
possible by appropriate ergonomic design, not only of the display screen equipment,
but also of the workstation, the working environment, the job and organisational
factors.

Pregnancy problems

One of the most emotive occupational health issues in recent years has been the
suggestion that prolonged display screen work may have an adverse impact on
pregnancy. The main impetus for this suggestion was the reporting of clusters of
adverse outcomes. Several studies have demonstrated that statistical chance is quite
sufficient to explain the reported clusters.

However, reassuring though such explanations are to those who are not pregnant,
there was no guarantee that chance was the correct explanation. Many reliable
epidemiological studies have now been conducted world-wide on long term display
screen workers and these have failed to find any link between miscarriages or birth
defects and display screens.

The National Radiological Protection Board considers that radiation from display
screens does not put unborn children at risk. The current occupational health view
is that there is nothing about display screens which should prevent a pregnant
woman from using them safely.
Some pregnant women may still be concerned and though they are able to accept
the risks of crossing the road, driving a car or even smoking, may feel unwilling to
accept the risks of display screen work. However, the right of transfer to non-
display screen work is not only unrealistic in many organisations (especially with
displays becoming widely used as a general office tool) but may actually be counter
productive and create anxiety. There is no guarantee that any other work to which
a pregnant woman might transfer would pose any less risk to her baby. Lifting heavy
weights, prolonged standing and even unemployment may be more risky.

Many women find it difficult to carry out their normal duties during pregnancy and
responsible employers should be helpful, sympathetic and flexible whether the work
concerned involves display screens or not. In some situations, transfer may be the
right solution but the problem is one of coping with the demands of pregnancy not
display screen work per se. Women who are pregnant or planning children and are
worried about display screen work should be given the opportunity to discuss their
concerns with someone adequately informed about the issues and the scientific
evidence.

Health issues research and uncertainty

It is in the very nature of research that new findings disturb the status quo and
reveal shortcomings in our previous understanding of a problem area. Display
screens are no exception and so it is not only inevitable but highly desirable that
researchers should continually question our assumptions and seek out relationships
which we had not previously appreciated. This has two major consequences for
user organisations.

First, it is essential to monitor this research and to be willing to admit that our
understanding and assumptions may indeed be invalid. We must avoid the kind of
complacency which has given some of the medical establishment a tarnished
reputation in the past. At present, the evidence on radiation, for example, indicates
that display screens do not pose a hazard to health. But we must never use this as
an excuse for ignoring legitimate concerns or new research findings. Keeping up
with research knowledge is therefore an essential part of an organisation's display
screen equipment health policy and is required by the Regulations.

Second, the recognition that we cannot be absolutely certain about anything should
not be interpreted to mean that we must wait and see. Of course display screen
use may carry some risk but then again so does everything else. We should not
ignore any risk but until we know exactly what the risk is, if any, we should avoid
precipitate remedial action which may actually increase the overall danger rather
than reduce it. For example, adding additional circuitry to a CRT to reduce stray
electric fields to the extent that image quality is reduced. As far as display screen
use is concerned, it is sensible to accept some uncertainty but to minimise the
known risks as far as is reasonably practicable.

What does an assessment involve?

Employers must assess the risks, primarily musculo-skeletal, visual and stress
related, which users (whether employed by them, others or self employed) may
experience as a result of display screen work in their undertaking.

Therefore individual workstations must be assessed, if they are used by any of these
people. If users share a workstation on different shifts, the workstation must be
assessed for each user. This may sound like unnecessary perfection but it is really
just common sense. What poses a risk for one user may be completely safe for
another and vice versa. For example, a desk leg which restricts posture for a long
legged user, may be so far away from a short user that it poses no risk.

The risk assessment involves:


• identifying potential hazards
• evaluating the likelihood and severity of the risk

It should identify undesirable features of the workstation as well as note the


absence of desirable features.

The guidance supporting the Regulations points out that a suitable and sufficient risk
assessment should be systematic, appropriate, comprehensive and must involve the
user.

It should be systematic in assessing all relevant risks, especially those which may not
be obvious at first. For example, users may complain about draughts and cold feet
when the real problem is that when they sit high enough to key comfortably, the
front of their chair restricts the circulation of warm blood in their legs. The
solution may be to provide a suitable footrest so that they can support their feet
comfortably and key in comfort.

The assessment should be comprehensive and cover the ergonomics of the:


• display screen equipment (hardware and software)
• desking and work surfaces
• physical environment

as well as
• job design
• work organisation
• individual factors which may affect risks to health.

Finally, the assessment should be appropriate to the level of risk. If staff work
intensively with display screen equipment, performing highly complex work with
little variation and frequently complain of problems, then a detailed assessment will
be required. Whereas for a manager who uses a personal computer to revise his
budget on a spreadsheet at his own pace and with control over his own
environment, a much more modest assessment may be sufficient. The technology
may be similar or even identical but the nature of the task and the circumstances
quite different.

The risks depend on the users and their tasks, not just on external factors. Thus an
office which appears bright and airy to a visitor may cause severe glare problems to
a user who has to concentrate on fine screen detail or may feel draughty to users
who have little opportunity to move away from their workstations.

Thus it is vital that the assessment incorporates information from the user. One
way of achieving this is to provide users with a brief checklist which, with training,
they can use to set-up and assess their own workstation. An example of such a
checklist is shown in Appendix A1.

In some low risk situations, this may be all that is required. In other situations, this
is a useful starting point for more extensive assessments by trained in-house
assessors or by professionally qualified specialists.

There are therefore three levels of assessment which may be appropriate,


depending on the complexity of the situation, the incidence of problems or the
apparent risks.

Level 1 assessment involves an assessor scrutinising checklists completed by the


users themselves. If these indicate that the users are experiencing no problems, and
that their equipment and workstations meet the minimum ergonomic requirements
set out in the Schedule, then no further action needs to be taken at the time.
However, if problems are reported, then a more detailed assessment will be
required.
Level 2 assessment involves a trained assessor examining the user at their
workstation and assessing, in a systematic way, the potential hazards, the risks that
arise from display screen use and the extent of these risks. The assessor should also
identify suitable remedial action so that a decision can be made about what should
be done. Checklists to form the basis of Level 2 assessments are included in
Appendix A2. If the risk is small and the remedial action complex and expensive,
then it may not be reasonable to carry it out. However, in many cases, remedial
action will not involve substantial expenditure. If the risk is great, remedial action
will be required, even if it does result in significant expenditure. Where the assessor
is unable to deal with a particularly complex situation, or where major changes may
be required, then a Level 3 assessment should be conducted.

Level 3 assessment involves a professionally qualified specialist conducting a


detailed assessment of the risks at the display screen user's workstation. This
assessment may be based on checklists, similar to the Level 2 assessment, but may
also involve direct measurement of the display screen equipment or its workstation,
including the environment.
FIGURE 3.7 NEAR HERE

For homeworkers, a Level 1 assessment is the most practical way of ensuring that
they avoid risks when using display screen equipment at home. In addition, they may
require extra training and advice on how to organise their own workstation.

Who is competent to perform assessments?

Although it is not necessary to be a qualified ergonomist in order to conduct


assessments, some training in ergonomics is required. In particular, assessors must
understand the requirements of the Regulations and be able to use checklists
competently, draw on additional sources of information about risks, be able to
make informed judgements about what they find and record and communicate the
results clearly and effectively. Most importantly of all, they should understand their
own limitations and know when to call in additional expert help in ergonomics,
health and safety or other relevant disciplines.

It is particularly important for the assessors to understand the tasks the users are
performing, either from their knowledge of the organisation or from conducting
some form of task analysis. It is all too easy to make superficial judgements without
really understanding the individual user's requirements.

Assessors should also know how to help users deal with problems themselves. The
assessment should not be regarded as a scientific study with the objective of
remaining detached from the subject matter or a 'dry' form filling exercise simply
describing what exists. The assessments are an excellent opportunity to help users
to get the best out of their display screen equipment and workstations. Often users
will be unaware of some of the simple adjustments they can make which will
improve their posture. They may not know how to get hold of a document holder
or what to do if a window blind is faulty. The Regulations require employers to
provide users with information and training. Suitably informed and briefed assessors
can play an important part in making this effective.

Experience shows that many users benefit enormously from simple changes to their
workstation or task. For example, altering the position of a screen to avoid glare or
rearranging the equipment at the workstation to provide more postural variety may
cost nothing but achieve a great deal. Sometimes, there is little that can be changed
at the workstation but the risks can be reduced by changing the patterns of work
or rearranging the order in which tasks are performed. Assessors should have some
understanding of what realistic options exist for improving work organisation in this
way.

Frequency of assessments
Assessments should be reviewed or repeated whenever there is a significant change
in the workstation or the user's tasks or if reports from users indicate that they
may be experiencing problems. If only part of the workstation is modified, then it
may not be necessary to repeat the entire assessment. However, care will be
required to ensure that interactions between the changed component and other
aspects of the workstation or the task are addressed.

Clearly the user's training should provide them with guidance on monitoring their
own work situation so that they can initiate an assessment at an early stage if they
experience problems. Many of the problems reported by users can be avoided or
prevented from escalating into more significant problems by establishing and using
appropriate problem reporting procedures. Management should encourage early
reporting and discourage the view that reporting problems is a sign of 'whinging'.

Although there is no need to repeat the assessments on an annual basis, they


should be updated periodically, perhaps every 2 or 3 years, even if there have been
no changes or reported complaints.

Record keeping and documentation

In most cases, a record must be kept of the individual assessment. In practice, it


makes sense to keep records of all assessments even where no risks have been
identified. These may take the form of computer records or conventional paper
forms. In order to minimise unnecessary use of paper and proliferation of
documents, the completed checklists can be used as the formal records. The sample
checklists included in the Appendices have been drawn up with this requirement in
mind. In addition, some summary records will be required to provide management
information and to record remedial actions and their effectiveness.

Action list
• Set up procedure for assessing workstations
• Plan resources for implementing changes if required
• Agree standard internal checklists for assessments
• Identify who is responsible for carrying them out
• Monitor and document the results

3.4.2 Ensure workstations meet minimum ergonomics requirements

The Schedule identifies the minimum safety and health requirements for display
screen equipment. The purpose is to ensure that the design of the workstation is
suitable and that the components are capable of being used properly. The Schedule
is discussed with illustrations of the main requirements in chapter 4.

What does this mean for procurement and installation of new


workstations?

Workstations which are 'first put into service' in the organisation after 1st January
1993, have to meet these minimum requirements immediately. Therefore it makes
sense for purchasers to demand that their suppliers help them meet their
obligations as employers by providing display screen workstations and components
which will meet the minimum requirements in the Schedule. In most cases, this will
not be difficult as the ergonomic requirements in the Schedule are no more than
good current practice.

The problem arises when the supplier is not fully aware of his own or the
employers obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act or implies that the
Regulations demand more expensive equipment than is necessary. Ultimately, it is
the employer who is responsible under these Regulations and in exercising his duty
of care he should ensure that he deals with reputable suppliers. During the
transposition process (from Directive to British legislation), there has been
considerable misinformation and exaggerated claims made by some suppliers in
order to pressurise employers into unnecessary purchases.

Even reputable suppliers of accessories may be motivated to oversimplify problems


and encourage unnecessary bulk purchasing of products which claim to help
employers comply with the Regulations. All accessories must be used with care.
The requirements in the Schedule are aimed at ensuring the entire workstation
meets minimum standards, in so far as is reasonably practicable. This does not mean
that it is necessary or desirable for every user to have a foot rest or a screen filter.
The aim should be to ensure that individual users have workstations which meet
their needs and protect their health.

Responsible suppliers have a positive role to play in providing well-designed


products, accurate information and helpful product support and education to help
their customers. The leading trade association for display screen workstation and
component suppliers in the UK, the Federation of Electronics Industry, has
produced a helpful guide for customers. Details of how to obtain a copy are given in
Appendix B.

How do these requirements apply to existing workstations?

Although there were no general transitional arrangements in these Regulations,


workstations already in use on 1st January 1993 which do not meet the minimum
requirements can continue to be used in the undertaking until 31st December
1996, provided they pose no risk to their users. For example, if the keyboard and
screen are fixed together, restricting the user's ability to change posture, then risks
of musculo-skeletal discomfort could be reduced by increasing the variety of tasks
or reducing the work time on the equipment.

This common sense approach means that the cost of upgrading and replacing
equipment and furniture can be spread over a few years.

The timescale does not represent a major problem for organisations with computer
equipment which does not comply. Many organisations already write-off such
equipment within four or five years. In practice, most display screen equipment
purchased within the last two or three years should meet the majority of the
requirements.

However, the situation is completely different for furniture. Few organisations write
off their furniture in less than 10 years and most expect it to last considerably
longer. Furthermore, although much furniture may be perfectly satisfactory in itself,
the Schedule sets out requirements for how the furniture is used to provide a
display screen workstation.

Surveys in many organisations have revealed that in practice, even when the
majority of workstations are well designed, layouts are changed, furniture is
rearranged and equipment is misused. Some organisations may therefore plan to
accelerate refurbishment plans and to eliminate their stock of miscellaneous
furniture and avoid potential problems of misuse.

In our experience, there has been considerable progress over the last twenty years
and much of the furniture in modern offices is already of a good ergonomics
standard. The real issues are more concerned with how well staff make use of its
ergonomics features or indeed know how to use those features that are already
provided. Until these Regulations, many staff may never have received guidance on
how to carry out such adjustments and may not realise that there is a great deal
they can do themselves to improve their own workstation. Even without making
any changes which require expenditure, there is often significant scope for
improved ergonomics.

FIGURE 3.8 NEAR HERE

The Schedule also sets out requirements for the usability of software. The
ergonomics of software is a relatively new area with much debate over what are
the fundamental issues. However, it is generally agreed that usability is important
and must be designed-in right from the start of the development process.

Large software systems take several years to develop and are expected to evolve
over many years. It is therefore unrealistic to expect software development
practice to change immediately to take account of software ergonomics.
Nonetheless, there is growing awareness that poor usability is stopping
organisations from benefiting from their investment in information technology. The
Regulations are therefore likely to increase the pressure on software developers
and suppliers to improve their systems and to make their system development
methods more user centred.

What is the role of published standards?

Although there is no requirement in the Regulations to meet published national or


international standards, they do provide a convenient method of specifying good
ergonomic quality. Indeed, the guidance accompanying the Regulations makes it
clear that compliance with the relevant standards would meet and in most cases
exceed the minimum requirements in the Schedule. We discuss the development
and use of standards in detail in Chapter 5.

Action List
• Use the Schedule and relevant standards as a basis for procurement
• Ensure refurbishments plan to meet the minimum requirements
• Get computer departments involved for hardware and software
• Review financial and physical write-off policies
• Plan to ‘design out’ problems by upgrading furniture on the assumption that all
staff may become users in due course
4. UNDERSTAND DISPLAY SCREEN
ERGONOMICS
• Displays must be legible
• Keyboards must be easy to operate
• Work desks and work surfaces must be large enough
• Work chairs must be comfortable
• Environments must be satisfactory and comfortable
• User/computer interfaces must be usable

Workstations for users and operators must meet the minimum ergonomics
requirements set out in the Schedule to the Regulations. The requirements apply
immediately to new workstations and by 31st December 1996 for workstations in
service on 1st January 1993 (provided that they are not posing a risk to their users
in the meantime). All the requirements in this chapter apply to users and to
operators.

In the first paragraph of the Schedule, there are a number of qualifying comments
concerning the extent to which employers must ensure that user's workstations
meet the requirements.

• not all items mentioned in the Schedule (eg document holder or chair) need to
be present at the workstation
• it is only necessary to comply with the requirements if they promote the health,
safety or welfare of users. The Regulations are not directly concerned with
inefficiencies and bad design, unless they cause health and safety problems for
the users. However, applying good ergonomics to the design of display screen
workstations will usually generate productivity and efficiency benefits as well as
protect health and safety.
• some tasks may demand different ergonomics solutions from those in the
Schedule. In such cases, getting the ergonomics right is more important than
following the letter of the Schedule in order to protect the health and safety of
the user. In section 6.4 of this book, we discuss the special ergonomics
requirements of some non standard office environments. These include control
rooms, dealer desks, microfiche use and CCTV consoles.

In addition, where display screen equipment is used to control machinery,


processes or vehicle traffic, there are public safety considerations which may take
priority over the health and safety of the individual user.
In this section, we explain the most important ergonomics considerations for
general display screen workstations and relate these to the minimum requirements
set out in the Schedule.

Where possible, we have used illustrations to show both good and bad examples.
Good examples should always be followed with care. What makes a particular
solution good in one set of circumstances may not hold true in another.

The chapter is organised around direct quotations of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the


Schedule (which are reproduced in full and are shown in italics).

General comment

The use as such of the equipment must not be a source of risk for users.

Taken in conjunction with the preliminary remark, this emphasises that the spirit of
the Regulations is more important than the specifics in the Schedule. It is
permissible under these Regulations to deviate from the specific requirements in
the Schedule, if that is what is indicated by following sound ergonomics principles
and procedures, for certain user or task environments.

Indeed, the employer is obliged to ensure that the use of the equipment is not a
source of risk, whether or not it meets the other detailed requirements. This also
reminds the employer that other safety hazards, not specifically mentioned in the
Schedule, should also be avoided eg sharp edges, trailing wires, exposed electrical
connections, unsteady heavy equipment and so on.

There are two key points:

design - specific equipment or environmental design requirements can be satisfied


(or in many cases exceeded) by specifying appropriate standards during
procurement. (see Chapter 5)

use - many of the requirements in the Schedule concern how the workstation is
used in practice. Thus, even though workstations may contain identical displays,
keyboards, furniture and environment, the way they are used will differ. Equipment
may be positioned, chairs adjusted and desks organised in different ways. Therefore
the analysis requirements in the Regulations involve assessing individual
workstations, not just samples or standard configurations (although assessments of
these may form an efficient basis for the more detailed consideration of individual
cases).
4.1 Display Screen

Many display screen users find the work visually demanding. The requirements in
this part of the Schedule aim to ensure that the image on the screen is legible under
normal working conditions and that there is sufficient adjustability in the display to
allow the user to work comfortably and efficiently. If the image itself is of poor
quality, then it is the user's visual system which has to perform extra and ultimately
ineffective work in attempting to 'clean up' the image. This can be tiring, especially
over prolonged periods of concentrated work. Displays which meet BS EN 29241
Part 3 satisfy or exceed the design requirements in the Schedule.

Screen Checklist
• Is the screen image stable?
• Is the brightness/contrast easily adjustable?
• Do the adjustments work for the conditions?
• Does the screen swivel and tilt easily?
• Does screen height adjust?
• Is the screen free from reflections and glare?

The characters on the screen shall be well-defined and clearly formed, of adequate
size and with adequate spacing between the characters and lines.

PHOTO 4.1 NEAR HERE

The objective is to ensure that the size and shape of the characters allows them to
be distinguished and read comfortably and efficiently. This aspect of image quality is
a function of:
how the characters are formed - most computer displays currently use
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) which are similar to television tubes. The images are
often formed by brightening the electron beam to produce dots which form the
character shapes. This is known as a dot matrix display and research has shown that
a matrix of 5x7 is the minimum which is required to display legible numerals or
upper case letters. For more complex lower case letters or where accuracy is
important, a 7x9 matrix is required. (see figure). With dot matrix technology, it is
important that the character shapes are recognisable and distinct. It is often difficult
to distinguish such characters as U and V or 8 and B. The shape of dot matrix
characters is also important and to avoid a squashed appearance, the width of the
character matrix should not be less than 70% of its height. Displays have improved
greatly over the years and modern ones now display much better quality character
shapes, not based on simple dot matrices. These are often selectable in size under
the user's own control, which might seem ideal. However, some of the very small
character fonts used in desk top publishing or in some applications can be difficult
and tiring to read for extended periods.

the size of the individual characters - the apparent size of a displayed character
depends on the viewing distance and is usually expressed in terms of the angle it
subtends at the eye. As a guide, the minimum height which is recommended for
normal use is about 3.5 mm at a viewing distance of 600mm (ie 16 min of arc
although 4mm or 20 min of arc is preferred). The problem is that there is a trade
off between character size and the number that can displayed at one time on the
screen. Thus for some tasks, eg planning how a document will appear on a page, or
reviewing a large table of data, it may be better to use the minimum character size
in order to see the whole page or gain a better understanding of context.

FIGURE 4.1 NEAR HERE

the spacing between characters is also important for legibility and should be no
less than one pixel (picture element) between horizontal characters and between
the lowest descender and the highest ascender between rows. Proportional spacing
makes the characters look much more like conventional print and is generally much
more legible.

FIGURE 4.2 NEAR HERE

the sharpness or clarity of the characters on a CRT display partly depends on


their brightness and contrast adjustment. Therefore it is important to consider the
actual clarity in use and not just as measured under ideal conditions. If the display
cannot be adjusted to a satisfactory sharpness at the workstation then the display
should be replaced or the workstation and its environment reorganised. Non-CRT
displays are gaining in popularity and have some advantages, especially in terms of
size and stability of image. However, they often achieve this at the cost of image
detail or contrast. In evaluating the display in practice, all factors must be assessed
and a reasonable balance established.

PHOTO 4.2 NEAR HERE

The objective is to ensure that the display can be used under normal working
conditions and therefore the problems, difficulties, preferences and judgements
reported by the user must be considered fully in reaching a final decision on
whether a display meets the minimum requirements.

Screens should also be kept clean and free from grime which can reduce legibility
The image on the screen should be stable, with no flickering or other forms of
instability.

The image on a CRT display fades and must be continually refreshed by the
electron beam. If the refresh rate is not fast enough for the phosphor coating on
which the image is displayed, then it will appear to flicker and move. This is very
tiring and distracting, especially to nearby users who see the screen out of the
corner of their eyes. (Our peripheral vision is much more sensitive to flicker than
our central field of vision).

Although individuals vary enormously in flicker sensitivity, displays should be


designed to appear stable (flicker free) to at least 90% of users. The increasing use
of graphical user interfaces and dark characters on lighter background displays
(positive presentation) may mean that more users notice flicker. This may require
the hardware to be upgraded or may restrict the use of some new applications on
older equipment.

Using a different phosphor which allows the image to fade more slowly may cause
problems with cursors and moving icons appearing to smear on screen. The
solution is to use a high enough refresh rate. For commonly used phosphors,
around 70 frames per second (70 Hz) should be adequate.

The brightness and the contrast between the characters and the background shall
be easily adjustable by the user, and also be easily adjustable to ambient conditions.

Traditionally most displays use light images on a darker background (negative


presentation). Such displays are less likely to appear to flicker but suffer reduced
contrast between character and background as a result of high ambient light levels
(both natural daylight and bright office lighting). The contrast between the
brightness of the image and the brightness of the background is probably the single
most important factor in determining the legibility of images on a display screen.

PHOTO 4.3 NEAR HERE

A contrast ratio of approximately 3:1 is required for character details to be legible.


Higher contrast ratios, up to around 15:1 generally improve the legibility. Above
this level, not only is further improvement in legibility unlikely but there may be
other effects which are visually fatiguing.

There are wide individual preferences for both brightness and contrast and the
controls for these should be effective over the range of lighting and environmental
conditions experienced at the workstation. The controls should also be easy to
reach and use. Miniaturisation in computing has often encouraged designers to
create tiny 'fiddly' controls which are difficult to use. What are required are
properly sized edge wheels, sliders, rotary knobs or other suitable designs sensibly
located so that they can be used (without special tools) from the seated position.
Software controls can also be used effectively.

It is also good practice to ensure that the maximum and minimum settings are
sensible. Displays which disappear completely when turned down, or burn the tube
when turned up, require more care in use than those with sensible stops.

The screen must swivel and tilt easily and freely to suit the needs of the user.

Swivel and tilt are useful to allow different sized users to view comfortably and also
allow users to avoid distracting reflections. But note that the Regulations do not
stipulate that these adjustments have to be part of the display equipment; add-ons
and accessories can be just as effective. Before buying any add-on or accessory,
make sure that it is the most effective solution for that user. Accessory suppliers
are eager to suggest that every employer will benefit from a bulk purchase of large
numbers of accessories.

FIGURE 4.3 NEAR HERE

If the screen itself is small and light, then it may not require any special mechanism
to swivel it on the desk. Similarly, tilt can be achieved by placing suitable objects
under the display. What is required is a practical solution, which suits the needs of
the user and does not add more risks by introducing unstable equipment or poorly
designed attachments. There should not be any restrictions on the desk top which
prevent such adjustability being used eg cables too short, shelves too low, too much
equipment etc.

It shall be possible to use a separate base for the screen or an adjustable table.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that users can position the display at a
suitable height for them. This is generally such that they are looking comfortably
downwards at an angle of around 30 degrees below the horizon. Our eyes naturally
look slightly down (about 15 degrees) and we all tend to 'slump' by another 15
degrees or so. An approximate rule of thumb is to place the top of the display
casing at eye level. Although the ability to change the height may be desirable, it is
not essential unless the workstation is shared.

FIGURE 4.4 NEAR HERE


Placing the screen too high or too low may place extra strain on the neck and
prolonged use may cause tension and discomfort. Note the mention of an
adjustable table. It is only one option for adjusting screen height. What matters is
that the users are comfortable. There are many ways of achieving an effective
workstation. Adjustable work surfaces are not essential in order to achieve
comfortable working conditions.

Screen filters
Glare and reflections should be avoided at source by arranging the display and the
working environment appropriately. If this cannot be done or is not effective, then
the last resort is to consider the use of additional filters or screens. There are
several different types and they all have some advantages and several disadvantages
(apart from cost).

Mesh filters are cheap and effective but also distort the displayed image. They are
difficult to keep clean and may produce distracting 'moire' effects if close to the
screen surface.

Neutral density filters simply reduce the amount of light passing through - rather
like sunglasses. This reduces the reflections twice (in and out) and the displayed
image once. Thus they also enhance the contrast. The problem is that they also
have a reflective front surface and this itself can be a source of reflections.

Polarised filters are more effective, and expensive, and eliminate reflections from
the CRT surface. However, they also suffer from external surface reflections.

Quarter wavelength interference filters are effective against screen reflections and
surface reflections but are expensive and finger marks show up dramatically.

Most optical filters can be obtained in plastic or glass. In general, plastic is cheaper
and lighter (and therefore needs less substantial mounting) but is prone to surface
scratching.

Filters are not required to protect users from radiation. Any filters sold with this
claim should be regarded with suspicion.

A degree of adjustability is important to allow individual users to achieve a


comfortable posture at the workstation. For many, an adjustable chair will be
sufficient and they will find it more important to have a single large unobstructed
work surface than to have separate areas individually adjustable in height and /or
tilt. For some jobs, where users only use the display screen with no other activities,
such additional adjustability may be helpful.

However, when adjustability is misused, it can lead to problems. Over-elaborate


desks are advertised as 'ergonomically designed' simply because they offer a wide
range of different adjustments. 'Ergonomic' should mean that it suits the user, their
task and their environment. Adjustability should be robust, practical, and fully
understood if it is to be of any value. Making something adjustable is no substitute
for good design.

The screen shall be free of reflective glare and reflections liable to cause discomfort
to the user.

Reflections on the screen are a common cause of discomfort amongst display


screen users. Any reflections can be distracting and mask images on the screen but
when they are also bright and a source of glare they cause discomfort. Our eyes
adapt to the ambient light level and if this is bright, then it is difficult to for us to see
a dark screen display. The effect is similar to entering a dark room from bright
daylight. It takes some seconds for our visual system to adapt. The problem with
glare and reflections is that we present our visual system with a complex and
confused set of images.

There are three main ways of avoiding glare and reflections. In order of general
effectiveness these are:
selecting displays with non-reflective screen surfaces. Many have a fine etch on the
surface which diffuses the reflected images and makes them less distinct. Inevitably,
this also reduces the clarity of the displayed image.
arranging the workstation to avoid reflections. As far as the display is concerned,
this involves using the swivel and tilt and other adjustments to optimise the
displayed image in the working environment.
considering the use of additional filters or screens. There are several different types
and they all have some advantages and several disadvantages (apart from cost).

Display screen arms/stands

Where space is at a premium or where display screens are only used for part of the
time, a suitable display arm can free valuable worksurface and help users adopt
comfortable postures. However, the arms must be strong and well designed to
avoid creating another hazard. The arms should also allow the display to be
positioned at or just below eye level and not require users to work looking up all
the time. This places extra strain on the neck and shoulders and on the eyes.
Keyboard holders attached to arms are fine if they are used to keep the keyboard
out of the way when it is not being used. But they should not be regarded as
appropriate for operating the keyboard.

4.2 Keyboard

The design and location of the keyboard have a significant impact on the posture of
the user. Being able to position it independently of the screen is vital, especially
when in prolonged use. Thin keyboards allow the user to rest their arms, if they
wish, on the desk top and avoid the need for special lower worksurfaces for
keyboards.

Keyboard Checklist
• Does the keyboard adjust for angle?
• Is it separate from the screen?
• Is there space in front of the keyboard to support the operators hands and
arms?
• Is the keyboard surface matt ?
• Is the keyboard layout and ‘feel’ easy to use?
• Are the symbols on the keys distinct and legible from the design working
position?

Keyboards which meet BS 7179: Part 4:1990 satisfy or exceed the design
requirements in the Schedule.

The keyboard shall be tiltable and separate from the screen so as to allow the user
to find a comfortable working position avoiding fatigue in the arms or hands.

The most important requirement for the keyboard is that it is separate from the
display screen. This is for two main reasons:
there is a wide variation in the size and shape of people and no one arrangement of
screen and keyboard can suit the majority of users
the keyboard virtually fixes the user's posture and therefore the ability to move the
keyboard is essential to allow the user to change posture and to perform other
tasks.

PHOTO 4.4 NEAR HERE

A comfortable keying posture involves keeping the wrists in a neutral position ie


relatively straight avoiding extreme wrist angles up, down, to the left or right. To
achieve this, the angle of the keyboard may need to be adjusted. A slope of up to 15
degrees should be sufficient to suit most users although many prefer to work with
the keyboard relatively flat. Continuous adjustment is not necessary and simple fold
out feet may be perfectly adequate.

The ability to move and adjust the keyboard should not be restricted by the means
of attachment or length of the cable or by any other aspect of its design eg weight.

Most modern display screens have satisfactory keyboards. However, the increasing
use of portable computers often causes difficulties. Plugging an external monitor
may provide sufficient flexibility but some portables have very small keys and
reduced key travel which do not meet BS 7179 :Part 4:1990. If they are to be used
for extended periods at a workstation, then an external keyboard and monitor
should be used.

The space in front of the keyboard shall be sufficient to provide support for the
hands and arms of the user.

Traditional typing instruction always used to include posture training and


encouraged typists to sit up straight and let their hands move freely over the
keyboard. The same message applies today, even though modern keyboards are
much lighter in action than their predecessors. But many users are not typing but
are making intensive use of a limited number of keys, eg editing or cursor control.
In such circumstances, it may be helpful to rest the arms or the wrist, especially
whilst waiting for the system to respond.

Space in front of the keyboard can be helpful for this purpose. If the keyboard is
thin then it may be possible to use the desk surface itself, provided that the user's
wrist is not compressed by the edge of the desk or keyboard. If a wrist pad is used,
it should be:
soft (but not so soft that it is fully compressed by the weight of the user’s wrist)
extend the full width of the keyboard (to avoid restricting movement)
slightly lower than the front of the keyboard (to avoid compressing the wrist)

This is not to be confused with separate articulated wrist supports. Such supports
hold the arms steady and are being sold to prevent 'RSI' or even more misleadingly
to 'help RSI sufferers recover'. The devices were developed for controlling fine
movements of the arms eg for surgeons or fine assembly specialists. If an individual
requires such a device to use a keyboard, then something is seriously amiss and
competent medical attention should be sought. Pain and discomfort are the body's
way of telling us to change our behaviour. Current medical opinion is that
mechanical contraptions to prop user's limbs are likely to encourage unhealthy
patterns of work and may therefore lead to overuse problems, not prevent them.

The keyboard shall have a matt surface to avoid reflective glare.

It is easy to forget that other aspects of the equipment can distract the user. Shiny
keytops can act like small concave mirrors and cause irritating distractions as well
as mask the key legends. Reflective keyboard casings or reflective trim should also
be avoided.

The arrangement of the keyboard and the characteristics of the keys shall be such
as to facilitate the use of the keyboard.

The feel and travel of the keys are important for both accuracy and comfort. Most
modern keyboards have a suitable key action and keytop size, although the smaller
portable computers often have reduced keys and spacing. When portables are used
for prolonged periods of more than one hour at a workstation, then external full-
sized keyboards and/or plug-in monitors may be required.

PHOTO 4.5 NEAR HERE

Older keyboards may suffer from sticking keys or inconsistencies in the key action
due to wear. These can be a significant source of discomfort and irritation,
especially when users are working to tight deadlines or where there is a high
requirement for keying accuracy.

There has been some research into radically different keyboard designs, for
example where the keyboard is split into two parts which are turned to allow the
user to keep their wrists straight. However, most such designs have severe
disadvantages in terms of size and practicality. Claims that only split keyboard
designs can be considered ergonomic go beyond the evidence and therefore there
is no requirement to introduce such designs under these Regulations.

Similarly, claims that unconventional keyboard designs have 'cured RSI' have not
been substantiated in the scientific, refereed literature.

In terms of keyboard layout, QWERTY is widely adopted and actually works quite
well for English text. Contrary to popular myth, it was not designed to slow people
down. In fact it was designed to allow common digrams (pairs of letters occurring
together) to be keyed by successive hands. This allowed the tie bars maximum time
to return without clashing and coincidentally resulted in a comfortable two handed
rhythm.

Attempts to improve on QWERTY have generally been unsuccessful and have failed
to demonstrate any benefit. For example, an alphabetic layout is often suggested as
an improvement for 'hunt and peck' typists. However, it results in some awkward
finger sequences and only really helps for the first and last few letters of the
alphabet. It is not obvious whether 'L' would be at the end of the first row or the
beginning of the second unless you look. Experimental tests confirm that it is worse
than QWERTY.

The symbols on the keys shall be adequately contrasted and legible from the design
working position.

Modern keyboards often operate in several modes with the use of SHIFT,
CONTROL, ALT and other keys which alter the function of the main
alphanumerics. When such extra functions are labelled on the keys, the size,
orientation and colour of the legends can be problematical. There is a trade-off
between making the extra symbols legible to those who need them and yet not
distracting from the main key functions.

In some applications, 'short cuts' are available through key combinations. These are
intended for expert users and are usually unlabelled. This seems like a sensible
solution as the proliferation of ever tinier labels and obscure symbols does little to
give the non-expert user confidence. If key combinations are required for non-
expert users, then they should be clearly labelled.

Care should also be taken to avoid distracting reflections obscuring keyboard


legends.

4.3 Work desk or work surface

The work desk or work surface shall have a sufficiently large, low-reflectance
surface and allow a flexible arrangement of the screen, keyboard, documents and
related equipment.

There shall be adequate space for users to find a comfortable position.


The workstation shall be dimensioned and designed so as to provide sufficient space
for the user to change position and vary movements.

The Schedule does not specify how much space display screen users should have. It
does make it clear that there should be enough room for changes of posture which
are vital in preventing the build up of fatigue and maintaining comfort. In BS
7179:Part 5:1990, a minimum desk size of 1200mm by 600mm is permissible to
accommodate a keyboard, screen and document holder, although 1600mm by
800mm is preferred.

Worksurface Checklist
• Is the work surface large enough to allow some flexibility?
• Is its surface low-reflectance?
• If there is a document holder, is it stable and adjustable?
• Is there enough space for people to be comfortable?
• Can the user change position?

FIGURE 4.5 NEAR HERE

However, size is not everything. The most important points are that there should
be:
sufficient usable space - even a large worksurface may be inadequate if it must
accommodate large displays, keyboard, printer, document holder, telephone,
reference manual and full scale engineering drawing.
an opportunity to change posture to avoid the build-up of fatigue - it is
not sufficient to squeeze everything into the workstation with no room for
movement or change of posture.
unobstructed legroom - many musculo-skeletal problems are caused by twisted
and unbalanced postures. Legroom under the desk must be free from obstructions
and of a sufficient size to allow some movement. BS 7179:Part 5:1990 requires a
minimum of 450mm legroom and 600mm foot room with at least 580mm width. A
fixed height worksurface (at 720mm) can be entirely satisfactory but many users
will require a footrest to prevent the underside of their thighs being compressed by
the chair front.

Display screen work reduces the opportunity to change posture. Even just putting
fresh paper in a typewriter or going to a filing cabinet for information often
provided sufficient physical variety to avoid problems. Fixed postures are tiring.

For a comfortable and efficient keying posture, the keyboard should be


approximately at elbow height, with the upper arms hanging naturally down
unrestricted by chair arms or obstructions. The ability to change position is vital
and helps reduce discomfort.

The proliferation of personal printers, copiers and faxes has added to the
congestion on the individual's desk. The equipment controls are often located in an
apparently random manner, sometimes at the back or behind panels. If this cannot
be avoided, there must nonetheless be sufficient space for the user to reach and
operate the equipment comfortably.

PHOTO 4.6 NEAR HERE

Space to spread out documents is important as is the ability to adjust the


workstation to different styles of working eg studying plans or writing.

The requirement for a low reflectance worksurface can be met by using matt finish
wood or laminate surfaces. Care must be taken to ensure that these are not
polished excessively and become highly reflective.

When purchasing new desking or installing workstations, check they meet BS 7179:
Part 5:1990 (the current UK equivalent of the forthcoming European Standard).

The document holder shall be stable and adjustable and shall be positioned so as to
minimise the need for uncomfortable head and eye movements.

A document holder may help to improve posture and reduce the strain on the neck
and back from `hunching` over source documents lying on the desk. It allows the
documents to be positioned near the screen at a similar height and viewing
distance. It also helps reduce reflected glare from documents. However, poorly
designed document holders may be too flimsy for the weight of real working
documents or may involve document attachments which reduce the legibility of the
contents.

FIGURE 4.6 NEAR HERE

4.4 Work chair

The work chair shall be stable and allow the user easy freedom of movement and a
comfortable position.
This is easily achieved using a swivel chair with a five star base, castors and suitable
adjustability. Note that Regulation 7 requires employers to provide users with
training in using such features.

The seat shall be adjustable in height.

The seat back shall be adjustable in both height and tilt.

These requirements may not seem very demanding and the importance of easy to
use height adjustments has been well known for some time. But the requirement
for the seat back to be adjustable in height and tilt caused major concern amongst
European furniture manufacturers when the Directive was first published. This
requirement (if interpreted as meaning independent adjustment) would have
precluded all single shell chairs, which are a major sector of the market, and many
dynamic action chairs. Yet such chairs can be entirely satisfactory for many users
and are often preferred to traditional typists' or operators' chairs.

Chair Checklist
• Is the chair stable?
• Does it allow the operator easy freedom of movement and a comfortable
position?
• Is the seat adjustable in height?
• Is the seat back adjustable in both height and tilt?
• Is a footrest available to any one who wishes for one?

The guidance accompanying the Regulations explains that provided the seat and the
seat back are adjustable in height relative to the ground, and the design 'allows the
user to achieve a comfortable posture, it is not necessary for the height or tilt of
the seat back to be adjustable independently of the seat'.

FIGURE 4.7 NEAR HERE

Nonetheless, independent adjustment of the seat back provides ergonomic


advantages. Although people vary much less in seated height than in standing height
(look around when a group of people take their seats) the ideal position for back
support is not the same for everyone. An adjustable back height, relative to the
seat, therefore allows the furniture to suit a higher percentage of users.

When purchasing new chairs, check they meet BS 7179: Part 5:1990, BS 5940: Part
1 and BS 5459: Part 2. Detailed advice and specifications for seating are given in the
HSE publication 'Seating at Work' (HS(G)57).
A footrest shall be made available to any user who wishes for one.

PHOTO 4.7 NEAR HERE

When users adjust their chairs to sit at a comfortable keying height, they may find
that their feet can no longer rest securely on the floor or that the underside of
their thighs are compressed by the chair front. Touch typists in particular often find
that they feel insecure and have a tendency to fall towards the keyboard. A suitable
footrest allows them to sit in a much more 'laid back' posture, taking some of their
body weight on the chair back.

BS 7179:Part 5:1990 recommends that a footrest should not move unintentionally


and should have a large enough non-slip surface to allow some freedom of
movement (approximately 450mm long by 350mm wide). Simple wooden footrests
made in-house can be just as effective as more complex and expensive commercial
products.

4.5 ENVIRONMENT

Lighting

Any room lighting or task lighting provided shall ensure satisfactory lighting
conditions and an appropriate contrast between the screen and the background
environment, taking into account the type of work and the user's vision
requirements.

Getting both natural and artificial illumination right for display screen workers has
always proved difficult. Much display screen work also involves documents. One
solution is to use task lighting for documents in an environment with generally
subdued illumination, although care must be taken to avoid glare for others.
Another solution is to set a level of around 300 to 500 Lx on the desk top which
should be suitable for screen and documents. Some people may still require
supplementary task lighting to read poor quality source documents. It is therefore
good practice to have some task lighting available for users to try out if required.
Providing everyone with a task light automatically is usually unnecessary.

Lighting and Environment Checklist


• Is the lighting suitable for the users?
• Has excess contrast between screens and environment been avoided?
• Have glare and reflections from screens, keyboards, lights or walls been
prevented?
• Are windows fitted with blinds or curtains?
• Does equipment noise distract attention or disturb speech?
• Does equipment heat cause discomfort?
• Does equipment meet radiation safety requirements?
• Is the humidity adequate?

Reflections and glare.

Possible disturbing glare and reflections on the screen or other equipment shall be
prevented by co-ordinating workplace and workstation layout with the positioning
and technical characteristics of the artificial light sources.

Workstations shall be so designed that sources of light, such as windows and other
openings, transparent or translucid walls, and brightly coloured fixtures or walls
cause no direct glare and no distracting reflections on the screen.

PHOTO 4.8 NEAR HERE

This part of the Schedule emphasises the importance of tackling glare and
reflections at source, wherever possible. The use of glare filters has already been
discussed and should be considered as a last resort after other methods.

When designing new installations, there is an excellent Lighting Guide (LG3 Lighting
for visual display terminals) published by the Chartered Institute of Building Service
Engineers which deals specifically with problems of glare from light fittings. It
identifies categories of low glare fitting appropriate for work areas with different
densities or intensities of display screen work. These are designed to prevent the
fluorescent tubes in the fitting itself being visible to a seated display screen user. For
average display screen work areas, CIBSE LG3 category 2 should be sufficient.

One of the problems with new installations is that lighting schemes are designed to
provide a 'mean service illuminance' ie an average figure taking account of tube
burn-in, luminaire cleaning schedules and so on. As a result, actual illuminance levels
on the worksurface are often far higher in new installations. In conventional work
areas, this was no problem. However, for display screen users, high illuminance
levels often mean glare and discomfort. It is usually better therefore to specify a
mean service level for the new installation below the maximum 500 Lx
recommended for display screen work.
Another approach to the design of display screen work area lighting involves the
use of 'uplighting'. This involves special fittings which direct the light onto the ceiling
and give a softer diffused effect. It only works if the ceiling surface and height are
suitable but this can be an effective method of producing low glare illumination.

Even in existing installations there is often scope for rearranging individual fittings,
removing tubes or adding baffles or screens to avoid glare and achieve more
satisfactory light levels. For further information, see the HSE guidance leaflet
'Lighting at Work' (HS(G)38).

Avoiding glare from walls and sources other than light fittings usually involves
making sure that they are not too reflective. Even matt and semi-matt surfaces can
reflect considerable amounts of light and room surface finishes should be chosen
with care to provide a pleasant working environment, neither too bright nor too
dull. Reflectances should ideally be in the range 60 to 80% for ceilings, 40 to 80% for
walls and 15 to 25% for floors.

Windows shall be fitted with a suitable system of adjustable covering to attenuate


the daylight that falls on the workstation.

Most people like windows, but direct daylight can make reading a display very
uncomfortable. It is therefore essential to control daylight by blinds or curtains.
Various styles are available and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses:
horizontal venetian blinds are cheap and easy to install but can interfere with
window opening and create distracting striped patterns on the screen
vertical blinds are generally better, but require regular adjustment and may blow
about when windows are opened
roller blinds and net curtains are cheaper and can also be effective in reducing glare
whilst still allowing some light and some view
solar films are less effective and often create a dull overcast view of the outside
world, even on bright days.

No translucent covering is likely to be totally effective in direct sunlight.

PHOTO 4.9 NEAR HERE

Common sense suggests that, in general, displays should not be located near
windows. If there is little choice, then position them so that users neither face the
window (or other light source) directly nor have the source directly behind or
above them. In practice this can be difficult to achieve and a compromise may be
necessary.
None the less, it is a useful 'rule of thumb' to sit sideways on to windows and
between rows of luminaires so that the light comes more from the side. In shared
work areas, there will always be conflicts between the requirements of display
screen users and others, especially over the use of blinds. A degree of co-operation
and sensible management will usually be required to make the environment work.

Noise

Noise emitted by equipment belonging to any workstation shall be taken into


account when a workstation is being equipped, with a view in particular to ensuring
that attention is not distracted and speech is not disturbed.

Except in specialised environments eg in factory control centres, display screen


users are unlikely to be subject to noise levels high enough to damage their hearing.
However, even relatively modest noise levels distract concentration and disturb
normal speech. In areas where concentration or communication are important, 55
dB(A) should be regarded as the maximum. For general display screen tasks, 60
dB(A) should be an acceptable average over the working time.

Printers are still the most likely source of distracting noise, and where impact
printers are used in a generally quiet area, acoustic hoods should be fitted. It is
important that they provide a complete enclosure as any gaps simply allow the
noise out. Acoustic screens in offices help to attenuate noise levels a little but their
most significant use is simply to deflect noise and shield equipment or people.

Sometimes, the purpose of the noise is to attract attention and it therefore makes
no sense to eliminate all alarms and warning sounds. However, audible 'alarms'
should not be overused. In a shared work environment, it is very distracting to
keep hearing the bleeps and buzzes generated by some display screen equipment.
The facility to mute frequent audible signals is valuable.

Some younger, usually female, users may hear the high pitched whine from the
flyback transformer on some displays. This can be a source of fatigue and can
become a problem when supervisors or managers, who are usually older and have
lost the high frequency end of their hearing ability, cannot hear the sound
themselves. Such complaints should be investigated and the equipment checked.

High ambient noise can be a source of stress and since our hearing adapts, we often
do not realise how noisy an item of equipment has been until we turn it off.
Heat

Equipment belonging to any workstation shall not produce excess heat which could
cause discomfort to users.

Display screen users are particularly sensitive to environmental stress because they
often have little opportunity to move away from their workstation. Furthermore,
few work areas were designed to accommodate the quantity of computer
equipment now present. Unfortunately, the solution to the additional heat load is
often simply to increase cooling or air movement. This can result in draughts and
local 'microclimate ' effects which are uncomfortable. For example, if it feels
warmer at head level than at feet level, then people feel the environment is stuffy
and uncomfortable.

BS 7179:Part 6:1990 recommends that the ambient temperature should be between


19 and 23 degrees Centigrade. Outside these levels some heating or cooling may be
required although the apparent temperature is also determined by air movement
and humidity.

Where possible, some individual control over the environment is highly desirable,
even if only opening a window or adjusting an air vent.

Radiation

All radiation with the exception of the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum
shall be reduced to negligible levels from the point of view of the protection of
users' health and safety.

The European Commission has commented, and the Health and Safety Executive
supports this view, that the radiation requirement does not indicate that they
believe that display screen equipment users are subject to specific radiation risks.

However, users and employers who are concerned about possible undesirable side-
effects from display screen emissions find it difficult to get a straight answer.

One reason is that much of the information comes from those with a strong vested
interest in playing down fears (to sell regular displays) or in promoting uncertainty
and doubt (to sell anti-radiation devices or low-radiation displays). Impartial
commentators are rare. Another reason is that bland assurances from experts that
all is well are unconvincing and have been demonstrated to be unreliable in the past.
Thus fears about display screen radiation (which in our view do not justify
protective measures) have become linked in the public mind with other fears, for
example about adverse health effects from power transmission line fields (which in
our view do justify concern and action).

Our belief that display screen radiation does not pose a hazard is based on reviews
of many studies world-wide which have demonstrated that display screen radiation
levels are well below recognised safe levels. Table 1 summarises data from the
International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) quoted in a recent (1994)
International Labour Office (ILO) report.

Table 4.1 Display radiation levels compared with occupational exposure limits

Radiation IRPA Occupational Levels measured at


Limits display screens
ELF E:10kV/m E:2V/m
50-60 Hz B:0.5mT B:0.4T
VLF E:614 V/m E:4 V/m
3-30 kHz B:83T B:0.1T
Microwaves 10-50 W/m2 Undetected
IR 100 W/m2 <10 W/m2
UVA 104 J/m2 ,8h 300 J/m2 ,8h
UVB and C 1 mW/m2 Undetected
Airborne 100dB 68dB
ultrasound
Electrostatic None specified up to 15 kV/m

Table summarised from ILO Report 'Visual Display Units: Radiation Protection
Guidance', Occupational Safety and Health Series No 70, 1994.

(Note: Although X-ray radiation is generated within the CRT and is almost
completely absorbed within the CRT leaded glass. Emitted levels are equivalent to
natural background level)

Nonetheless, despite this weight of evidence, there has been some contradictory
and disputed evidence of biological effects from low levels of VLF and ELF
electromagnetic radiation. Such emissions were previously believed to be harmless
since they were unable to induce damaging currents in human tissue. In the last few
years, there have been some research reports of biological effects at much lower
levels than were previously considered hazardous. Clearly, such research should
continue and should be monitored closely.
However, even if these biological effects are confirmed, it is not a simple step to
relate these laboratory experiments to real life, to display screen use or to the
kinds of actions which would help. Indeed, some of this research has suggested
'window effects' in both frequency and amplitude ie changing the frequency or
amplitude (increasing or decreasing) may lead to an effect being observed which
was not present at the original level. Thus protective measures which involve
reducing levels are just as likely to increase as to decrease the risk. Indeed, if such
research findings were confirmed, everyday exposure to domestic appliances,
electric blankets and power tools could become problematical.

Even though good scientists retain open minds and are receptive to new evidence,
the overwhelming evidence to date is that risks to the individual are likely to be
very small. Certainly the negative effects of so called 'protective devices' such as
anti-radiation smocks and specially coated screens on other factors such as posture
and image quality, far outweigh their claimed value. Many such devices rely for their
success on scare tactics (suggesting that little is known when there have been
several authoritative studies) and dubious analogy ('they used to think asbestos was
safe').

Indeed some smocks have used nickel coated fabrics which are likely to promote
rashes in users and would not offer any protection against microwave radiation
(which they claimed) because the holes left for the head and arms would have
allowed microwaves to penetrate. In practice, displays do not emit microwave
radiation so customers were being misled on at least two counts.

In Sweden the National Board for Occupational Safety and Health has not identified
any radiation risk from display screens, but, as a practical measure, the Government
purchasing agency has decided to request manufacturers to reduce the electrostatic
and low frequency electromagnetic fields as far as 'technically attainable without
reducing the visual quality of the screen' (which so-called 'full shielding' can reduce
considerably). They stress that this is based on the premise that any unnecessary
exposure should be reduced, not that there are any medical or biological
considerations for the levels so achieved.

In other words, the Swedish Health and Safety authorities believe that the
ergonomic qualities of the display are more important than the risks from any
radiation. Displays conforming to this purchasing standard (MPR II) are now
available as 'low radiation monitors'. These are generally no more expensive than
other monitors and may be sensible when new equipment is being purchased.
However, there is no requirement for existing displays to be changed 'to reduce
radiation' or for radiation from displays to be measured at the workstation.
Humidity

An adequate level of humidity shall be established and maintained.

Establishing and maintaining an adequate level of humidity poses major problems for
many British offices. Full air conditioning is expensive and not common. It is often
not popular as many people value being able to open windows. However,
controlling humidity becomes very difficult if windows can open.

Full air conditioning is also difficult to run in our variable British climate. The lag
inherent in the heating and ventilation system of a major building can last longer
than several changes of British weather. Sealed buildings are also more vulnerable
to 'sick building' effects where atmospheric pollutants from solvents, bacteria and
manufacturing by-products may build-up over a period of time causing 'flu-like'
symptoms.

The requirement is to ensure an adequate level and BS 7179:Part 6:1990


recommends that this should be between 40 and 60% relative humidity. In practice,
the problems in Britain are mainly caused by low humidity. Low humidity causes
display screen users problems with static and with dry eyes (studies show that
blinking is reduced in display screen work). Contact lens wearers are particularly
likely to suffer from low humidity. Improving the humidity by introducing real plants
which need to be watered regularly is worthwhile both for humidity and morale
reasons. Humidifiers can also be effective but usually need water added. People are
more likely to water plants than to maintain humidifiers.

FIGURE 4.8 NEAR HERE

Full air conditioning is not essential although assisted cooling may be helpful in new
installations, especially where opening windows leads to problems of traffic noise or
dust.

4.6 USER/COMPUTER INTERFACE

In designing, selecting, commissioning and modifying software, and in designing tasks


using display screen equipment, the employer shall take into account the following
principles:
The design of the user computer interface has a major impact on the job of many
display screen users. Indeed, for some users, the software dictates which tasks they
perform, when and how to carry them out and what to do next. Yet such software
may be written without a clear understanding of the user's viewpoint. Indeed, the
users may be seen as little more than components, sometimes unreliable and
unpredictable, which must be catered for in the design of the technology. Such
technology-centred design undervalues human characteristics and tends to create
systems which are difficult, awkward and inefficient to use.

Software Checklist
• Is the software suitable for the task?
• Is it easy to use?
• Is it adaptable to the user’s knowledge or experience?
• Is there any secret monitoring?
• Does the system give feedback ie respond to input?'
• Are the format and pace of information suitable for users?

In recent years there has been a recognition that system design should become
more user centred and pay more attention to the motivations and requirements of
the users. This is not simply to improve the quality of jobs for the staff but also for
sound short term commercial reasons. Much software development fails to deliver
business benefit because it cannot be used effectively. This is certainly a source of
stress for the individual users and is also a commercial nonsense.

The minimum requirements set out in this Section of the Schedule are worded
rather generally but quite clearly place the onus for improving user interface design
on the employer. Where the software is purchased from an external source, then
responsible employers will make usability part of their procurement specification.
Where the software is developed in-house, then the main emphasis will be on
design methods which improve usability.

Forthcoming International and European Standards address several of the points in


the Schedule. However, in the meantime there is a great deal that employers can do
to improve the design of the user computer interface in software they buy, specify
or develop.

software must be suitable for the task;

Although no-one would deliberately buy software which was not suited for its
purpose, there are often mismatches between the way the system operates and the
way the user works. For example, in a telesales operation, the system should be
designed to allow customer details to be entered in an order which is natural to the
conversation. In some systems, users are forced to remember or note down
transaction details out of order or waste time ‘tabbing’ between inappropriate fields
on the display.

BS EN 29241-2:1993 provides guidance on designing display screen tasks to be


motivating and satisfying for users. It emphasises key principles such as providing
variety in the activities and skills used, allowing a degree of individual control over
the work pace and stresses the importance of ensuring that the task forms an
understandable part of the work of the organisation.

software must be easy to use and, where appropriate, adaptable to the user's level
of knowledge or experience;

According to current work in the International Standards Organisation, usability is


the 'quality of interaction between a user and other parts of a work system' (which
consists of users, tasks, equipment and physical and social environments). This
quality is defined in terms of how well the intended goals of the work system are
met (effectiveness), the resources which have to be expended (efficiency) and user
satisfaction.

FIGURE 4.9 NEAR HERE

The usability of an interface is therefore determined by:


information presentation, eg helpful screen layouts, sensible use of colour, avoiding
obscure codes and only using abbreviations which are meaningful to users
consistency, or more usually lack of consistency - many users complain about
inconsistencies in current systems which reduce usability and which should be
addressed, perhaps by the creation of in-house style guides and user interface
standards. These could improve consistency in future systems, whilst recognising
that there are constraints imposed by the diversity of current systems.
task match - by far the most important aspect is that the system should match the
tasks of the users. This involves developing user-centred design methods and
making usability specification and assessment an integral part of the design process.
Some guidelines on this are discussed in Section 5.5.

no quantitative or qualitative checking facility may be used without the knowledge


of the user;
Within Europe, there has been concern within the trades union movement about
the inappropriateness of monitoring data as well as the potential invasion of privacy
involved when it is collected without the user's knowledge.

Many systems collect a level of detailed performance data about individuals which
can be misused. For example, a common complaint is that a poor manager will
criticise staff for minor reductions in performance but may not take account of the
times when they perform above target. Another common misuse of data is where
the individuals do not have access to their own information and cannot therefore
use it to monitor their own performance. The purely punitive use of such data is
frequently counter productive and often leads to deliberate efforts to 'beat the
system' rendering the data unreliable.

The Schedule requires employers to ensure that users are aware when monitoring
data is being collected by systems. In addition, it may be helpful to ensure that, in
normal circumstances, they have access to their own performance data and this
data should only otherwise be available to authorised personnel who should
understand how to use it properly.

systems must provide feedback to users on the performance of those systems;

The Schedule wording mirrors the original in the Directive and is not entirely clear.
What is required is that systems are responsive to user input. Thus all user input
should result in some feedback, whether it is text appearing on the screen, a bleep
to signify a correct or incorrect input, and error message or a warning that the
computer is busy. The feedback may take many forms from audible tones to icons
of hour glasses. Lack of feedback can be a source of stress, especially to less
experienced users. In fact good feedback also enhances user’s performance and
therefore this requirement is likely to provide a productivity pay-off to employers.

systems must display information in a format and at a pace which are adapted to
users;

The term ‘adapted to’ is slightly confusing to a British English speaker and suggests a
process rather than the result. This is probably an anomaly of translation from the
original French and would be more accurately rendered as ‘suited to’. Inelegant
terminology apart, confusing screen design and systems which are slow to respond
are two widely reported complaints amongst display screen users. This requirement
further emphasises that systems should match the task requirements of their users.
the principles of software ergonomics must be applied, in particular to human data
processing.

Software ergonomics is a relatively recent field and the standards are only just being
developed. We report progress on these in Chapter 5. However, in the meantime,
this requirement emphasises that software ergonomics can no longer be regarded
as a luxury, to be ‘bolted-on’ to information technology if there is time and
inclination.

Whilst it is not reasonable to expect all software to be improved immediately (even


though this would probably provide productivity benefits) it is also not reasonable
to continue to accept poor screen design and unresponsive systems. In new system
development, more attention needs to be paid to these aspects and the customers
need to become more demanding. The rapid growth in graphical user interfaces has
demonstrated the potential demand for more usable systems and many such
systems have the potential to be customised to reflect different users’
requirements.

Employers will be well advised to start tackling software ergonomics issues now and
to revise their system development methods to incorporate usability specification
and testing and more user centred methods.
5. USE ERGONOMICS STANDARDS FOR
PROCUREMENT AND DESIGN

• Introduction to ergonomics standards


• Ergonomics standards making bodies
• Current ergonomics standards mainly dealing with hardware
• Future ergonomics standards mainly dealing with software
• Develop an ergonomics standards policy

Anyone who uses information technology knows only too well the problems of
inconsistency between applications and often even within the same application.
Inconsistency, even at the simplest level, can cause problems. Press the <escape>
key in one place and you are safely returned to your previous menu choice. In
another place, you are unceremoniously 'dropped' to the operating system, the
friendly messages disappear and you lose all your data. Different and confusing
keyboard layouts sit side by side in many offices.

Users, and those who buy systems for them, are becoming increasingly impatient
with "unfriendly" systems and are demanding more usable technology. Of course,
usability involves more than just consistency. For example, it involves:

matching hardware and software to the physical and mental characteristics of


people
ensuring that products can be used for real tasks in the working environment
testing out potential products and ironing out the bugs before the product hits the
market.
providing training, support and documentation which really help and are designed to
reflect the knowledge and skills of the user.

The main purpose of this chapter is to help the hardware buyer or system specifier
to:

identify which ergonomics standards are relevant


understand their current status
know how to use them in procurement to meet local requirements

Ergonomics standards are often concerned with how equipment will be used. This
makes them different from many other standards which are simply design
specifications. Therefore the first part of the chapter contains introductory and
background information explaining different kinds of ergonomics standards. The
second part of the chapter identifies relevant ergonomics standards bodies and
their activities. The third part reviews current and future ergonomics standards and
how they can be used in procurement to ensure system usability.

5.1 Introduction to Ergonomics Standards


Hardware and environment standards

The most straightforward standards from a procurement point of view cover


display screen hardware which may be bought on its own or as a system
component to be attached to some system. The proposed purchase can be checked
against the specification in the appropriate standard and this gives the purchaser
some confidence about the quality of the product. There is plenty of scope for this
kind of standard in information technology. Suitable subjects for such ergonomics
standards include keyboards, display screens, non-keyboard input devices,
workstation furniture and aspects of the working environment eg lighting or noise
levels.

Even when the environmental specification is not part of the procurement, it may
be an implicit requirement of the other hardware standards. For example, a display
screen which meets BS 7179 Part 3 Specification for Visual Displays in terms of its
design features, only meets those requirements in operational use when the
working environment meets BS 7179 Part 6 Code of Practice for the design of VDT
work environments. This has implications for operational management as well as for
procurement.

However, standards making is a slow process, partly because of the need for
consensus and partly because it takes some time for stability to emerge in any new
technology. This means that formal hardware ergonomics standards may not be
available to support the procurement of newer interface devices. In such cases,
requiring manufacturers to demonstrate evidence of the usability of their products,
provides the most effective route for ensuring good ergonomics quality.

Software ergonomics and user interface standards

There are several areas of ergonomics standardisation which are relevant to the
procurement of software. These are concerned with:

the design of the dialogue between user and the interface software
the quality and consistency of the components of the user interface
user guidance and documentation
There are a number of ergonomics standards which provide guidelines on good
practice for the design of the dialogue between user and the interface software.
These guidelines may not permit strict compliance checking although it is usually
possible to check whether such guidelines have been breached, particularly in a
major way. For example, a standard containing guidelines on good dialogue design
principles may warn against screen clutter without giving precise values for the
screen density which may be regarded as reasonable. Nonetheless, for a typical
office user performing a document formatting task, it may be obvious that an
interface which requires ten overlapping windows which fill the screen is breaking
this general guideline. Checklists based on such guidelines can be useful during
procurement even if strict compliance cannot be assessed.

There are also ergonomics standards which are concerned with the quality and
consistency of the software components of the user interface. User interface
software may be bought as part of the application software and can therefore be
checked against a specification in an appropriate ergonomics standard. Given the
more complex nature of software, it is unlikely that one single standard will cover
the relevant points and so it is more likely that different software components of
the interface will be checked. For example, standards under development in this
area deal with such aspects as icons, names of objects and actions (eg file,
document, delete etc), menu design and error handling.

To the users, the interface includes the various ancillary products and services
which support their use of the interface. Ergonomics standards under development
in this area deal with user guidance presented on screen, error handling and end
user documentation.

What are the benefits of using ergonomics standards?

Ergonomics standards play an important role in improving the usability of systems,


through improved consistency of the user interface and improved ergonomic quality
of interface components. They help specifiers to procure systems and system
components which can be used effectively, efficiently, safely and comfortably. They
also help restrict unnecessary variety of interface hardware and software, and
ensure that the benefits of any variations are fully justified against the costs of
incompatibility, loss of user efficiency and increased training time for users

In addressing the benefits of standards, the International Organisation for


Standardisation (ISO) identifies four objectives of standardisation. ISO standards aim
to achieve:
mutual understanding
health, safety and the protection of the environment
interface, interoperability and interchangeability
fitness for purpose.

All of these contribute to usability. Despite the improvements which have taken
place in interface design, there is still much that user interface standards could
achieve in the above areas.

Ergonomics standards themselves do not guarantee good design but they do


provide a means of specifying interface quality in design, procurement and in
operational use.

5.2 Ergonomics Standards making bodies

Many standards bodies have been in existence for some time and are organised
according to traditional views of technology and trade. Display screens are used as
part of systems which involve a range of technologies from simple mechanical
devices to complex software. The purpose of this next section is to introduce a
number of key standards bodies which are working on ergonomics standards
relevant to display screen design and use and describe their main activities briefly.

International and European Ergonomics Standards Bodies

International ergonomics standards for display screen equipment are being


developed by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). The work of
the International Organisation for Standardisation is important for two reasons.
Firstly, the major manufacturers are international and therefore the best and most
effective solutions need to be international. Secondly, the European Standardisation
Organisation (CEN) has opted for a strategy of adopting ISO standards wherever
appropriate as part of the creation of the single market. CEN standards replace
national standards in the European Union and European Free Trade Area member
states.

The main stages in developing an International Standard are:


WI Work Item - an approved and recognised topic for a working group to be
addressing which should lead to one or more published standards.

CD Committee Draft - a document circulated for comment and approval within


the committee working on it and the national mirror committees. Voting and
approval are required for the document to reach the next stage.

DIS Draft International Standard - a draft standard which is circulated widely for
public comment via national standards bodies. Voting and approval are required for
the draft to reach the final stage.

IS International Standard. The final published standard.

Documents may be reissued at the CD and DIS stages if they require substantial
modification.

ISO TC 159 SC4 Ergonomics of Human System Interaction

This committee is responsible for standards in the field of human system


interaction. Committee members are representatives of the national standards
bodies of member countries and meetings involve national delegations in discussing
and voting on resolutions and technical documents. The primary technical work
takes place in Working Groups (WGs) and each of these has responsibility for
different work items. WG1 is responsible for ISO 7249 and ISO 9355 which deal
with fundamentals of displays and controls rather than computer display screen
ergonomics. WGs 2 to 5 are responsible for ISO 9241. WG 6 is concerned with
how 9241 can be used and with a new work item on Human-Centred Design of
Interactive Systems. WG8 is concerned with ISO 11064, the ergonomics design of
control centres.

The main stages in developing a European Standard are:

PQ Preliminary Questionnaire. Under this procedure, a document, often an


existing international standard, is circulated to determine its suitability as EN, HD
or ENV.

prEN Draft European Standard. A document circulated for comment and approval.
Voting and approval is required for the document to become an EN, a European
Standard. (Draft HDs and ENVs are also possible)
EN Published European Standard

HD Harmonisation Document. A document issued when some harmonisation is


required but it is not possible to agree a standard.

ENV European Pre-Standard. In fields where technology moves quickly and


guidance is needed urgently, a preliminary standard may be published. However, it
is generally not appropriate where health and safety are concerned.

BOX 5.3

ISO 9241 Ergonomics requirements for office work with visual display terminals
(VDTs)
Part 1: General Introduction*
Part 2: Guidance on task requirements*
Part 3: Visual display requirements*
Part 4: Keyboard requirements
Part 5: Workstation layout and postural requirements
Part 6: Environmental requirements
Part 7: Display requirements with reflections
Part 8: Requirements for displayed colours
Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices
Part 10: Dialogue principles
Part 11: Guidance on usability specification and measures
Part 12: Presentation of information
Part 13: User guidance
Part 14: Menu dialogues
Part 15: Command dialogues
Part 16: Direct manipulation dialogues
Part 17: Form filling dialogues

In 1994, only the first three parts have been published. Other parts are in various
stages of draft. For the latest information, contact British Standards.

British Standards Institution

The British Standards Institution (BSI) is the independent national body responsible
for preparing British Standards. It presents the UK view on standards in Europe and
at the international level. It is organised into a number of technical committees,
dealing with different areas of standardisation. The main committee responsible for
ergonomics standardisation of display screen hardware and software is PSM/39/2.

BSI PSM/39/2 User System Interfaces

PSM/39 is the UK national mirror committee for ISO TC 159 Ergonomics and CEN
TC 122 Ergonomics and deals with the full range of ergonomics standardisation
work. PSM/39/2 is the UK national mirror committee for ISO TC 159 SC4.

In 1990, it published a six part standard BS 7179 entitled Ergonomics of design and
use of visual display terminals (VDTs) in offices. This standard was based on the
International Standard ISO 9241 which also forms the basis of the European
Standard BS EN 29241. As BS EN 29241 is finalised and published, the relevant
parts of BS 7179 will be replaced.

BS 7179 Ergonomics of design and use of visual display terminals (VDTs) in offices
Part 1. Introduction (replaced by BS EN 29241-1:1993)
Part 2. Recommendations for the design of office VDT tasks (replaced by BS EN
29241-2:1993)
Part 3. Specification for visual displays (replaced by BS EN 29241-3:1993)
Part 4. Specification for keyboards
Part 5. Specifications for VDT workstations
Part 6. Code of practice for the design of VDT work environments

5.3 Current display screen ergonomics standards mainly dealing with


hardware

As we have already mentioned, standards, especially ergonomics standards, take a


long time to develop and approve. During 1994 and for most of 1995, there are
likely to be just six published ergonomics standards which can be used directly for
procurement or design in the UK. These are the first three parts of BS EN 29241
and parts four, five and six of BS7179. Towards the end of 1995 or shortly
afterwards, all of BS7179 (parts 1 to 6) should have been replaced by BS EN 29241
and some of the software part should also be published and available for use.

There are several standards which may be used to assist the procurement or
specification of hardware and environmental components. In most cases, the
standards go beyond the minimum requirements specified in the Display Screen
Regulations and provide some confidence that the design of equipment is capable of
providing good ergonomic working conditions.
The published standards which may be used immediately for procurement or design
mainly deal with hardware and environmental requirements but also include general
guidance on display screen task design which is relevant to the job design aspects of
the DSE Regulations.

TABLE 5.1 The relationship between the Schedule and BS EN 29241 parts (when
published).

1. EQUIPMENT BS EN 29241 (parts 1 to 6 will


replace BS7179)
(b) Display Screen 3. Visual display requirements
8. Requirements for displayed
colours
(c) Keyboard 4. Keyboard requirements
(d) Work desk or work surface 5. Workstation layout and postural
requirements
(e) Work chair 5. Workstation layout and postural
requirements
2. ENVIRONMENT
(a) Space requirements 5. Workstation layout and postural
requirements
(b) Lighting 6. Environmental requirements
(c) Reflections and glare 7. Display requirements with
reflections
(d) Noise 6. Environmental requirements
(e) Heat 6. Environmental requirements
(g) Humidity 6. Environmental requirements
3. HUMAN-COMPUTER
INTERFACE
(a) suitable for the task 2. Guidance on task requirements
11. Guidance on usability
specification and measures
(b) easy to use and adaptable to 10. Dialogue principles
operator 11 Guidance on usability
specification and measures
(c) feedback 10. Dialogue principles
13. User Guidance
(d) format and pace 12. Presentation of information
(e) principles of software parts 10 to 17
ergonomics
BS EN 29241-1:1993 (ISO 9241) Part 1 General Introduction

The purpose of this standard is to introduce the multi-part standard for the
ergonomic requirements for the use of visual display terminals for office tasks and
explain some of the basic underlying principles. It describes the basis of the user
performance approach and gives an overview of all parts currently published and of
the anticipated content of those in preparation. It then provides some guidance on
how to use the standard and describes how conformance to parts of BS EN 29241
should be reported.

BS EN 29241 contains different types of information to be considered and used


(where appropriate) when designing the ergonomic aspects of a system, or
assessing the ergonomic properties of a system. Some parts provide general
guidance to be considered in the design of equipment, software, and tasks. Other
parts include more specific design guidance and requirements relevant to specific
technologies, since such guidance is useful to designers. However, BS EN 29241
emphasises the need to specify the factors affecting the performance of the user,
and to assess user performance as a basis for judging whether or not a system is
appropriate to the context in which it will be used.

Under the Vienna agreement between ISO and CEN, the technical work in this area
is taking place in ISO TC 159 SC4. Drafts of Parts 4 onwards will be circulated for
dual voting as draft European Standards (prEN) and as Draft International Standards
(DIS).

At the time of writing (mid 1994), the first three parts have been published as BS
EN 29241 and have replaced BS 7179 parts 1 to 3 and may be used for
procurement. BS 7179 parts 4,5 and 6 are published standards and may be used for
procurement. The other parts (up to Part 17) are in various stages of drafting.
When they are approved as ISO 9241( BS/EN 29241), they may be used for
procurement.

BS EN 29241-2:1993 (ISO 9241) Part 2 Guidance on Task Requirements

The purpose of this standard is to provide guidance on job and task design for
those responsible for planning display screen users' work. The objective is to
enhance the efficiency and the well being of the individual user by applying practical
ergonomics knowledge to the design of office display screen tasks. The objectives of
task design are discussed. For example, the standard points out that well designed
tasks should:

safeguard the worker's health and safety


promote individual well-being
develop the individual's skills and capabilities
facilitate task performance.

Next, the characteristics of well designed tasks are presented. These include:

some variety in the activities and skills used


a degree of individual control over the work pace
some cohesion so that the task forms an understandable part of the work of the
organisation
an opportunity for the individuals to use their skills and experience, and to gain new
skills
sufficient feedback on the quality and quantity of task performance.

The standard provides guidance on how task requirements may be identified and
specified within individual organisations and how task requirements can be
incorporated into the system design and implementation process.

BS EN 29241-3:1993 (ISO 9241) Part 3 Visual display requirements

The purpose of this standard is to specify the ergonomics requirements for display
screens which ensure that they can be read comfortably, safely and efficiently to
perform office tasks. Although it deals specifically with displays used in offices, it is
appropriate to specify it for most applications which require general purpose
displays. It has replaced BS 7179: Part 3:1990. In addition to design specifications,
this part also contains a proposed user performance test as an informative annex.
Once a suitable test method has been proved, performance testing will become an
alternative route to compliance for display screens.

TABLE 5.2 BS EN 29241-3:1993 Visual display requirements (summary of main


points)

Design requirements and Measurement


recommendations
Design viewing distance minimum 400mm for office tasks
Maximum line of sight angle less than 60o below horizontal
Angle of view within which display is at least 40o from normal to display
legible surface
Character height 16’ minimum, 20’ to 22’ preferred
Stroke width 1/6 to 1/12 of character height
Character width-to-height ratio between 0.5:1 and 1:1 is required
but between 0.7:1 to 0.9:1 is
recommended
Raster modulation (for CRT Cm not to exceed 0.4 for
displays) monochrome, 0.7 for colour (0.2
preferred for either)
Fill factor (for non-CRT matrix at least 0.3
displays)
Character format minimum 5x7 for numeric and upper
case
minimum 7x9 where legibility is
important
Extension of matrix for diacritics / 2 pixels
descenders
Subscripts and superscripts minimum 4x5 matrix
Character size uniformity not vary by more than 5% anywhere
Between-character spacing minimum one pixel or stroke width
Between-word spacing minimum space equivalent to capital
N
Between-line spacing minimum of one clear pixel
Linearity less than 2% variation in row/column
length
less than 5% of character height
displacement
Orthogonality less than 0.02 difference of mean
height or width of addressable area
(0.04 for diagonals)
Display luminance minimum of 35cd/m2, higher
preferred
Luminance contrast minimum 0.5 contrast modulation
Cm
Luminance balance average luminance ratio less than
10:1 for frequently viewed areas
Glare should be avoided without
jeopardising luminance or contrast
requirements
Image polarity either polarity is acceptable
Luminance uniformity not to exceed 1.7:1 for display or
1.5:1 for individual character
element
Luminance coding at least 1.5:1 to be distinguishable
Blink coding for attention, 1 to 5 Hz, 50% duty
cycle
for reading, 1/3 to 1 Hz, 70% duty
cycle
Temporal instability (flicker) flicker free to at least 90% of
population
Spatial instability (jitter) location within 0.0002mm per mm
of design viewing distance in range
0.5 Hz to 30 Hz

The Display Screen Regulations require displays to be clear, legible and stable under
normal working conditions. Displays which meet BS EN 29241-3: 1993 satisfy this
design requirement.

FIGURE 5.1 NEAR HERE

BS 7179: Part 4: 1990 Keyboard requirements

The purpose of this standard is to specify the ergonomics design characteristics of


an alphanumeric keyboard which may be used comfortably, safely and efficiently to
perform office tasks. Although it deals specifically with keyboards used for office
tasks, it is appropriate to specify it for most applications which require general
purpose alphanumeric keyboards. It contains both design specifications and an
alternative performance test method of compliance.
TABLE 5.3 BS 7179:Part 4:1990 Specification for keyboards (summary of main
points)

Design requirements and Measurement


recommendations
Alphanumeric keyboard layout QWERTY layout
Numeric key pad either 123 or 789 layouts
Cursor control for text processing ‘cross’ or ‘inverted T’ required
Keyboard slope between 0o and 25o , preferably
adjustable
Keyboard height (home row) less than 50mm preferred
Keyboard placement independent of display and stable
Housing and keytop surfaces matt finish, diffuse reflection factor
between 0.15 and 0.75 using diffuse
reflection chart
Specular reflection 45 gloss units or
less
Keytop legends robust, durable, minimum height
2.6mm and minimum contrast ratio
3:1
Key spacing between 18mm and 20mm
horizontally and vertically between
centre lines of adjacent keys
Keytop size minimum 12mm x 12mm if square
(maximum 15mm) or 113mm2 if not
square
Keytop shape moulded concave
Key travel between 1.5mm and 6mm
between 2mm and 4mm preferred
Key force between 0.25N and 1.5N
between 0.5N and 0.6N preferred
Keying feedback tactile feedback preferred
audible shall be able to be switched
off and should be adjustable in
volume
Keyboard mode eg caps, shift lock clear indicators should be provided

The Display Screen Regulations require that the keyboard should be tiltable,
separate from the display and easy to use without causing fatigue in the arms or
hands. Keyboards which meet BS 7179 Part 4 (or its replacements in due course)
will meet these ergonomics requirements. Confusing and inconsistent keyboard
layouts may be avoided or reduced in frequency by specifying ISO/IEC 9995
compliant layouts.

FIGURE 5.2 NEAR HERE

BS 7179: Part 5: 1990 Specification for VDT Workstations

The purpose of this standard is to specify the ergonomics requirements for a


display screen workstation (in the more limited furniture sense) which will allow
the user to adopt a comfortable and efficient posture. It covers the chair and
ancillary items such as footrests and document holders as well as work surfaces and
desking.

The objective is that the workstation should facilitate efficient operation of the
display screen and encourage the user to adopt a comfortable and healthy working
posture. The requirements for a healthy comfortable posture are discussed. These
include:

• the location of frequently used equipment controls, displays and work surfaces
within easy reach
• the opportunity to change position frequently
• avoiding excessively frequent repetitive movements with extreme extension or
rotation of the limbs or trunk
• support for the back allowing an angle of 90 degrees to 110 degrees between
back and thighs

FIGURE 5.3 NEAR HERE

The characteristics of the workstation which promote a healthy and comfortable


posture are identified and design guidelines given.
TABLE 5.4 BS 7179:Part 5:1990 Specification for VDT workstations (summary of
main points)

Design requirements and Measurement


recommendations
Fixed height for keyboard support between 660mm and 730mm
720mm preferred
Adjustable height keyboard support between 660mm and 770mm and
easy to adjust without undue force
Size of work surface minimum of 1200mm by 600mm
1200mm by 800mm preferred
Finish of work surface matt and free from sharp edges
Clearance under work surface minimum 450mm unobstructed
legroom
and 600mm foot room (at least
150mm high)
Knee room at least 580mm wide and 620mm
high
Chair five star, swivel meeting BS 5940
clause 5
Footrest minimum of 450mm by 350mm
Cable management secure and meet BS 6396
The Schedule to the Display Screen Regulations specifies that the work desk should
have large, low-reflectance surfaces, incorporate a document holder if required and
provide adequate space for staff to adopt a comfortable position. The Schedule also
specifies that the work chair should be stable but allow the user easy freedom of
movement. It should be adjustable in backrest height and tilt and in seat height. A
footrest should also be available. Workstations which meet BS 7179: Part 5:1990
(Specifications for VDT Workstations) will generally satisfy the design requirements
of the Regulations. They will still need to be assessed in operational use to ensure
compliance with the Regulations. Workplaces in control rooms eg security and
communications are dealt with separately in ISO 11064. This work is in its early
stages at present.

BS 7179: Part 6: 1990 Code of Practice for the design of VDT work environments

The purpose of this standard is to provide guidance on with the design of the
working environment for display screen users. The objective is to provide a
working environment which should facilitate efficient operation of the display
screen and provide the user with comfortable working conditions.

The characteristics of the working environment which influence efficient operation


and user comfort are identified and design guidelines presented. Even when it is
possible to control the working environment within strict limits, individuals will vary
in their judgements of its acceptability partly because individuals do vary in their
preferences and partly because different tasks may require quite different
environments. For example, users who sit at display screens for prolonged periods
are far more sensitive to draughts than users whose work involves moving about an
office only working at the display screen intermittently. Similar differences among
individuals apply to the visual and the acoustic environments also. Display screen
work often restricts the opportunities that individuals have for moving about in an
office and so some individual control over the environment is highly desirable. Care
must be taken in common work areas to protect the majority of users from
extreme environments which may be preferred by some individuals.

TABLE 5.5 BS 7179:Part 6:1990 Code of practice for the design of VDT work
environments (summary of main points)

Design requirements and Measurement


recommendations
General level of illuminance between 300lx and 500lx on
worksurface
Local lighting may be necessary but should be
operator controlled
Glare excessive contrast should be avoided
Glare control use shielded fittings
blinds and curtains
room layout
equipment location
tilt and swivel on the display
anti-glare treatments
Glare index CIE glare index of 16 is
recommended
Surface reflectance floor between 20% and 40%
ceiling 75%
Noise level less than 55dB(A) if concentration
required
less than 60dB(A)for other tasks
Reduce noise by using acoustic materials
sensible location of equipment
Ambient temperature between 19oC and 23oC
less than 5oC between head and
floor
Equipment heat less than 3oC more than ambient
Touchable surfaces less than 50oC
Air movements less than 0.25m/s
air change 1.3L/s/m2
Relative humidity between 40% and 60%

The Schedule to the Display Screen Regulations specifies that the lighting conditions
should be satisfactory, with glare avoided by the layout and design of the light
fittings, and that adjustable secondary lighting should available as required. It also
specifies that noise should be controlled if necessary and that heating and
ventilation should be satisfactory. BS 7179: Part 6: 1990 contains a Code of Practice
for the design of display screen work environments which should ensure
satisfactory working conditions for users.

PHOTO 5.1 NEAR HERE


BS 7649:1993 Guide to the design and preparation of documentation
for users of application software

In assessing the usability of a product in practice, real users take account of the
guidance provided and the documentation, manuals and training received as well as
the specific characteristics of the product itself.

The purpose of this BS guide is to support the design and preparation of user
documentation for application software. The guide addresses the management
process for documentation development including establishing the documentation
type, user characteristics and relationship to the overall system development
process. The Guide also contains recommendations on writing style and
presentation techniques as well as helpful checklists for documentation producers.

5.4 Future display screen ergonomics standards mainly dealing with


software
BS 7179 only contained six parts covering the immediate priorities of display screen
hardware. However, once these parts were under development, the standards
makers turned their attentions to other issues, primarily software, which have a
major impact on the ergonomics of display screen work.

Three of these later parts, which are still under development, deal with hardware
issues ie reflections, colour displays and non keyboard input devices.

The remainder of the parts, 10 to 17, deals with software ergonomics issues
covering dialogue design, interface component and user guidance.

In the future, these will be useful for procurement and design specification.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 7 Display requirements with reflections

The purpose of this standard is to specify methods of measurement of glare and


reflections from the surface of display screens, including those with surface
treatments. It is aimed at display manufacturers who wish to ensure that anti-
reflection treatments do not detract from image quality.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 8 Requirements for displayed colours

The purpose of this standard is to deal with the requirements for multi-colour
displays which are largely in addition to the monochrome requirements in Part 3.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 9 Requirements for non-keyboard input devices


The purpose of this standard is to specify the ergonomics requirements for non-
keyboard input devices which may be used in conjunction with a visual display
terminal. It covers such devices as the mouse and other pointing devices. It also
includes a performance test.

Software ergonomics and user interface standards


The Display Screen Regulations also set out minimum requirements for the design
of the operator-computer interface in general and require software to be suitable
for the task, easy to use and follow the principles of software ergonomics. The
specification or design of human computer dialogues should be driven by an
understanding of the requirements of the users, their tasks and the business
functions to be performed. There are usually many options and the final choice is
often heavily constrained by requirements for consistency either with existing
practices or across a range of systems.

Decisions about the overall suitability of a software interface can be assisted by


reference to standards containing general principles of dialogue design ie ISO 9241
parts 10 and 12. Specific dialogue design techniques are addressed in other parts of
ISO 9241 (parts 14, 15, 16, and 17).

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 10 Dialogue principles

The purpose of this standard is to present high level ergonomic principles which
apply to the design of dialogues between humans and information systems. These
are:

• suitability for the task


• self-descriptiveness
• controllability
• conformity with user expectations
• error tolerance
• suitability for individualisation
• suitability for learning

The principles are supported by a number of scenarios which indicate the relative
priorities and importance of the different principles in practical applications. The
starting point for this work was the DIN 66234 Part 8 Principles of Ergonomic
Dialogue Design for Workplaces with Visual Display Units.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 11 Guidance on usability specification and measures


The purpose of this standard is to help those involved in specifying or measuring
usability by providing a consistent and agreed framework of the key issues and
parameters involved. This framework can be used as part of an ergonomics
requirements specification. It includes descriptions of the context of use, the
evaluation procedures to be carried out and the criterion measures to be satisfied
when the usability of the system is to be evaluated.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 12 Presentation of information

The purpose of this standard is to provide guidance on the specific ergonomics


issues involved in representing and presenting information in a visual form. It
includes guidance on ways of representing complex information, screen layout and
design and the use of windows. There is already a substantial body of material
available in guidelines and recommendations and this part represents a distillation of
the most useful and relevant ones. At present, the information is envisaged as
guidelines without any need for formal conformance testing.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 13 User guidance

The purpose of this standard is to provide guidelines on various forms of user


guidance including documentation, help screens, within-system aids and error
handling systems.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 14 Menu Dialogues

The purpose of this standard is to provide guidance on the design of menu based
systems. It applies to both text based menus as well as pull-down or pop-up menus
in graphical systems. The standard contains a large number of guidelines developed
from the published literature and from other relevant research. In order to deal
with the extreme variety and complexity of menu based systems, the standard
employs a form of 'conditional compliance'. For each guideline, there are criteria to
help establish whether or not it is applicable to the system in question. Then for
those guidelines which are applicable, there are criteria to establish whether or not
the system meets those requirements.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 15 Command dialogues


The purpose of this standard is to provide guidance for the design of text based
command dialogues whether provided as the sole means of dialogue or combined
with some other dialogue technique. It is envisaged that the conditional compliance
developed for Part 14 may be appropriate for this mode of interaction also.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 16 Direct manipulation dialogues

The purpose of this part is to provide guidance for the design of direct manipulation
dialogues and WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) dialogue techniques
whether provided as the sole means of dialogue or combined with some other
dialogue technique. It is envisaged that the conditional compliance developed for
Part 14 may be appropriate for this mode of interaction also.

BS EN 29241 (ISO 9241) Part 17 Form filling dialogues

The purpose of this standard is to provide guidance for the design of form filling
dialogues. At present this work is in the very early stages of development.

Other issues

User interface technology standards


This section discusses the technology which supports the user interface. At this
point, there are no international technical standards for implementing user
interfaces. However, user interface technology is developing rapidly with a
proliferation of products, de facto standards and industry wrangling.

The most visible user interface technology issue concerns the choice between
character based and graphical user interfaces, CUI vs GUI? Most discussions on
user interface design seem to start from the assumption that it is only worth
considering GUIs these days. This is probably not an unreasonable assumption for
completely new applications or stand alone systems. In its first year, MS Windows
3.1 shipped more than 6 million copies. It is bundled on most PCs and has become
a de facto standard for many PC users. However, there are a large number of
installed systems with CUIs, which will continue to serve their users for many years
to come. In making procurement decisions, it is important not to overlook the
importance of some degree of backwards compatibility and to plan a migration
towards more advanced interfaces carefully.

Both the hardware and software ergonomics issues discussed in the previous
section may be relevant to GUI and CUI interfaces. The way dialogues are
structured, the use of menus and the way information is displayed on screen all
have to be matched to the way the user thinks and understands his tasks. However,
the way the interfaces are organised and the way the user navigates through
options and choices can be quite different.

Although CUIs have been around for some time and can be implemented on simple
cheap hardware, the greater flexibility and usability of GUIs have caused them to
rise to prominence. There is some evidence that graphical interfaces allow us to use
the more holistic, creative left hand side of our brains rather than the analytical,
rational right hand sides. This may partially explain why they are easy to learn and
appeal to a wide range of users. However, as with much of computing, the benefits
of GUIs have been 'oversold'. For many simple applications they offer little benefit
and for some structured tasks may be less usable than a clearly structured CUI
which matches the user's task sequence.

The major advantage of GUIs is not that they can present 'pretty' pictures, although
that may be important for some applications, but that they allow users a natural,
familiar, consistent style of working. Furthermore they allow users to switch
between tasks and combine tasks in the same way that desk workers can switch
between tasks on their desktop. However, consistency at the task level is only
achieved through careful design and the use of organisation specific 'style guides'
which specify not only how interface objects behave but also how to map interface
objects to the task of the user. Although MS-Windows applications appear
superficially identical because they use the Microsoft Style Guide, inconsistencies in
the way tasks are performed can still leave users confused when they switch
between applications.

Windowing systems allow different applications to be displayed on the screen at the


same time in their own windows. However, there are different architectures for
achieving this. The interface may be considered as comprising:

• 'look and feel', - the specification of the way the graphical user interface will
behave
• protocol - the way interface control messages are handled between processor
and display,
• toolkit - a library of subroutines or well defined functions which the applications
programmer can use to provide well defined consistent interfaces
• window manager - a program which provides basic window manipulation eg
moving, sizing stacking
• desktop - the environment from which applications may be started and file
arranged in an intuitive way using icons
One of the most popular windowing systems is Microsoft Windows 3.1. This runs
on top of the MS-DOS operating system on PCs and is programmed using the
Software Development Kit (SDK) development language. As mentioned earlier, it is
bundled (often free) with most PCs nowadays and, since it sold more than 6 million
copies in its first year world-wide, has an installed base of tens of millions. It can run
on machines from 286 PCs with 2 M Bytes of RAM, but most users will require
386SX and 4M Bytes for reasonable performance. However, in the current PC
market, 486SX with 4M Bytes and 120-170 M Byte hard disks are rapidly becoming
entry level machines for stand alone operation.

For the users, the benefits of MS Windows include a reasonably consistent interface
which allows them to explore new applications and gain some advantage from past
experience. It also permits data transfer between applications through the interface
either using programmed DDE links (where supported eg by Excel) or through 'cut
and paste'. This may cause some security problems if users are allowed to transfer
data with normal validation or security checks but can save error-prone and tedious
re-keying of data.

Another widely available windowing system is X Windows. Originally developed by


MIT to deal with the problem of multiple machines from different vendors
attempting to share resources, it is based on a client/server architecture, although
the terms are defined somewhat differently from normal usage. Applications (the
clients) send messages to the server which controls the display, keyboard mouse
etc over a communications link (which may be in the same machine or remote).

What gives X Windows its unique power and flexibility is that the client and server
are independent. In a high power workstation, they may be in the same machine but
it is the logical separation which provides the flexibility. The user interface is not
built into the base X system and vendors have developed a number of commercial
toolkits and window manager programs. For example, MOTIF from the Open
Software Foundation is supported by a Style Guide, an Application Development
Program Interface (API) including a toolkit and Presentation Description language, a
Window Manager and a desktop manager usually based on MOTIF and using much
of the MOTIF functionality eg CDE (Common Desktop Environment) developed by
COSE (Common Open Systems Environment).

The recent emergence of CDE suggests that major changes are taking place in the
GUI marketplace and these are likely to have a major impact on de facto industry
interface standards.
5.5 Develop an ergonomics standards policy

The aim is to develop or procure systems and system components which can be
used effectively, efficiently, safely and comfortably by the range of users performing
the range of tasks. This will be achieved by:

specifying compliance to published British, European and International Standards


where possible to ensure good ergonomic design of interface hardware and
software components
supplementing functional procurement specifications with usability specifications to
which suppliers will be required to comply
restricting the unnecessary variety of interface hardware, software and technology
and ensuring that the benefits of any variations are fully justified against the costs of
incompatibility, loss of efficiency and increased training time for users

The ergonomics standards have largely been developed with office type tasks and
environments in mind. This may mean that in specialised environments there may
need to be some acceptable deviation from the standards. None the less, the use of
standards in the procurement process places the ergonomics issues on the agenda
and requires proper consideration by both procurer and supplier. In many cases,
this will achieve a more satisfactory result than the 'blind' specification or testing
against a given isolated standard. Indeed, one of the problems with ergonomics
standards is that the technology is developing faster than the standards makers can
work. Thus it is quite possible that a new device may fail to meet the strict
requirements in an existing standard because it solves the problem in a radically
different way. For example, early standards for character quality on a display
assumed a simple dot matrix construction and so newer more legible fonts would
have failed the requirement because they did not have the specified number of dots
separating them.

Until standards are specified in terms of the performance to be achieved, the users
of standards must allow suppliers to meet the requirement by demonstrating that
their solution provides equivalent or superior performance to achieve the same
objective. Although there are relatively few formal standards which may be used in
procurement at present, there are nonetheless many areas where the use of a
standards based ergonomics checklist can help the procurement process.
6. WHAT IF ...

• You wish to address software usability?


• Staff complain?
• You are planning a new installation?
• You wish to involve users in the development process?
• It is a special or non-standard environment?

In this chapter, we provide guidance on what an employer should do in order to


address some common problems.

6.1 What if you wish to address software usability?

Achieving good usability in practice involves ensuring that the design of computer
equipment, furniture, software and the working environment match human
strengths and limitations. Thus the functional specification should be supplemented
by a usability specification. The following usability design process is based on ISO
DIS 29241 Part 11 Guidance on usability specification and measures.

FIGURE 6.1 NEAR HERE

Create a Usability Specification

During the specification stage of the project, it is important to supplement the


statement of requirements or functional specification with a usability specification
which should:

• identify the potential users of the proposed system and determine whether they
have specific or atypical requirements from other staff and what level of relevant
skills they possess. For example, some staff may be completely dependent on
display screen use, whereas others, perhaps performing the same job, may
prefer to work on paper documents. Similarly, staff will vary in their use or
knowledge of similar computer systems and in their familiarity with applications
software, packages or operating systems. Uncertainty about who will use the
system may suggest inadequate requirements specification and may highlight
potential problems in the proposed development.

• establish the range of tasks to be performed by the users and obtain estimates
of the relative importance and frequency of main tasks.
• define the task performance which is required in terms of effectiveness,
efficiency and satisfaction. Effectiveness concerns the accuracy and completeness
with which the users can achieve their task goals. Efficiency concerns the
resources expended in relation to the results achieved. Satisfaction concerns
the comfort associated with and the acceptability of the task to the user.

• define appropriate methods of assessing usability. Appropriate in this context


means methods which are sufficiently sensitive to the critical aspects of the
users' tasks and are realistic in terms of the skills and resources required to use
them.

Refine the design using trials and simulations


During the design stage, there are a number of design decisions which may be made
on the basis of trials and simulations with prospective users. These may involve
testing components of the final system and should include a complete pre-delivery
test. The results of these tests can be recorded in a Usability Statement.

The specific tests should include the following:

• usability assessments on user interface or system components as required to


test out critical design trade-offs. Such assessments should be performed in a
realistic task context under suitable environmental conditions. It is the likely
eventual performance at the workstation which is important, not the score on
an artificial laboratory test.

• pre-delivery usability assessment on complete systems. For major


developments, proper acceptance testing is required and should be extended
beyond the normal functionality checks to include the user and ergonomics
requirements.

• revising the specification according to usability findings. It is essential that the


timing of such testing allows modifications to be incorporated if required.
Leaving all the testing until immediately before delivery in the expectation of
simply 'rubber stamping' a design is unlikely to be effective and may actually
make matters worse if no changes can be accepted.

Manage the implementation, provide user support and training


Implementation must be planned carefully and in addition to system implementation
involves the following actions:

• developing training and support materials.


• monitoring implementation and early user experience. Although initial errors
and problems may disappear with practice, they can be useful indicators of areas
of the system which may require further enhancement or where training may
need to be improved.
• conducting post-implementation review. Feedback from post-implementation
reviews can be used to improve the specification and development process.

The ergonomics criteria should be understood in the context of other evaluation


criteria such as value for money and technical performance.

6.2 What if staff complain?

Staff complaints are a good indication that something is wrong. However, they are
often a very poor indication of what is causing the problem or what should be done
about it. This can lead to misunderstanding between staff and management and an
escalation of minor irritations into major symptoms or complaints.

The main steps in dealing with complaints are:

• Investigate causes not just symptoms


• Take all complaints seriously
• Ensure supervisors and managers are trained to be supportive
• Agree priorities for remedial action
• Follow up and monitor success

Investigate causes not just symptoms

The first step is to investigate each complaint in order to identify the most likely
cause. The assessment procedures and staff self assessment (see Appendix A) can
be useful in this trouble-shooting role and may reveal a clear ergonomic problem.
For example, staff complaints about visual discomfort and headaches may turn out
to correlate with bright sunny days when the lack of blinds in an office causes
problems of visual adaptation and glare. However, sometimes the obvious turns out
to be wrong. For example, as we mentioned earlier, complaints about draughts
round the ankles may have nothing to do with the heating system but turn out to
be a symptom of poor circulation caused by not being able to rest feet comfortably
on the floor. Display screen users often raise their chairs in order to key
comfortably and this can leave their legs dangling cutting off the blood supply.

But beware those who try to sell you accessories to solve every problem. The
initial publication of the display screen Directive encouraged many over-zealous
suppliers to promote products which are at best unnecessary and in some cases
may actually be harmful. There has also been a significant amount of misinformation
and misleading information about what the requirements are and what benefits
certain products might provide.

In our view, the following products are not required under these Regulations and
will not ensure employers fulfil their statutory duties under the Health and Safety at
Work Act.

• Radiation shields, smocks and monitoring devices


• Wrist contraptions (not keyboard rests)
• Rest pause counting software
• Over-elaborate adjustability
• Tinted VDU glasses
• Unconventionally shaped keyboards

Money spent on such products could be used far more helpfully on better chairs,
useful accessories and user training.

Take all complaints seriously


The second point is to take staff concerns seriously. In the ‘cold feet’ example, it
would be easy to conclude that staff were just 'being fussy' if investigation of the
heating system showed no excess of air movement or cold air. However,
investigating complaints properly, not just taking them at face value, allows
constructive solutions to be identified and prevents problems escalating. If only one
person is experiencing difficulties, individual factors such as inadequate training or
underlying medical conditions should be considered as well as general ergonomic
factors.

Ensure supervisors and managers are trained to be supportive

The role of supervisors and managers is vital. In office environments, health and
safety has never seemed very important. The office is much safer than the factory
or building site and this can lead to some complacency. It is therefore important
that supervisor and manager training emphasises their role in monitoring risk and in
dealing with staff concerns in a sympathetic but informed manner.

Agree priorities for remedial action

If a problem is identified, then it is up to management to decide on a reasonable


timescale for remedial action. This must be based on the individual circumstances of
the situation and depends on the severity of the problem and the costs of the
potential solutions. In many cases, the remedy will cost little.

PHOTO 6.1 NEAR HERE

Many more ergonomics problems result from how things are used than from their
basic design. Improving use will often provide productivity benefits as well as
enhanced safety or comfort. Co-operation between management, staff and their
representatives (on sites with trades unions or staff associations) is vital in agreeing
a realistic timetable for change and in prioritising remedial actions. It is much better
for staff to know that a problem has been identified and is scheduled for fixing at a
future date than to believe that management neither knows nor cares.

Follow up and monitor success

Finally, it is essential that actions are followed through. This is not only important to
ensure that they were correctly carried out but also that they have been effective in
dealing with the problems. If the problem identification was not carried out carefully
enough, then the underlying problem may remain or may reappear in a slightly
different form. Systematic follow up also allows lessons and benefits to be quantified
and hence shared in the organisation.

6.3 What if you are planning a new installation?

In planning a new installation, the objective is to create effective (safe, healthy and
productive) workstations, not perfection. What works for one person may be quite
unsuitable for another. We differ greatly in size, shape, experience, personality and
preferences. Tasks also differ in their requirements. What is perfect for writing a
report is quite unsuitable for holding an impromptu meeting. Neither people nor
tasks remain constant over time so that even if we were to design perfection for
today's circumstances, tomorrow may be quite different.
Creating effective workstations is essentially a design process. Even if all you are
doing is moving existing equipment or furniture, you are designing the environment
where people will spend a significant proportion of their working life. Their comfort
and productivity will be greatly influenced by the design decisions that you make.

There are 6 main steps


• Analyse needs
• Specify functional requirements
• Identify a range of solutions
• Evaluate options systematically/finalise design
• Manage implementation/involve staff
• Provide training and support

Analyse needs

The first step in the process is to analyse the needs of the users, the tasks they will
perform, the equipment they will use, the environment and the potential
interactions between these different components.

Users. In analysing the potential users, we are interested in their sizes, shapes,
their preferences and, most importantly, their expectations and opinions about
their own requirements. There is published data on body sizes and shapes for the
general population but in many groups, there may be some who are exceptionally
tall or short who must be considered as special cases.

PHOTO 6.2 NEAR HERE

Task Characteristics. Next, we analyse the tasks the users are going to perform.
These may be the tasks they currently perform and we can use the techniques of
O&M (Organisation and Methods) to gather the data. However, often the reason
that workstations are being planned is that new methods of working are being
introduced. In these cases, analysing the potential tasks may be difficult and involve
educated guesses about how the new system might work. In analysing the tasks, we
are concerned with what processes are involved, how these link together in
procedures, how much repetition there is, how long they take, what flows of
information, paper or materials are required, how much space and worksurface may
be required and so on.

Equipment Requirements. In practice, analysing the tasks often involves


considering what equipment is likely to be used. However, it is worth making this a
separate heading since the technology used may change more rapidly during the life
of the workstation than the tasks themselves. We are interested in the space
requirements of the equipment, its direct footprint as well as any surrounding space
required for clearance or indeed for access and maintenance and its cabling
requirements.

Environment. If the room to be re-planned is currently in use, it is often valuable


to conduct a brief survey of the problems experienced by staff. This not only
provides a reference point for understanding their expectations, but may highlight
problem areas which should be addressed during the re-plan. It is important to
distinguish the environmental requirements of the equipment from the
environmental impact of the equipment itself eg noise or heat output. It may be that
the new equipment will reduce the problems or be less susceptible to problems
than the existing equipment. One of the most difficult things to anticipate is how
these various factors are likely to interact with each other in practice. Many display
screen problems can be attributed to interactions between otherwise quite
acceptable components of the workstation.

Specify functional requirements

The next step is to take the results of the analysis and convert them into a
statement of functional requirements. At this stage it is vital to focus on the
functions to be performed and to ensure that what is being specified reflects real
needs and not just existing practice. Avoid the trap of specifying solutions at this
stage. For example, if asked about space or storage requirements, many users will
immediately jump to saying what size desk they want or how many filing cabinets
they think they need. They have already assumed that traditional office furniture is
the best way of providing the functionality. Different questioning might lead to quite
different conclusions and open up a whole range of possibilities. Depending on what
the space and storage are used for, it may be that a meeting table would be a more
appropriate workstation.

Identify a range of solutions

The advantage of writing the requirements in functional terms is that there is ample
scope for identifying a range of solutions. This is the stage where it pays to break
with convention, to get as many different ideas together as possible and try to be
creative. It is not necessary to go into great detail in order to decide whether an
option has some merit or not. Cardboard models and full scale mock-ups can give
an excellent idea of what the new solution involves.
Ensure that the range of options reflects the major compromises which are
anticipated. A frequent compromise is between flexibility and adjustability. They are
both characteristics aimed at ensuring the best fit between the user, the task and
the workstation. But in practice, they are often opposites. For example, the special
purpose 'VDU' desk with separate platforms for the different components may
seem ideal. It allows the user to position the keyboard, display screen and other
components in an optimal relationship encouraging a comfortable and healthy
posture. In practice, it is difficult to achieve this and many such desks are awkward
to adjust. But the biggest problem with such desks is that they tend to be low in
flexibility. The components can only be placed on their special platforms. A single
level worksurface, on the other hand, might seem far too primitive, yet, if it is large
enough, it allows the user to rearrange the components on an uninterrupted
working surface and even move them out of the way to perform other tasks.

PHOTO 6.3 NEAR HERE

The best answer is often somewhere between such extremes but deliberately
considering such options at this stage helps to emphasise what is most important to
the real users and the real tasks.

Evaluate options systematically and finalise design

Evaluation is concerned with deciding if the design is functional and of sufficient


ergonomics quality.

Of course, the components of the workstation should be capable of performing


well in their intended environment and should have sufficient flexibility and
adaptability to meet the changing demands which might reasonably be expected in
that environment. Thus the first part of the evaluation is to draw up a list of
evaluation criteria based on the statement of functional requirements. This list
should then be used to assess each option.

Although giving each option a score on each requirement may be helpful, avoid the
temptation to simply add scores together to arrive at an answer. This implies that
every requirement is equally important or else involves you in attributing weights to
the different components - a time consuming and probably unnecessarily elaborate
procedure.

The workstation should also be of sufficient ergonomics quality ie it should be


usable by its intended users, for its intended purpose and in its intended
environment. It should suit the size, strengths and limitations of its users and must
not impose any undue fatigue or discomfort. It must be safe in use and not subject
the user or any other person to risk of injury or damage. It must remain safe
despite reasonably predictable mis-use throughout its life. It should comply with
relevant British Standards, especially BS 7179 for display screen workstation. The
cost of the workstation should be justified by its performance and other benefits.
This cost is both the initial cost and the long term cost including the cost of
maintenance and repair, consumption of energy, final disposal etc. See Appendix A2
for the assessment check-list which can also be used as an aid to design.

The results of the evaluations should then be integrated into a final design solution.

Manage implementation and involve staff

Managing any organisational change requires care. For it to be successful, staff


should feel involved in the process and have an opportunity to influence the
outcome.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of increased computerisation is the tendency to


isolate people. This is partly due to the physical intrusion of display screens which
can block lines of sight and make it more difficult for people to feel that they belong
to a group. However, the more insidious effect is one of replacing informal
communication with formal. Yet it is often the informal chat over coffee, or the
'quick word in the corridor' which gets results, as well as providing the social
'adhesive' which makes an organisation more than just a collection of individuals.

Change can also be threatening to many people and managers therefore need to
ensure that staff feel involved and informed as much as possible. Unfortunately,
managers themselves are often uncertain about development and tend to keep
quiet until they know more. This is exactly the wrong approach. What is required is
a strategy for involving staff and keeping them informed at the different stages.

In the early analysis stages, questionnaires can be an excellent means of gathering


views and allowing those with opinions to express them positively. Surveys can help
to bring issues out into the open in a positive and constructive manner. In the later
stages, trials provide a means for involving a wide range of staff. Of course, the trials
must be properly conducted. A common mistake is to adopt a 'suck it and see'
approach to evaluation. The final result may be seen as little more than
manipulation, if the criteria are not agreed in advance and the results fed back to
the staff.
There is widespread agreement amongst experts about what makes work satisfying,
(see below), but there are many computer-based jobs which offer little intrinsic
satisfaction. This need not be so and jobs can be designed to be both efficient and
satisfying for staff. BS EN 29241-2: 1993 contains some guidance about this.
However, involving people in the design process can itself be a major force for
improving job satisfaction. People whose jobs are tied to computers really welcome
the opportunity for choice, flexibility and individuality in their workstation.

Research around the world over the last sixty years has identified the following
factors as contributing to job satisfaction:
• challenge and variety
• responsibility
• opportunity for using skill
• opportunity for learning
• social contact
• participation

People vary in what levels of the above they require but most people need
something in most areas.

Provide training and support


The final stage is to ensure that the staff have the skills and knowledge to use the
workstation properly. Not everyone needs to become an ergonomist any more
than everyone who uses a car needs to be a mechanic. What is required is some
basic awareness of ergonomics amongst management and simple training for staff.
This should give them an understanding of the importance of good posture and
good work habits and should teach them how to avoid fatigue through easy-to-learn
exercises.

6.4 What if you wish to involve users in the system development process?

Although there is widespread agreement that user involvement is 'a good thing' and
overcomes many of the ergonomic problems and pitfalls, there is far less agreement
about how to conduct it successfully. Nonetheless, there are a number of general
guidelines which should be borne in mind although no simple recipe will guarantee
success.

• Involve early
• Use user's own terms
• Ensure user representatives are representative
• Use a variety of involvement methods
• Offer technically feasible choices
• Avoid over-design
• Avoid restricting lines of communication

Involve early

Involve prospective users early in the development process, ideally from the initial
project concept stage. Staff representatives should also be informed.

Use user's own terms

In presenting project concepts to users, it is important to relate the ideas to


current practice and to express them in the user's own terms. For example, short
scenarios describing typical sessions are likely to be far more effective than data
flow models or system architectures in communicating what the system is about.

Ensure user representatives are representative

Ensure that the users who are involved are fully representative of the prospective
users in terms of patterns of work, relevant skills etc. Sometimes the users who
volunteer are more interested in computing and this can give a misleading
impression of the general user population. The users who are selected should have
current personal experience of the tasks and represent the range of prospective
users' characteristics.

Use a variety of involvement methods

Involvement can take a variety of forms from full time secondment to the project
team through part time secondment, taking part in trials, reviewing proposals and
design issues to simply providing comments on designs. It is important to use a mix
of methods. For example, detailed issues can only be identified by users who are
actively involved, perhaps through secondment. However, the views of one user
may be overlooked in the design team and the use of a wider pool of prospective
users can add authority and weight.

Offer technically feasible choices

Many project managers are reluctant to involve users at certain stages in case they
make choices which are inappropriate for technical reasons. This then leads to
debate and argument. The solution to this problem is to ensure that the only
technically feasible choices are presented. The final choice can therefore be safely
left to the users without running the risk of incurring major technical problems.

Avoid over-design

There is a tendency in computer system design to seek the 'ideal solution' and
design the system to support this one way of working. This may be helpful to
novice users learning the system but is often frustrating to more experienced users
who could develop better ways of working. The concept of 'deferred design' where
the final choices are left to the users when they use the system can be attractive. It
is similar to the configuration choices which most commercial packages now offer.
Instead of having to obtain complete agreement on every aspect of the system,
some of the choices can be offered as configuration choices for the users eg how
much information is presented at a time or which options should be regarded as
defaults etc.

Avoid restricting lines of communication

One of the risks of setting up formal procedures for involving users is that the
procedures themselves can restrict communication rather than enhance it. User
representatives should act as a channel for communicating with the user
community, not as an alternative to widespread communication. Nonetheless, the
representatives can play a valuable role in organising and collating information.

6.5 What if it is a special or non-standard environment?

The Schedule is oriented towards the typical display screen user in the standard
office environment. It is most relevant where there is a single user, working at one
display screen performing text or data entry tasks. In such situations, there should
be little difficulty in applying such requirements as sufficient space at the desk, a
legible screen image, tiltable display and a separate keyboard. However, the
Regulations also apply to environments where the ergonomics requirements are
quite different. For example, where the task has a strong safety critical component,
where multiple equipment is required, where the displays mimic some real life
environment and where consistency may override other ergonomics requirements.

In this section, we address some of the important considerations in other


environments.
• Control rooms
• Dealer desks
• Microfiche and microfilm viewers
• CCTV consoles

Control rooms
Increased automation has resulted in the increased use of display screens in control
rooms where operators manage and control all manner of processes. They are in
use in power generation and distribution, in transport and traffic management, in
manufacturing and factory process operations, in emergency control centres and in
broadcasting and communications control.

In some cases, the equipment involves standard display screens which are no
different from those in use in offices. In other cases, the display screens are part of
more complex workstations incorporating actuators, other control equipment,
conventional instruments and so on.

PHOTO 6.4 NEAR HERE

Some of the requirements in the Schedule still apply, although what is suitable in
this environment may be different from an office environment. For example, noise
levels which would be detrimental to concentration in an office may be entirely
acceptable in the control centre of a complex mechanical process. Indeed, noting
changes in background noise can be an effective means of monitoring processes
rather than a distraction. However, excessive noise levels would still impair
communication and concentration and may ultimately lead to hearing damage.

A major requirement in many control tasks is that the comfort and indeed safety of
the operator may have to come second to the safety of other people. This has
major implications for the degree to which individual operators may adjust
equipment to meet their own requirements. For example, emergency equipment
which controls the process must always be immediately accessible to all operators
and must behave in the same way. It may therefore be inappropriate to allow
individual users to adjust the keyboard location or the colours used in order to
maintain consistency and allow for rapid emergency action. In a workstation with
several keyboards linked to different equipment, it may be necessary to fix the
location of the emergency controls to avoid confusion.
Similarly, with banks of monitors, some large and containing representations of real
life events, it may be impractical to provide each with independent adjustment of tilt
or angle.

However, the rationale for departing from the requirements in the Schedule must
be based on a sound ergonomic analysis of the users, the tasks they will perform,
the equipment they will use, and the environment. The procedure described above
for creating effective workstations (see Section 6.3) outlines the basic approach
which should be followed.

In designing complex control room environments, it is essential to simulate or


mock-up the workstations and conduct trials with the anticipated users. Such trials
will provide valuable data on potential problems and will provide a sound basis for
subsequent design decisions. The data from the trials will also provide a benchmark
for comparison with operational data and will provide the evidence, should it be
required, to justify design decisions which conflict with the detail in the Schedule.

It must be stressed that the Regulations apply just as much to users in control
rooms as elsewhere, it is simply that the different tasks may make the detailed
ergonomics requirements in the Schedule different. The obligation to assess and
reduce the risks and the other obligations remain the same.

Dealer desks

The Regulations also apply to users who work at dealing desks in banking and
financial markets. As with control room users, there may be some aspects of their
tasks which make the detailed requirements of the Schedule different. However,
simply because there are several terminals accessing different services on one
cramped desk does not mean that it is impractical to provide mechanisms for
adjusting screens or separate keyboards. Of course, in the short term, it may be
very expensive to modify existing fixed workstations. It would therefore be
unreasonable to rip out all such dealer desks right away. However, in deciding what
is reasonably practicable, the most important aspect is whether the workstation or
equipment is posing a risk to the user, particularly in terms of visual, postural or
stress problems.

PHOTO 6.5 NEAR HERE

Many dealer jobs are already highly stressful and therefore the contribution
attributable to the workstation, including software, may be difficult to assess.
However, the main obligation is to avoid the use of the workstation affecting the
health of the user.
In the future, developments in integrated systems will allow several services to
share a single display screen and this may reduce the demands on desk space.
However, switching between services and maintaining an overview of different
systems will become more difficult. This may pose additional and more complex
requirements for the design of the software interface.

Microfiche and microfilm viewers


The Regulations are not restricted to computer visual displays but include other
text and graphic displays. The most widely used non-computer displays which are
affected are microfiche and microfilm readers.

Since these are usually used as archival storage, the image quality is dependent on
the original source documents. In practice, these are often poor and present
relatively low contrast images, especially with extended use.

PHOTO 6.6 NEAR HERE

The general workstation design requirements are not all that different from regular
computer displays and care must be taken to provide users with suitable lighting
(free from disturbing reflections and glare), adequate desking and worksurface and a
proper adjustable chair. In many applications, the use of the microfiche or film
reader may be intermittent or for short periods. Therefore there may not be any
users as defined in the Regulations. Nonetheless, such work can be visually
demanding and may pose just as many visual and postural problems as regular
display screen work.

CCTV consoles

There are many applications where Closed Circuit Television Displays are used in
arrays to provide an overview display. Such consoles are common in television
recording and broadcast control rooms, in security applications in retail operations,
major buildings, shopping centres, railway and underground stations, prisons and
sports venues.

PHOTO 6.7 NEAR HERE

If the displays involve alphanumerics or graphics, then they are covered directly by
these Regulations. However, even if they are exempt under these Regulations, many
of the same ergonomics requirements will apply. Indeed, such equipment is covered
by the Health and Safety (Workplace) Regulations 1992. The tasks often involve
prolonged vigilance and concentration. In some applications, there may be long
periods of inactivity and short bursts of high activity.

Avoiding visual and postural discomfort is very important and involves very similar
design issues to display screen workstations in other control rooms. The same
applies to the issue of job design and stress. The user's tasks should be designed to
incorporate the principles of job design discussed earlier and to recognise the
importance of optimising the human machine system. In complex human-machine
systems, this does not mean simply expecting the human to perform the tasks the
machine cannot yet do. Such designs may prevent the user from developing an
appropriate level of skill to take over when problems occur. They also tend to be
tedious and boring for the users leading to errors and failed vigilance.

A more appropriate solution is known as human centred design where the skills
and values of the individual are respected by the system and the final result is a
more effective and sustainable human-machine system. Giving the users an active
part in the design of such systems, if possible, is one way of ensuring that the design
reflects appropriate human values.
7. CONCLUSION

The scope of the Regulations is very broad and will affect many different aspects of
organisational life. Although many of the obligations were already required under
the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974), they are now much more explicit and
even good employers may find that they need to make some changes.

A brief sample audit will give a good indication of the scale of the changes
necessary, if any. This will allow suitable provision to be made in budgets and
development plans. The sample audit should cover identifying display screen
equipment and users, conducting assessments, dealing with the findings and
determining possible exclusions and special requirements.

Following the sample audit, the impact of the Regulations can be estimated and this
will provide a clear basis for deciding on priorities. It is not reasonable to expect
employers to conduct all assessments immediately. However, a plan should be in
place and urgent priorities identified and tackled first.

What is it going to cost?

The Regulations will result in expenditure in conducting assessments, improving


workstations to reduce risks, in modifying work practices to break up display
screen work, in providing eye tests and special glasses, and in providing training and
information for users.

The scale of these costs depends on the circumstances of the individual


organisation. Some will need to spend very little on furniture or equipment whereas
others may have to replace displays, desks, chairs and lighting.

The Health and Safety Executive has estimated that implementing the Regulations
should cost British employers in the region of £42 per workstation, with half the
cost being involved in meeting the minimum requirements and one third on the
eyetests. It amounts to less than 1% of the cost of equipping the workstation and
would be recovered if just one in ten users took one less day sick leave per year.

Similarly, the costs of the problems are not well understood or quantified. There
are no reliable figures on how much time is lost due to display screen work related
ill-health. The costs of extra errors, reduced performance and discomfort are also
hidden.
Such figures have been criticised as an underestimate of the true costs. However,
one day less sick leave is also likely to be an underestimate of the true benefits.

Ergonomic intervention, particularly training, improves morale, especially amongst


intensive display screen users. Productivity also benefits, with recorded increases of
between 10 and 15% easily attainable by attention to display screen ergonomics.
Reduced absenteeism, whether through reduced sickness or improved morale, is a
major benefit and avoids the costs of employing temps, paying for extra overtime or
just accepting reduced output.

Paying attention to the ergonomics of the display screen work helps employers get
more out of their investment in information technology. Improving the health,
comfort and well-being of users helps employers get more out of their investment
in people.

Where can you get help?

There are various sources of external expertise available to help employers


implement these Regulations and fulfil their statutory obligations. Appendix B lists
the main professional organisations and publications.
APPENDIX A1 Level 1 Assessment (Sample)

The user checklist on the following pages may be copied and folded into a small
booklet and provided to users, preferably along with some explanation and training.

Once the checklist has been completed by the display screen user, the reply form
should be forwarded to a competent person for interpretation and assessment.

Remember that the objective is to help users be safe, comfortable and


productive...not simply to collect statistics on problems.
Assess your own working environment

120
The purpose of this booklet is to help you to check that your working environment
is comfortable and effcicient. The most important requirement is that it suits you
and your job and so the booklet contains some guidance on what you can do to set
up your own workstation. It also tells you what to do if you find a problem you
cannot deal with yourself.

If you do not use a VDU at all, only some of the questions will apply. You should
complete the relevant parts of the checklist and return the summary form with
your answers.

121
There are four steps:

Step 1. Consider the different tasks you do and decide which you should give
priority to when you organise your workplace.

Step 2. With these tasks in mind, work through the checklist and make sure
everything is properly positioned and adjusted.

Step 3. If you find a problem, see if you can fix it yourself by making simple
adjustments.

Step 4. If you find some problem which cannot be fixed by simple adjustment, then
you should note it on the summary form. Then complete the personal details and
forward the summary form to: ................................................

122
Step 1. DECIDE WHICH TASKS HAVE PRIORITY

Typical tasks include using a keyboard where you will want the keyboard at
elbow height, close enough to allow your upper arms to hang down naturally, and
to be able to change position to avoid discomfort.

When operating equipment, it is important to be able to reach frequently used


controls without excessive twisting and stretching. Space to spread out working
documents is important, as is the ability to organise the workstation for different
styles of working from inputting data to writing. Telephoning and informal
meetings may be important and place constraints on how you want to organise
your workstation.

123
Step 2. WORK THROUGH THE CHECKLIST

On the following pages, there are short sections dealing with different parts of your
working environment.

These are as follows:

Keyboard
Display Screen
Chair
Worksurface
Lighting and Daylight
General Environment
Work Organisation and User Interface

Work through each section in turn, marking your answer to each question in the
appropriate box.

Later, you will be able to copy the important points onto the summary form at the
back of the booklet.

124
Keyboard

Plan your desk so that you can do the tasks you do most often without twisting or
stretching. If you use keyboard a lot, sit straight on to it. If you spend more time
working on documents, put them in front and the keyboard to the side.

Does the keyboard feel comfortable to use?

Can you adjust it to a comfortable angle?

Is it separate from the screen?

Is there space in front of it to rest your hands when you are not keying?

Is the keyboard surface free from distracting reflections?

Is the keyboard layout appropriate for your task?

Are the symbols on the keys legible from your normal working position?

Have you sufficient space to use your mouse (if necessary)?

125
Display Screen

Place the screen at a comfortable reading distance, directly in front if you read it
most of the time or to the side if you only refer to it occasionally. Make sure that
you can do your main tasks without excessive twisting.

Is the screen image clear and stable?

Is the brightness/contrast easily adjustable?

Do the adjustments work for the lighting conditions?

Does the screen swivel and tilt easily?

Is the screen height comfortable?

Is the screen free from distracting reflections and glare?

Is the screen clean?

126
Chair

Now adjust your chair so that you are at the right height for keying - wrists
reasonably straight, forearms approximately horizontal or sloping slightly
downwards and upper arms hanging comfortably down from relaxed shoulders.
Then check that your feet are comfortably on the floor and that your legs are not
hitting the underside of the desk. Some people need a footrest to avoid their legs
being unsupported and to prevent the underside of their thighs being squashed by
the front of the chair.

Is your chair stable?

Does it allow you to move and sit comfortably?

Can you adjust the seat height easily?

Can you set the seat back height and tilt to a comfortable
position?

Do you need a footrest?

127
Worksurface

Now make sure that you have enough room for the equipment you use, documents
and other reference materials.

Is the work surface large enough to allow some flexibility?

Is its surface suitable eg not too shiny?

Can you reach equipment eg printer and storage easily?

Is there enough space for you to be comfortable and


change position?

If there is a document holder, is it stable and easily adjustable?

Is there sufficient legroom under the worksurfaces?

Is it clear of obstructions?

Is there sufficient storage?

Is access to your workstation satisfactory?

128
Lighting and Daylight

Adjust the position of your screen so that you are looking comfortably down at an
angle of between 15 and 30 degrees below the horizontal but without hunching
your shoulders. (a useful tip is that the top of the display casing should be
approximately at eye level). You should be able to work at the screen without
bright glare sources in your field of view and without distracting reflections.

Is the lighting suitable for you and your display screen tasks?

Have you sufficient light for other tasks?

Have glare and distracting reflections been avoided from

display screen
keyboard
light fittings
windows
walls
other sources?

Are windows fitted with suitable blinds, curtains or equivalent?

Are these effective in reducing glare and reflections?

129
General Environment

Even a good posture is tiring if you sit still for too long. We need to move and bring
movement back into the job through deliberate exercises to avoid discomfort and
fatigue. We also need to consider other aspects of the general working
environment.

Does equipment noise distract your attention or disturb speech?

Does equipment heat cause you discomfort?

Is the atmosphere too dry?

Is the air temperature suitable?

Is the air conditioning satisfactory?

Are there problems with static?

Are there problems with trailing or unsecured wires and cables?

Are there any other health and safety problems?

130
Work Organisation and User Interface

Discomfort and stress can also be affected by the type of work you do and how it is
organised. Display screen work can become almost addictive and some people find
it difficult to adopt comfortable working patterns.

Do you have the opportunity to take breaks?

Does the job allow you to learn new skills?

Do you find the software easy to use?

Is it suited to your tasks?

Can you vary your pace of work if you want to?

Are the systems you use consistent eg in use of function keys?

Is the system response time suited to your task?

Are the manuals and documentation helpful?

131
Step 3. Take action to fix problems

Now that you have worked through the checklist, you may have identified a
number of problems or aspects which could be improved.

Go back to each section in turn and summarise any problems noted on the fold
out summary form on the next page.

You will find that there is a box for each section and by folding the form over you
can see your answers and the appropriate box at the same time. Now summarise
any problems or tick the 'no problem' box.

Note that points on the left hand pages go on the front of the form and points on
the right hand pages go on the back.

In many cases, you will find that simple adjustments to the equipment or furniture
will be sufficient to ensure that your workplace suits you and your tasks. If you are
satisfied that you have solved the problem, tick the 'problem fixed' box.

Do not be concerned if you have chosen to adjust or set out your workplace
differently from your colleagues.

Remember that everyone is different and what matters is that your workplace suits
you and your own style of working.

132
Step 4. If you have noted some problem which cannot be fixed by simple
adjustment, tick the 'help required' box and make sure you summarise the details
on the reply form (and keep a note yourself) so that it can be followed up and fixed.

Then complete the personal details and symptoms experienced parts of the form,
remove it from the booklet and send it to............................

Note: You should return the form even if you have noted no problems at the
moment.

133
Personal Details

Which department/section do you work in?

What are the main tasks in your job?

Approximately, how long have you been doing this job?

What percentage of your work involves using a display?

What main tasks do you perform on the display?

How long do you work at the display before taking breaks?

How long is a typical break and what does it involve?

If you wear glasses, have you been advised that they are
suitable for screen work?

Have you received training on the use of your workstation


(including software)?

Name .....................................
Room Number...............................

Date completed ...........................

Please send completed form to .............

134
Back
Display Screen

no problem
problem fixed
help required

Worksurface

no problem
problem fixed
help required

General Environment

no problem
problem fixed
help required

135
Summary of Problems - Reply Form Front

Keyboard

no problem
problem fixed
help required

Chair

no problem
problem fixed
help required

Lighting and Daylight

no problem
problem fixed
help required

Work Organisation and User Interface

no problem
problem fixed
help required

136
Symptoms of fatigue and discomfort

Put a tick in the most appropriate column to describe any symptoms of fatigue and
discomfort you experience during or after display screen work.

Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never

Fatigue
Headache
Irritated eyes
Difficulties reading
(screen or documents)
Nose or throat discomfort

Aches, tingling or discomfort in:

Feet or Legs
Back
Neck or Shoulder
Arms or Wrists
Hands or Fingers

Other symptoms (please describe)

.................

137
APPENDIX A2 Level 2 Assessment (Sample)

The detailed checklist on the following pages may be copied back-to-back into a
short booklet and provided to the assessors alongwith some explanation and
suitable training.

Once the checklist has been completed by the assessor, the actions which will be
taken should be reported back to the user.

Remember that the objective is similar to the use of the Level 1 checklist ie to help
users be safe, comfortable and productive...not simply to collect statistics on
problems.

138
Workstation Assessment
User/Operator Dept. Date
Assessor Location Cost
Centr
e
User's Job Title/Description Main job activities

Display Screen & Type:


Keyboard
Is the screen: Problem Action Priority
image clear, stable
and free of flicker?
clean?
free from
distracting
reflections/glare?
height
comfortable?
brightness/contrast
easily adjustable?
swivel and tilt
easily adjustable?
position easily
adjustable?
Are the ranges of
adjustment adequate
in the conditions?
Is the keyboard:
comfortable to
use?
adjustable to a
comfortable angle?
separate from the
screen?
surface matt?
layout appropriate
for the task?
symbol set legible?

139
Is there sufficient space:
in front of the
keyboard to rest hands
when not keying?
to use the mouse
(if applicable)?
Workstation
Environment
Problem Action Priority
Is the temperature
comfortable for the
user?
Has discomfort from
equipment heat
been avoided?
Is the air conditioning
satisfactory?
Is the humidity
adequate?
Is the noise from people,
outside and
equipment
acceptable?
Is the level of static
electricity acceptable?
Has the risk from
trailing cables been
avoided?

140
Lighting and Daylight Lights type:
Is the lighting: Problem Action Priority
suitable for
display screen tasks?
sufficient for
other tasks?
Have glare and
distracting reflections
been
avoided from:
light fittings?
windows ?
walls?
other sources?
Are windows fitted
with suitable
coverings?
Chair and foot rest Type:
Is the chair: Problem Action Priority
stable?
comfortable?
suitable for easy
freedom of
movement?
seat height
adjustable?
back easily
height and tilt
adjustable?
Is a foot rest
required?
Has a suitable foot
rest been provided?
Work space Desk type:
Is the work surface: Problem Action Priority
large enough to
allow flexibility?

141
suitable (e.g.
stable/not too shiny)?
clear of
obstructions?
Is there space for:
comfortable &
changeable posture?
legroom under
the work surfaces?
storage?
easy access to
the workstation?
Is a document holder
required?
Has a suitable
document holder
been
provided?
Has the user made
best use of the
workstation
space?
Can everything be
reached easily?

142
User-Computer Main software:
Interface
Is the software: Problem Action Priority
easy to use?
suited to the
tasks?
structured
consistently?
response time
suited to the task?
feedback suitable?
free of
clandestine
performance
monitoring?
documentation
accessible and helpful?
Work Organisation
Is the job designed such Priority
that the user can:
incorporate off-
screen activities?
influence the
pace of work?
take breaks?
avoid repetitive
on-screen tasks?
participate in
organisation of work?

143
Information and Details of level
Training required/completed

Has the user received


adequate training in
the use of the
workstation?
Has the user received
adequate health and
safety
information about the
workstation?
Additional Comments

Sketch

144
Workstation Assessment Notes

The assessment form is to be completed by trained personnel only. The purpose is


to help to check that the user's working environment is safe, comfortable and
complies to Health and Safety Legislation.
User's Job Descriptions

Use the appropriate space on the first page to describe the main activities and
responsibilities of the job. This will help give you an understanding of the way in
which in the workstation is used.

The Check Lists

With the user's tasks in mind, work through the check list and make sure
everything is properly positioned and adjusted.

Make a note of the type of equipment present and other factors in the spaces
provided and mark the answer to each question in the appropriate box with a tick, .

If you find a problem, see if you can fix it yourself by making simple adjustments.

Actions and Priorities

The questions are worded so that a "NO" answer usually means that an action is
required. Make a note of the problem and remedial action in the spaces provided.
Indicate the level of priority the action has according to the following:
1 - if the action needs to be undertaken immediately to eliminate the health and
safety risk and satisfy the Regulations
2 - if there is no immediate health risk but the action should be undertaken as
soon as is reasonably practicable
3 - if the action is not essential but would be desirable to satisfy ergonomics good
practice

Additional Comments

Use the "Additional Comments" box to note down any peculiarities or qualifying
comments and to refer to other documents, memos, etc.

Sketch

145
You may find it useful to produce a quick sketch plan of the workstation, indicating
the position of equipment, lights, air conditioning, etc., relative to the user.

APPENDIX B. Sources of help

1. Health and Safety Executive Publications

Display Screen Equipment Work: Guidance on Regulations, L26,


1992

Working with VDUs, IND (G) 36(L), 1992

Seating at Work, HS(G)57, 1991

Lighting at Work, HS(G)38, 1987

Work related Upper Limb Disorders: a guide to prevention, HS(G)60,


1990

2. Standards

BS 7179 Ergonomics of design and use of visual display terminals (VDTs)


in offices Parts 1 to 6

146
ISO 9241 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display
terminals (VDTs) Parts 1 to 17

BS EN 29241 Ergonomics requirements for office work with visual


display terminals (VDTs) Parts 1 to 17

ISO 11064 Ergonomic Design of Control Centres, Parts 1 to 8

BS 7649 Guide to the design and preparation of documentation for users


of application software

3. Other Publications
Lighting Guide. Areas for Visual Display Units (LG3:1989) Chartered
Institute of Building Service Engineers, 222 Balham High Road, London SW12
9BS

VDU Workstations: Keys to Usability, Federation of Electronics


Industry, Russell Square House, 10 - 12 Russell Square, London WC1B 5EE

Visual display units: Radiation protection guidance, International


Labour Office, Occupational Safety and Health Series, No. 70, 1994

4. Contacts

The Ergonomics Society,


Devonshire House
Devonshire Square
Loughborough
LE11 3DW
Tel: 0509 234904

The Association of Optometrists


233 Blackfriars Road
London
SE1 8NW
Tel 0171 261 9661

HSE Employment Medical Advisory Service

147
(See HSE Areas Offices in Telephone Book)

Sales and Customer Services


British Standards House
BSI Standards
389 Chiswick High Road
London,
W4 4AL
Tel: 0181 996 7000
Fax: 0181 996 7001

International Organisation for Standardisation


Central Secretariat
1, rue de Varembe
Case postale 56
CH-1211 Geneva 20
SWITZERLAND

European Computer Manufacturer's Association (ECMA)


114 Rue du Rhone
CH 1204 Geneva
SWITZERLAND

Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN)


rue Brederode 2, Boite 5
B-1000 Brussels
BELGIUM

148

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi