Dave Fleming
01-31-2005, 09:57 PM
I don't wish to hijack Seafox's thread with more of my comments.
Instead I am starting a new thread.
In today's mail I received the latest issue of Woodwork magazine for April 2005.
In it on page 54 is an article on work table height. In this case a kitchen work table.
The first statement sets the issue.
"What is a comfortable and convenient height"... in this case, kitchen work surfaces. The author references HUMANSCALE 1/2/3.
He goes on to wondering just how the authors of the Humanscale publications arrived at some of the dimensions used to relate work surface height to actual human height. He quips about the term "average", saying "most people are not average". He does mention industrial production and the need for standards.
But....
Fer example, some years back I supervised the building of an Aluminum yacht for a family with an average height of over 6 feet 4 inches.
Ayup, father, sons, daughters, daughters in law, sons in law. Mother was the smallest at just about 6 feet.
Now you don't think that played hob with our usual companion way heights, door ways, countertops, pilot house console, settee heights, even ***terlit*** heights.
That's right we had been using an 'average' height for these things but, this project was a wake call up to complacent thinking about such things.
Thank goodness it was a T&M project or we would have lost a lot of money because of the many modifications.
No argument that this is perhaps an extreme example.
My point though remains, thinking of averages in something like work surfaces,just doesn't work
Or so says I.
Instead I am starting a new thread.
In today's mail I received the latest issue of Woodwork magazine for April 2005.
In it on page 54 is an article on work table height. In this case a kitchen work table.
The first statement sets the issue.
"What is a comfortable and convenient height"... in this case, kitchen work surfaces. The author references HUMANSCALE 1/2/3.
He goes on to wondering just how the authors of the Humanscale publications arrived at some of the dimensions used to relate work surface height to actual human height. He quips about the term "average", saying "most people are not average". He does mention industrial production and the need for standards.
But....
Fer example, some years back I supervised the building of an Aluminum yacht for a family with an average height of over 6 feet 4 inches.
Ayup, father, sons, daughters, daughters in law, sons in law. Mother was the smallest at just about 6 feet.
Now you don't think that played hob with our usual companion way heights, door ways, countertops, pilot house console, settee heights, even ***terlit*** heights.
That's right we had been using an 'average' height for these things but, this project was a wake call up to complacent thinking about such things.
Thank goodness it was a T&M project or we would have lost a lot of money because of the many modifications.
No argument that this is perhaps an extreme example.
My point though remains, thinking of averages in something like work surfaces,just doesn't work
Or so says I.