Ergonomic Panel Angles for Kitchen Appliances with Cooker Knobs
Source abstract
Abstract
Kitchen appliance control panels come in various designs, each with different parameter values. Of these design parameters, the panel angle is a key factor that impacts both usability and user preference. This study empirically investigates the effects of panel angles on the usability of knob panels in kitchen appliances. The research focused on identifying the optimal panel angles for visibility, physical comfort, and user preference. Six different panel angles (0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°) were tested through an experimental setup simulating a typical kitchen environment. Twenty participants, with experience in operating kitchen appliances, provided subjective ratings on the three usability factors using a 7-point Likert scale. The results demonstrated significant impacts of panel angle on all three measures, with angles between 45° and 60° showing the highest usability scores. The study highlights that the appropriate panel angle for knob panels should fall between 30° and 90°, with 45° to 60° being the optimal range. The results of this study could contribute to the ergonomic design of kitchen appliances, enhancing usability and minimizing human errors and response times during emergencies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders · Color perception and design · Ergonomics and Human Factors
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Safety Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Republic of Korea
Department of Safety Engineering, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Republic of Korea
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. The effect of tablet tilt angle on users’ preferences, postures, and performance10.3233/WOR-131670 ↗
2. Exploration of the associations of touch-screen tablet computer usage and musculoskeletal discomfort10.3233/WOR-162274 ↗
3. Muscle Activity and Comfort Perception on Neck, Shoulder, and Forearm While Using a Tablet Computer at Various Tilt Angles10.1080/10447318.2015.1064639 ↗
4. Optimal viewing angle for touch-screen displays: Is there such a thing?10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00087-5 ↗
5. Gravitational demand on the neck musculature during tablet computer use10.1080/00140139.2015.1005166 ↗
6. Touch-screen tablet user configurations and case-supported tilt affect head and neck flexion angles10.3233/WOR-2012-1337 ↗
7. Tomita, Y., Suzuki, Y., Shibagaki, A., Takahashi, S., and Matsuka, Y. (2022). Physical Load While Using a Tablet at Different Tilt Angles during Sitting and Standing. Sensors, 22.10.3390/s22218237 ↗
8. Rungkitlertsakul, S., Bhuanantanondh, P., and Buchholz, B. (2023). The effect of tablet tilt angles and time on posture, muscle activity, and discomfort at the neck and shoulder in healthy young adults. PLoS ONE, 18.10.1371/journal.pone.0283521 ↗
9. Effect of tablet tilt positioning on ergonomic risks and respiratory function10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15654 ↗
10. Localized Muscle Fatigue—Definition and Measurement
11. Intensity and character of pain and muscular activity levels elicited by maintained extreme flexion position of the lower-cervical-upper-thoracic spine10.2340/16501977198618117126 ↗
12. Guidelines for wrist posture based on carpal tunnel pressure thresholds10.1518/001872007779598127 ↗
13. Self-reported neck symptoms and use of personal computers, laptops and cell phones among Finns aged 18–6510.1080/00140139.2013.802018 ↗
14. Relationships between sagittal postures of thoracic and cervical spine, presence of neck pain, neck pain severity and disability10.1016/j.math.2010.03.009 ↗
15. Lozano, C., Jindrich, D., and Kahol, K. (2011, January 7–12). The Impact on Musculoskeletal System During Multitouch Tablet Interactions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1145/1978942.1979062 ↗
16. Rempel, D., and Horie, S. (1994). Effect of Wrist Posture During Typing on Carpal Tunnel Pressure. Proceedings of the Working with Display Units, University of Milan.
17. User discomfort, work posture and muscle activity while using a touchscreen in a desktop PC setting10.1080/00140139.2011.592604 ↗
18. Sitting posture and neck and shoulder muscle activities at different screen height settings of the visual display terminal10.2486/indhealth.35.330 ↗
19. A Survey of Physical Fatigue During Use of a Tablet LCD Monitor
20. The relationship between head posture and severity and disability of patients with neck pain10.1016/j.math.2006.11.002 ↗
21. Influence of neck flexion angle on gravitational moment and neck muscle activity when using a smartphone while standing10.1080/00140139.2021.1873423 ↗
22. Nussbaum. Fatigue, performance and the work environment: A survey of registered nurses10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05597.x ↗
23. Motor fatigue and cognitive task performance in humans10.1113/jphysiol.2002.027938 ↗
24. Cognitive spatial processing and the regulation of posture10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.617 ↗
25. Occupational fatigue, workload and nursing teamwork in hospital nurses10.1111/jan.15246 ↗
26. Physiological factors which influence cognitive performance in military personnel10.1177/0018720819841757 ↗
27. Kitchen Range Fires and Explosions: Usability Versus Safety10.1177/1071181319631473 ↗
28. Usability of touch-panel interfaces for older adults10.1518/001872005775570952 ↗
29. ANSI (2010). American National Standard for Household Cooking Gas Appliances, American National Standards Institute.
30. (2009). Standard for Household Electric Ranges (Standard No. Standard 858).
31. US Consumer Product Safety Commission (2006). Handbook for Manufacturing Safer Consumer Products.
32. Sanders, M.S., and McCormick, E.J. (1993). Human Factors in Engineering and Design, McGRAW-HILL. [7th ed.].
33. Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., Banbury, S., and Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, Psychology Press. [4th ed.].10.4324/9781315665177 ↗
34. Son, M., and Beck, D. (2022). Ergonomic Recommendations for Range of Control Panel Angle of Touchscreen Kitchen Appliances. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12157913 ↗
35. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes
36. Likert scale: Explored and explained10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 ↗
37. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage Publications.
38. Girden, E.R. (1992). ANOVA: Repeated Measures, SAGE.10.4135/9781412983419 ↗
39. Lim, Y.W. (1994). Design Ergonomics, Mijinsa.
40. Preferred viewing distance and screen angle of electronic paper displays10.1016/j.apergo.2006.06.008 ↗
41. Effects of combined wrist flexion/extension and forearm rotation and two levels of relative force on discomfort10.1080/00140130903040208 ↗
42. Christensen, J.M., Mcbarron, J.W., McConville, J.T., Pogue, W.R., Williges, R.C., and Woodson, W.E. (1995). Man-Systems Integration Standards NASA-STD-3000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
43. Wickens, C.D., Gordon, S.E., Liu, Y., and Lee, J. (2004). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering, Pearson Prentice Hall.
44. Technology acceptance model
45. Forlizzi, J., and Ford, S. (2000, January 1). The building blocks of experience: An early framework for interaction designers. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/347642.347800 ↗
46. Sharing user experiences in the product innovation process: Participatory design needs participatory communication10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00414.x ↗
47. Allen, J. (2002). Some Problems of Designing for Augmentative and Alternative Communication Users: An Enquiry Through Practical Design Activity. [Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University].
48. Automotive HMI design and participatory user involvement: Review and perspectives10.1080/00140139.2016.1188218 ↗