Calendar

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 20

“ The moment clients realize that revisions are not an all-you-can-eat buffet, suddenly they realize they are not hungry. ”

-- Lester Beall

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Malgorzata Rys

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Malgorzata Rys (bibliography)

1990

Edit | Del

Rys, Malgorzata and Konz, Stephan (1990): Floor Mats. In: D., Woods, and E., Roth, (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting 1990, Santa Monica, USA. pp. 575-579.

“N/R”

1989

Edit | Del

Rys, Malgorzata and Konz, Stephan (1989): An Evaluation of Floor Surfaces. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 517-520.

“Three floor surfaces (concrete, a San-EZE-7/8" thick resilient rubber mat, and a Traction Mat-3/8" rubber mat with raised knob design) were evaluated based on foot dimensions, lower leg and foot temperature and body comfort. Nine college students (2 females) stood for one hour on each of the floor types performing two types of visual inspection: inspecting pennies for a particular year, and inspecting pennies for several years at a time. There was a significant difference in body comfort between floor surfaces. Both mats were better than concrete (although not always statistically significantly so). The Traction mat was better for upper, mid and lower back comfort; the San-EZE mat was better for lower leg, ankle, hindfoot and forefoot. The temperature of the calf and instep was significantly higher for both mats than for concrete.”

1988

Edit | Del

Rys, Malgorzata and Konz, Stephan (1988): Standing Work: Carpet vs. Concrete. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 522-526.

“A significant part of the workforce works with the feet and legs in a relatively static standing position. In an experiment, 20 college students (mean age = 23) stood wearing 2 pairs of socks but no shoes at a table for 240 minutes (120 minutes on carpet on one day and 120 minutes on concrete on another day). Ten subjects stood in the morning and 10 in the afternoon. Foot volume and instep vertical and horizontal circumference and calf circumference did not differ significantly between morning and afternoon or between carpet and concrete. Heart rate did not differ between morning and afternoon but the 95.2 for carpet was significantly lower than the 100.1 for concrete. Perceived comfort ratings were higher for carpet than concrete. Body areas in which comfort decreased the most while on concrete were: lower leg, upper leg, ankle, whole foot, the neck and the shoulder. When the individual factors were combined into a single factor using factor analysis, the 77.7 score (0-100 scale) for carpet was significantly better than the 71.9 concrete.”

Add publication