MOTUS

PHASE 1 & 2

Research & Defining Problem

Phase 1 involved four key areas of research:

Phase 2 focused on analyzing the insights gathered in Phase 1 and diving deeper into the ergonomics of children’s seating.

According to an article published by Clinical Pediatrics in 2013, over 40,000 children in the United States sustained chair-related injuries annually between 2003 and 2010, equating to four children every hour (Gholipor, 2013). These accidents stem from various causes, including discomfort in standard seating. Young children, who often have lower upper body muscle tone, may topple over when unable to maintain balance. Additionally, insufficient or excessive sensory stimulation can lead children to create their own sensory input, such as tipping chairs, sitting backward, or squatting, increasing the risk of accidents (Wong, 2014).

The research highlighted that discomfort and lack of appropriate stimulation were primary contributors to injuries. This prompted an investigation into designing seating that accommodates children’s unique needs. The first step was to address the height of chairs, as existing seating in the museum failed to accommodate children’s low popliteal height.*

(*Popliteal height refers to the measurement from the underside of the thigh at the knee to the floor when seated, also known as “seating height”.)

PHASE 3

User Testing

Phase 3 of the project focused on user testing. Primary goal was to explore ways to reduce the risk of injuries in young children caused by seating designed for adults. Using anthropometric data on children and an analysis of existing children’s seating in the market, two height-adjustable prototypes were fabricated for testing.

Constructed from ¾-inch plywood, the prototypes featured side knobs for height customization, allowing adjustments from 10 to 18 inches. This range was designed to accommodate children of various sizes while addressing the standard adult seating height of 18 inches used in the museum.

For initial testing, the prototypes were adjusted to three fixed heights—10 inches, 14 inches, and 18 inches—to streamline the testing process. The testing was conducted with parents and children visiting the CSTM. Observations included how children approached and sat on the seats, their initial reactions, posture adjustments, and overall comfort. Testing concluded with interviews to gather qualitative feedback from both the children and their parents.

In addition, further layout testing and interviews were conducted in collaboration with a group mate, Carmilla Sumantry. These sessions assessed how visitors associated different shapes and seating layouts with social interaction and privacy, providing valuable insights into how seating design can influence user experience.

The findings from user testing revealed unexpected insights:

• Lack of stimulation: Children often dislike sitting still, with behaviors like chair tipping and spinning observed as responses to under-stimulation.

• Size preference: Children are naturally drawn to objects sized appropriately for them.

• Group seating demand: Visitors expressed a strong preference for group seating arrangements that allow them to rest while facing and interacting with each other.

• Social value: Scaled models, sketches, and interviews highlighted the importance visitors place on seating configurations that foster social interaction.