AppEed Er,.cono,,,roics ?.97.'2.".5.
279-272
Opening windows
J. M. Oates
Psychologist, Industrial Design (Engineering) ResearchUnit, Royal College of Art
In this article the results of an experimental study into the user acceptance of various
window handle heights and opening forces are given. The apparatus and method used
are detailed with the subject sample, and the results and design implications are
discussed.
Introduction
Windows are probably the building components which
the occupants most frequently have to operate to achieve
environmental control. Yet, considering their importance
and the frequency of their use, windows have had little
attention from ergonomic research.
Some information is available on optimum hand grip
sizes and maximum reach limits, but closer examination
shows that this data is of little use in defining either the
limits of acceptability or the relationship between
acceptable reach range and acceptable force exertion. This
has led to a situation in which, because the user's needs are
not known and so cannot be included as design criteria,
windows are designed almost exclusively to technical
specifications and are presented as catalogue items from
which the job architect must select the window that best
meets his needs.
In addition there is little communication between the
architect user and the real user. This is due in part to the
lack of any useable data on user preference for window
operation, but it is also due to the attitude of the user that
a modern window, once installed, is a permanent feature
which cannot be replaced, even if found unsatisfactory in
use. And the indications are that, as far as the actual users
are concerned, windows achieve a very poor standard of
performance.
There is, however, a possibility that, with the
development of building consortia, such as CLASP
(Consortium of Local Authorities for Schools Project), the
current situation could be improved if the ergonomic data
were available. Within the consortia, central development
groups generate specifications which are intended to utilise
the available ergonomic data as well as technical
requirements. Since the building consortia represent a large
potential market to the manufacturers of building
components, it is likely that ranges of windows will be
designed to the consortia's specifications.
At present, while these specifications are being drawn up,
and the building industry is in a state of change, a real step
towards satisfying the user could be made by generating
data on user needs. Given the general availability of such
data, job architects could then select windows from the
270 AppliedErgonomics December 1970
ranges designed to the specifications, knowing that such
windows will meet the needs of the user.
To these ends, the MoPBW commissioned a study on
window design which was undertaken in 1967-68 by the
Industrial Design (Engineering) Research Unit, Royal
College of Art.
In this study, a preliminary survey showed that many
windows are awkward to open, due to the handle being
placed too high or the opening force being too great.
Therefore, the user acceptance of various handle heights
and opening forces was studied experimentally and the
results are given in this paper.
Apparatus
A standard, glazed, vertical, centre-hung aluminium
window, opening outwards, was used for the experiment
(see Fig 1). The handle was specially made up from mild
steel tube to dimensions by Hertzberg (1956), being ½in
(13 mm) diameter and 3¾in (95 mm) long. A plastic plate
was attached to the handle close to its pivot on the
window frame so that the subjects maintained reasonably
uniform hand positions. This ensured that opening forces
were exerted at approximately the same point.
The window could be adjusted in height within a range
of 2.134 m (7 It) and the resistance offered to opening
could be varied by a pulley and weight pan system between
1-5 and 9 kg (31,/3 lb and 20 lb). Subjects stood on a large
platform which was also adjustable in height.
The window had a large surround, constructed so as to
resemble a wall. Stout roller blinds, attached to the top and
bottom edges of the window frame, maintained this
surround when the window was moved up or down.
Method
For this type of study, appropriate, simple methods can
be adapted from psychophysical techniques.
Psychophysics is concerned with the development of
scales of measurement for psychological variables, and the
method of limits is a psychophysical method concerned

Fig 1 The centre-hung, vertical aluminium window which
was used in the experiment.
with establishing limits, or changeover points, of response,
for example, from too high to 'all right'. The method of
ascending and descending limits varies the intensity of the
stimulus upwards and downwards in several sets and the
changeover points of the subject's response are averaged
to find the limits of response to the variable being studied.
This method was used for varying the height, and random
presentation was used for the opening forces. The resistance
to opening could be varied in 1-5 kg ( 3 ~ lb) steps.
A card was attached to the window surround to remind
the subject of the five response modes for height: much too
high, too high, all right, too low, much too low. Similarly,
five modes were given for responding to the resistance of
the window: much too stiff, too stiff, about right, too
loose, much too loose. The subject was asked to give a pair
of responses at each presentation, for example 'too high
and much too stiff.'
For each subject, with the resistance to opening set at
random at one of the force values, and the height slightly
below the maximum height reached on a trial run for the
subject, the window was lowered in 51 mm (2 in) steps
until a much too low response was reached, when the
direction was reversed and the window raised (in 51 mm
steps) until a much too high response was reached, when
the run was terminated.
At the end of each run, the resistance was changed, the
order of presentation of the various resistances to opening
being based on a random number sequence.
The height of the platform was also varied randomly so
as to minimise any learning of visual or other cues as to the
actual control height. This ensured the subjectivity of each
response.
At the beginning of the experiment, each subject was
photographed against a gridded screen, with the right arm
bent at the elbow and held against the side, to record
height, arm length and elbow height. Since each subject run
covered a large number of presentations, a break was
provided at the halfway point.
Subject sample
Whilst it seems likely that window handles would have
to be set very low to be too low for easy operation, and in
practice they rarely are so placed, it does seem that short
people find difficulties in reaching handles placed too high.
Similarly, while it is unlikely that a window could be too
easy to open, it is likely that weak people find many
windows require too much effort to open. On these
considerations it was decided that the sample subjects
ought to reflect the lower end of the user population in
respect of reach and strength.
As it seems plausible that females are more frequent
users of windows than men and are also weaker, the short
female was chosen as the relevant population, and 1"6 m
(63 in) was set as the upper height limit for subjects. In all
50 subjects took part in the experiment. Between 35% and
40% of the adult female population are less than 1"6 m
(63 in) tall and, taking into account the short male, the
sample thus reflects approximately the lower 25% of the
total adult population height.
Results
T he data were recorded by the experimenter on a
standard form, as paired responses to the height of the
handles and to the force required to open the window.
The percentage of responses falling into each category
of 'too stiff,' 'all right' etc was calculated separately for each
opening force and histograms were constructed to illustrate
the variation in response as the opening force varied. It can
be seen from these histograms (see Fig 2) that the
proportion of 'much too stiff', and 'too stiff' responses
increases with the force required to open the window.
Virtually all subjects found 9 kg (20 lb) and 7.5 kg
(162/3 lb) too stiff or much too stiff. At 3 kg (62/3 lb) 50%
of the subjects found it all right and at 1-5 kg (3~/3 lb)
nearly all found it all right.
A trend was discernible for the acceptable height limit
to decrease as the window became harder to open, but
this trend was not statistically significant (see Fig 3). The
correlation between height responses and force responses
was calculated as r = 0"2, which represents only a slight
relationship between the two variables.
The average maximum acceptable height for the two
lowest forces was 1-638 m (64½ in).
Applied Ergonomics December 1970 271
Discussion in mm
70 1780

It seems that if a window requires more than 3 kg (6~/a lb) +

to open, then over 50% of the critical population are likely 1663 +
[65"5] 1610 +
to find opening the window difficult or impossible, and [63"4] I 579 + + +
that at this force the handle must not be higher than about =o60 152.5 [62"2l I 564 I 559 1531
[616] [61-4] [60.3J
1-612 m (63½ in).
The low correlation between force and reach can be _~

understood, when it is realised that pushing a window sol270

involves placing the hand and using body weight to apply .,c
the force. Thus the hand is best placed at, or slightly above,
shoulder height, so that the wrist angle is not too acute, as I
o ,!s ~ 4% 6 ~.s 4 ,,
it would be in a lower position (Zubick 1966). [3113] [6z/3] [10] [131/~] [16Z/3] [20] Ib
Contents of pan
Taking the sample as reflecting approximately the lower
quartile of the population for stature and strength, the
results show that window handles can be placed quite high, Fig 3 Variation in average acceptable maximum height of
and still be acceptable. On the other hand, the opening handle with opening force.
force should be rather low, in fact a lot lower than that of
the majority of windows at present available.

kg Ib

1"5 31,3

0
I
I0 7O
I I0
I
I
Design implications
It has been shown that a window handle height of not
more than 1 "638 m (64½ in) and an opening force of not
greater than 3 kg (62/3 lb) are just acceptable to the lower
a 6Y,

4 48 5O
I 2 I
quartile (in respect of reach and strength) of the
population. From this it seems reasonable to suggest that
the greater part of the population would not be dissatisfied
if these constraints were met.
4.5 tO The acceptable figure for opening force is very low, and
I many current window designs will experience greater forces
I 20 58 21 I 0 as a result of air movement alone. Since a friction clutch
would almost certainly add unacceptably to the opening
6 ~3V3 I force, it seems likely that a radical rethinking of window
design, or a return to more primitive methods of window
I 7 I 0
control, for example a retaining arm and peg, will be
31 67 necessary before a designer can meet both the ergonomic
and the technical requirements.
7-s ,6~,,
I 51
' 47 I o o
References
I
9 20

58 41
I I
|
0 0 Pe'ozntoge
Hertzberg, H. T. E.
195 6 'Handbook of instructions for aircraft ground support
equipment design.' (Revised) Anthropology Unit,
responses
Aero Medical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force
stiff
stiff
i I i i
All
right
Too
loose
Much
too
lOOSe
category
Base, Ohio, USA.
Zubick, A. P.
1966 A study of doors with particular emphasis upon
Fig 2 Distribution of response to each opening force. behavioural and environmental characteristics. (in
Percentages do not all total 100 due to 'rounding off' in preparation) Ph D degree thesis, Bartlett School of
analysis stages. Architecture, University College, London.

272 Applied Ergonomics December 1970