Katherine Exss
Please Note
3 records found
1
Interface design for lighting and shading controls
Device type, position, and system cues influencing user preference and acceptance
The integration of smart control systems in office buildings can be disruptive when individual preferences and expectations for control interfaces are overlooked. Understanding how human–building interaction influences environmental comfort and acceptance is essential for creating user-centered designs. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of usability testing as an innovative method for assessing building system control interfaces and user interaction with automation. Specifically, we examined user preferences for shading and lighting controls in a controlled office laboratory, varying by “Type of Device” (analog vs. digital), “Position” (wall, desk, or split), and “System Cues” (information richness). In an experimental setting involving 20 participants, we investigated how these factors influence satisfaction and acceptance of automation. Using an adapted Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ), we evaluated satisfaction with Ease of Use, Reachability, and Information. Findings show that while participants’ initial expectations favored simple analog controls, preferences shifted toward digital, information-rich systems after hands-on interaction. Ordered logistic regression confirmed that Reachability (β=2.317) and Ease of Use (β=1.831) were the strongest predictors of Overall Satisfaction (p<0.001), placing interface position as the primary design characteristic. However, preferences varied by office type: in shared offices, users preferred wall-mounted controls to facilitate shared access and visibility. These insights offer actionable guidance for designing smart control interfaces that enhance user satisfaction, support personal control, and promote greater acceptance of building automation.
We conducted a literature review on the impact of indoor thermal conditions on health, recognizing that air temperature alone cannot describe thermal exposure. We introduce the concept of a standardized maximum safe indoor temperature, defined for still air conditions, 50% relative humidity and mean radiant temperature equal to air temperature. Equivalent temperatures with respect to the thermal load on the body can then be calculated for various air velocities, humidities or mean radiant temperatures using the standard effective temperature (SET) model. For U.S. policymakers, we propose adopting a standardized maximum safe indoor temperature of 28 °C. We recognize that the adoption of standardized maximum safe indoor temperatures may vary around the world, but the framework we propose to adjust the standardized upper limit for humidity, air motion, and radiant temperature could be used globally. We also identify important knowledge gaps to guide future research on the relationships between heat and health that could support informed cost-benefit analyses. ...
We conducted a literature review on the impact of indoor thermal conditions on health, recognizing that air temperature alone cannot describe thermal exposure. We introduce the concept of a standardized maximum safe indoor temperature, defined for still air conditions, 50% relative humidity and mean radiant temperature equal to air temperature. Equivalent temperatures with respect to the thermal load on the body can then be calculated for various air velocities, humidities or mean radiant temperatures using the standard effective temperature (SET) model. For U.S. policymakers, we propose adopting a standardized maximum safe indoor temperature of 28 °C. We recognize that the adoption of standardized maximum safe indoor temperatures may vary around the world, but the framework we propose to adjust the standardized upper limit for humidity, air motion, and radiant temperature could be used globally. We also identify important knowledge gaps to guide future research on the relationships between heat and health that could support informed cost-benefit analyses.