逃离会议室

提到现代椅子的时候，那些更偏爱按摩椅的人就会警惕，不是又要提米斯1929年设计的那款经典的巴塞罗那椅子吧？当然不是，这次要介绍的椅子十分独特，由Sid Lee团队推出“Fleeting Seating”系列座椅，这一系列的共同点就是都有那么一点不太舒服。     

一个CS迷的相亲

我因为过于痴速CS,以至于老是找不到女朋友,我的朋友就给我介绍了一个女友.在出门之前,我的朋友给了我很多忠告:"第一,下车后要替她开门_;第二,她入座时应在她椅子后面帮她拉开椅子;第三,她说话时要温柔地看着她;第四,她需要什么东西时一定要抢先做好,不要让她动手."     

坐在球上办公? Gaiam球椅或许能拯救腰酸背疼的你

正编辑部谈论"久坐"、"背疼"、"劳损"的频次,都快赶上"去哪儿吃饭"这个最神圣的话题了。如果你的工作也需要长时间面对电脑久坐,那你十有八九也是一枚腰酸背痛星人。缺点站起要小心:amazon上排名最靠前的评论给了Gaiam球椅4星评价,这位用户吐槽了椅子的滚轮设计,因为球椅的特殊造型和受力情况与普通椅子不一样,有时候他站起来会从椅子上滑下来。后来他学乖了,站起时把双腿分开,不松劲一下站直就行了。     

汉斯·韦格纳:“椅子”永远没有完成的一天

正汉斯·韦格纳则是战后斯堪的纳维亚设计最重要的人物之一,更被喻为北欧的"椅子之父"。关于韦格纳的一生到底设计了多少张椅子,不同的媒体有不同的说法,据丹麦官方出版的商业杂志《Focus Denmark》称,韦格纳一生创作了超过2000多件家具以及大约500张单椅,所选用的材料涉及实木、胶合层积木、金属、皮革、纸等等,其中大约150个作品至今仍在制造与生产。他设计的椅子在功能主义与诗意的美学结合基础上,重新     

微博吐槽

我觉得上课应该给同学们弄像〈中国好声音〉评委那样的椅子，认为讲得好就转过来听课，认为不好的就背对着老师玩手机!     

水晶椅子

吉冈德仁可能是世界上对于椅子最为偏执的艺术家了。2001年,吉冈的Honey-pop椅子采用了类似蜂巢几何结构的设计,良好的结构强度让一层层薄纸变成了一把轻盈的椅子。到了2006年,他的Pone面包椅借助纤维的结构成为了一把柔韧的椅子。     

浅谈材料运用与椅子设计的“骨肉”之情

随着时代的发展,工艺的进步,椅子的制作从木材的榫卯结合到金属材质的焊接再到塑料、玻璃纤维的压模成型;从皮革的缝制到棉麻布艺的胶合剂粘结……为实现椅子的种种功能,设计师们选用了各种材料,椅子也发展得千形万状。材料对于椅子来说是皮、是肉、更是骨。     

坐得舒服的秘密

它生来的命运就很坎坷，既要让人上，还得让人靠。没错，它就是椅子，一个平常我们视而不见，但又离不开的东西。俗话说得好，好的椅子让你上天堂，坏的椅子让你入病房。在这个我们每天都要花数小时在电脑上的时代，椅子质量的高低显得尤为重要。那么，什么样的椅子坐着才舒服昵，让《Geek》来告诉你!     

埃姆斯的休闲躺椅：木纹浪情液晶电视机

家电与家具总有那么一些千丝万缕的联系，在看到HANNspree的木纹浪情后，我们更坚定了这个想法，原来电视机的设计灵感居然和一把椅子密不可分。[编者按]     

071虚位以待

马克高·艾瑟比斯（Marco Acerbis）设计的Desalto＇s Kloe椅子给我们深入思考的空间。在中心留空的设计显示了设计师与众不同的个性。光滑的模型上，独有的波浪形基于符合人体工学原理的舒适摇篮设计。     

Effects of two types of chairs on stature change and comfort for individuals with healthy and herniated discs

The objective of this study was to determine if stature change and perceived comfort are significantly different for individuals with either healthy or herniated discs when seated in a conventional chair or a sit-stand chair. Sixteen subjects were studied (5 young/healthy, 6 old/healthy, 5 old/herniated). Subjects performed a search task on a computer screen during two 2 h sessions for two consecutive days, with a different chair each day. Changes in stature were measured with a stadio-meter. General comfort and body parts discomfort rating scales were administered every 30min. The main findings were: (1) for all subjects, the sit-stand chair produces less height loss than the conventional chair; and (2) for both chairs, subjects with herniated discs lost more height than subjects with healthy discs. A positive correlation was observed for height loss and age with the sit-stand chair. Subjects with herniated discs felt relatively more uncomfortable in the conventional chair and more comfortable in the sit-stand chair compared to subjects with healthy discs. Both old healthy and young healthy subjects felt more comfortable in the conventional chair in comparison to the sit-stand chair. But, old healthy subjects had a relatively greater perception of comfort in the conventional chair compared with the younger subjects.     

Evaluation of a prototype multi-posture office chair

Office chairs have often been designed to promote a single ‘correct’ rather rigid and upright posture, yet it is acknowledged that allowing changes in posture is good ergonomics practice. The present study investigated office worker's preferences for a standard shaped typist's chair (ST) and a prototype multi-posture (PMP) office chair designed to allow its users a variety of sitting positions. Forty-two (22 male and 20 female) telesales personnel (12), clerical staff (12) and researchers (18) used ST or PMP in their workplace for the first week of a 2-week study (with an even number in each work area). The PMP chair was introduced to participants with a brief lecture on how to use it and with an information booklet. Following this, each participant completed a chair comfort questionnaire. In the second week, participants swapped chairs and again completed the chair comfort questionnaire. At the end of the second week participants were also asked to complete a separate questionnaire about the usability of the information booklet that accompanied the PMP chair. Statistically significant differences in subject's rating of the two chairs were observed in 7 out of 19 questions. On a 100 mm scale, the ST chair was rated as having a greater mean overall acceptability, desirability and suitability for body build than the PMP chair. Participants also claimed to achieve better posture in the ST chair, that they tipped forward less and were more satisfied with its width. Although the participants generally preferred the ST chair, the PMP chair received more favourable ratings among the researchers who were quite mobile in their work, and in whom there was a trend for less neck, shoulder and upper back discomfort. More participants reported an overall preference for the PMP chair. The findings suggest that a more aesthetically acceptable PMP chair should be developed, peoples' reasons for preferring a more traditionally designed chair should be explored, and that the effect of postural stability education on personal preconceptions should be examined to obtain an optimal combination of healthy sitting habits, comfort and aesthetic qualities in an office chair.     

Evaluation of a prototype multi-posture office chair

Office chairs have often been designed to promote a single 'correct' rather rigid and upright posture, yet it is acknowledged that allowing changes in posture is good ergonomics practice. The present study investigated office worker's preferences for a standard shaped typist's chair (ST) and a prototype multi-posture (PMP) office chair designed to allow its users a variety of sitting positions. Forty-two (22 male and 20 female) telesales personnel (12), clerical staff (12) and researchers (18) used ST or PMP in their workplace for the first week of a 2-week study (with an even number in each work area). The PMP chair was introduced to participants with a brief lecture on how to use it and with an information booklet. Following this, each participant completed a chair comfort questionnaire. In the second week, participants swapped chairs and again completed the chair comfort questionnaire. At the end of the second week participants were also asked to complete a separate questionnaire about the usability of the information booklet that accompanied the PMP chair. Statistically significant differences in subject's rating of the two chairs were observed in 7 out of 19 questions. On a 100 mm scale, the ST chair was rated as having a greater mean overall acceptability, desirability and suitability for body build than the PMP chair. Participants also claimed to achieve better posture in the ST chair, that they tipped forward less and were more satisfied with its width. Although the participants generally preferred the ST chair, the PMP chair received more favourable ratings among the researchers who were quite mobile in their work, and in whom there was a trend for less neck, shoulder and upper back discomfort. More participants reported an overall preference for the PMP chair. The findings suggest that a more aesthetically acceptable PMP chair should be developed, peoples' reasons for preferring a more traditionally designed chair should be explored, and that the effect of postural stability education on personal preconceptions should be examined to obtain an optimal combination of healthy sitting habits, comfort and aesthetic qualities in an office chair.     

The effect of a dynamic chair on seated energy expenditure

Abstract

Dynamic sitting approaches have been advocated to increase seated energy expenditure with the view of lessening the sedentary nature of the task. This study compared energy expenditure (EE) and overall body discomfort on a novel dynamic chair with a standard office chair. Fifteen pain-free participants completed a DVD viewing task on both chairs in a randomised order. Energy expenditure and discomfort were collected simultaneously. Linear mixed models were used to analyse steady-state EE recorded on each of the chairs. Differences in discomfort were analysed using Wilkoxon Signed Rank Tests. Sitting on the novel dynamic chair significantly (p = 0.005) increased energy expenditure compared to a standard office chair. The discomfort experienced was mild overall, but was significantly greater on the dynamic chair (p = 0.004). Whilst the EE was seen to be significantly higher on the dynamic chair, the MET values are still below 1.5 METS. Thus, the use of a dynamic chair does not seem to be the most effective measure to prevent sedentary behaviour.

Practitioner Summary: Sitting on a dynamic chair increased energy expenditure compared to sitting on a standard office chair among pain-free participants. Whilst the EE was seen to be significantly higher on the dynamic chair, the MET values are still below 1.5 METS (low level EE).     

Evaluation of a forward-sloping chair

A methodology of chair evaluation developed earlier was applied to a novel, forward-sloping chair. Two groups of six subjects each were trained to use the chair and then given an evaluation session of [Formula: see text] . The chair elicited mixed responses, with complaints of leg discomfort from terminal users and of entry and egress from typists. Overall, the chair was no better than conventional chairs and could be worse than well-designed conventional office chairs.     

Postural versus chair design impacts upon interface pressure

An investigation of postural and chair design impacts upon seat pan interface pressure has been performed in an effort to identify whether differences in posture or chair design result in greater pressure differences. Investigation of postural variables focused on trunk-thigh angle and use of armrests. Twelve ergonomic office chairs were used to assess chair design differences. Both male and female subjects were included. Gender effects were controlled through use of a repeated Latin square design, with squares defined by gender. Significant gender-based interaction was observed amongst postural treatments and chair effects. Postural treatments, chairs designs, and participant effects all resulted in significant interface pressure differences, though gender-based interaction yielded some non-additivity of results between males and females. The final conclusion drawn from the results is that chair design differences had the greatest effect on seat pan interface pressure, followed by participant effects, and lastly postural treatments.     

Length of the spine while sitting on a new concept for an office chair

Changes in spinal length were used to evaluate a new concept for an office chair. This so-called dynamic chair imparts passive forced motion to the seated subject. The passive forced motion is a rotary movement about an axis, perpendicular to the seat with amplitude of 0.6 degrees and a frequency of 0.08 Hz. Change of stature is assumed to provide a measure for spinal load. Eight subjects were measured in two situations: static (without motion) and dynamic. In both situations the same office tasks were performed and the duration of the sitting period was 1 h. To allow for the normal shrinkage curve the starting time was the same on each of the measurement days. The results indicated a significant difference: when sitting on the dynamic chair the average spinal length increased in comparison to the spinal length in the static chair, where average spinal length decreased. It was concluded that there is spinal distress relief due to the passive motion of the chair.     

Differences in low back load between kneeling and seated working at ground level

The effects of the load on the low back when working in a kneeling posture were compared to those when working on a chair designed to alleviate work load in harvesting radish. In 10 male subjects data regarding back muscle fatigue and length changes of the spine, and estimates of experienced discomfort were collected. The results show that for all three effects of back load working on the chair leads to lower levels as compared to working kneeling. However, back load and discomfort were lower when working on the chair, back discomfort still increased substantially during the work on the chair. It is thus a sub-optimal solution from an ergonomic point of view, but at present it could be recommended to allow for variation with the conventional working method.     

A methodology for chair evaluation

A methodology for evaluating a single chair, rather than making a comparison among chairs, was developed from previous chair studies. The methodology was found to be rapid and effective when applied to a prototype chair, giving information to the manufacturer on overall comfort and good and bad points in the design. Testing took place on three tasks and showed that chair comfort is influenced by the task as well as the chair.     

The determination of pressures and patterns for the male human buttocks and thigh in sitting utilizing conductive foam

Pressures and patterns for twelve male human buttocks and thighs in sitting in three different shaped seat pans were determined. Pressure was determined by multiple transducers situated geometrically on a conductive foam blanket which measured changes in resistance with an ohm meter as pressure was applied. The three chair seat pans consisted of a small round surgeons type stool, a standard biomechanic secretarial shaped chair, and a neutral posture chair which was a unique combination of a forward-sloping cultivator seat and an English saddle with wrap around leg trough support. Trunk-thigh posture angles of 90 and 127 deg for each chair were evaluated. The location of the maximum pressure points for all chair posture treatments had generally small tight patterns whose locations where consistent with the locations of the ischial tuberosities. The mean pressure was found to vary inversely with the total area. Thus, as the seat pan surface area decreased in total area in contact with the buttock-thigh, the larger the mean pressure became. Mean pressure values were also found to be in the same rank order and relative magnitude to subjective comfort for the buttock-thigh, conducted in related experiments on the chair-posture treatments. The neutral posture chair was found to reduce buttock-thigh maximum pressure from 118.94 mmHg (2.3 psi) to 62.06 mmHg (1.2 psi) and to reduce mean pressure by more than 50%.