I think new seats would also create a sense of maintenance/neatness that would encourage people to be neat themselves. Also, if we do get new seats, we might consider the findings of Ian McClelland and Joan Ward regarding the toilet seat preferences of different sexes. Ian L. McClelland and Joan S. Ward (1982). The Ergonomics of Toilet Seats. Human Factors, 24(6): 713—725. That paper is proprietary, unfortunately, but I can recount it for anyone who is interested.

The apertures of the nonstandard seats used in this study were 0.07m longer than the currently recommended aperture. Longer apertures were clearly an improvement over recommended ones in terms of access. This confirms the suggestion made as a result of the previous anthropometric survey that a longer aperture would be more appropriate for toilet use. An enlarged seat aperture incorporated into future standards for the design of toilet seats would necessitate a longer bowl aperture than currently recommended. If the bowl aperture were not extended to be coincident with the seat, then at some point the rim would come within the aperture of the seat, and soiling of the bowl might result. Two consequences would result from the to the most negative responses. adoption of a longer seat aperture as standard, and these would be of great importance for the design of toilet sanitary ware and the related facilities. First, a longer aperture would require a major reappraisal of existing toilet designs by the sanitary-ware industry; this undoubtedly would involve considerable development and expense. The second consequence involves water economy. If a longer aperture were adopted, then the internal surface area of the bowl would probably increase or at least change in profile. This raises the question as to whether the demand that toilet bowls be flushed effectively with less water is compatible with a longer aperture. This paper is not the appropriate platform for a lengthy discussion of these topics, but if a new standard for toilet bowls is to be established that satisfies ergonomic criteria, then it is clear from this study that the question of the aperture length for both toilet seat and bowl needs to be resolved. In the authors' view, this would only be possible if a further study were undertaken, which would be based on the evaluation of fully operational toilet units.

Given the similarities of seated positions adopted by men and women, the differences in preference may be due to the well-known anatomical differences that exist between men and women with respect to the pelvic region, in particular the differences in bi-ischial diameter and the distribution of flesh around the buttocks and thighs. These differences may require different emphasis on the support provided by toilet seats. However, as already noted, in terms of the psychometric scales used, both Seat 3, for men, and Seat 4, for women, were acceptable. Thus, given the constraint of selecting one seat type for both men and women, the results suggest that improvements in seat comfort may be obtained by providing greater support for both buttocks and thighs.

It is clear that the most significant difference in height requirement is between men and women. The overall seat heights derived from this study (HI) were, for men, a mean of 0.43m, standard deviation 0.030 m, and for women, mean 0.40 m, standard deviation 0.033 m. Accepting the premise that only one type of toilet bowl and seat can be considered for general use by adults, a toilet seat height of 0.4 m is recommended for the U.K. adult population. This height is, of course, based on the preference of unshod subjects. To take account of "average" indoor shoe heel heights, a value of, say, 0.050 m could be added, giving a figure of 0.450 m for seat height. This would be 0.020 m higher than the seat height of 0.430 m calculated to be the current British standard. The adoption of a seat at this height (0.450 m) would, however, militate against its suitability for the shorter members of the population, for example, small women wearing low-heeled footwear. The preferred height (Table 2) of the 2.5th percentile unshod female subjects was 0.338 m. A seat height of 0.450 m would thus be 0.112 m greater than that preferred by them and would, in fact, accord with the height preferences for only the 50th percentile female wearing heels of at least 5 em. A seat height of 0.450 m would be 0.030 m lower than the preferred overall height of 50th percentile male subjects if 0.050m is added for "average" shoe heel height (Table 2); it would be 0.050m higher than the preferred height of the 2.5th percentile male subject unshod. Because of the considerable body of opinion, already referred to, on the advantages of the squat rather than the seated posture, particularly for defecation, seat height favoring a comfortable seated posture for the smaller members of the population and a more squat posture for taller people, is to be preferred to one that was too high for smaller individuals in the seated posture. It is therefore suggested that a seat height of 0.40 m (the mean height for women, unshod) would be better than 0.45m as a fixed height to accommodate the adult population; 0.40 m would also be closer to the needs of the young than would 0.45 m. This height is approximately 0.03m lower than the height of a toilet seat set on a toilet bowl both of which conform to the current British standards (British Standards Institution, 1971, I977a, 1977b).

Definately plastic On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Levine <_(a)thomaslevine.com> > wrote: > >> >> I think new seats would also create a sense of maintenance/neatness that >> would encourage people to be neat themselves. Also, if we do get new >> seats, >> we might consider the findings of Ian McClelland and Joan Ward regarding >> the toilet seat preferences of different sexes. >> >> Ian L. McClelland and Joan S. Ward (1982). The Ergonomics of Toilet Seats. >> Human Factors, 24(6): 713—725. >> >> That paper is proprietary, unfortunately, but I can recount it for anyone >> who is interested. >> > > Please do! Any recommendations regarding open vs closed front, wood vs > plastic? > > Patrik > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >

I effing love this thread. YAR, you're point on. Lol. Toilet rights!! ~ Korl 500px.com/eske 510.689.4484 On Jan 13, 2015 3:37 PM, "Thomas Levine" <_(a)thomaslevine.com> wrote: > I have excerpted some relevant sections of McClelland & Ward, 1982. > > First, the study supports the suggestion of longer seats. > > > The apertures of the nonstandard seats used in this study were 0.07m > > longer than the currently recommended aperture. Longer apertures were > > clearly an improvement over recommended ones in terms of access. > > This confirms the suggestion made as a result of the previous > > anthropometric survey that a longer aperture would be more > > appropriate for toilet use. An enlarged seat aperture incorporated > > into future standards for the design of toilet seats would > > necessitate a longer bowl aperture than currently recommended. > > If the bowl aperture were not extended to be coincident with the seat, > > then at some point the rim would come within the aperture of the seat, > > and soiling of the bowl might result. > > > > Two consequences would result from the to the most negative responses. > > adoption of a longer seat aperture as standard, and these would be of > > great importance for the design of toilet sanitary ware and the > > related facilities. First, a longer aperture would require a major > > reappraisal of existing toilet designs by the sanitary-ware industry; > > this undoubtedly would involve considerable development and expense. > > The second consequence involves water economy. If a longer aperture > > were adopted, then the internal surface area of the bowl would > > probably increase or at least change in profile. This raises the > > question as to whether the demand that toilet bowls be flushed > > effectively with less water is compatible with a longer aperture. > > This paper is not the appropriate platform for a lengthy discussion > > of these topics, but if a new standard for toilet bowls is to be > > established that satisfies ergonomic criteria, then it is clear from > > this study that the question of the aperture length for both toilet > > seat and bowl needs to be resolved. In the authors' view, this would > > only be possible if a further study were undertaken, which would be > > based on the evaluation of fully operational toilet units. > > Secondarily, the results suggest that people, especially women, > prefer seats that support the buttocks and thighs well. > > > Given the similarities of seated positions adopted by men and women, > > the differences in preference may be due to the well-known anatomical > > differences that exist between men and women with respect to the > > pelvic region, in particular the differences in bi-ischial diameter > > and the distribution of flesh around the buttocks and thighs. These > > differences may require different emphasis on the support provided by > > toilet seats. However, as already noted, in terms of the psychometric > > scales used, both Seat 3, for men, and Seat 4, for women, were > > acceptable. Thus, given the constraint of selecting one seat type for > > both men and women, the results suggest that improvements in seat > > comfort may be obtained by providing greater support for both buttocks > > and thighs. > > Finally, nobody had brought up the height of the seats, but I have to > mention their findings on this matter > > > It is clear that the most significant difference in height > > requirement is between men and women. The overall seat heights > > derived from this study (HI) were, for men, a mean of 0.43m, > > standard deviation 0.030 m, and for women, mean 0.40 m, standard > > deviation 0.033 m. Accepting the premise that only one type of toilet > > bowl and seat can be considered for general use by adults, a toilet > > seat height of 0.4 m is recommended for the U.K. adult population. > > This height is, of course, based on the preference of unshod > > subjects. To take account of "average" indoor shoe heel heights, > > a value of, say, 0.050 m could be added, giving a figure of 0.450 m > > for seat height. This would be 0.020 m higher than the seat height of > > 0.430 m calculated to be the current British standard. The adoption > > of a seat at this height (0.450 m) would, however, militate against > > its suitability for the shorter members of the population, for > > example, small women wearing low-heeled footwear. The preferred > > height (Table 2) of the 2.5th percentile unshod female subjects was > > 0.338 m. A seat height of 0.450 m would thus be 0.112 m greater than > > that preferred by them and would, in fact, accord with the height > > preferences for only the 50th percentile female wearing heels of at > > least 5 em. A seat height of 0.450 m would be 0.030 m lower than the > > preferred overall height of 50th percentile male subjects if 0.050m > > is added for "average" shoe heel height (Table 2); it would be 0.050m > > higher than the preferred height of the 2.5th percentile male subject > > unshod. Because of the considerable body of opinion, already referred > > to, on the advantages of the squat rather than the seated posture, > > particularly for defecation, seat height favoring a comfortable > > seated posture for the smaller members of the population and a more > > squat posture for taller people, is to be preferred to one that was > > too high for smaller individuals in the seated posture. It is > > therefore suggested that a seat height of 0.40 m (the mean height for > > women, unshod) would be better than 0.45m as a fixed height to > > accommodate the adult population; 0.40 m would also be closer to the > > needs of the young than would 0.45 m. This height is approximately > > 0.03m lower than the height of a toilet seat set on a toilet bowl > > both of which conform to the current British standards (British > > Standards Institution, 1971, I977a, 1977b). > > Tom > > On 13 Jan 11:38, Jehan Tremback wrote: > > Definately plastic > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Levine <_(a)thomaslevine.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> I think new seats would also create a sense of maintenance/neatness > that > > >> would encourage people to be neat themselves. Also, if we do get new > > >> seats, > > >> we might consider the findings of Ian McClelland and Joan Ward > regarding > > >> the toilet seat preferences of different sexes. > > >> > > >> Ian L. McClelland and Joan S. Ward (1982). The Ergonomics of Toilet > Seats. > > >> Human Factors, 24(6): 713—725. > > >> > > >> That paper is proprietary, unfortunately, but I can recount it for > anyone > > >> who is interested. > > >> > > > > > > Please do! Any recommendations regarding open vs closed front, wood vs > > > plastic? > > > > > > Patrik > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > sudo-discuss mailing list > > > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > > > https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org > https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss > >