As an ergonomist myself (and someone who really doesn't like the term "human factors" for some of the reasons cited, and some others), I thought I'd defend my discipline. First of all Zooker, to say "by and large these individuals talk out of their a***holes" seems somewhat ignorant (perhaps a little Freudian projection? ;-)). How many have you met to make this sweeping (personal) judgement? In my experience, they are far too professional to use such language themselves about another group of professionals (especially on an internet forum!). And are your old HF enemies really qualified ergonomists, or are they part of the growing band of people who are 'HF experts', without any formal and thorough education in ergonomics. Since you are so convinced that Loughborough - the birthplace of British Ergonomics, and still the home of The Ergonomics Society and the oldest Ergonomics course in Britain - "never has, or ever will have anything to do with it", you are not really sounding like a reliable source.
But Zooker, I think I can understand your point on dark art. I think you mean opinion. Ergonomics proper is a science and an engineering discipline. But many organisations do not allow for it to be practised empirically, and require judgement based on knowledge of the organisation, job, tasks, literature, and feeling. A practitioner therefore sometimes has to practise Ergonomics as a craft and give an opinion - something you, surely, understand. I can also understand '2 sheds' point, and I sympathise with it. True ergonomics IS about design. But its American cousin 'Human Factors' has muscled in and has come to mean anything to do with people at work, especially where safety is concerned.
I also - again - agree with you 'anotherthing'. But what I would say is that you are probably not party to the huge compromises that have to be made, and are often demanded. "HF" get tarred with higher level decisions, purely because they have been involved in the process, but they do not necessarily agree with the outcome. EFPS for TC: there have been some very critical HF reviews on EFPS. The architecture means that many of the (compromise) recommendations are not possible, partly because it is, at the end of the day, based on Windows and is not a bespoke NATS system. Also, consider whether it was already purchased before HF had any input... My personal view is that it is not well suited to TC - but I am still a fan of paper strips, having seen nothing yet to beat their usability (handwriting issues aside). But then I was not a fan of EFPS for busy airports, and it seems to have worked out in the end. Usability is only one consideration - albeit (in my opinion) the most important. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where HF specialist have stuffed up, but unless the same cannot be said of controllers, then perhaps we can agree that we all have to make decisions in a messy environment, and none of us is perfect. As I'm sure you know, few of them will be reading these boards though, to defend themselves. It would be better to speak directly with them to get the background - and I'm sure you probably do that too.
I can vouch for the sheer commitment of NATS' HF specialists (as they are called in NATS) to end users (mostly controllers and engineers). Some HF specialists have been willing to (and have) put their jobs on the line to stand up to senior management for issues that they believe are safety-critical. So you can certainly bet that HF specialists are bringing up your points, and equally that they are seen by the receivers as 'points to be considered'. HF specialists rarely have the final decision making power. Having spent a lot of time with several other HF specialists, I can honestly say I have rarely heard the kind of language used by Zooker, used against controllers. Of course, certain characterisations come up, like "10 controllers, 10 opinions", but that is true of any end-users (and often said by controllers) - and it is sometimes true of HF specialists too.
Aviator_IT - my advice is to study something that you are really, really interested in, and would study for pleasure. If that did happen to be Ergonomics, then feel free to PM me.
Last edited by HigherSights; 15th Jun 2009 at 05:29.