Adjustment control usability and dynamic accommodation in office chairs: A comparative study of two contemporary designs

Abstract

Adjustability is a core determinant of ergonomic fit in office chairs, but its benefits depend on users being able to operate the controls and, on the chair, continuing to support the body as posture changes during work. We compared two high-end office chairs, the T90 (Sidiz; Chair A) and the Aeron (Herman Miller; Chair B), in two experiments to explore which design features may explain differences between them. In Experiment 1, 20 participants adjusted ten controls common to both chairs and rated perceived adjustment difficulty on four items. Chair A had significantly lower overall difficulty (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p = 0.008), with control-level advantages for headrest angle, armrest height, armrest rotation angle and lumbar support position; Chair B was easier for seat height, possibly because its side-mounted lever is more visible than Chair A's underside button. The headrest comparisons involved a third-party headrest fitted to Chair B, and control- and item-level tests were not corrected for multiple comparisons. In Experiment 2, the same participants completed a 15-minute multi-device task requiring repeated posture changes, reach and reorientation, then rated body-part discomfort, general comfort and satisfaction with five components. Discomfort and comfort did not differ; Chair A had higher satisfaction for the seat-pan and lumbar support (exploratory, uncorrected). Interviews suggested links to mechanism properties: Chair B's rear lumbar dial was often described as producing little perceptible change, and for controls without significant differences each chair appeared to leave a different aspect of the same need unmet. These findings suggest mechanical and interface properties that designers of adjustable office chairs may consider for dynamic, multi-device work.