History shows how designing for the average person means designing for nobody.
Most workplaces are still built around the assumption that there’s such a thing as a typical user.
It sounds sensible. Design for the average person and most people will be reasonably well served. But the logic breaks down surprisingly quickly.
People are not standard issue. They vary in pretty much every way imaginable. Even where two people appear similar on paper, the way they experience support and comfort are completely different.
We’ve known since the 50s
The notion of designing for the average should have been jettisoned in the 50s, when the US Air Force began investigating why their newfangled jet fighters were underperforming – despite being demonstrably faster and better.
After blaming pilots, crew, even flight instructors – one canny engineer figured it out. The fighter jet cockpits were all designed around average pilot measurements.
The problem was – that pilot didn’t actually exist.
Unsurprisingly, once they started designing for adaptation, so jets could accommodate variation, performance improved. When you design for the average, you fit nobody. So why are workplaces still doing it?
The cost
It matters more than you might think. Poor fit is more than an inconvenience. It shapes work experience, engagement. It impacts how people perform.
This is a reason workplace ergonomics is so often misunderstood. Conversations focus on whether a setup is compliant, or whether a chair has the expected features.
What we should be asking is – does it genuinely fit the individual using it?
Real ergonomics isn’t box ticking; it’s about reducing the mismatch between people and the environments they work in.
Designing for the average may feel efficient. But when it comes to human performance, it’s often a false economy.
For Ergochair, that’s the real point of ergonomics, better support begins when we make it personal. Stop expecting people to fit their surroundings, and start asking how furniture, spaces and systems can better fit people.