[sudo-discuss] [omni-discuss] I'm going to pee sitting down at the omni: A call for others to join.

Wed Jan 14 07:17:29 PST 2015

I found something else I wrote that has a better account of
McClelland & Ward, 1982.
http://thomaslevine.com/!/toilet-ergonomic-analysis/#seatdesign

On 13 Jan 23:58, Eske Silver wrote:
> I effing love this thread.
> YAR, you're point on. Lol.
> Toilet rights!!
> 
> ~ Korl
> 
> 500px.com/eske
> 510.689.4484
> On Jan 13, 2015 3:37 PM, "Thomas Levine" <_ at thomaslevine.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have excerpted some relevant sections of McClelland & Ward, 1982.
> >
> > First, the study supports the suggestion of longer seats.
> >
> > > The apertures of the nonstandard seats used in this study were 0.07m
> > > longer than the currently recommended aperture. Longer apertures were
> > > clearly an improvement over recommended ones in terms of access.
> > > This confirms the suggestion made as a result of the previous
> > > anthropometric survey that a longer aperture would be more
> > > appropriate for toilet use. An enlarged seat aperture incorporated
> > > into future standards for the design of toilet seats would
> > > necessitate a longer bowl aperture than currently recommended.
> > > If the bowl aperture were not extended to be coincident with the seat,
> > > then at some point the rim would come within the aperture of the seat,
> > > and soiling of the bowl might result.
> > >
> > > Two consequences would result from the to the most negative responses.
> > > adoption of a longer seat aperture as standard, and these would be of
> > > great importance for the design of toilet sanitary ware and the
> > > related facilities. First, a longer aperture would require a major
> > > reappraisal of existing toilet designs by the sanitary-ware industry;
> > > this undoubtedly would involve considerable development and expense.
> > > The second consequence involves water economy. If a longer aperture
> > > were adopted, then the internal surface area of the bowl would
> > > probably increase or at least change in profile. This raises the
> > > question as to whether the demand that toilet bowls be flushed
> > > effectively with less water is compatible with a longer aperture.
> > > This paper is not the appropriate platform for a lengthy discussion
> > > of these topics, but if a new standard for toilet bowls is to be
> > > established that satisfies ergonomic criteria, then it is clear from
> > > this study that the question of the aperture length for both toilet
> > > seat and bowl needs to be resolved. In the authors' view, this would
> > > only be possible if a further study were undertaken, which would be
> > > based on the evaluation of fully operational toilet units.
> >
> > Secondarily, the results suggest that people, especially women,
> > prefer seats that support the buttocks and thighs well.
> >
> > > Given the similarities of seated positions adopted by men and women,
> > > the differences in preference may be due to the well-known anatomical
> > > differences that exist between men and women with respect to the
> > > pelvic region, in particular the differences in bi-ischial diameter
> > > and the distribution of flesh around the buttocks and thighs. These
> > > differences may require different emphasis on the support provided by
> > > toilet seats. However, as already noted, in terms of the psychometric
> > > scales used, both Seat 3, for men, and Seat 4, for women, were
> > > acceptable. Thus, given the constraint of selecting one seat type for
> > > both men and women, the results suggest that improvements in seat
> > > comfort may be obtained by providing greater support for both buttocks
> > > and thighs.
> >
> > Finally, nobody had brought up the height of the seats, but I have to
> > mention their findings on this matter
> >
> > > It is clear that the most significant difference in height
> > > requirement is between men and women. The overall seat heights
> > > derived from this study (HI) were, for men, a mean of 0.43m,
> > > standard deviation 0.030 m, and for women, mean 0.40 m, standard
> > > deviation 0.033 m. Accepting the premise that only one type of toilet
> > > bowl and seat can be considered for general use by adults, a toilet
> > > seat height of 0.4 m is recommended for the U.K. adult population.
> > > This height is, of course, based on the preference of unshod
> > > subjects. To take account of "average" indoor shoe heel heights,
> > > a value of, say, 0.050 m could be added, giving a figure of 0.450 m
> > > for seat height. This would be 0.020 m higher than the seat height of
> > > 0.430 m calculated to be the current British standard. The adoption
> > > of a seat at this height (0.450 m) would, however, militate against
> > > its suitability for the shorter members of the population, for
> > > example, small women wearing low-heeled footwear. The preferred
> > > height (Table 2) of the 2.5th percentile unshod female subjects was
> > > 0.338 m. A seat height of 0.450 m would thus be 0.112 m greater than
> > > that preferred by them and would, in fact, accord with the height
> > > preferences for only the 50th percentile female wearing heels of at
> > > least 5 em. A seat height of 0.450 m would be 0.030 m lower than the
> > > preferred overall height of 50th percentile male subjects if 0.050m
> > > is added for "average" shoe heel height (Table 2); it would be 0.050m
> > > higher than the preferred height of the 2.5th percentile male subject
> > > unshod. Because of the considerable body of opinion, already referred
> > > to, on the advantages of the squat rather than the seated posture,
> > > particularly for defecation, seat height favoring a comfortable
> > > seated posture for the smaller members of the population and a more
> > > squat posture for taller people, is to be preferred to one that was
> > > too high for smaller individuals in the seated posture. It is
> > > therefore suggested that a seat height of 0.40 m (the mean height for
> > > women, unshod) would be better than 0.45m as a fixed height to
> > > accommodate the adult population; 0.40 m would also be closer to the
> > > needs of the young than would 0.45 m. This height is approximately
> > > 0.03m lower than the height of a toilet seat set on a toilet bowl
> > > both of which conform to the current British standards (British
> > > Standards Institution, 1971, I977a, 1977b).
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On 13 Jan 11:38, Jehan Tremback wrote:
> > > Definately plastic
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Levine <_ at thomaslevine.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> I think new seats would also create a sense of maintenance/neatness
> > that
> > > >> would encourage people to be neat themselves. Also, if we do get new
> > > >> seats,
> > > >> we might consider the findings of Ian McClelland and Joan Ward
> > regarding
> > > >> the toilet seat preferences of different sexes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Ian L. McClelland and Joan S. Ward (1982). The Ergonomics of Toilet
> > Seats.
> > > >>   Human Factors, 24(6): 713—725.
> > > >>
> > > >> That paper is proprietary, unfortunately, but I can recount it for
> > anyone
> > > >> who is interested.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Please do! Any recommendations regarding open vs closed front, wood vs
> > > > plastic?
> > > >
> > > > Patrik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > sudo-discuss mailing list
> > > > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> > > > https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
> > https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20150114/032f03ef/attachment.sig>