STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND

ERNEST L. BOYER
T.N. HURD
DARWIN R. WALES
OSCAR E. LANFORD
JAY R. HANDWERGER
"JOHN F. BUCKHOFF, JR.,
JOHN FITZGERALD
MORTON C. GASSMAN
"JOHN GROSVENOR
JAMES J. McCUE
CHARLES M. SEGAL
ELWIN W. STEVENS

194 Washington Avenue. Albany. New York 12210

CHAI RMAN
TRUSTEE
TRUSTEE
GENERAL MANAGER
COUNSEL AND MANAGER OF FISCAL AFFAI RS
ASS ISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR FOR PLANT MANAGE MENT
MANAGER OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER OF FACILITI ES PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING
ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR FOR CAPITAL FINANCE
AND ADMIN ISTRAT ION
DI RECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DI RECTOR OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
MANAGER OF MARKETING AND RESEARCH

* Holding appointments in the State Un iversity's Office of Campus Development, whi ch cooperates with the Fund in
implementing the University's Capital Development Program.

An approach to the design of the

A RESEARCH PROJECT
UNDERTAKEN BY
THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF T ECHNOLOGY

A LBERT G. H. DIETZ
Professor of Building Engineering

WI LLI AM M. C. LAM
William Lam Associates, Inc.
ROGER F. HALLENBECK

State University Construction Fund

PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR

PRINC I PAL CONSULT ANT

SUC F

194 Wash ington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210, OCTOBER 1976

en

C
!

5
CJ
Part I

Lighting design principles

Introduction

Perception of the visual environment 16

12

How we see 17
What we look at 20
What we see

22

How well we see

42

Visibility, comfort, and motivation vs . productivity

Visib ility and productiv ity

58

Motivati on and product ivity

Comfort and productivi ty

Biological and activity needs

58
59

62

Biologica l needs for su rvival, sustenance & protectio n

Activity needs

75

58

63

Part II

Lighting design practice

Programming an activity space

Lighting budget system

90

Lighting design process

98

78

Appendices

Annotated bibliography

108

Major results of Skidmore conference

High points of London conference

124

130

Reflectances for common building materials

Some principles of good lighting

Space Program Chart

137

134

132

..
j
..o

-a
G)

LL.

Application

This report is the culmination of on ~going research on the lighting

of bu i Id i ngs unde rtaken by the State Universi t y Construction Fund
over several years. Th is research recogn ized that I ighti ng levels
cou ld be reduced in buildings without affecting performance, thus
anticipating the need to conserve energy by severa l yea rs.
T he material in this report is presented as a service and for the information of all those concerned with the Luminous Environment .
Part I speaks to Ligh t ing design principles and Part I I is concerned
wi t h Ligh t ing design practice. The intent is to ident ify and docu~
ment an approach which makes the lighting design process trans~
parent so that inherent trade~offs may be clear ly recognized and
dealt wi t h. The application of the material in this report is not
mandatory on State University Construction Fund projects. Ma ny
desig ners and others concerned wi th th e luminous envi ro nment
may find this material presents a different perspective or in deed
reinfo rces t hei r th inki ng on the pr inciples and practice of light ing
design.

The Lighting Research Project

Ear ly in 1966, the New Y ork State University Co nst ruction Fund
co mm issioned the Schoo l of Architectu re at Pratt Inst itute to re~
view l ight ing resea rch produced du ri ng the past f ifty years, and to
evaluate light ing reco mmend ati ons stemm ing from it. Th e stu dy

showed that most research had been concerned with establishing

illumination levels for careful ly defined and restricted tasks under
controlled conditions. Furthermore, these levels frequently had
been incorporated uncritically into lighting codes for use in design
projects where the actual environments differed widely from the
research environments. The study concluded that criteria established from past research requires revaluation in terms of a general
approach to lighting design.
As a result of this preliminary investigation, the Fund decided to
undertake a project which would have the following objectives
o to reconcile field observations with research findings,

to study the importance of environmental factors in the

design process, and

to establish a design approach which would be meaningful

to specialist and non-specialist alike .

To implement the project, the Fund commissioned the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to conduct the research. Dr. Albert
G. H. Dietz, Professor of Building Engineering, was selected as
head of the project group; Mr. William M. C. Lam of William Lam
Associates, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, was chosen as princi pal consultant to M IT. The SUCF coordinator at the project's inception was Mr . Richard G. Jacques, Director of Research and
Development.
The first major event of the project was a two-day conference on

"The Luminous Environment", held at Skidmore College, Saratoga

Springs, New York, in July of 1967. In bringing together outstanding representat ives from the behavioral sciences, medicine, education, architecture, and illumination, the objective of the conference was to obtain spec ific suggestions for a performance approach
that would be of value to SUCF and also be adaptable to general
use. An ou tli ne of the major accomplishments of the conference
and a complete roster of the participants are given in Appendix B.
From the Skidmore Conference came many constructive results,
notably, the overall emphasis placed on the humanistic elements
of perception, such as proper rendition of co lor; acquisition of
meaningful information; avoidance of discomfort, distraction, and
gloom; and the creatio n of a comfortable and pleas ing visual environment. Both special ists and general ists agreed that many problems in lighting design cannot be overcome by the simple appl ication of numbers f rom a chart. The designer and architect often
face situations which are not clear-cut, and therefore many decisions must be based upon personal value judgments. It was hel d
that, for any approach to be of value, guidelines must be offered
upon which judgments may be f irml y based. The participants
agreed that the remaining work of the project should be directed
toward establ ish ing those gu idel ines.
The first tangible result of the Skidmore Conference was an interim report prepared by the MIT group. Published in April of
1968, it described the direction the research was to take, explained

the coverage and format for the final report, and solicited comments and suggestions.
After reactions of readers were obtained and evaluated, in June a
second two-day conference was held, this time in London . At this
meeting, attended only by key participants concerned with specifics of the final project report, its scope and content were formulated and agreed upon. Highlights, as well as the roster of partici pants, are given in Appendix C.
Format

The intent of this report initially drafted in 1970, is to present

guidelines, rather than restrictive codes, for all those persons involved in the design and evaluation of an environment that is illuminated : the users, administrators, planners and designers of the spaces.
Th is report is divided into two parts: Part I Design principles, and
Part II Design practice. Although the two parts are separate enti ties, Part I should be considered as general background and explanatory material, introducing the concepts which are elaborated upon
and applied in Part II. Those who choose to follow the approach
presented in this report will find that after becoming familiar with
the principles presented in Part I, further use will be necessary for
occasional reference only . They may wish to use the more technical data and charts in Part lion a more regular basis . Taken together, the two parts emphasize guidance and education, and contain a summation of what is believed to be a useful direction for
design of optimum I ighting conditions.

"Until the end of the nineteenth century, the quality of light in buildings was
restricted because the area of -glazing was limited by structural requ:rements
and artificial light was expensive. Since th en, however, technical developments
have mad e it easy to provide increased quantities of light, whether daylight
through curta in wa lling or electric light from fluorescent tubes. As a result,
new buildings tend to be saturated w ith light, and the skill in its use (which
was once dictated by scarcity) has been lost."
"During the last ten to fifteen years the ex uberance of the quantitative approach has come to be tempered by an increasing interest in the ways in which
the expert deployment of lighting can genuinely en hance a building. But these
new ideas and t echniques hav e not yet been integrated with the general practice of 'illumi nating engineering'. Th e time has co me to take stock of th e situation and set down the basis for a new approach." 1

The problem at the Houston Astrodome (shown in Figu res 1 and 2)

is an example of a situation that can result when performance criteria are based on the most easilv measured factors, without a
broader recognition of what people look at, how they see, how
well they see, or what they see as the physical attributes of the objects they are viewing. The glass orig inally provided in the dome
gave adequate light (quantitat ive ly) but the players were unable to
dist inguish the ball against the pattern of structure.
The types of problems encountered at the Astrodome, can be
avoided by applying a performance approach based on a common
sense philosophy:
o the objective must be positive, create a desirable environment,
rather than design for tolerance levels.

the emphasis must be on achieving the best environment,

rather than on satisfying minimum requirements.

These goals can best be achieved through an appreciation of the

basic principles of perception and an understanding of the informational/psychological aspects of the luminous environment.
Part I of this report takes an intensive look at the complexity of
perception, based on a review of research and literature in this and
related f ields . The technical terminology frequently used to descr ibe the luminous environment has been replaced, whenever possible, with everyday language. Because it is drawn from everyday
life and employs common usage terms, this language can be quickly understood by the generalist as well as the specialist and can be
uti l ized in questionna ires and user surveys without requiring translation . Some technical terms that cou ld not be translated, or common words which have a slightly different meaning in this context,
are defined in the Glossary which follows.
1Jay. Peter. "Seeing Light", The Arch itects Journal. I nforma t ion Library, 4 January 67 _
SfBAb 7: UOC 628,9001.

Figure 1 } 2. Conflicting patterns of light and dark ma ke it impossible to see the bal l in Astrodome roof; solution: to pa i nt the glass areas

...as>

U)
U)

-~0

Affective

Emotional aspects associated with an

object or situation .

Attributive

FactuallY descriptive aspects used to

describe an object or scene.

Brightness

Brilliance of light perceived. A qualitative measure of light as opposed to

luminance which is a quantitative
measurement of light energy.

Brilliant

Constancies

Dark

Dazzle

Dim

Implies a strong, unusual, or sparkling

brightness, often changeful or varied;
and often t oo strong to be agreeable.
Elements that t end to be perceived
consistently, regardless of context.
The perceived quality of having little
or no light. Implies a more or less complete absence of light by comparison.
To overpower or reduce the vision by
intense light. To confuse vision by excess light.
Perceived as not being bright .

Disability Glare

Glare which creates conditions in

which a person cannot function safely
or effectively.

Foot Lambert

Unit of brightness; equal to the brightness of a surface which is radiating or

reflecting one lumen per square foot.

Glare

Luminance

An interference with perception

caused by a bright light, i.e. visual noise.
The quantitative measure of brightness of a light source or an illuminated
surface, equal to luminous f lux per
unit projected area of its surface:
Luminance (ft-L) ; Illumination (1 m/ft2)
X Reflectance

Luminous

Radiating or reflecting light.

Luminous Ceiling

Transi ll uminated ceiling of back lighted

translucent material.

Mirror Angle

An angle of reflectance where the angle

of incidence equals the angle reflection;
in reference to the viewer, an angle
equal and opposite to the viewing angle.

Normal Angle

Perceive

An angle (or plane) which is perpendicular to another surface.

To obtain knowledge through the
senses; to apprehend with the mind; to
understand.

Perception

The meaningful impression of any object obtained by use of the senses;

awareness of objects; consciousness;
direct acquaintance with anything
through the senses. See SENSATION
for further clarification.

Phototropic

Referring to a change in which light is

the orienting stimulus.

Satisfy

To fulfill the desires, expectations,

needs, or demands of. I n general, to
satisfy is to meet to the full one's
wants and expectations; to content is
to give enough to keep one from finding fault or complaining.

See

To perceive with the eyes; to perceive

things mentally; to construct a mental
image of.

Simultaneous Contrast

Sensation

Solid Angle

Sparkle
Specular
Visual Noise

A situation created when some objects

seem brighter than others of equal
luminance in a uniformly illuminated
space.
That mode of mental functioning
which stimulates the bodily organism,
including seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.
Specifically, the direct result of the
present stimulation of the sense organs,
as distinguished from perception which
involves the combination of different
sensations and the utilization of past
experience and context in recognizing
the objects and facts from which the
present stimulus arises.
The angle formed by three or more
planes meeting at a point, as at the
apex of a cone.
An attractive brilliance.
Having the property of a mirror.
An interference with perception from
unwanted stimuli.

A "good" environment helps us do what we wan t t o do and feel

the way we want to feel doing it. Our senses make us aware of the
visual, aural, thermal, tactile, and olfactory aspects of the environment. For an awareness of a "good" envi ronment, we require each
of these aspects to contr ib ute in an appropriate com bination w ith
the others . For example, in a baseball st adium we want to be physical ly stimulated and cheer our team; in a restaurant we want to relax wh il e eating and conversing w ith compan ions.
The t hings we do are divid ed into activities and sub-act ivities. I n a
restaurant, these might be:
activities: eating and drinking, conversing and relax ing.
sub-act ivit ies : reading the menu and ordering the mea l, perceiving food and imp lements, selecting, chewing, swallowi ng,
peop le-watching, and gaz ing out the window.
Each act ivity and sub-activity has characteristics of:
importance
frequency
sequence
location
participants
These charact er istics provide us w ith a quantitative framework
with which to compa re the var ious act ivit ies (including feelings) we
exper ience with in a given environment, and are hence a basis for
desig n criter ia and performance evaluation.
For each activity and sub-activity there are optimum environmental conditions under which we would like to operate. If several different activities must occur w ithin a given space, compromise is involved since the opt imum condition for one act ivi ty is unlikely to
be the optimum for any other. The cons ideration of act ivi t ies and
sub-activities in terms of their importance, frequency, seque nce,
location, and participant characteristics is necessary for intelligent programming, design and eva luation. T he spatial requirements
can be sat isfied withi n a framework of the var ious enviornmenta l
disciplines (visua l, thermal, acoustic, etc.), each contributing in an
"appropriate" combi nation with the others.

VISUA L ENV IRONMEN T

How we see
The unl imited number of stimuli constantly bombard ing all of a
person's sensors are substantial ly more than he can ass imilate at
anyone time. Th rough the perception process he therefore selects
and interprets on ly those st imu li that will assist him in perform ing
particular act ivities.
A visua l "stimulus" is an object (let's call it a signal) that is visible
to the perce iver. Stimuli fall into three categori es:
o a central stimulus is a signal relevant to satisfying a need.
o a peripheral stimulus is a less important signal, unconsciously
selected to help understand the central signa l or to satisfy an
alternate need.
o an irrelevant, disturbing, or unwanted st im ulus is called noise.
Because stimul i are constant ly changing, the environment is recorded , not as a passive picture-taking process, but as the result of
active selection and interpretation of informat ion needed for act ivities and basic biological functions. If Mr. Gray, for exa mple, is
looking for a friend, the person si lho uetted in Figure 3 wi ll be his
object of focus. On the other hand, if Mr. Gray is just concerned
about walking down the stairs, his eye w ill seek objects of orientat ion: the railing, the landing, the view through the window, the
people in the distance, and the weather condit ions.
Since perception involves selection and interpretation, the process
logically starts with a need, but this need is seldom satisfied
through only one of man's senses. Consider the example of a
student in a building looking for the office of the registrar What
visua l information must the stu dent seek to help fulfill his need?
He will need information t hat signs can give him, and he will need
to know when other people are present in order to avoid co llisions
or perhaps to ask directions.
Through his "experience fi lter," the student's visua l selector will
direct his eye movements to locate the relevant stimuli in his visual
world. Thi s f ilter includes:
stored information: personal past experience in this particular
building, or generally w ith offices, corridors, or building surface materials.
stable characteristics: prejudices, interests, meth odical or
assumptive decision-making.
current stat e: rushed or at leisure, happy or depressed, friendly
or quarrelsome, sick or well, and present occupation.

Figure 3
Expectation - Whether the view or the figure ascend ing the
stairs is seen depends on the vie'NE!r's information needs.

The brain, through what we will call a "visual selector," dictates

the scanning pattern of t he eye. This is active scanning to gather
part icu lar information to satisfy a biological need (f irst and foremost) or an activ ity need. Th us, routine contro l of eye movements

17

HOWWE SEE

by the brain is sometimes overpowered by seemingly involuntary

movement of the eye toward a stimulus wh ich may be a potential
threat or danger to the body.
In the case of the student seeking the registrar's office, his selection
of stimuli is influenced by his needs and experience and by the
visual world in which he finds himself (including the stimuli and
their context). If he were a senior class officer and familiar with
the building, he would need very little visual information to get
to the registrar's office. In contrast, a freshman, in the building
for the first time, depressed with the confusion of h is first registration, would need all the visual information available to get to the
office. The freshman will notice people, color or walls, and much
seemingly extraneous information the senior probably does not
notice. The freshman's basic need for orientation will thus overpower his conscious activity need. Eventually, the orientation need
w ill be satisfied, and the student will perhaps notice a protruding
sign, or direct his attention to clues in the environment (perhaps
directiona l arrows in the corridor!. and find what he hopes will be
the registrar's office.
As the student approaches the general location of the office, the
selection process directs his eyes to doors, rather than to people,
colors or shapes. Once the eye focuses on a door, the visual input.
as well as input from the other senses, must be interpreted. The
student will more easily "see" the registrar's office if he hears the
sound of typewriters and registration instruct ions being given to
another student.
Interpretation of inputs is accomplished through the experience
filter discussed earlier and what we wi ll call a "processing selector."
It is as a result of the processing selector that informa'tion of less
immediacy is stored as past information without a person's being
consciously aware that the transfer has occurred (the information
may be "recalled" later) . More immediate or relevant information
for satisfying a need is used at the point where the perception is
formed.
Each bit of information is always related to its context in this process. As a result, when the input information becomes a perception,
it has attributive, affective, and expectant characteristics. This
means that the student finds an office, likes the efficien t way in
which it appears to be run, and expects to be able to register there.
If ind eed this is the registrar's office, he wi ll already have other
needs involving the perception process: locating the person to help
him, presenting approved class schedules, and so on. If this is not
the registrar's office, the student's origina l activity need will not be
satisfied, and he must travel through the process again, with the
same needs, but with an addit ion to the stored information in his
experience fi Iter.

18

HOWWE SEE

To help simplify the complex function of perception, the entire

process is summarized graphically in Figure 4. This chart is to be
read from the top down with the upper part of the diagram representing The Visual World, at the bottom is The Brain including "the
experience filter", with The Eye, the visual sensor of the viewer
connecting the two. The flow lines indicate the routes various visual signals take in order to satisfy a biological or activity need.
These needs are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

Figure 4
The process of perception

j l

I .

PERCEPTION:
ATTRIBUTIVE
AFFECTIVE
EXPECTANT
= RESPONSE

~ PRESENT NEED

SENSORY

P=~============~ INFORMATION
.

NEED

r----~.II'-----"-----o
w

....

r-- ....'"
2
....
<n

w
a;
a;
:0

"
2

a;
w

....
-'

~=========i

w
2
w

.. II
.

a;
w
Q.

!!?

w r

<n
U

a;

VISUAL
INPUT

INFORMATION
SELECTOR

'"
i=

VISUAL

~======== INFORMATION

INPUT FROM
OTHER SENSORS

SELECTOR

w
....
U

'"
a;

'"

:I:
U

.,

-'
Ol

'"
....

l========~

<n

UNCONSCIOUS
PROCESSING
SELECTOR

i=

II

'"

:;;
a;

"

l========~

w
a;

0
....
<n

PERCEPTION:
ATTRIBUTIVE
AFFECTIVE
EXPECTANT
= RESPONSE

Jl

NEW NEED

19

VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

What we look at
I n the previous section, the perception of the environment in relation to our needs was discussed. The eye searches for cluessignals that supply various bits of information for activity and
biological needs. In this search irrelevant signals or noise are rejected and we look at what we want to see, even if it is not as attracting phototropically as something else in our visual field. For
instance, if we are looking for a friend, the landscape in Figure 3
would be a background to the silhouetted figure. But we would
look at the background because (1) information found there helps
satisfy our biological needs for orientation, physical security, and
contact with nature, (2) we always see an object in the context of
its background, and (3) its higher luminance interferes with perception of the person.
Involuntary eye movements, or distractions, occur as the result of
unexpected changes in the peripheral field. These changes can be
in relation to:
o size: an unusually large man passes by.

motion: a person unexpectedly enters the room.

brightness : a specular reflection or dark shadow is seen.

color: a green spot is detected in the cake we are about to eat.

We examine the changes to see if they are of sufficient biological

or functional importance to call for redirection of our attention.
Distraction of biological importance may be due to danger, an undesirable situation, or an ambiguity.
o if specular reflection or an unusual dark shadow suggests
danger, we look for other visual clues to clarify the situation .
We may even shift attention from the visual to our other senses: we may sniff the air, listen for unusual sounds, reach to
feel familiar objects, or instinctively move out of the path of
suspected danger.

An example of an undesirable distraction of biological importance is a dirty windshield which interferes with information
necessary for safe driving.

Ambiguity often distracts us for longer periods of time. Windows as sources of light can be somewhat ambiguous if there
is nothing recognizable that can be observed through them.
Windows are more comfortable to look at and less distracting
if familiar elements are visible (trees, buildings) or if some
physical object is visible just outside the glazing plane (window reveal, roof overhang). The most ambiguous window is
one that has wh ite translucent glass since it appears first to be
a uniformly overcast sky.

20

WHAT WE LOOK AT

When distraction is functionally important we may redi rect our attention because new information suggests that we change our present course. For examp le, while hammering a nail we notice that
the board is t oo short, cracked, or discolored; we will not continue
hammering if we are concerned about our finished product.
Occasionally, a source of d istraction is close to our intended focus
and overwhelming in luminance or strength of pattern.
When distractio n is by domi nance of luminance, there is a reduction in t he visibility of our object of attention, because of the tendency of t he eye to adapt to high luminance in self protection, e.g.
when we are dr iving towards the sun. An example of dominance
by strength of pattern was t he roof of the Houston Astrodome before it was painted, where the more powerful visual patte rn (visual
noise) prevented the players from fo llowing th e ball.
Despite its high brightness, we have no need to constantly make
referen ce to the sun because it is natural for it to be there, and we
have evidence of its presence by other means (such as the highl ights and shadows it causes). On the other hand, w ith a bright
light source t hat is ambiguous, unnatural, or unwanted, we will return to invest igate and find it ann oy ing. I n the same way, unexpected distortion in percept ion of the structure in Figure 5 commands
as much attention as the view of daylig ht which has much higher
lum inance.

F igure 5
Perception of st ructure distorted by uneven lighting

In summary, we look at what we want to see (not necessarily the

brightest object in view)' un less something more important is indicated by the environment. When the things which are illuminated
do not relate to our needs, we will be distracted - not necessarily by
too much lum in ance, but by disturbing information.

21

VISUAL ENV IRONMENT

What we see
A closer look at the perception process
Because perception consists of the complex processing described in
the previous sections, what we see (that is, how things look to us)

cannot be described as a simple relationship between stimulus and

perception. We perceive each object or grouping of objects as having attributive (inherent and factual), affective (emotional and
psychological), and expectant (assumed) properties. Examples are
given in the follow ing paragraphs .

I
-.

I n an attempt to make life simpler for ourselves, we always seek to

understand what we look at by classifying it in to the most recognizable form or classification. We see a circle, rather than 15 dots
in Figure 6.

We always select a signal (shape) from a context (background), unless there is a perceptual ambiguity; in this case, we shift back and
forth, at some expense in effort and discomfort. What is selected
as a signal is determined initia lly by need or by what is understandable. When looking at black and white stripes of uniform
width in Figure 7, we find it difficult to make a choice between
background and foreground.

Figure 6
Most memorable form
or classifiC<Jtion

After Hesse lgren. The language of Architecture. 1969

Figure 7
Figure background
conflict

The same difficulty is present with a different configuration .

Compare looking at the central portion of Figure 8 as opposed to
the top or bottom edges.

Figure 8a
Figure/background
conflict

22

WHAT WE SEE

When looking through venet ian blinds, figure/background conf li ct

f rom uniform w idth of stripes is reduced because one set of st rip es
is more meaningful than the other - t he view being of more interest t han the blind slat .

Figure 8b
Figure/back ground conflict from uniform width of stripes

is redu ced when o ne set is more meaningful than the other

- the view rather than the blind slats.

We f ind th at the conf lict between the figure and the background is
greater when the shapes are simi lar to the background spaces. Note
the "dazzle" effect in Figure 9(b). When black and white areas are
equal, arrangement is relevant.

F igure 9
Figure/background conf lict

a. Background shapes different from fjgure

b. Background shapes simil ar to f jgure

We exper ience complete perceptions; we do not see separate attributes of shape, size, color , or brightness, e.g. we see a man, a
ball, etc. For insta nce, w hen we look at the objects in Figure 10,
we exper ience complete perceptions; we can see faces silhouetted
against a w h ite background or a vase against a black background .
Each perception is who le and we find it impossible to see both
faces and vase at the same time. We do not perceive a ser ies of
curves and lines and then laboriously add these up to create
meaningful combi nations, unless we are trying to analyze our
perception.

Figure 10
Complete perceptions Rub in's figure ( faces! vase)

23

WHAT WE SEE

In the same way, we see objects with their attributes in a contex t

and in relation to use, feel, odor, and so forth-except in the isolated laboratory situat ion where context and meaning are taken away
from objects for experimental or explanatory purposes. In real life,
individual components such as size, brightness, shape, or color cannot be related to simple measurement of only one dimension or a
multi-dimensioned stimulus. Our visual system is not a group of
gauges capable of measuring luminance, visual size or co lor.
We perceive a stable visual world. We see th i ngs as we k now them
to be, not as they appear momentari Iy. When we move ou reyes
and head, the two-dimensional images may change, but we perceive
the unchanging room as it is. (Look around and see if your table
moves.) We wil l almost never actual ly see a round image, but the
elli ptical shape wi l l generally be seen as "round." We may identify
a p late because of its "roundness," or we may assume it is round
because we expect a plate to be round, as shown in Figure 11.

b. Perceived form of the same sett ing

a. Ret inal image of table setting

Figure 11
Stable visual world

Perception components
Because of our tendency to see a stable world, we can refer to constancies of size , shape, color and brightness when we discuss components of perception .
Every perception has each component discussed in the following
tex 1. All the components can be used t o describe any object . Some
naturally take precedence, and anyone can be st ronger than the
others. Th e breakdown of individual components is artificial; in
actua li ty, attributive, affective, and expectant aspects are continuously interacting and influencing one anot her. The attributive
(factua l ly descriptive) aspects of percept ion relate only sl ightly to
strength, size and color of the momentary stimu lu s. The immediate
image of the stimulus (in compari son to what the object is) is a result of constancies, expectati on, and the relevance of the perception to current needs. On the other hand, the affective (feeling) aspect of perception comes from the relationsh ip between the at-

24

WHAT WE SEE

tribu tive properties of the object and its expected appearance

When th e lum inance levels, gradients, patterns, colors, etc. are re levant and expected, positive affective desc r iptions follow; the saille
properti es without relevance wi ll resu lt in negative affective descriptions.

Attributive aspects: size constancy

Percept ion of size is influenced pred om inan tl y by context rather
t han by optical size. Withou t a co ntext, we can not tell if we are
look ing at a small ob ject from a sho rt distance or a large object
from a long di stance. The size of one object is judged in relation to

F igu re 12
Context expectations - - size constancy

b. Same plate on Slnall table

a. Plate on large table

all ot her objects in the context. A plate will seem smaller on a

large ta ble than on a small tab le; an open -ended I ine will seem
longer tha n a closed one as ill ustrated in Figure 12.
A tr ick room can foo l us. Are the women in Figu re 13 really of a
di f f erent size? We can expect a certa in relationship to exist with
cei ling height, furniture size, et c. The three cy li nders in Figu re 14
are geometrically equa l in size. We ex pect the en tire scene to have
the same perspect ive.
Hes:selgren. l-:--'e Language of Architecture, 1969, (After 1ttelson)

." -

A
Figure 13
Expectation - - defined room ratios

Figure 14
Expectation - - same perspective over ent ire scene

25

WHAT WE SEE

Is the object to the right in Figure 15 a ping-pong bailor a beach

ball? It depends upo n whether it is related to the nearest face o r
the face farthest away . Also, if we know the kind of ba ll, we expect a certain relationship and wi ll be able to tell how far away
each face is.
Aher Hessef9ren, The Language of An:I1' tecture , 1969

Figure 15
ExpecWtiofi - - depends on the swndard" which face? or
whtlt kind of ball7

As we judge size by distance clues, so we judge distance by knowing the size of the ob ject; or we may judge relati ve distance by
compari ng overlaying objects in th e background as in Figure 16.

F iqure 16
Context expecta tion s - diswnce

We can j udge movement only by co mparison . We feel more movement on foot than at 700 mil es per hour in an airplane . In a tra in
station we so metimes have difficulty telling if it is our train, or t he
train on the next trac k, that is moving.

Attributive aspects : shape constancy

Fig ures are seen in the context of other objects and based on a common perspective: a table when viewed from across the roo m is seen
as a rectan gle, eve n though optically it takes the shape of a trapezoid . Thi s charac teri st ic of retaining a perceived property (or shape)
despite varying stimulus dimensions is called shape constancy.
Shape is also affected by expectation. In the street scene in Figure
17, expectat ion makes us "see the street curve beyond the corner."
F i ~Jure 17
Con tex t expectat ion s - shape cons t;)ncy

26

WHAT WE SEE

Attributive aspects: color constancy

Thi s att ribut e permits us to see a plate as it is over a wide range of
normal lighting co ndi tions, even though color photographs of these
condit ions may be ve ry different. By observing the plate in co ntext
with other objects at the same tab le, we ca n tel l if it is a white plate
illuminated by a red bulb, or a red plate illuminated by a white
bu lb. As long as al l o bj ects have the same illumination, only minimal c lues are necessary . For instance, in a comp letel y black laboratory background when the o nly ob ject visib le is a red di sk , one cannot make th e di st inct io n ju st cited . But th e presence of o ne w hite
t hrea d across t he disk wi l l make the di stinction clea r, and allow us
to separate the characte ri stics of the p late f rom those of the ill uminati o n 2
Color co nstancy can be upset by certain lighting and backg round
cond iti ons, however . The plate wi ll appear to be of a darker shad e
w hen viewed aga inst a ligh t-colored tablecloth, as opposed to a
darker o ne. This occurs because of simultaneous contrast, as shown
in Figure 18.
But co lo r constancy w ill prevai l if t here is only o ne co nnecting
clue as demonstrated in F iqure 19.
After Hesselgren, The language of Architoctu re. 1969. (Aftel'" 8alinkinl

Figu re 18
Contex t expecta ti ons - co lor constancy: simultaneous

con trast

Figure 19
Context expectat ions - color constancy: simu ltaneous
contrast w ith a connect ing clue

Because of color constancy, ou r friends' appeara nce will seem

natural over a wide range of w hite lighting condit ions. We wi ll not
not ice that they look different outdoors in the sun, shade, or under an overcast sky, o r ind oors unde r fluoresce nt and inca ndescent
lighting, even th ough the camera would make these distin ctions.
If, however, illumination color changes greatly (say fr om w hi te to
yellow), we w ill not ice that our friends and o ther objects are being "tinted" by a colored light. Such tinting mayor may not be
disturbing, depending on our expectat ions. I t is not disturbing, for
instance, in a discotheque or at t he theatre.
2 Hurvi ch, Leo M. and Jameson, Dorothea, Th e Perception of Brightness and Darkness,
A llyn and Bacon, Inc . Boston 1966. p. 86 "Gelb Effect."

27

WHAT WE SEE

Figure 20
Expcclat ion - sunlight Clnd shadow natural and pleasant

In Figure 20, expectation makes the lighting natural and pleasant,

rather than uneven and gloomy. The pavement is perceived as a
continuous material in sunlight and in shadow.

B~cuase of expectation (der ived from past experience) one expects illumination to be of a high color te mperature when luminance levels are high (reference to daylight) and low co lor temperature when luminance levels are low (association w ith fi religh t,
candleli gh t, etc .). Kruithof has measured the range of co lor temperatures under which objects appear "natural" and pleasant.
Figure 21
Color temperature re ference chart (data from Kruithofl

~Qo+--f-----+---+----+--f---i

'""+--f-- - -+-- -+-- - -+--i---1

I~O. _

_+-- -_j- - _j- - -+-+--_i

,,+--f----+---+----+--i---1
'" +--'-- - -+----+-----+---+---1
,,+--f----- +---+-- --+--f---i

From Lighl. Col u' ,1Ild Envir onmem by FJber 8irr on c 1969
by Lill un Ed uCd 1r o "a l Pul)lo shi'IQ. Inc. AOPfinled b y pe rmissi o n
of V ,ln N os lr,,1lCl Rei nhold Cumpany.

28

WHAT WE SEE

Figure 22
Expectation - comparison

The v iew through a bronze or gray heat-reducing gl ass window

usual ly is not distu rbing because the viewer does not "compare"
the view. However, the color of the glass wil l be noticed and w ill
be disturbing if an open or clear window is also in hi s field of vision as in Figure 22. When there is a basis for comparison, the view
through such glass appears tinted and "gloomy ."
Accurate judgement of co lor needs fu l l spectrum light such as
heated "black body" sources, e.g. incandescent light, sunl ight. In
order for two objects to match in pe rceived color under a wide
range of illumination, the two objects must conta in proportionate
amounts of all the same colors. To ensure this universal match the
ill um inant must include the entire spectrum, w ithout any f requency bands omitted or accentuated. Such accurate color judgement is necessa ry for matching paints, for example.
Memory and past expe rience also playa large role in perceptio n.
One way in which color memory maintains a constancy is through
the "spot effect.',3 If we are walking in the woods, a brilliant shaft
of sunlight through the leaves will produce a spot on the ground
which may at first appear to be a scrap of white paper . But upon
3 lbid ., p. 86 and 87, "Shadow and Spot Effects."

29

a. Woodland scene from a distance

b. Whi te spot becomes leaf

closer examination, we discover that the spot is a sun li t leaf as illustrated in Figure 23. Henceforth on that walk, we always see a
sunlit leaf and not a spot of "white ."

Figure 23
Perception - memory and past experience

Another way to test color memory is to look at a sheet of paper on

your desk and then out the window at a sheet of the same color on
the daylighted street. You w ill see the two sheets as having the
same co lor even though the ex t erior illumination may be 1000
times greater than the inter ior illumination . You wil l have allowed
for the different context.

Attributive aspects: brightness constancy

Just as we separate size from distance when judging size, so we
separate object color from illumination color when judg ing brightness. This is called brightness constancy. Luminance is the technical term for measured brightness, just as angular size is the technical term for measured size. We do not see lum inance per se, it is a
description of a specific condition which, to the observer, is inf luenced by expectation . .
Each person's visual system is able to det ect a property of "brightness" over a very large range of luminance produced - from sunlight to moonlight (one million to onel . Abi lity to perceive lum in-

30

WHAT WE SEE

ance differences in adjacent patches is call ed contrast sensitivity,

and is described mathematica lly in the next section of this chapter
("How wel l we see ") . Assessment of brightness betwee n objects
that are not adjacent, however, involves the whole perception process. If, in a labora tory, a disk is illuminated at va ri ous levels, a
doub l ing of luminance woul d produce a "just no ti cable d ifference."
Thus, an increase of four times the luminance would produce
two "just noti ca bl e differences" -- not very much. But, in ou r
daily experience, many other factors come into playa s th e eye
adapts to each luminous scene: co ntex t, experien ce , and expectation are tak en in to co nsiderati on when perceiving w het her an object is dark, l ight, too brigh t, or dull. For instance, an in teri or space
may seem "brighter" than a daylight scene even though the ex terior lumi nance is 1,000 t imes greater. Consider these perceptions:

o
o
o

a bright cafeteria vs. a bright cockta il lounge.

sunlight on a window sil l vs. light f ix tu res of equa l luminance.
a bright mural vs. a dirty dish cart.

When the mental observat ions are com pared w ith ligh t meter read ings the results may be surprising I
Another point to consider about luminance is that we " see " a surface as cont inu ous an d evenly ligh te d as long as the luminance
gradient seems natural for that shape . And in situations where there
may be no evidence of the direction of the light sou rce, we most
comm on ly understand the shape of three-dimensional oblects

Figure 24
c. Shape versus direction of li ght

Reprinted by permission fr om Th e Architect $' Jou rtliJi

w hen we can assume ligh t direction from above. In a laboratory

setting, we are somet imes confused if ligh t comes from below, as
in Fig ure 24b.
Whe n the source is obvious there is no co nfusio n, as in Figure 24c;
we compensate and adapt automatica ll y. In fact, if we were to
wear goggles that invert all images (gl asses that " turn the wo r ld upside down") we wou ld very soon adapt to the situa ti on and see the
wo rld righ tside up.
When we view ob jects il lumi nated by d iffere nt light sources, we
are not con f used if the sources are obvious, blending of ligh t is
gradual, or the illumination is of different surfaces, e.g. an incan-

31

descent source on the carpet and a fluorescent source on the wall.

At nigh t , one does not notice the color of the handrail light in
Figure 25a; but during the day, it seems yel low in compa r ison with
daylight from the skyl ight above, as in Figure 25b.

Figure 25
Color of light by comparison

A flat, uniform surface is expected to appear that way . T herefore,

non-uniform luminance is much more noticeable in a flat cei ling
than one with coffers (Figure 26) where shape is defined by gradients .
Another concern is the rate of change of luminance . A ceiling appears to be evenly lighted, flat and of the same color when the
luminance rate of change is constant, even though the luminance
at the window may be 20 times that at the inner wal l.
A change of rate implies a change of shape , and the difference in

Figure 26
Expect ation versus uniform ity of light

32

WHAT WE SEE

Repr inted by permission fr om The Architects' Journal

\
\

a. Continuity of surface

b. Surface interrupted

lum inance would be noticeable if the shape is obviously constant

(refer to Figure 26). Also, if the continuity of the surface is definitely interrupted by a beam or stripe, the two areas may appear
of differing color but evenly illuminated, even though the luminance gradient is otherwise constant.

Figure 27
Luminance - rate of change

This same phenomenon can be utilized, for instance, by having a

color change, or prominent joint line, in a concealed lighting cove
where a brigh tness rate change is unavoidable (as in Figure 66b) . If
"scallops" of light are centered between columns or reveals, the
changing rate of gradient becomes less noticeable. In addition,
"scallops" seem natural to the perception of panels when they are
al igned in a modular fashi on, but tend to fractionalize the uniform
wall in Figure 28b .

Figure 28
Luminance - rate of change: scal lops

33

WHAT WE SEE

The dom inat ing feat ure of h uman vision is adaptation. Everyt h ing
we see is referred to some reference level- w hether of l igh t ness,
dar kness, or color-a nd we make ou r in terp reta ti on in terms of t h is
adapt ing reference level. All visual exper ience has some basis in
Figu re 29
Ad ap ta ti o n level and apparent brightness . I n any given
scene, the ey e sens itivi ty se ttles d own to a gene ral average
state of adap ta ti o n. Th is <lc ts as a ' reference stand ard' such
that ind ividu<l l it em s o f the sce ne wh ich have a higher
ph y sictl i lurninance than this re ference level ' lo ok bri gh t ' ,
and th ose with a low er luminolnce 'l ook d ark '. T he b ri ll iC1 nc e o f th e hiDh light s and th e murk iness of the shad ows
co nseq uentl y d epends no t o nl y o n their intr insic physiCol lum in(J nc(! , bu t a lso on the state of adaptation to the
eye. Raise the ad dp ta ti on and the shiJd ows loo k d arker.
Lower the ad [J p Wt ion (sc reen the w indow w ith y ou r hand )
,mu the shadovvs loo k brigh ter. So d o the h igh ligh ts. T hus
in thed i<.i9ralTl i.l surf uce w i th a lum ina nce of 100 ft- L h as
<In dPlhl rcnt br igh tness of 100 w hen o ne's eye is adiJ pted
to 100 fl-L, b u t the S<.1 m e surface wou ld have an apparent
b riqh tness of 230 w hen o ne's eye was adapted to 10 ft- L.
from Hopkinson, R.G. and Kay . JD , The L igh ting o f
BU ild ings, Freder ick A. p raeqer , New y a ' k , 1969 , and
Fo ber oDd Felber , London: 1969 .

: :>,

--

220

100

~r.
Jo-,

.-'

"L.

lc-

..!'.:

.,"

--

t;:; 10

"e
~

-0: oJ ,"
1
0 . 01

-......

,_ e-

r---10

0. 1

MAP TAT!()"l LVr11lJA:lCE

""
100

1000

FT-L

past or prese nt kn owledge.

F igure 30
Simu l taneous con trast - dar k room, w i t h o n l y disp lay ed
IJb jel:\S ilt u rni nilt cd

Br ightness, as we ll as color, is affected by simultaneous contrast.

Only di sp layed objects are il lum inated in the photog rap h in Figure
30. These objects seem brig hter t han those of equal lum inance in
a uniformly ill u minated room.

Figure 3 1
Simultaneous contrast - ligh t room, only d isplay area
ill um inated
Figu re 32
Simu ltaneous contrast - lighl room and cei ling, display
objects illuminated from luminous ceiling (objects appear
dark in compa rison with ceiling)

Illumination of the Rem brandt paint ing in Figure 31 is kep t low

for reasons of preservation, yet it appears much brighter than the
paintings in Figu re 32 which receive ten times more light from a
luminous ceiling. (The Rembrandt would seem even brighter if the
su rrounding walls were dark or unlit.)

WHAT WE SEE

When the light source is directly visible, or when reflected on a

polished surf ace, pattern becomes a more important aspect than
usual. For examp le, expectation makes burnt-out lamps very

noticeabl e in a ce iling w here the pattern is simp le and regular as in

Figure 33. This is espec ial ly true if the pattern elements are large
scale and visually strong , as Figure 34 shows.

Figure 33
Luminance - pattern: simple and regu lar

The strong pattern plus the confusing reflection in Figure 35 results in increased distraction, thus raising the level of visual noise
already inherent in t hat type of lighting system.

Figure 34
Luminance - pattern: simp le. regular, and large scale

36

WHAT WE SEE

Affective aspects
In addition to the attributive (factually descriptive) aspects just
discussed, there are affective (emotional) aspects associated with
our perceptions of an object or scene. Some of the terms we will
use to describe those feelings and their physical correlates are:
FOCUS

DULL

D ISTRACTION

DRAMAT IC

GLARE

INTERESTING

SPARKLE, GLITTER

DISORDER

GLOOM

INT IMACY

When large, bright colorful or moving objects are the intended

objects of attention, a positive focus exists. If those objects
are not intended to be the focus, they can be a distraction in
either of two ways.

Figure 35
Luminance - pattern: visua l noise and distraction

37

WHAT WE SEE

a pleasant diversion when alternate needs are satisfied, e.g. a

beautiful girl passing by, a pleasant view from a w indow.

an unpleasant diversion when the information is irrelevant,

unwanted (bright light fixtures, highlighted wastebaskets) or
ambiguous (translucent windows, patterns, or colors which
upset constancies or expectations).

An object can be sparkling instead of glaring if it is the desired object of perception, e.g. a chandelier, a view, or a patch of sunlight.
Hence relevance or irrelevance of the scene, rather than brightness
ratios, determine "glare."

Gloom is experienced in the following situat ions:

There are difficult conditions for performing an activity, e.g.

not enough I ight; focal object obscured by shadows; or the
focal object silhouetted rather than highlighted.

Desired biological facts are 1) difficult to obtain: observer excluded from view, sunshine, or feeling of daytime; 2) unclear:
upsetting constancies such as size, shape, color or brightness;
no focal points, visual rest centers, sparkle, or interest; and 3)
dominated by unwanted facts: dominance by overly bright
ceilings or bright overcast sky; dominance by objects outside
the immediate area where privacy is desired.

If we select the ground objects in Figure 36 as the desired objects

to view, we find them dark in comparison with the overcast sky .
(A!so, the overcast day may seem "dark," even though luminance
levels may be hundreds of t imes greater than a "bright" interior
space .) On a sunny day, when shadows define and emphasize their
three-dimensional aspects, the ground objects will appear brighter
than the sky. At night, we consider a street "brightly illuminated,"
although the sky is always dark. This is shown in Figure 37.
A subject of great interest is seldom described as dull. Something
inherent ly dull visually cannot be made less dull by greater luminance. It must be changed and given interest by the addition of
colors (such as paint in a parking garage), shadows, or the dramatic
upsetting of constancies (such as pools of light along paths of circulation). A scene may appear dull because the intended object of
attention is dominated by something dull. In tent ional upsetting of
constancies can create "drama," excitement, or tension. If this up
setting of constancies not appear to tie in tentional, the same effects
can be gloomy and disturbing.
The angled buildings in Figure 36 do not seem disorderly because
t he contextual background of sky and woods are direction less. The
"office landscape" in Figure 38 appears disorderly in the context
of a highly directional geometric background.

38

WHAT WE SEE

.
"

,"

F igure 36
Expectation - order and frame of reference

Figu re 37
Expectat ion - br ightness

39

"

"
"

WHAT WE SEE

a. Strongly directional ceiling with coordinated

furniture arrangement

Figure 38
Expectalion - order and frame of reference

An intimate feeling (meaning private, closely personal or cozy, but

not necessarily dark) can be achieved in a dining room for example
by separate pools of I ight, by separate booths, or by effective use
of plant materials used as a screening device.

Expectant aspects
The expectant aspect of any perception governs the next action of
the observer. Expectations also influence the attributive (factually
descriptive) and affective (emotional) aspects of the visual experience .
Two immediate expectations relative to perception are security
and insecurity. Turning the lights off in your living room does not
create tension. Yet tension is felt when the lights go out unexpectedly in an urban park because unkown and unexplained causes
create apprehension and fear of danger. The dominant perception
is that there may be possible danger in this "dark" park (an expectant aspect) with resulting behavior leading to the focusing on
possible danger sources or a means of escape (such as a park exit).
When no danger is expected, a similar moonlit park in exurbia may
not be perceived as being "dark."

40

WHAT WE SEE

b. A strongly directional
ceiling combined with
offi ce landscaping pro-

duces "disorder"

What we see: summary

An understanding of t he process of perception and the components of percept ion help to explain why a room interior may appear "too bright" at nigh t , but "too dark" during the day because
of memory of simultaneous exterior conditions. This effect would
be increased if there were a black w indow at night and even just a
crack of day l ight dur ing t he day for reference.
Our judgment is altered by w hat we expect to be bri ght in a given
environment unde r given conditions for a part icu lar activity . A n
unlit mu ral, located as an obvious focal po int in a room, would appear dark because we expect that it was meant to be featured . A
chandelier in a theatre always appears too bright if even barely l it
during t he performance, t hough not too bright at ful l intensity
during t he intermi ssion . High lighting an empty f ireplace or an ug ly
f loor would create a scene described as "too bright" except to the
jan itor as he is sweepi ng up. Th is means that, to produce a predictable brightness perception level, those involved in design must
determine what shou ld be pe rceived, as well as the dimensions of
the st imuli (lumi nance).

41

VISU A L ENVIRONMENT

How well we see

The f ollow ing general relationship can be used to develop an understanding of how wel l we see
How well w e see =

Accuracy + Ease o f forming defined perception

Avai lable information

Accuracy, Ease of Perception, and I nformation are critical parameters, dependent upon the character istics of the object perceived,
the con tex 1. and the state of the observer, as well as upon the
source of illumination. However, since w e are accustomed to think
of visua l capaci ty in terms of strength of stimu Ius, we shall discuss
that parameter first.
Visual capacity vs. strength of stimulus
The effect of the strength of the stimulus must be considered both
in term s of sharpness of vision (acuity and object size) and contrast sensitivity (contrast within and/or between objects and background). As indicated on the graph in Figure 39, as the background
luminance increases, visibility initially increases also up to a point.

BASIC VISIIl I LlTY : 3PlGo nt iESS RE QU I REMENTS

100

t
~

-"?
<

~
~

"

80

'i$:~';..
" <ft

"
"

s?~-. ~,,\\-s

",\~~~,,\1.~
\-\;/
~-~
'\~~O
~
\ \-\1'

so

"
10

o~ \f<.

--

--

--- ----

..."f'i)

---.; ~
~~~

lO
20

\'>-- ......

- --

- --- --- - -

~ -- ...

'lACKGROU ID

BRIGHTNESS
(F('OTL/.'~RTS

,01

.05

.,

.,

"

"

'00

VISIBlLlTY : EQUIVALENT I Llll"ll ' IATI(J1 REQl.llREM':'IHS ( FOOTCA' IOLfS )

10 , 000

.
.

.~:------~c----'----~------~------~~------~------~
I .-25
12 . 5
1250
REFLEC TNlCE ) . Ol 25
12,500

LIGHT TASK

( so'

1000

(lARK TAS K
( S' REFLEC TA',ICE ) .1 25

.115

I. 25

12 , 5

Figure 39
Vi sibility chart

'"

'"

1250

12,500

125 , 000

But both curves reach a point of diminishing return above which

large increases in background luminance produce only a sma l l in crease in v isibility.
Our visual acuity is at 57% of maximum at 1 foot-Lambert (ft- L ),
78% at 10 ft- L . When backg r ound brightness is raise d f rom 10 to
20 ft-L , visual acuity is increased by 3%; by on ly 1% when the increase is from 50 to 60 ft-L; and by a miniscule 0. 1% when the
increase is from 100 to 110 ft-L. T herefore, for v iewing sma ll objects (when visual acuity is the limitation), a minor increase in size

42

HOW WELL WE SEE

(with optical aids, when possible, such as a magnifying mirror or

watchmaker's eyepiece) is worth more than an infinite increase in
quantity of illumination (F igure 40).
When a chalkboard is to be viewed, a decreased viewing distance of
25% is equa l to one hundred times (1 Ole to 1000 fc) the amount
of light. When visual acuity is the limitation, the implication is for
the teacher to write larger and for the handicapped to sit in the
front of the room. However , visibility is more typically limited
by lack of cont rast f rom a number of causes ca talogued in the
f ollowi ng sections .
For contrast sensitivity, a relationship similar to that for visual
acuity exists. If it is necessary to detect fine differences in contrast,
high levels are required. However, when it is possible to control
contrast, it is more econom ical to increase contrast rather than illumination. For exam ple, sof ter pencils or a better off ice duplicating process are better alternatives than increasing illumination
several fold.
Illumination can vary greatly the amount of contrast and, therefore, the required contrast sensit ivity. For instance, only one footcandle is necessary to i l luminate a chipped grain of wood if the
light is placed so as to graze the subject at an ang le; tor the same
object, a diffused light may require 1000 footcandles.

Clarity of object characteristics

The clar ity of object characterist ics relative to defined informational needs has a great influence on how well we see at various
luminan ce levels. The amount of information available is a function
of size and contrast of details of the signal. If we assume size is
fixed , is the information from the con trast relevant to w hat we
want to know? The amount of contrast produced in an object is
dependent on object characteristics (in addition to quantity). If we
are in terested in color, it is dependent on the light spectrum of the
source; itwe are inte re sted in texture, it is dependent on di rect ion
and how concent rated or d iffused the il lumina t ion.
It is not only necessa ry for t he eye to detect contrast , but also to
interpret the meaning of the contrast accurately. What the contrast
tells us is impor tant. What information do we want about the
object? For instance, high contras t between reflection of the ligh t
source (shine) on the object, rather than other characteristics,
would not be of value. Multipl e internal shadows contuse the shape
of some objects. If we are interested in color proper ties, sha rply
cast shadows w ill com pete for attention.

Figure 40
Visual acu ity - watchmaker's magnify ing glass

A summary listing of some typical information needs, object

characteristics, and relevant illumination characteristics is shown
in Tabl e I, inc luded at the end of this chapter. Examples of two

43

HOW WE LL WE SEE

and three dimensional number/letter designators of object characteristics (with wh ich objects will be classified from this point on)
follow Table I and Table II.
The clarity of an object also may be reinforced or reduced by context. One aspect of context is information value. Understanding of
the shape of wire sculpture (305)* could be increased by shadow
from a single light source, or could be confused by multiple shadows- especially if location of the sources is not obvious and the
sculpture is complex . Other aspects of context are phototropic
effect, simultaneous contrast, and color. Context, for example,
may produce positive or negative information for the 'observer and
may hel p or reduce object perception by means of shadows cast or
distracting form. (The experience at the Houston Astrodome illustrates the negative effect : the pattern of the structure overpowered the visibi l ity of the ball.)
Examples of a sol id object related to other su rfaces by a cast shadow (303) are given in Figure 41. Shape and defined edges of the

shadow can be important in determining the positi on of the object

(the ball) if there are no other references .

Figure 41
Luminance - position

Clarity, of course, is improved through adaptation. A large bright

source is adapted to in one of two ways as illustrated in Figure 42:
o by making the signal appear darke r than the bright background.

o by causing stray light in the eye, thereby reducing visibility.

How well something is seen depends first on looking at the object:
focus. A competing signal gets the observer's attention and is either
a distraction (a negative attraction, such as the Houston Astrodome
cei ling) or an emphasis (creating focus, a positive attraction such as
underlining text) . Distraction or emphasis occurs when the competing signal is:

o more powerfu I,
o of stronger pattern,

o more meaningful.
o implying danger, or

o perceptually confusing.
The effect of distraction/emphasis considerations on design and
hardware decisions is discussed in the sect ion on loca l lighting.

Figu re 42
Adaptation

*$ee Tab le II

44

HOW WELL WE SEE

The observer's attention

The observer's attention is influenced by many factors. The previous discussion on focus/distract ion is relevant here. The more the
distraction, the harder it is for the observer to keep focusing on
t he signal; the more t he focus, the less effort the observer extends
to the signa l. The motivation and mood of the perceiver determine
t he length of attention span, as well as willingness to concentrate
and fol low through with activities. Visual rest centers provide relief from focus; peopl e have limited attention spans and need some
interrup t ion in concentration to maximize vigilance, and counteract boredom. If the rest center is in the distance, shifting to it uses
different eye muscles and reduces fat igue.
Experience
With experience, the observer needs fewer clues from which to
form a meaningful perception. Objects are seen more accurately
with less information by experienced observers because they know
what to look for. For example, someone who has never hunted
can find animals in the woods on ly with great difficulty, whatever
the v isual conditions; a trained hunter, on the other hand, takes
advantage of all relevant signals. Experience in perception is particularly relevant in testing situations, where untrained observers
should not be used except in specia l circumstances.
Maximum focus and minimum distraction are produced by local
lighting (with the light source baffled) The signal on ly is illuminated to maximum brightness and the context is of minimal distraction, as shown in Figure 43.
Local lighting can be posit ior1ed for maximum effectiveness without introduc ing "glare" or intense heat for persons in the room.
For instance, local lighting can be piped through an acrylic rod
during assembly of electron tubes, as illustrated in Figure 44.

Figure 43
Local lighting with light source baffled

Figure 44
local lighting positioned for maximum effectiveness

45

HOW WELL WE SEE

Figure 45
Local lighting plus mag nification

Local l ight ing w ith mag nification is more effect ive than an infinite
am ount of general illumination without magnification, as in Figure
45.
When t he competing background is of higher luminance than the
signal, the cla rity of the signal is red uced. The effect is greatest
when the background (as the source of adaptation) is located
closest to, or surrounds, the signa l. When t here is a glossy tab le
top, as in Figure 46, background competition can be reduced by
locating sources ou t side the mirror angle.

Figu re 46

l oca l lighting - background competi ti o n

46

The following pages contain a series of photographs illustrating

the clarity of object characteristics in various contexts and at
va r ious luminance leve ls, as well as the importance of geomet ry
(size, shape and positionl rather than quantity.
Li ght source at the mirror angle is shown in Figure 47a. Figure
47b shows a tota ll y glossy object and background (2D2 on Table
III . The illumination is modest; the position of the source is prope r, relat ive to specular su rfaces (away from mirror angle, as
shown in d iag ram l. Illumi nation of v iewer and of opposite wa l l
are negat ive factors (mi rror reflectionsl . Excessive frame shadows
are avoided (deep fra mes not used, light not grazingl.

Figure 47a
Mirror angle demonstrated

Figure 47b
Clarity of object characteristics - 2D2 - totally gloSSY
objects (photographs) and background, with appropriate
lighting

47

HOWWELL WE SEE

When the ref lected image is used positively, the exact pattern is
important. The four photographs in Figure 48 illustrate two characteristics: totally glossy object w ith no color on dark background
(2D3). and totally glossy object with no inherent color (3D1 1)

Figure 48
Clarity of object characteristics - 203 and 3011 - totally
glossy with no inherent color

48

HOWWELL WE SEE

Figure 49 illustrates characteristics 202 and 306: totally glossy

with inherent color (202): swimmer under water with a reflected
image of a window on the surface of the water . This situation
prevents observation of the swimmer under water unless the bottom of the pool receives illumination from directions other than
the mirror angle (multilateral daylight or artificial supplementary
underwater lighting). Reflection of direct sunlight on water can be
almost impossible to counteract, even for viewing swimmers on
the surface of the water.
Figure 49

Clarity of object characteristics - 202 and 306 - totally

glossy with inherent color and solid seen in silhouette
against glossy background

A solid seen in silhouette against a glossy background also illustrates 306: benefits are obtained from a uniform source at the
mirror angle in the amount of contrast of the swimmer against
water . If the coach would like illumination from other directions
in order to see details of a swimmer's motions, contrast between
swimmer and water must be reduced.
Suhstantial artificial illumination is required to counteract window
reflections in the situation where there is a low window on one
side of the room and the other walls are of dark wood finishes .
A scratch on a polished metal plate, shown in Figure 50, is most
effectively illum inated from a grazing angle. If light is directed
away f rom the mi rror angle, t he indentations are highlighted and
the background becomes a darker mirror. Greatest contrast and
visib i lity are produced by a un iform source at t he mirror angle,
thus allowi ng the scratch to appear dark aga inst the bright reflection as in Figure 50.

Figure 50

Clarity of object characteristics - 207 - dark matte on

glossy background: specu lar ref lection

49

HOIVWELL WE SEE

Polished metallic surfaces (and mirrors) can only ga in luminance

trom a mirror angle. At night polished meta l bu il dings present th e
same prob lem. Flat polished metal letters against a dark background are brighter than the background during the day (when
reflecting t he sky), but ca nnot be illuminated from below at night.
Convex or concave letters present a mirror angle between sou rce s
and viewers at many angl es.

a. Book in normal position

Th e ser ies of photographs in Figure 51 illustrate t he difficulty of

illumi nating book titl es properly. Probably the most diff icult book
t it les to read are t hose printed in si lver or go ld (208 and 209)
Vi sibility of dark glossy titles is maximized by the oppos ite methods f rom those used for maximizing co ntrast of silver and gold
titles.

Fi gure 51
Clarity of object characteri st ics - 208 - metallic glossy

against dark matt: increased illumination at the mirror

angle maximizes visibi lity

Visib ility is maximized (increasing the inherent contrast) by increasing illuminat ion at the mirror angle (the type) relative to that
at ot her angles (the bindings).

b. Book tilted UJ1

Tilting the book up maximizes the amount of illuminated surface

al the mirror angle, bul because of t he rou nded sp in e, on ly
hall of the prinling is enhanced .

50

HOW WELL WE SEE

Tilting the book down greatly reduces the amount of illumination

at non-mirror angles (the binding), but contrast is increased because the binding becomes darker than the printing. The same
effect is achieved by shielding the binding with one's hand.

c. Book tilted down

Eith er of these steps is more effective than increasing the illumination level substant ially without chang ing the geometry . Correct
lighting geometry is much more critical than t he illumination level.
A larger source area in the mirror angle, such as an indirectly
illuminated ceiling, maximizes the contrast.
Th e clarity of raised objects, such as letters, is particularly affected
by object/background values. Shadow from a dark raised letter
(307) on a light-colored background always reduces clarity: spacing the shadow from the background reduces the negative effect.
Dark letters are better flat or recessed where shadows either do
not exist or fall within the letters. On the other hand, shadows are
helpful when light-colored letters are raised; when light letters are
recessed, they lose contrast by shadows. Figure 52 illustrates these
conditions.
Figure 52
Clarity of object characteristics

30B -

307 - Dark raised object

Shadows cast by dark letters on

a light colored background
always reduce clarity.

Spacing the letters from the

background tends to reduce
the negative effect.

51

Light raised object

Shadows are helpfu I

in perception of light
raised letters.

Light letters, when recessed,

lose contrast when partially
filled by shadows.

HOW WEL L WE SEE

a. Backlighting

Transparent objects (2D10 and 3D13, as in Figure 53) are best

seen by back lighting. In the laboratory, titrations are often better
undertaken against the background of a well-illuminated white
wall rather than by direct lighting on the equipment itself. Certain technical inspections, such as those on television picture tube
screens, require backlighting and magnification rather than an increase in direct illumination.

Figure 53

Clarity of object characteristics - 2Dl0and 3013transparent

b. Backlighting plus magnification

52

HOW WE LL WE SEE

Perception of a closed sol id object with detail (302) can best be

understood by considering the problems involved in the perception
of faces. Clarity of object characteristics requires that certain information needs and hardware systems be met:
informatio n needs: clarity of perception requires visibility of
details and color as well as total form.
hardware systems: illumination should have a dominant direction (vector) neither coinciding w ith view ing direction (which
produces minimum modelling) nor perpendicular to viewing
di rection (which produces maximum modelling); shading and
shadows should not be excessively dense nor confusing. Dense
shadows from the side are better than those from above or
below because faces are more symmetrical on the vertical
axis. In addition our "seeing" normally includes aggregate
information from constan tly chang ing hori zontal directions,
but with a fixed vertical direction. When the direction of the
lighting on an object is poor, t he ratio of maximum to mini mum illum ination should be low, particularly for viewi ng
faces . Th e optimum ratio would be less than 10 to 1, ideally
between 2 to 1 and 5 to 1. If the direction is good, of course,
the ratio can be higher than 10 to 1. Such ratios and clar ity
are attainable from a single concent rated source combined
wi th diffused sources (wh ich ca n be reflected l ight from wa lls,
floors, table tops, etc .) or from non-uniform d iffused sources
(dominant from one direction such as a w indow, rather than
a perfectl y uniform hemisphere such as a totally enveloping
overcast sky) . Multiple point sources can prod uce the proper
ratios, but are likely to be acco mpanied by multiple shadows.
For faces illuminated with low maximum/minimum ratio,
direction is not so cr itical; w ith a high maximum/m inimum
ratio, side direction is much better than overhead.

How well we see: summary

In this section we determined that quantity of light is only one of
the many factors in determining how well we see. Each viewer has
specific information needs and each object has specific characteristics. Relevant lighting geometry, rather than quanti ty, is the most
effective way to meet these needs and characteristics. Visibility is
also relative to focus, di straction, and context. Above very mini mum illumination levels, the geometry of light source and objects
viewed is far more important than light quantity. To increase
visibility by brute strength (footcandles) rather than skill (geometry) is wasteful and likely to produce bad side effects in the form
of glare.

53

HOW WE LL WE SEE

Table I

Visual information needs,

object surface characteristics,
and
illumination qualities
most likely to reveal and obscure
the needed information
'-.-'
Task area

Maximum su rface

brightness

Totall y matte surface (201 .

carpet)

Il lumination normal to the surface.

The surface shou ld be of maximum

reflectance.

Totally glossy surface (202

glossy photo: 203 - mirror)

Il lumination at the mirror angle

(parti cularly for mirror-like surfaces
with no inherent cotor (203) which

can only gain surlace luminance by

reflecting a source or ill uminated
surface at the mirror angle.
Brightness contrast
from surfaces of
arying reflectance

Totally matte surface (201 carpet)

Illu mination normal to the surface.

Totally glossy surface (202-

Illum inatio n from other than the

mirror angle.

Illumination from a sou rce within

the mi rror angle. If such sources
cannot be avoided, the negative
effects of mirror reflections can be
minim ized by using so urces of maximum size and min imu m luminance.

Dark glossy surface on a light

matte background (205 - dark
printing on white matte paper)

Illumination from other than the

mirror angle.

Illumination from a source within

the mirror angle.

Light glossy surface on a dark

matte background (204 . wh ite
printing on black matte paper)

Illumination from a uniform source

of maximum size at the mirror angle.

Dark matte surface or a raised

projection on a glossy background (206 matte paint or
raised lettering on glass

Ill umination from a uniform source

of maximu m size at the mirror angle.

Illumination from a concentrated

source at the mirror angle.

Dark matte surface or an in

dentation on a glossy background (207 - grout joints in
tile wo rk )

Illumination from a uniform source

of maximum size at the mirror angle,
or from a concentrated source from
the viewing angle.

Illuminat ion from a concen trated

source at the mirror angle.

Metallic glossy su rface on a

dark matte background (208 gold or silver printing on a dark
matte book bind ing)

Illumination from the mirror angle.

Any illumination from outside the

mirror angle.

glossy photo)

Color contrast

Same as above except that a full

spectrum source should be used for
discrimination between a full range
of colors; a limited spectrum source
may be acceptable for discrimination
between a limited range of colors.

54

work surface

Brightness contrast
from variation in
light transmission
characteristics

Shape

Texture

Transparent surface (20 10

stained glass, and 3013 glass
ware)

Backlighting from a uniform source.

Backlighting from a concentrated

source directly behind the transparent
surface or object.

Projected image (2012)

Projection onto an opaque non

specular surface .

Stray light from other sources

falling on the screen from any angle.

Translucent surface (2011

white glass)

Backlighting; a concentrated source

is acceptable if located some distance
behind the translucent surface, unless
the surface is closer to transparent
than translucent.

Simple closed solid (301)

Illumination from a single can

centrated source or diffused il lumina
tion with a dominant direction
somewhat displaced from the view
ing angle.

Closed solid with surface

detail (302 sculpture, face)

Illumination from a single con

centrated source or diffused ilium ina
tion with a dominant direction
somewhat displaced from the view
ing angle.

Overlapping shadows from several

concentrated sources.

Solid object related to other

surfaces by cast shadows
(303 ball in the a ir, steps in
sunlight)

Illumination which creates a single

sharp shadow.

Illumination which creates multiple

shadows, particularly if the shadows
are cast from several different
directions.

Simple open object under

standable in silhouette (304 .
picket fence)

Illumination wi th a dominant
direction; multiple shadows are
usually acceptable.

Complex open object (305 .

wire sculpture)

Single sharp shadow cast by a source

located away from the view ing angle.

Multiple shadows.

Dark raised solid (307

dark raised letters)

Concentrated or diffuse illumination

from the viewing angle.

Illumination from a concentrated

source at other than the viewi ng
angle, particularly at grazing angles.

Light raised solid (30B

light raised letters)

Illuminatio n from any angle which

produces consistent sharp shadows.

Totally glossy solid w ith no

inherent color (30 11 . polished
metal scul pture )

Illumination from a large u niform

source at the mirror angle.

Illumination from a diffuse source

surrounding the object; supplemen
tary concentrated illumination can be
used to create highlights, reducing
t he negative effects of a large uniform
enveloping source.

Moving solid (3012 runner)

Il lumination wi th a dominant vector

from the viewing angle such that it
creates sh adow grad ients o n the
object; best seen against a uniform
contrasting background.

Visual noise in the backgrou nd;

min imize by locat ing potential
sources of distraction such as light
sources as far from the lineotsight
as possible.

Surrounding enclosure (3014

room, courtyard)

Illumination which clearly defines

planes of enclosure with even light
gradients, or to perceptibly different
brightness levels.

Illumination which upsets or destroys

t he visible form of surrounding sur
rounding surfaces, by co nfusing or
distracting illumination gradients
which are inconsistent with the true
form of the surfaces.

Simple rough texture

(309 brick wa ll)

Illumination from a single concentrated source or from diffused

sources at grazing angles.

Comp lex rough texture (3D 10 .

electrical circuits)

Illumination from diffuse sources at

grazing angles or from a concentrated
source at neith er grazing nor normal
angles.

55

Table II

HOW WELL WE SE E

Object surface characteristics

broken down
into
two- and three- dimensional
categories

201

Totally matte surface

Matte photography, carpeting, embroidery

202

Totally glossy surface with inherent

color

A slick magazine, glossy photograph, anything displayed under glass

(prints, instrument dials) or found under water (an underwater sw immer)

203 -

Totally glossy surface with no in-

Mirror , polished stee l or aluminum, glass

herent color on a dark background

204 -

Light glossy surface on a dark matte

background

Light printing on dark matte paper, a reflectorized high way sign

205 -

Dark glossy surface on a light matte

background

Printing, writing or drawing w ith ink o r paint on wh ite matte paper

206 -

Dark matte surface or a raised projection on a glossy background

Ridge or matte paint on an enamel, glass or plastic surface; a sw immer

on the surface of the water; a person seen against a wet street

Dark matte surface or an identation

A scratch on a painted surface, grout joints in tile work

207 -

on a glossy background

208 -

Metal lic gl9SSY surface on a dark

matte background

Gold or si lver lettering on a dark book binding; printed circu its

209 -

Metallic glossy surface on a light

matte backgrou nd

Gold or silver lettering on a light book binding

2010 - Transparent surface

A kodachrome mural or a stained glass window

2011 - Translucent surface

White glass or plastic

2012 - Projected image

Cinema projection, overhead projection, opaque projection

56

3D 1 -

Simple closed solid with no internal

detail (surface irregularities)

A ball or post

302

Closed solid with internal detail

A face, topographica l globe, sculpture

303

Sol id related to other surfaces by

cast shadows

Steps, ball in flight

304 -

Simple open solid understandable in

silhouette

Tree, picket fence

305

Complex open s?1 id

Wi re scu Iptu re

306

Solid seen against a dark glossy

Pedestrian on a wet street, swimmer on the surlace of a swimming pool

background

307

Dark raised solid

Signs with dark raised letters

308

Light raised solid

Signs with light raised letters

309

Simple rough texture

Brickwork, carpeting

3010 - Complex rough textu re

Electrical circuits

3011 - Totally glossy solid with no in-

Polished metal tools, silverware, polished metal sculpture

herent color

3012 - Moving solid

Baseball in flight, runners

3013 - Transparent solid

Clear or colored glassware, colored liquids in test tubes

3014 - Surrounding solid enclosure

Room surfaces, courtyard

57

All the factors presented in How well we see are relevant to this
discussion. Very special conditions and combinations of these
factors exist for each type of object and for each type of activity.

Visibility and productivity

Recognizing the many factors that influence visibility, we should
ask ourselves these questions :
o When does visibility affect productivity?

o
o

Is visibility the limiting factor? If so, to what extent?

Assuming visibility is the limiting factor, is it logical to design
for the "worst condition" or the "most difficult task" which
is neither important nor performed frequent ly?

If the visibility of an object is to affect productivity, the visibility

must be the limiting factor for performance. For typical school
and office activities there are no data to ind icate that productivity
is affected by visibility as opposed to attitude, mood, mental speed,
motor limitation, concentration, distraction, etc. The exception
may be in viewing chalkboards, where poor visibility may sometimes limit productivity. However, very large increases in light
strength must be made if they are to be as meaningful as a slight
change in physical conditions, e.g ., change of viewing distance, size
of writing, or direction of light.
For industrial work, the situation where productivity is most affected by visibility is in critical tasks such as watchmaking and inspection, where optical aids or special localized lighting is required
~ light with special characteristics in direction, color, focus, and
contrast.

Motivation and productivity

Other examples of increased productivity due to improved visibility have been cited in the past, but are most likely in error since
they ignore the Hawthorne studies conducted by Professor Elton
Mayo of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration
in the late 1920's.5 In these studies, production increased with increased lighting, but continued to increase when lighting was reduced. Mayo's studies do not prove that increased I ighting cannot
improve productivity, but they do demonstrate that productivity
increases are as likely to come from the feeling that mangement
cares about working conditions e.g. a better overall visual environment.
5Weston, H. C .. Sight, Ught and Work, H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., London, 1962, pp.

165-66.

Mayo, E., The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, London MacMillan.

Ro.ethl isberger, F. J, and Diekson, W. S., Management and the Worker, Harvard UniverSIty Press, copyrigh1 1939.

PRODUCTIVITY

"In industry, clear evidence of the effect of general illumination upon the

energies of workers has been obtained by Adams, w ho made a lengthy investigation in the case of a simple occupation (making tiles) which did not requ ire
high illumination to make the work objects easily visible ... when artificial light-

ing was improved so that it contributed nearly three times as much light to
the presses and five times as much to the center of the shop, the output of the
tile pressers increased , on the average by nearly 6 percent. All the operatives
liked the new system of lighting very much because it made the shop look

more cheerful...the same operatives were then transferred to a newly constructed workshop where general daylight illumination was so good that art ificiallighting was unnecessary. In the new shop the operatives aga in increased
their rate of working by about 6 percent. Adams concluded that this response
was chiefly due to the much more cheering conditions of Iighting ... 6

Saying it another way, the appearance of the space, rather than

the visibility of the work , was cited as the beneficial element. As
a result of the Hawthorne and Adams studies, we can state that
any change (including physical) for better or worse, indicating attention paid to workers, can result in an attitude change in workers wh ich may subsequent ly increase productivity. I t is I ikely t hat
change is more frequently brought about by improvement in overall environment (producing a feeling of improved comfort and
pleasure) t han mere improvement in "task" visibility . Thus, better
colors, carpeting, or a more human environment from indirect or
local lighting may wel l increase productivity more econom ically
than increased footcandles.

Comfort and productivity

In order to understand visual comfort and pleasure we need to ask,
"What do we look at?" Even in factory production work, the eyes
are not glued on the task at hand, but are scanning the environment to perceive facts one instinctively or consc iously wants to
know. At the other extreme, there are many spaces where formal
activities are minimal or non-existent, and almost all of the visual
activity is to satisfy biological needs (described in Chapter 4, along
with corresponding information needs and hardware systems).

User surveys conducted by Manning and Wel ls7 and Langdon 8 in

British office buildings show almost no complain ts about quantity
of light (with levels largely below British I ES recommendations
6Weston, Op . Cit., pp. 162-164.
Adams, S., " .The Effect of Lighting on Efficiency in Rough Work (Tile Pressing)" . Joint
~~g5.lndustrlal Health Res . Board and Iliu m. Res Comm. (D.S .I.R.). H .M .S.O. , London
7Manning. P. (ed). Office D esign: A Study of Environment. Liverpool The Pilkington
Research Unit, 1965.
8Langdon, F. J., Modern Offices: A User Survey, London, HMSO .. 1966.

59

PRODUCTIVITY

and even furthe r below U.S. practice). Complai nts expressed were
most ly of discomfort glare.
The volume of work done by Hopkinson and others on discomfort
glare also suggests a stronger relationship between comfort and the
visual array of the environment than between comfort and the
quantity of light. "Discomfo rt due to gla re is not only a subject
of complaint, but it is reasonable to suppose that it affects the
general efficiency of the worker as a resu lt of a bui ld-up of annoya nce, frustration and irritation in people who are subject over
a long period to what amounts to a minor emotio nal affront. It
has been shown, however, that t he effect on human 'efficiency'
is very difficult to measure, in much the same way as the effect of
noise in a building is more important because of the distress which
it causes t han w ith the actual reduction of efficiency of work ing. "g
We are comfortab le when the objects we see give us the information we consciously or inst inctive ly want to know to carry out an
activ ity or to satisfy a biological need. We are comfortable when
we see we ll all the th ings we want to see-or when we see poorly,
or not at all, all the things we do not want to see. The key factor
in determini ng a desirable, comfortable luminous environment is
relevance: relevance to activity and biological needs in a space .
Whenever a cheerful and bright space is expected during t he day
(lobbies, c lassroom, office, lab, library, etc.). large areas of wal ls or
ce ilings must be ill uminated to balance daytime brightness (either
visible simultaneously or rem embered). Sufficient illumination of
these surfaces w il l generally result in suff icient illum ination for
casual activit ies throughout most of the room. Such "environmenta l lighti ng" plus supp lementary local illumination, controlled by
the user for more demanding activities or in darker port ions of the
room (e.g. in study carrels shadowed by enclosure). is likely to
produce the greatest comfort both for those with local lighting and
for others in the space- and at lowest cost. Increased illumination
for the ent ire space is justified onl y if cri tica l tasks appear throughout the space and the geometry of I igh t ing, optimum for one occupant, is not detrimental to others in the form of glare.

Physical safety
In normal lighti ng design, physical safety is a minimal factor, deserving considerat ion only for exterior lighting at dangerous points
such as stairs, and for interior ligh ting where very low light levels
are being sought as in nightclubs. At night a min imu m of 0.25 fc
at any point from any direction shou ld be sufficient to prevent a
person from falling, unless the visual informat ion is faulty (i.e. co n9HoPkinson, Lighting of Buildings, p. 58 .

60

PROOUCTIVITY

f using shadows) or disabil ity glare cond itions exist. This is demonstrated by the fa ct that these condi t ions exist without any apparent prob lems in a number of well-known buildings surveyed by Mr.
Lam. In good design practice, where spaces that express their use
well (mater ials, forms, focal points, junctions, stairs, etc., are defined) it is very unlikely that a safety hazard will ex ist except
when glare sources are distracting. The average horizontal ill um ination level is not as important as the min imum illumi nation level,
especia lly at cri tica l points w here glare ca n create problems.
Another source of danger is disability glare f rom daylight sou rces,
such as a window at the end of a long dark colored corr id or. In
this case, the brightness balance shou ld be improved, either by
additiona l lighting (achieved most effectively by illumination of
light-colored ce il ing or walls, and/or reflect ive colors) or by control ling the distribution of daylight. It should be remembered that,
even with t he generally good brightness balance of full daylight
outdoors, a dangerous situation will exist when one's line of sight
is toward the sun .

Eye health
"T here is no genera lly acceptable evidence that poor illuminat ion
results in organic harm to the eyes any more than indisti nct sounds
damage the ears or foul smells damage the nose."l0 Eyestrain
from trying to overcome a difficu It seeing condition is only a temporary d iscomfort and does not result in damage to the eye. The
need for wear ing glasses arises only from organic causes. Eyestrain
can result from glare as well as from inadequate illumination. Eye
damage from light is possible on ly from overexposure, never from
inadequate illumination.

10Cogan , D. G .. "Popular M isconceptions Pertaining to Ophthalmology," New England

Jou rnal of Medici ne. 242: 462466. 194 1. (Quoted from stenographic notes of SUCF
Saratoga Conference.)

61

I n this chapter, biological needs are discussed and summarized in a

master table, wh ich also includes perception-based criteria for
various levels of act ivity . The format of t he master tab le is suitable
for use in Space Program Charts (Chapter 5) and suitable for computer process ing. T he charts may be used for var ious types of
spaces. They should be kept current with changing needs and
build ing programs, and should reflect feedback from user evaluations.

BIOLOGICAL AND ACTI V ITY NEEDS

Biological needs
for
survival,
protection,
and
sustenance

I nfDrmation awareness occurs through all the senses, but primari Iy

through t he visual. I naccurate or inadequate visual informat ion
ca n be distracting and even dangerous.
Satisfact ion level and pleasure from biologica lly necessary stimu li
vary w it h cu lture, values, and opportuni t ies. Di ssat isfaction , or
gloom, resu lts from any la ck deemed unreasonable, not by choice
or in exchange for another advantage.
Percepti on of changes in locat ion, movement. and state is necessary
at all t imes for protect ion of t he body, even during sleep . Conti nuous visual contact is necessary f or specific physical activities,
such as:
active: walking, running, jumping (percept io n of level, ground
surfaces , obstructions, direction as in Figure 55) and worki ng
(obj ect of focus)
inactive: protection from physical attack (from ani mals,
people, machines, weather, fire, and intense sou nd) and protect ion of organs (parti cula rly sensory and reproductive) f rom
physical damage, e. g. eyes from inte nse light.

Figure 55
Protection of the body - walk ing, runn ing, jumping

63

BIOLOGICA L NEEDS

a. No horizon, no contrast

Figure 56
Protec tion of the body - horizon awarenesS

e. Clear horizon. but tilted (disturbing)

b. No horizon. high contrast

When walk ing, and even w hen seated , awareness of the horizontal
is importa nt. An unclear hor izon, because of low contrast, can be
coped w ith . But we are uncomfortable for biological reasons when
the horizon is not clear, as in Figure 56a: on a foggy day at the
beach we are uncomfortable because the biological need for a defined horizon is unfulfilled.

BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

c. Horizon, low contrast

-. d. Clear horizon

A familiar example of an uncomfortable space is in th e TWA Terminal at Kennedy Airport. Corridors leading to planes have slop ing
f loors and non-vertical wal ls which cause disorientation, especially
when there are no other people present for orientati on. The use of
vertical pictures or expansion joints would create a level which
would reduce t he unpleasant feeling in the space.
Another example is the Guggenheim Museum in New York City.
Here people may be uncomfortable because they do not know
whether to stand perpendicu lar to the sloping floor or parallel to
the pictures wh ich are hung on a true horizont al.
Figure 57
Corridor at the T WA terminal
F igure 58
Guggenheim Museum

BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

The t hird biological need is sustenance of the body and our desired
awareness of relevant informat ion . We are monitoring inform at ion at
all t imes, even t hough we are f reqent ly not conscious of some in format ion we receive. We are more awa re of bio logical ly, important factors than we are of others which are less important to our we ll
being, Some of these important factors are:
locat ion : in regard to water, heat, and food.
_ _.!!
t illm~
e : biolog ical clock adj usted to day light cycle.
weather: for clothing, heating needs, long-term foo d sup ply,
hea lth-giv ing sun .
enclosure : air supply, co ld and heat.
opportun it ies: f or relaxation of mind, body, senses; e.g.
privacy, quiet, change of action to permi t maximum attention
and altern ates when necessary (for eyes - visual rest centers,
foca l poi nts) .
We are interested in and therefore alerted to the preced ing fac t ors.
Once they are part of ou r awareness, we eva luate t hem and if information is ambiguous we are uneasy; if information can be c learly interpreted we are 1) tense if the facts are dangerous, "bad," or
a disa ppointment, 2) relaxed if the facts indi cate everything is under co ntrol, or 3) pleased or even excited by cont rol and manipulat ion of elements essen tial for our ex iste nce (it is raining, but we
need rain; there is a fire, but it is in a fireplace).
Because of t ime orien tation, du ring t he day we subconsciously expect it to be br ighter outside bui ldings than inside as in Figure 59 .
At night we ex pect it to be dar ker outside buildi ngs than inside.
We feel "gloomy" w hen the situation is amb iguous-every day at
dusk or on dark overcast days, as ill ustrated in Figure 60. Length

Figure 59
Sustenance of body - t ime ori entation - daytime
brighter outside than inside building

Figure 60
Sustenance of body - time or ientation - "G loom"
when daytime not brighter outs ide th an inside
building

66

BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

of the ambiguous period is extended by use of low transmission

glass.
Because we des ire security from a surrou nding encl osure, clear
understa nding of the building's structure satisfies biological needs
las does a view of sun light or an exterior landscape) and is perce ived positively. The ambiguou s nature of luminous ceil ings
IFigure 32 ) or rows of luminous f ixtures is likely to be found unpleasant. Although uneven gradients positively defining the shape
of so lid su rfaces seem pleasant and naturallFigures 26b and 28a),
uneven luminance of a un iform flat mater ial seems unnatural and
distracting IFigures 26a and 28b).
Figu re 61
Sustenance of body - sun ligh t : positive

For some activ it ies, such as relaxing on a beach, sunlight may be

all positive as in Figure 61. But, while we ali enjoy seeing signs of
its presence, being in th e sun light itself may have definite negative
qualities if the ligh t or heat interferes w ith what we want to see or
do, as in F igu re 62 .

Figure 62
Sustenance of body - sun light: negative

67

Figure 63
Sustenance of body - sunlight welcome: minimum interference with activity

Figure 64
Sustenance of body - sunlight welcome: no glare

We can, however, we lcome seeing sunlight inside a building, as long

as it does not interfere with our activity. For example, the patch of
light on the floor in Figure 63 interferes with activity in only a
small portion of the space. Direct sunlight on our desk or work area
can be very bothersome-but only if we are unable to move away
from it or control it and are exposed to it for a long period of time.
In Figure 64, the pattern of light on the walls is seen as sunlight.
The edge of the ceil ing is open to the sky (visually) and connected

B IOLOG ICAL NEEDS

Figure 65
Sustenance of body - not seen as pos itive sun light, but
as glare

by beams (structu rally). Therefore, the su nlight is welcomed informat ion, not "g lare," as wou ld be produced by trans lucent light
f ixtures of equa l lum inance. The back lighting produced by the
translucent panels in Figure 65 is not seen as natural sunlight but
as information less unnatural distraction-more frustrating than
pleasurable, therefore "glare."

Figure 66
Protection of the body - 3014 - surrounding enclosure

a. L ighting confusing for

p layers

In certain sports awareness of hor izon becomes less important;

clarity of the surrounding enclosure assumes top priority for the
players, and light ing should reflect this. In the handball court in
Figure 66a, definition of wall/cei ling intersection is confusing for
the handbal l player who plays against the ceiling as well as the
walls. In the squash court in Figure 66b (where the ceiling is not a
playing surface) definition of playing surfaces is not confusing to
the player, even though lighting fixtures are similar to those in 66a .

b. Lighting not confusing

for players

BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

When inside a room at night, looking at a dark window bright with

reflections of the room, we perceive the window as "darker" than
an interior wall of lower luminance. The wall is non-threatening,
but the window is a source of possible danger since we can be seen
through it but cannot see outside.

Backlighted signs (such as EXIT signs, important for satisfyi ng

biological needs for orientation) frequently produce a figure/background problem with the background shape reading much more
strongly than the words within. This problem is avoided by using
illuminated letters against opaque backgrounds (Figure 68).

Figure 68
Biological need - orientation: figure/background conflict

.I
~,
'j

' i'

. .., ... . "...

'

--

FiglJre 69
Protection of the body - active: edge emphasized by

chan!';le in materia ls

A person on the walkway in Figure 69 is very much aware of the

water's edge on one side and the wa ll on the other. Several points
are illustrated :
inherent biologica l needs: attention drawn to edge as a possible source of danger; awareness of location to water
object clarity: edge emphasized by change in materials
(especially important when illumination is or must be minimal because of confl ict ing demands. such as experienced in
a theatre); sloping shadows add positive information, supporting awareness of stair risers.

70

BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

Examples of our need for spatial orientation and ways to meet it

are given in Figures 70 and 71. In Figure 70, illumination of the
instrument panel is from an angle to minimize negative reflections;
focus in t he room is where it should be (not on a ceiling full of
light fixtures). The usual complex clutter of light fixtures in kitFigure 70
Biolcgical need - orientation: relevant focus

Figure 71
Biological need - orientation: relevant focus, gloom

avoided. no visual noise

chens has been eliminated in Figure 71, and the space is organized
by arranging indirect lighting around the "hood islands:" the illuminated ceiling adds spaciousness and helps avoid "gloom" during
the day when a bright "sky" is expected.

Table III is a master table of biological needs. It summarizes the

visual environment and hardware systems associated with various
biological needs. Also included in the table are descriptions of the
critica l time/situation of each need and the relevant visual information.

71

::r

~..,
~r+
c.. ~

'"_

"C

c: : 1
'"
3

'"
!?

:5'
0

0..<

:"!
n

III

=t' e!..

o'
0

c:

:;;

'"

OJ~

co

en

;. en'
cot:
_. _.

3:::J

0'
a
::..,
<!:t.:::J
g3
@

:5.

"C

cnC")

=-~o::::J

...

Q)

CD

C"

(Q

(=)'
Q)

~'"
:I
..... 0_. ....
_ ...... co
ctI

30:1:10:1000.
CII
..... C. ...
..,cn::::J..,cn

2:'

oGl
()

l>

m
m

'"

"
N

0;1

<
in'

<

in'
c:

!!!.
3'

0
'"c;.

.....

!!!.

c;.

c:

!!!.

;:;.

!:t...... co
'"0
0'"

Physical secu rity

When danger is expeeted from people

or animals

:I

0.

gQ

3
(1)

'"
.c

ClIO)

_.

::J

3 ~

~
3

CII<DC. ....

_.

'"
0
0.:1

Location of potential
threats; the nature
of the surrounding
enclosure

eo

3
::

"C

.....

C")

S:EQ)3:i"Q~

.....

c: '"
~

"'c

<~
CII
c..

!!!.
3'

(")

;:;.

'"_.

:I

::r

c:

tll

c-

'"
s.

:I

~
Desired qualities

::::I

0 ..... O
~~~

~Qualities to be avoided

----

Eliminate unlighted areas and sources

of glare which might conceal danger;
clarify the nature of the surrounding
enclosure - - structure, possible

exits, etc.
When danger is expeeted from structural
failure

When danger is ex pected from fire

Comprehensible

structure with clear

continuity and visual
logic

Location of contro l
and prevention equ ip ment; escape routes
clearly visible

Use forms consistent with the expectations of the viewer; use light grad
ients consistent with the form of the
structure which they illuminate

Avoid flimsy structural forms such as

the typical luminous ceiling; avoid obscuri ng structura l elements with unsh ielded light sources; avoid using
sou rces inconsistent ly (different
sources to light id entica l suriacesl

Use lighting to articulate circulation

paths and ex its; use color coded fire
extinguishers and clear EXIT signs

Avoid unevenly illuminated EXIT

signs, EXIT signs w hich do not dom inate their surroundings sufficiently
to be clearly visib le; elim inate other
signs in the vicinity of EXIT signs
which would compete for the visual
attention; avoid over ly bright EXIT
signs, on the other hand, in dark en vironments such as theaters

When danger may be

caused by intense light
or glare

Orientation

When danger might be

ant icipated due to unsanita ry conditions

Maximum evidence of
high sanitat ion
standards

Emphasize clean work areas in

kitchens, labs, etc.

Avoid highlighting areas such as

dirty d ish conveyors or garbage
collection areas

At all times; maximum

when moving

Level horizonta l
reference clues

Use material joints (e.g. in masonry),

moldings, expansion joints, mull ions,
etc. to estab lish clear horizontal
orientation

Avo id inclined floors without clear

visua l information defining the nature
of the incline; spaces defined by irregular or curvilinear enclosing surfaces
without clear horizon clues

Definition of ground
surface contours, enclosing boundaries,
obstructions, level
changes

Define level changes and edges with

highlighting, consistent shadows,
changes in material (color, surface,
or reflectance)

Avoid distracting elements in the

visual field at level changes; avoid
confusing elements such as in consis
tent shadows or carpet patterns which
tend to obscure rather than emphasize level changes

Location relative to
destinations and
exits

Articu late the bu ild ing layout and

circulation system by a clear differentiat ion of circulation nodes and
destinations with distinctive patterns
of deco rative light sources or by
selective high li ght ing of elements such
as elevator cores, etc.; corridors shou ld
be differentiated from work spaces,
and d ifferent types of corridor should
be treated d iffere ntly; good graphics
should be used, particu larly at decis ion
po ints such as corridors and intersections

Avoid undifferentiated lighting

schemes which app ly the same design
to functionally disparate spaces, provid in g no visual guidance information

Relaxation of the
body and mind

Use proper glare shields or other

contro l devices on luminaires so that
sources do not achieve an undesired
prominence or create disability glare
conditions while providing required
illumination for tasks or biological
needs

During sleep

Only that required to

ma inta in the sensation
of security; uniform
condit ions of light,
sound and temperature
desirable

Min imi ze the number of obtrusive

luminous signs visible from sleeping
areas; avoid street lighting with poor
glare control

Provide night lights as required for

security; switching hardware should
be readily accessible

Avoid back lighted signs w ith opaque

lettering, in which the shape of the
background typically dominates the
intended message

\1/

\V
During work

\1/

\17

Interesting v isua l rest

Provide visual foci such as views, art-

centers desirable

work, positi ve expression of structural

Eliminate competing sou rces of

visual no ise such as glaring f ixtures

form, decorative or orientation-re-

lated patterns of light sources (chandeliers, graphics, illuminated sculpt ure)

While awake but

waiting or idle

Interesting visual
env ironment

Provide visual foci as above; ev idence

of sunlight, plants, water elements

Mi nimize unsightly, unplesant, or

such as pools or fountains, etc.

environment, since their negative

irrelevant elements of the visua l

impact wi ll be greatest when the
viewer ha s no co nsc ious preoccupation

Adjustment of the
biological clock

(time orientat ion)

Contact with nature,

sunlight, and with
other living beings

Definition of
personal territory

Continuous need,
particularly strong in
unfamiliar situations

Awareness of the state

of the diurnal cycle,
si nce luminous conditions in interiors are
eva lu ated w ith reference to external
co nditions

Views of exterior cond itions sho uld

be possible via clea r w ind ows or clear
skylights

00 not design win dowl ess spaces unless the justific ation is c lear and the
om iss ion serves some other need: i.e.,
in a museum or t heater; wherever
possible, give a view of more than
jlIst sky

Interior
environments

Evidence of sunlight
in every space or in
nearby and accessible
spaces

Visible daylit or su nlit surfaces such

as plant mat er ial or w indow reveals;
also daylit or sunlit mea ningful
translucent surfaces such as sta in ed
glass or colored glass block

Avo id excess ive direct sun light on

work surfaces; avoid information less
distracting surfaces such as translucent
windo ws and skyl ights; su n co ntro l
devices if required shou ld create
minimum visu a l noise and f igu re/
background conf lict with t he view
(i.e. large-scale louvers or fine-mesh
screening rather tha n intermediatesca le egg crates or bl inds with no inherent visua l interest)

Particularly in public
or wo rk environments

Visible ev id ence of
personal contro l and
occupation of territory

Provide loca l lighting which can be

controlled by users; provide distinctive
or large-sca le organization of the
visual environment w hich can be used
to locate and id entify perso nal
territory from a distance

Avoid public or work enviro nments

with no inherent means for personalization of space by the users

BIOLOGICAL ANO ACTIVITY NEEDS

Activity needs

Taking a close look at activity needs, all spaces contain activities

which have:
o sub-activities, which have:
o visual sub-activ ities, which have:
various information needs from objects of varying characteristics
In general, many activities are carr ied on in a space. Each activity
exert s conflicting demands for optimum performance - for d if ferent aspects of the activ ity as well as among different activities.
As a result, t here are const an tl y changing priorities of attention
and behavior objectives: lecture versus projection ve rsus notetaking; co ncentrat ion versus relaxation . The following is give n as
an example (see also Space Program Chart in Chapter 5):

Space
Activities
Sub-activities

V isual sub-activities
Information needs

lecture classroom
lecture, discussion, demonst ra t ion
listening to speaker, music or meaningful non-verbal sounds; tak ing not es,
movement, relaxat ion ..
looki ng at faces, gestrues, clothing,
notes visua l aids .
same as above

I n order to determ ine the appropriate characteristics of hardware

systems to be employed, each activity must be located in the space
and its requ irements ana ly zed:
o is the object of the activity vertical or horizontal?

is t he object local or throughout the space?

is t he object seen by va r iation in ref lecta nce, colo r, tex t ure ,

shape , o r a comb ination?

is the object two-or three-dimensional ? G lossy or matte?

lig ht or da r k?

Various types of informat ion needs and object cha ract er istics and
relevant lighti ng cha racter istics (listed in Chapter 2) combine for
act ivities and sub-act ivities and must be summarized for the designer in each T ypical Space Program Chart (sample in Chapter 5).
At f irst glance the chart appears impossibly co mp licated and formidab le when , in fact, any t houghtful and ex per ienced designer
instinctively processes such data in every design decisio n.

75

Part I of this report has shown that many factors influence and determine biological and activity needs. These needs, in turn, influence and determine the design process . The design of a successful luminous environment cannot be filtered down to fit one simple formula. Numbers can be helpful in establishing criteria, but
designers must be able to use their own judgement, since most
criteria on which they base designs are themselves judgementbased.
With Part I serving as a background to develop understanding of
the processes involved in perception, Part II will show how judgment-based criteria can be developed easily and effectively. The
designer can use these criteria to implement an optimum lighting
design. The text in this part is divided into three chapters: Chapter
5 and Chapter 6 discuss how criteria can be established; Chapter 7
describes how the design can be imp lemented and evaluated.

PROGRAMMING

The first step in establishing lighting criteria for the design of a

given space is to program the activities for that space. This can be
easil y done by filling in the b lanks on a Space Program Chart, a
sample of which is given at the end of this chapter. The programmers and/or designers are the most appropriate persons to complete the Space Program Chart. Those wish i ng to apply this approach to light ing design should find that after an initial period
during which charts are developed for most all spaces sufficient
expe ri ence will be ga ined so that much of the work can be done
mentally. A blank chart has been included as Appendix F.

Purpose of the space program chart

The Space Program Chart, Figure 72. is a comprehensive summary

of all relevant criteria (except cost) that a designer needs in order
to begin preliminary plan ni ng of th e lighting for a part icular space.
It is intended to serve as a means of communication among the designers. clients, facility users. and programmers. It can be the basis
for developing and evaluating design alternatives.
The chart is divided into three main parts:
1) Biological and Activity Needs
2) I nformation Needs. and
3) Hardware Systems
The specimen chart included in this chapter has been filled out so
that the reader can see a completed chart and be able to follow t he
procedure recommended. By maintaining a file of completed
charts, an entire series will be developed which can be continually
monitored and revised as designs are evaluated.
They shou Id be prepared with the advice and assistance of the intended users: teachers, staff, students. and administration for example . The designers working with these pe rsons will add the ir
own input with the client having final approval
The format of the chart is designed for computerization. For any
visual sub-activity (Item "F") most object and hardware cha racteristics in subsequent columns (p through u) will be the same. Therefore. when designing new space charts (or editing current ones)
use rs. designers. and ot her non-technical personnel only need t o
describe behavioral situations (biological and activity needs and
visual sub-activities, locations. and combinations with priorities).
Subsequent technical facts (such as information needs. object
cha rac teristics, and hardware system s) can them be retrieved from
computer files.

To assist the reader in the use and understanding of the chart. the
following step-by-step procedure is included.

Procedure for filling in the chart

79

PROG RAMM I NG

Space: room name or use, e.g. typical classroom/lecture,

dining hall, etc.

Basic data (top of chart)

Behavioral Object ives: list objectives in order of importance,

e.g. 1) productivity, 2) morale & motivation, 3) resource
uti l izat ion; or 1) enjoyment, 2) pleasure, 3) friendly, intimate
atmosphere.
Biological and activity needs

a.

Biological needs: refer to Chapter 4, Table III , "V isual Envi ronment and Hardwa re Systems for Specific Biolog ica l Need s."

b.

Activity needs and sub-activ iti es : e.g. discussion, writing, reading, or lecture (seeing and hearing speaker, seeing chalkboard,
movie screen, etc.).

c.

Partic ipants: list the various categories of persons using the

space, and place a dot in line with the visual sub-activity they
will engage in. Other graphic designations used in the chart
are good (+), bad (-), or critical (x). (Anything termed crit ical
requires a numerical factor in Item "t.")If a space is left blank,
the factor indicated is not a problem and is of less importance
to that specific condition.

d.

Priority: activity and biological needs ranked by percentage

of relative importance and duration; total must equal 100%.
For example, priority in a typical corridor might be as follows:
lent, relaxation, stimulation
70%
visual communication (bulletin boards)
10%
displays
10%
cleaning
10%

100%
However, if the main function of the corridor is a gallery for
art work, the priorities might change as follows:
movement, relaxation, stimu lation
40%
visua l com munication (bulletin boards)
10%
displays of art wo rk
40%
cleaning
10%
100%

80

e.

Visual sub-activities: underline two most importa nt aspects

necessary for achieving Behavioral Objectives.

f.

Vi sual obj ecti ves: list the various objectives necessary for the
activity within the space; e.g. faces, gestures, TV screen,
sculpture.

g.

Events: indicate possible combinations of visual sub-activities

by list ing events and possible combinations of simultaneously
occurring activ it ies for each event; e.g. a lecture, with slide

PROGRAMMING

presentation and cleaning. For listening to the lecturer as well

as seeing visual aids and notetaking occur simultaneously.
Looking at projections and handwriting are simultaneous
visual subactivities; therefore, light for notetaking should not
spill on the screen . Cleaning is not simultaneous with any
student/teacher subactivities; therefore, supplementary high
glare lighting that would not be used for normal classroom
activities could be provided for cleaning.

Information needs

Hardware systems

81

h.

Priority: as in "d", percentages should be assigned according

to importance of or duration of activities .

I.

Location: horizontal or vertical plane that must be lighted

(with either general or local illuminationl for each activity.

J.

Remarks: any unusual aspects should be noted here.

k.

Required information: underline the most important aspects

necessary for carrying out visual objectives.

I.

Object characteristics: from Table II , fill in 20 and 30

characteristics which match the visual objectives listed in
Item "f."

m.

Information needs: place a dot in each blank which satisfies

the visual requirements of persons using the space; e.g. in a
lecture hall, reflectance, form, and texture are necessary,
lighting color should be nondisturbing but color accuracy is
not essential.

n.

Negative factors: within the context of the space program,

conflicts in lighting requirements must be controlled. For
example, in a lecture hall, it should be possible to see the
speaker's face and take notes during a slide presentation.
Similarly, cast shadows must be controlled so tha t the speak
er's face is not in shade and the person is not writing in his
own shadow.

o.

Characteristics of visual environment: underl ine the most

important aspects.

p.

Characteristics of prime light source: subdivided into Items

"q" through "t."

q.

Dominant light direction means a strong direction from the

light source. The normal angle is not normally checked since
it coincides with the mirror angle in actual situation. If the

PROGRAMMING

relationship is fixed, or if there is a total ly matte surface, the

normal angle is acceptable. Angles to surface and viewer apply
to 20 onl y, si nce the grazi ng angle for 3D objects means perpendicular to the viewing ang le. If, in the lighting position relat ive to the surface, the grazing angle is min us (producing
excessive mode lling) and the norma l ang le is minus (m ini mizing texture), then the best posit ion is somewhere between
t hem. Polarization is useful for increasing co ntrast rend ition
only when the light source is both approaching t he grazing
angle (l ow angles, above 60 0 , to the surface) and at the mi rror angle to the viewer. One of the few ti mes t hese conditions
are met is du ring certain drafting act iviti es w hen the work
cannot be moved.

Footnotes

r.

Size of sou rce : indicate maximum (diffused), minimum (concentrated), or combination of both relative to object bei ng
lighted. Size indicates a so lid ang le subtended from t he object
and is not a question of physica l size of the light source.

s.

Wave characteristi cs: Note where polar ization or fu ll spectrum

is particularly valuable: when accurate color rather than nondisturbing color is needed (such as for color matching and
for ce rta in types of medica l exa mination). Parti al spectrum
may someti mes be usefu l (e.g. ultra-violet, infra-red, red
light, blue light), but most activi t ies simply require non-disturbing color (see Chapter 2).

t.

Remarks: unusual requirements for the space to be designed

should be listed here. For examp le, continuous or stepped
dimming, eli mi nation or add it ion of ligh t in a certa in area,
maximum or mi nimum conditions, wide or narrow range of
flexibility.

u.

Numerica l crite ri a: units of measurement, relevant to t he

var ious hardware systems, are used for comparison of alternate systems and as a requirement w hen the factor is
defined as crit ical . For Biological Needs, crit er ia suc h as a
Semantic Scale (see page 83) w ith no requir ed value, should
be used. I tems tha t most closely measure achievement of the
relevant In formation Needs (Item "k") could be underlined
and used as a reminder of what to think about when reviewing final design decisions.

Any unusual co ndit ions or circumsta nces or requirements not

ind icated elsewhere in t he chart should be noted here.
A final word abou t the sub-activi ty "clea ning" : if, in Lighting
Budget Ca tegory A, B, C, or 0 (when darkened space is not an obiective) co nditi ons and requirements are met, clea ning require-

82

PROGRAMMING

ments are simultaneously satisfied . Special consideration is necessary only in spaces which are normally dark (such as an auditorium ,
corridor in a gallery, etc.) in which case a separate or portable
l ighting system for cleaning may be necessary.

Units of measurement

Space program chart information

DR

Directional Ratio

FC max
FC min

Maximum illumination on object

BR

Blackou t Ratio

FL on

Screen luminance - Projector on

FL off

Screen lumi nan ce - Projector off

CR I

Co lor Rendering Index

RCS

Relative Contrast Sensi t ivi ty

EFC

Effective Footcandles

SF

Shadow Factor

Minimum illumination on object

Sample semantic sca le

Clear

Confusing

Safe

Dangerous

Pleasant
Orderly
Restful

Unpleasant
Disorderly
Distracting

Relevant

Irrelevant
Unnatural

Natural
Interesting

Cheerful
Too bright
Spacious
Leisurely

Dull
Gloomy
Too dark
Crowded
Rushed

Symbol definition
Relevant

+ Good
Bad
x Critical

Notes

1.

Column f. Unit of Measurement - SF - Shadow Factor.

Amount of reduction of illumination from shadow; required when
visual activity is crit ical and viewer or object cannot move.

2.

Column g. Activity Needs and Sub-activities.

"Discussion" and "conversation" are different degrees of the same activity: the former more formal; the latter more informal and requiring
a lower level of illumination.
"* Definition yet to be developed

83

PROGRAMMING

"Reading" and "browsing" are a similar situation: each require a different ReS (generally lower for browsing), which may change with
priority (the higher priority, the higher criteria required).
3.

Column n. Location - Both local and general locations are indicated in

some instances - the designer is to decide which applies for a specific
space.

Use of the chart

during the design
In this section, questions have been listed which are typical of the
mental process the designer should employ when reviewing the
classroom/lecture room example described in t he previous section.
It is emphasized that t his questioning procedure is not required of
the designer, but is included here because of its obvious applicatio n to the general design and review processes .

and review processes

From t he example, a designer may reasonably conclude that distribution of resources should favor indirect illumination of room
surfaces as well as of activity focal surfaces (at front of room and
vertical surfaces facing students) to meet expectation of a bright,
cheerful space. This system will illuminate people and other vertical surfaces, from favorable directions (neither grazing nor normal) and satisfy needs: Biological (such as lack of distraction and
daytime reference expectations) and Activity (vertical surfaces
and people rather than maximum focus on desk tops throughout space). The 10: 1 blackout ratio requirement means the
ability to exclude daylight totally, and a separate low level dimmable downlight system to illuminate desks without illuminating the projection screen . Incandescent downlights could supplement the diffused lighting from walls and ceilings as a small
source component . This would be useful for modeling form and
texture, but will have the negative side effect of casting shadows.

84

(% from typical classroom/lectu rel

1.

What is the importance of seeing room

a.c,f,h

surfaces and people vs. desk tops and

other horizontal work surfaces?

2.

Illumination
a. General or local?
b. What portion of space requ ires local

77% VS. 23%: suggests illumination of room surfaces (chalk boards,

walls, and ceiling), which are in turn good sources for illumination of

people.

d,k,h,i

light'

To evolve lighting and furniture concept which, in this example, is an

irregular (rather than uniform) lighting layout w ith recog nition that the
majority of information needs are vertica l and in front of the room.

c. Locations fixed or flexible?

d. Horizontal or vertical?
(Biological needs are mostly vertical.)

General 27%

Local 43%

Horizon. 17 Y:z% *

8%

9Y:z% *

35%

Vert.

Cleaning (5 %) divided between horizontal and vertical.

3.

4.

Will a single hardware system suffice or must alternative systems

be provided?
a. What are the simultaneous use
grou ps/su b-activiti es?

f,g,h

b. Are the needs of the simultaneous

use groups similar?

I,m,n

c. Are the needs compatible with a

single possible hardware system or
do they require design separation,
dimming, etc.?

g,r,s,t

Are there critical conditions w hich

must be met?

Conflicting needs and a variety of simu ltaneous activities indicate a need

for variety in the visual environment. Several hardware systems, or a
single system with adaptability by switching and dimming, are required.

Design must accommodate these cri tical conditions.

a. Ability to exclude daylight totally

(10: 1 blackout ratio)7

d,h,j
t,u,n

Projection, with a 10% priority, is important enough to have good blackout provisions. If priority had been 1%, worst conditions (5: 1 ratio)
may be acceptable. But if this is not acceptable. the activity might be
programmed for another space, depending whether the need is for a few
moments frequently or for longer periods occasionally.

b. Avoidance of cast shadows?

Critical at chalkboard 10% because audience cannot move. At horizontal surfaces 5% because even though important, work can be moved.

c. Ang le of prime light sources?

d. Size of prime light sources?

e. Color needs?
Critical locally or generally?

d,k,h,i

m,u

Non-disturbing color 37% - important but no needs exist for accurate

color.

In establish ing t he lighting criteria for a given space , the first step
is to program the activities and sub-activities. Th e second step is to
ass ign a budget for the lighting in the space.
Th e budget system presented in t hi s chapter is to be submi tted
with the Space Program Chart, which it supp lements. The system
is both simple and flex ible, resulting in meaningful informati on fo r
the designer.

LIGHTING BUDGET

Th e optimum level of user satisfaction from a given lighting environment resu lts when the designer has achieved maximum performanc e in many ways, rath er than simp ly in the quantity of illumination provided. The system fixes the l igh ting budget by taking this into account, so that the best design can be obtained
w ithin the available means-both financial and technologica l. Th e
system assures some important advantages:

The lighting budget system

Improvement in visual environme nt is not likely to be restri cted by oversimpl ified tech ni cal criteria .
Equal quality of visual environment is promoted among
facilities under the same jurisdiction.
Equality of design challenge is offered to all designers.
Comparative assessment of buildings (and their designers!
put on a releva nt but cons istent and impersonal basis.

IS

The proper balance bet wee n comfort, du rab il ity, appearance and
cost must be determined and a budget system is necessary .
A budget system of some kind is necessary so that the proper
blance between comfort, durabil ity, appearance, and cost can
be determined. A capital cost budget is not considered most
effective as the primary measu re for judgi ng a lighting design
because it does not encourage the most eco nomica l l ife cycle
so lution and it is difficult to administer at the time when design decisions must be made.
The most appropriate budget is one based on generated light the amount proportional to room surface area and reflectances,
that is deemed satisfactory to meet the needs of the programmed activities and objectives. This budget system allows
the designer to do detailed lighting design, select fixtures, etc.,
late in the design process, after schematic solutions have been
developed and approved . Such a budget also forces early recognition of the beneficia l effect of room reflection (proper choice
of materials! on light ing costs.
Budget requirements are also ad justed for anci llary factors including daylight contribution, minor room -t o-room variations, increments in lamp sizes, and geometric arrangement problems. For
simpl ification of data presentation, budgets are defined as being
in one of several categories. These categories are explained in
Table IV, Lighting Budget Categories. Following the table is the
L igh t ing Budget Conversion Graph Figure 73a, based on 1973
lighti ng industry stan dards, and Figure 73b (for energy conservation! with scales set to reflect a 25% reduction in 1973 industry
standards.

91

I:

Table IV

o
''::; Kl
0."
.co
~

0.

~ '"

CIl ....

Cl 0

Spaces with critical visual activities distributed throughout space and where a bright space is expected: laboratories, general offices, drafting rooms, studios.

A+

The same type of spaces as in "A," but with additional

requirements in localized areas which are designated in
the program: operating room with adjustable sup lementary illumination over the table in a fixed location.

Spaces with normal visual activities evenly distributed

throughout the space with moderate brightness expectations: library/stacks., seminar and conference rooms,
gymnasia.

B+

Spaces in which critical visual activities are fixed or where

local supplementary lighting can be easil y and conveniently provided: reading areas in library stacks, laboratories or shops with special equ ipment at fixed locations.

Working spaces with no unusual biological needs but

with expectation of moderate daytime brig htness for
modest visual activities where the occasional normal or
critical visual activity does not have suff icient priority
to justify additional lighting : circulation spaces with activities (lobbies, lounges). cafeterias, exercise rooms,
locker rooms, or swimming pools.

Active spaces with minimal visual activities or length of

occupancy, and where feelings of safety, rather than
cheerful brightness, is expected: active circulation spaces
such as corridors, stairs, foyers; active storage areas.

Infrequently used utility spaces: maintenance corr id ors,

inactive storage areas.

TV

Only used for spaces where network quality color television coverage is frequent enough to justify permanent
supplemental lighting for that purpose. When deemed
cri tical, such Iighti ng wi II be determined in consu Itation
with the net works. (Since it is not reasonable to use this
supplementary lighting except when televisi ng, flexible
switching shou ld be provided.1 For intermittent coverage,
it is expected that networks will supply their own supplementary lighting when necessary. It should be noted
that normal room lighting is sufficient for monitoring.

In recog n ition of the irrelevance of small increments of light to the

improvement of performance, it should be pointed out that these
categories represent noticeable steps, each with two times the light
input of the former.

92

LIGHTING BUDGET CONVERSION GRAPH

SCALES SET TO REFLECT 1973 INOLSTRY.STANDARDS

V>

'"z

. 80

...J

UJ

.75<

ii;:

V>
...J
...J

.70

.65 '

\
\

<{

'"

LL

UJ

ii;:
>-

.60 ,

UJ

...J
LL

UJ

'"

.55

\
\
\

UJ

'"

<{

'"
'<
UJ

.50

. 45 '

.40-

.35 '

.30

.25

"\

----~---

LIt-1lT FOR BUDGETS ' A' AND 'B'

(WITHOUT DEJVoONSTRATION OR MOCK-UP)

'\

'\.

.20

'\
'\.

. 15

'\.

'\.

.10

'\.

"-

"-

.05

LIGHTING BUDGET

LlGHTING BUDGET

A0

50

LI GHTI NG BUDGET

LIGHTING BUDGET

100

150

200

LUMENS PER SQ.FT. OF ROOM SURFACE AREA ( WALL, CEILING,FLooR )

50

25

5
0

10

15

20
10

Figure 73a

93

100

75

50

25

15

20

25

LIGHTING BUDGET CONVERSION GRAPH

FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION: SCALES SET TD REFLECT 25% REDUCTION IN 1973 INDUSTRY STANDARDS
<f>
<.!)

.80 ..

::i

\
\
\

W .75

u
0

il'
<f>

...J
...J

.70

LL

.65

UJ

il'fu

UJ

.60

...J

LL
UJ

'"
<l:
'"
'"
UJ

.55

UJ

"

\
\

.50

.45

.40

.35

\\

.30

LIMIT FOR BUDGETS '-,A"""""-AN-D

~"ITHOUT

'\

.20

'\.

.15

DEMONSTRATION OR MOCK-UP)--

"-~

. 10

"-

"- ..........

.05
LIGHTING BUDGET ~O~----.------r-----.-----.r-----.-----.-----.-----~~-------------

20
40
80
60
120
160
100
140
LUMENS PER SQ.FT. OF ROOM SURFACE AREA C lALLS, CEILING, FLOOR )
LI GHTING BUDGET
80
10
20
30
40
50
70
60

LI GHTING BUDGET

LIGHTING BUDGET

C
0o

10

15

20
10

Figure 73b

94

25

30
15

35

40
20

LIGHT ING BUDGET

Appl ication of the lighting budget system

T he fa Ilowing step-by-step procedure is included to demonstrate

the usefulness of the Budget System in actual design and evaluation
situati ons.

Step 1

Determine the category (A, B+, etc) of the space to be

designed using Tab le IV, Light ing Budget Categories

Step 2

Determine the generated lumens per square f oot of room

surface area (f loor , wa lls, cei ling) using Figure 73, Lighting Budget Conversion Graph . This graph summar izes the
applica t io n of categor ies for various reflectances of
walls and ceilings. See Appendix 0 for reflectance values
of common finish materia ls. To obtain the generated
lumens per sq uare foot of floor area only, ca lcu late the
requirements for the room, then d ivide by the floor area .

Step 3

To adjust for daylight, assume the ref lection of windows

to be the same as for draper ies o r blinds. If no light con trol devices are provided , consider the re f lectance oj
wi ndows to be 10%. T hen su bt ract the dayl ig ht contr ibution of unobstr ucted exterior opening fro m the requ ired lumens of the room 300 lumens per square foot
of open ing is multipl ied by the transmiss ion fac t or j ar
the glass (clea r glass is 90%). But daylight can account
for no more tha n 50% of the total lumen requirement,
since most spaces are used both day and night. It the
sky exposure is obstructed , reduce proportionally .

Step 4

Nighttime requirements are not as great as daytime requirements due to a person's lower adaptation leve l and
br ightness expectation . Because of this, t he amount of
generated light may be reduced up to 50% of daytime
levels for most act ive spaces, and up to 90% for many
spaces in Categor ies C and D . T his is easi ly accomp lished
by switch ing and d imming devices.

Step 5

Local Lighting (Catego ry B+ ) : if the most cr itical wo rk

areas are local ized because of furniture and equipment
arra ngement s, spaces assigned to Category A may be
served m ore economically (a nd equal ly as well) by usin0
Catego ry B plus supplementary local ligh t ing at critical
wo rk areas .

Step 6

25% plus or minus variance is allowed in any space as an

adjustment fo r room -to-room va riat ion s in ref lectances,
proport ions, and availab le increments in si zes of light
sou rces.

Step 7

Maintenance is planned at the minimum operating point

of 50% of in itial output, and cost ana lysis is also figured

95

LIGHTING BUDGET

on this basis. This does not mean that the ave rage will
be 50%, for the average maintained illumination will actually be 75%. No design assumptions are necessary
since the budget already takes into account the fact that
the lighting will depreciate with the aging of,lamps and
the dirtying of surfaces.
Step 8

Regarding lighting controls, provision of the budgeted

light for each room does not require that the full budget
always be used. The practice of reducing initial cost by
placing switches to control large areas of a building,
rather than individual rooms, is deplored. I t is wasteful
of money and natural resources, and also prevents t he
visual environment from being relevant to any particu lar
use of individual spaces. The best visual environment for
wide ly varying activities can best be produced by separate switching of each type of lighting component as
the users, conditions, and activities dictate, i.e. for lecture, slide projection, or discussion; for full occupancy,
single small group in a corner, or unoccupied room; for
rooms or portions of rooms w ith more than adequate
daylighting during daytime or nighttime use.
Better controls than typ ically provided are particu larly
necessary in "loft" type buildings when a un iform pattern of ceiling lighting is prov ided to achieve maximum
flexibility of partitioning and use. If the uniform lighting pattern is composed of incandescent fixtures, the
sizes of lamps can be varied according to the varying
budget requirements. Although typical fluorescent fixtures lack this adjustability, a wide range of adaptabi li ty
can be ach ieved by use of three- level ballasts in all fluorescent fixtures. If t hese levels were 100%, 50"10, and 20%
of rated lamp outpu t, a layout arranged to meet the requirements of an "A" category space can be instantly
set for "B" or "C" whenever the use of the space is
changed. An office designed for an "A" budget can be
converted to "B+" by setting the fixtures over the desk
area at 100% and the rest at 20%. For these infrequent
changes, an easi Iy accessible switch can be suppl ied wi thin each fixture.
For rooms w hich can benefit from frequent changes of
light ing, the various levels can be more conveniently control led by low voltage switching.

Step 9

96

Th e limitations in design (apart from budget) should be

considered:
a. Low Reflectance: average reflectance of less than 25%
is not permissib le in Category A or B spaces without

LIGHTING BUDGET

successful demonstration of a full-scale mock-up or

through review of similar existing spaces.
b. Luminaire Efficiency: all luminaires must be 90% as
efficient as the best commercially available product
with similar light distribution and luminance patterns.
Sacrifice of more than 10% for architectural design or
mechanical features is deemed unnecessary. When in efficient decorative fixtures are used , the total generated lumens in t he room should be increased according ly.
c. Radiant Hea t: occupants should not be continuously
exposed to excessive radiant heat from lamps.
d. Umiormityof Illumination Distribution: to avoid distraction caused by the upsetting of brightness constancy,
smoothly graded illumination should not vary more than
2: 1 over 12 inches, or more than 3: 1 across the active
portion of a working surface.
e. Shadows: to avoid distraction from shadows cast by
the body or head when it is not convenient for the
worker to relocate w ith respect to t he wo rk (ind icated
on the Space Program Chart), a red uction in average
lig ht leve l on the task of less than 10% is desirable; a 50%
reduc ti on is the maximum permissib le. For evaluation,
assume that a person occupies a rectangle 12 inches
w ide by 24 inches high at the edge of a standard 30
inch wide table for a sitting position, and 12 inches
w ide by 36 inches high for a standing position. For
drafting, the shadow w hich is measured should be
cast by a three-inch cube resting on the w ork surface .
f. Sound: Ballast noises should be minimized by use ot
the most quiet type available for each lamp type . Th is
is not limited to "A" category ballast rating, since
fewe r noiser ba llasts may be equal in t otal noise generated. L imitation is of to tal noise generated relative
to amb ient noise. Unfortunate ly, there are no industry -w ide sta ndard s for measurement of rating of bal last noise. Des igners should be awa l'e that each manufacturer defines his own ballast rating .

97

The design procedure used by some satisfies quantitative criteria

only, and frequently leads to arbitrarily-selected lighting layouts.
But the best designed lighting environment must be judgmentbased with flexibl e criteria.
The design process outlined in this chapter emphasizes detailed
participation by designer and client in open discussion and mutual
decision-making, with thoughtful application of the principles of
perception to programmed objectives. Th e process is presented in
the table on page 100.

Figure 75
Design pr.Jcess - rough mode l (used to obtain
data as well as to predict appearance)

Figure 76
Design process - rendered perspective

Figure 77
Design process - fu ll scale mock-up
(showin g two alternat ive lighting configura t ions)

DESI GN PROC ESS

Table V

LIGHTING
DESIGN
PROCESS

Space program

(bl

Develops Space Programs for

{al

Gives designer facility program

(d)

Approves or disapproves.

spaces outlined in facility programs. Determi nes lighting bud -

get from chart.

(cl

Space Program Chart

Schematic design
(a)

Analyzes architectural concept

of the building and visua l information needs for t he behav ior

objectives. Develops a lternate

schemati c designs by man ipu lating plan and section, structural,

mechanical and electrical services

acoustics, equipment, and furn
ish ings with respect to daylight
and artificial light sou r ces. Electrical load requ irement s can be

est imated as soon as reflectances

have been determ ined .
(b)

Simu ltaneou sly refines and de-

tails all of the interrelated aspects

of t he schematic designs; delays
development of details t hat are
independent and can be done
later.
(c)

As the design solution is refi ned

and ex periences change, insure
that the lighting concept remains
compatible with the latest arc hitectural thinking.

(d)

Defines pattern and selects types

of Iight sources and Iight control
media.

(e)

Alt ernate design concepts are

presented as rendered sketches,
lighting layouts (not electr ical
layouts), diagrams, models,
mock-ups, or relevant field demonstrations to indicate how li ghting objectives will be achieved
(see Figures 74 through 771;

Revisions

If project is over dol lar budget,

revise design as appropriate {re-

peat relevant processes from

Schematic design, Step 21.

Evaluation and feedback

Co ndu ct user eva lu ation using
Rating Sh eet, evaluate achievement of detailed criteria based on
behavior and affect ive perception
requirements. Revise Space Program Chart or Lighting Bud!=, "" ...

as necessary for next projt:

101

i ,.

DESI GN PROCESS

RATING SHEET
FOR
PROPOSED
HARDWARE SYSTEMS

Needs
(activit y and
b iological) *

Table VI

(COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE SYSTEMS]

A
Pr io rity%

Rating

B
%

Rati ng

1. Biological

30

24

2. Lecturer

20

16

3. Chalkboard

10

4. Projection with notes

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

7. Conversation

2.5

8. Control

9. Cleaning

10

5. Books, notes
6. Notetaking
with pro jection

Rel ative Performance

Relativ e Cost (bu ilding system -

initial, operating, f lexibi lity)

83

46 1/ 2

Rank order judgment (on basis of

cost per un it of performance, satisfaction , and w eigh ted in context of

overal l proiect budget)

* as listed on Space Program Chart

103

Ra t in g

This report should be of interest to those concerned with the luminous environment. For some, the entire app roach may have appeal, for other individuals, part s of the report wi l l offe r new insights and perspectives . It is in this spirit t hat the report is being
made available as a publ ic service. It does not necessarily represent
t he si ngle view of the Fund and is not mandatory for Fund proJects
Applicat ion of this approach to l ight ing desig n should result in
energy conservation since it seeks ligh t ing designed to meet more
precisely the uses intended. Following this method wi l l avo id overdesign and waste of both capital and operating resources. In 1973
w hen t he final draft of this report was completed, the budget level
used (represented by Budget Curve 1, Figure 73a was based on the
then current industry standards. Budget Curve 2, Figure 73b (1975)
represents a 25% reduction in that leve l in response to the energy
crisis. As stated by Lam, even more significant savings can be made
by maximizing the use of local lighting (Step 5, p.95)
Us ing lower overall light levels has merit since as Part I of the report illustrates most activities can be accomplished with less l ight
if the lighting is caref ully designed to meet the needs of the tasks
to be undertaken in a particular environment .
Some portions of the process, such as the space program charts,
may Justifiably seem excessively complex and time consum ing
if not done by computer. However, we bel ieve that the system
is not significantly different f rom that employed instinctive ly
by any good designer in approaching a problem , and that the
charts are invaluable even for the "non-computerized" designer
in demo nstrating specifically the kind of mental process that
produces a good l ighting design .
The appendix of th is report provides background on t he work that
preceded this report. Further, for those interested in the lum inous
environment, there is an extensive and deta il ed bibliography.

This bibliography represents the range of subject matter that

should be covered for an understanding of the luminous environment. The list is by no means complete; rather, it notes the type
of material relevant to such a field. Annotations are the personal
opinion of Mr. Lam . Aster isks (*) indicate what could be considered required reading for all those involved in programming performance criteria - architects, administrators and users.

BIB LI OGRAPHY

I
INDEX FOR APPENDIX A

109

1.

Perfo rmance or phys ical specif ica t ions

2.

Cr it ical analysis of perfo rmance specificat ions

3.

Subjective eva luation of spaces and their components by

ind ividua l and group samp li ng

4.

Buil t environment

5.

Design process

6.

V isual environment criteria

7.

Lighting cr iteria

8.

Multi -var ien t resea rch methods

9.

Cost stud ies

10.

M ateri als and en gineering data

11.

Task ana lysis

12.

V ision research

13.

Eye movements

14.

Commu nicat ions t heory

15.

Perceptua l psycho logy

16.

Co lor percep t ion

17.

Performance and fatigue

18.

Stress-senso ry depr ivation

19.

Visua l enviro nment

20.

Environmental psychology

21.

Behav iora l science

22.

A nthropology

23.

Pub lic healt h and safety - opht halmol ogy

24.

Education methods

25.

Resea rch programs, organizat ion summaries, bibliographies, indexes

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I
1.

Performance or physical specifications

Hopk inson, R.G., "A Proposed L um inance Basis for a

light ing Code," f rom Transactions of the Illuminating

Engineering Society, Vo l. 30, No.5, 1965, pp. 63-88

Moon, Pary and Dom ina Eberl e Spencer, Lighting Design,
Add isonWesley Press, Inc. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1948.

2.

Critical analysis of performance specifications

Educational Facili ties La boratori es, The Cost of a
Schoolhouse, Educational F aci li t ies Laborato ries Inc.,
New York, 1960.
Metcalf, Keyes D ., Planning Academ ic and Research

Library Buildings, McGraw-Hi li , New York, chapter 9,

"Lighting and Ven til ating."

lighting criteria summarized by an inte ll igent cl ient.

Cogan, David, M.e ., npopu/ar Misconceptions Pertaining
to Ophthalmology, " N. E. Journal of Med icine, Vo l. 24,1 94 1,
pp . 462- 466.

3.

Subjective evaluation of spaces and their components by

individual and group sampling

"Appraisal of Light ing Qua lity", Illum inating

Engineeri ng Society, Survey Check l ist.
Bitter , Coo and Van Ireland, J.F .A.A., "Appreciation
of Sun light in the Home" , Research Institute for Public
Health Engi neeri ng, Publication No. 242, Delft, Netherl ands.
Canter, Dav id, "O n A ppraising Build ing App raisals",
The A rchitects' Journal Information Library, 2 1 Dec. 1966 ,
pp. 1550-1 597.
Chapman, Dennis and Geoffrey Th omas, " L igh t ing of
Dwelli ngs" , Warti me Social Survey , New Series No . 24,
A tl an t ic House, Holborn V iaduct , London, March, 1943.
The Effect of Windowless Classrooms on Elementary School

Children, A rchitect ural Research Laboratory, Dep t . of

Architect ure, University of M ich igan, 1965.
de Graaf , A.B. and J. C. van Lierde, " App raisal of Lighting
Instal lations," Unpublished paper.
Hewitt, Harry, " Th e St udy of Pleasantness" , Light and
Lighting, June 1963, pp. 154-1 64.

110

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hewitt, H., D.J. Bridgers, and R.H. Simons, "Lighting

and the Environment: Some Studies in Appraisal and
Design", Transactions of the Illuminating Engineering

Society, Vol. 30, No.4, London, 1965, pp. 91-116.

Lofberg, H.A., "Results from an Experiment with Subjective
Appraisals of Lighting Quality in a Full Scale Model of a
Classroom", Unpublished paper.
Manning. Peter, "Appraisals of Building Periormance and

Their Use in Design", unpublished paper.

Manning, Peter and Sheila Taylor, "Appraisals of the Total
Environment", Pilkington Research Unit, Dept. of Building

Science, University of Liverpool, Dec. 1965.

Manning. Peter, "Appraising User-Requirements and Design

Criteria", Northern Architect, March/April, 1968.

Manning, Peter and Brian Wells, "An Example of the Semantic

Differential", Pilkington Research Unit, 30 May, 1968.

Manning, Peter, .. Lighting and the Total Environment". an
account of some studies by The Pilkington Research Unit,

Department of Building Science, University of Liverpool,

June, 1967.
Manning, Peter (ed), Office Design: a Study of Environment,
Pilkington Research Unit, Department of Building Science,
University of Liverpool, 1965, chapters 5 and 6.
Documents techniques by which user satisfaction may be
measured in completed buildings.

Shafer, Elwood L. Jr .. "The PhotoChoice Method for

Recreation Research", U. S. Forest Service Research Paper

NE-29,1964.
Van Ireland, Jr., J., "Two Thousand Dutch Office Workers
Evaluate Lighting", Research I nstitute for Public Health
Engineering, Report No. 39, Delft, Netherlands, June, 1967.
Lau, J., "Report of a Preliminary Experiment on the Validity
of the Use of Models in Subjective Lighting Assignments,"
University of Strathclyde, August, 1968.
Spivak, M .. "Some Psychological Implications of Mental
Health Center Architecture", a paper delivered at the
New England Psychological Association, Boston, November, 1966.

Kahn, I.R .. "The Influence of Color and Illumination on

the Interpretation of Emotions", thesis submitted to

Psychology Department faculty, University of Utah,

August, 1967.

111

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wools, R .M., "Some Experiments in Arch itecture - A Brief

interim summary of a research project into the effects
of the physical environment on behavior", September, 1968.

4.

Built environment
Bu ilding Research Station, "Integrated Daylight and
Artificial Light in Buildings", Building Research
Station, Garston, Herts., England, November 1966.
Markus, Thomas A. (tech . ed.), "Progress in Daylighting
Design", Light and Lighting, Vol. 56, 1963.

5.

Design process
Hewitt, H .. John Kay, J, Longmore and E. Rowlands,
"Oesigning for Quality in Lighting", Ill um inat ing
Engineering Society (London), paper presented at
Harrogate, England 16 -1 8 May, 1966.
Manning, Peter, "Systematic Design Methods and the
Building Process", The Architects' Journal I nformation
Library, 22 Sep te mber, 1965.
Markus, Thomas A., "The Role of Building Performance
Measurement and Appraisal in Design Method",
The Architects' Journal Information Library ,
December 20, 1967.
Studer , Raymond G., "On Environmental Programming,"
The Architectural Association Journal, Lo ndon, May 1966,

pp. 290-296.
Wa ldram, J.M., "Design of the Visual Field", Transactions
of the Illuminating Engineering Society (London), Vol. 23,
Nov. 2, 1958 , pp. 11 3-23.
Planning for Davlight and Sunlight, Planning Bu lletin 5,
Min istry of Housing and Local Government, London: Her
Ma jesty's Stationery Office, 1966.
Halldane, J. F., "Human Factors in Lighting Design",
I.E.s. Lecture, February, 1968.
Canter, O.V ., "The Need for a Theory of Function in
A rchitecture" , University of StrathcJyde, March, 1968.

6.

Visual environment criteria

Fischer, Robert E. (Ed), Architectural Engineering,
Environmental Control, McGraw-Hi li, New York, 1964,
pp. 11 8- 164: Lam, William M.C .. "Lighting for Architecture."

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lam, Wi lliam M.C., "The Lighting of Cities", Architectural

Record, June and July, 1965.
University of M ichigan, Schoo l of Environmenta l Research,
A rchitectural Research Laboratory, "SER 1,2,3,4,
Environmental Abstracts", University of Michigan, Ann A rbor.

This is an attem pt to abstract. evaluate. and analyze

current literature on environmen t design. Well-conceived,
but incomplete.

Cuttle, C .. Valentine, W.B., Lyres, A., and Burt, W..

"Beyond the Working Plane" , p. 67 .12, C.I.E ., Washington, 1967.
'Turner, D.P.Ed .. WIN DOWS A ND ENVI RONMENT, Pilkington
En vironmental Advisory Serv ice, McCorquodale & Co . Ltd .. 1969.

7.

Lighting criteri a

Hopkinson, R. C., Architec tural Physics: Lighting, Her

Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1963.
Puts lighting research in proper perspective. Scientific
support for most architects' point of view about reasonab le l ight levels and co nsideration of day light.

'Hopki nson, R.G. and Kay, J.D ., The Lighting of Buildings,

Frederick A. Praeger, New York , 1969.
Weston, H .C., Light, Sigh t, and Work, Medica l Research
Council of Great Britain, H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., (pub.)
London, 1962.

8.

Multi-varient research methods

Mann ing. Peter, "Lighting in Relation to Other Components
of the Total Environment", a paper presented at the Illuminati ng Eng ineering Society Nat iona l lighting Conference,
Churchi ll Co l lege, Cambridge, England, 25-27 March, 1968.

Manning, Peter, "Multi-D isciplinary Research for Architecture",

Th e A rch itects' Journal Information L ibrary, 15 November, 1967.
Horowitz, Harold, "An In troduct ion to Research Methods for
Arc hitectu re", AlA Journal , January, 1964, pp. 62-66.

9.

Cost studies
Loudon, A. G. (Bui lding Research St ation), "Window Design
Criteria to Avo id Overh eating by Excessive Solar Heat Gains",
Cu rrent Papers 4/68, February, 1968.

113

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Northern Illinois Gas Company, "Analysis of lighting Load

Effect on Cooling Requirements", pape r p resent ed at Ameri can
Gas Associat ion , Inc.. Research, Utilizatio n and Market ing

Conference, Chicago, June, 1966.

Tregenza, P. R. , "A Study of th e Relationship Between th e
Design Level of Illumination and th e Cost of Lighting",
Building Science, Vol. 2, No.1, March, 1967.

10.

Materials and engineering data

Griffith, James W., Predicting Daylight as Interior
Illumination, Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, 1958.
Gives all factors necessa ry for ca lcu lating daylight
levels.

11.

Task analysis
Bechtel, Robert B. (The Environmental Research Station,
To peka, Kansas). "Hodometer Research in Architecture",
Milieu, the Environmental Research Foundation News

Report, Ser. 2, Vol. 1, April, 1967.

Chorlton, J. M., Frequency and Duration of School Visual

Tasks, Illum inating Engineering Research Insti tute,

Progress Report No.3, 4 April. 1960.

12.

Vision research
Blackwell , H. R., " Development and Use of a Quantitative
Method for Specification of Interior Illumination Levels
on the Basis of Performance Data", Illuminating Engineer-

ing, New York, 54, pp. 317-353.

Blackwell, H. R., "The Evaluation of Interior Lighting on
the Basis of Visual Criteria", Applied Optics, September, 1967.
Blackwel l, H. R., "A General Qu antitative Method for Evaluating the Visual Significance of Reflected Glare, Utilizing V isua l Performance Data" , paper No. 50-8, presented at
the National T echnical Conference of t he Illuminating

Engineering Society, St. Loui s, Missouri , Sep tember , 196 1.

Blackwell , H. R., R. N. Schwab, and B. S. Pritchard,
"Visibility and Illumina t ion Variab les in Roadway Visual

Tasks",lIluminating Engineering, Vol. L1 X, No.5, May, 1964.

Boynt on, Robert M. and N. M iller, "Visual Performan ce Under
Conditions of Transient Adaptation", Illuminating Engineering,

Vo l. LVIII , NO.8, August, 1968.

114

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Charlton, J. M., "Part II - Field Measurements of Loss of

Contrast", Illuminating Engineering, Vo l. lIV, No.8,
August, 1959.
Fry, Glenn A" "Assessment of V isual Performance", Illuminating

Engineering, Vol. LVII, No.6, June, 1962.

Griffith, James W., "Analysis of Reflected Glare and Visual
Effect from Windows", Illuminating Engineering, March, 1962.
Griffith, James W., "Vei l ing Reflection Studies with Sidewa ll Lighting", Illuminating Engineering, May, 1966.
Documents advantages of side lighting vs. overhead lighting.
Hopkinson, R. G. and W. H. Atkinson, "A Study of Glare from
Very Large Sources", paper presented before the Illuminating
Engineering Society, Detroit, 10 September, 1960.
Eastman, Arthur A" "Color Contrast vs. Luminance Contrast", a
paper presented at the National Technical Conference of the I.E.S.,
Phoenix, September, 1968.

Taylor, N. W., "New Light on Visual Threshold Contrast", Illuminating

Engineering, Vol. LVII, No.3, March, 1962.
"Present Status of Veiling Reflections Know-How", a progress report
of t he Veiling Reflections Subcommittee of the ROO Comm ittee,
Illuminating Engineering, pages 433-435, August, 1968.

Hopkinson, R. G" "Dayl igh t as a Cause of Glare", Building Research

Station, Current Papers, Design Series 27.

Hi ll , A. R., "The Sensory Scaling of Ease of Seeing Through a Mesh"
Department of Architecture, University of Strathclyde, October , 1968.
Hill, A. R., "A Psychophysical Scale of Visibility", based on a
paper del ivered to the Research Symposium on Visua l Psychophysics
Neurology held at City University, May, 1968.
13.

Eye movements

Hebbard, Frederick W" "Micro Eye Movements: Effects of Target

Illu min ation and Contrast", Final Report of Illuminating Engineer-

ing Research Institute Project, No. 71-8.

Mackworth, Norman H. and Anthony J. Morandi, "The Gaze Selects
Specific Features with in Pictures". Perception and Psychophysics,
January, 1967.
Mackworth, Norman H., "A Stand Camera for Line-of-Sight-Record ing",

Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 2, Psychonomic Press, Goleta.

California, 1967.
Thomas, E. Llewellyn, "Movements of the Eye", Scientific American,

Vol. 219, No.2, August, 1968.

115

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mackworth, N.H" "Some Suggested Uses for the Optiscan - A

Head~Molillted Eye Camera", American Society of Mechani ca l Eng ineers,
~'"per No. GO-WA-304, 1960.

Mackworth , N. H. and Thomas, E. L., "A Head Mount ed Camera", June, 196 1.
""Bakan, Paul, Ed., Attention, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton,
New Jersey, 1966.

14,

I
15,

Communications theory
""B roadbent, D. E., Percep tion and Communication, Pergamon Press, 1958.

Perceptual Psychology
Bernard, Eugene E., Biological Proto types and Synthetic Systems,
Vol. 1, Plenum Press, New York, 1962.

Gombrich, E. H., A rt and Illusion, a St udy in the Psychology

of Pictorial Representati on, A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine
A rts, 1956. National Ga llery of A rt, Washi ngton , D. C.,
Bol li ngen Foundation, New York
Gregory, R. L., Eye and Brain, the Psychology of Seeing,
Wor ld Un iversity Library, McG raw-H ili Book Co., 1966
Halldane, John F., Architecture and Visual Perception,
Department of Architec ture, University of California
Berkeley, 1968.
Halldane, John F., Psycholophysical Synthesis of Environmental
Systems, Ca li fornia Book Co., Ltd., Berke ley, Cali forn ia, 1968.
Hering, Ewald, Outlines of a Theory of the Light Sense,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964.
""Hesselgren, Sven, The Language of Architecture, Studentlitteratur , Lund, Sweden , 1967 .
Hockberg, Ju li an E., Perception, Prenti ce- Hall , Inc.
Englewood Cl iffs, New Jersey, 1964.
*Hu rvich, Leo M. and Dorothea Jameson, T he Perception of
Brightness and Darkness, A llyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1966.
Hay, Peter, "Visual Perception and Apparen t Bright ness",
unpublished paper.
I tte lson, William H., V isual Space Perception, Sp ri nger,
New York, 1960.
Marek, Julius, " Inforrnation, Percept ion and Social Context, 1 _
Sirnple Level of Perceptual Response", Human Relations, 15, 1962.

PI'. 17-25.

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Marek, Ju lius, "Information , Perception and Social Context, 2 The Balance and Relevance of Complex Perceptual Responses"
Human Relations. 19.1966. pp. 353-380.
Ne isser, Ulric, "The Processes of Vis ion ", Scientific American,
Vo l. 2 19. No . 3. September . 1968.
Sokolov. Ye.N.. Perception and the Conditioned Reflex,
Pergamon Press. the MacM ili3n Co .. N. Y .. 1963
St ipe, Robert E., "Percept io n and Environment: Foundations
of Urban Design", pro ceedings of a 1962 Sem inar on Urban
Design, Institute of GovernlTient, University of North Carol ina,
Chapel H ill. January 1966.

Vernon, M. D. (E d.) , Experiments in Visual Perception,

Pengu in Books. 1966.
Wapner, S., "An Organismic - Developl1")ental Approach to the
Study of Perceptual and Other Cognitive Operations", reprinted
from Cognition: Theory , Research, Promise by Constance Scheerer
Harper and Row, New York, Evanston, and London, 1964.

Wapne r . S.. McFarland. JH .. and Werne r. H .. "Effect of Visual

Spatial Context on Perception of One's Own Body", British Journal
of Psychology, 54. 1. pages 41-49.1962.

Lau. J .. "A Semantic St udy of the Con cep t of G loom in Lighting".

University of Strathclyde. Apr il. 1967.
Acking. C. A . Translation of a Prelim inary Research Report 20. 12.67
conce rning Visual Perception of Environment (for internal use only ).
Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden.
Ho lmberg, L .. Ku ller R., and Tidblom. 1.. "The Perception of
Vo lume Con tent of Rectangu lar Rooms as a Function of the Ratio
Between Depth and Width" , Psychological Research Bulletin, Vo l. 1.
1966, Lund University, Sw eden.
Ho lm berg, L., Kuller . R., and Tidbl om, 1 ,"Stab ility of Individual
and Group Data in the Percept ion of Volume Content of Rectangular
Rooms as Measured bV a Prod ucti on and an Esti mation Method,"
Psychological Research Bulletin, Volume 7,1966, Lund University,
Sweden.
Ho lmberg , L. , Almgren, S.. Soderpalrn, A. C.. and Kuller. R.. "The
Percep tio n of Vo lume Content of Rectangular Roo ms - Comparison
Between Model and Fu ll Scale Experirnents", Psychological Research
Bulletin, Volume 11 , 1967, Lund Unive rs ity, Sweden.
*Gibson , James J., The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems,
Houghton M ifflin Company. Boston, 1966.
Gibson, James J., Perception of the Visual World.

117

BIBLIOGRAPHY

'Mueller, Rudolph, and the Editors of Life, Light and Vision,

Life Science Library, Time Incorporated, New York, 1966.
*N eisser, U lric, Cognitive Psychology, Meredith Publishing Co.
New York , 1967.
*Warr, Peter B. and Knapper, Christopher, The Perception of People
and Events, John Wiley & Sons, London, 1968.

16.

Color perception
Black, J. Courtney, "Meaning of Color", Master's Thesis,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ca mpbell, Joh n B., "Color Vision .. th e Land Ex peri ments",

Astounding Science, Fact and Fiction, Vol. 64, 1960.

Land, Edwin H. "Experiments in Color Vision", Scientific

American, May, 1969.

Land, Edwin H., "The Retinex", American Scientist, 52, 1964.
Land, Edwin H., "'Color Vision and the Natural Image, Part 1
and Part 11, Physics, Vol. 45, 1959.
Walls, Gordon L., "Landi Landi" PsVchological Bulletin,
Vol. 57, No.1, 1960.
Swedish Colour Foundation (Anders Hard), "A New Colour
Atlas Based on the Natural Co lor System by HeringJohansson,"
Swedish Center Colour Foundation, Stockholm, 1965.
Swedish Colour Foundation, "Attributes of Colour Perception",
Swedish Colour Center Foundation, Stockho lm, 1967.
Yilmaz, Huseyin and Lewis C. Clapp, "Perception,:
International Science and Technology, ConoverMast,
New York, 1963.
A contemporary co lor theory explaining the complexity of
"What is the right color of light'''
Helson, Harry, Illuminating Engineering Research Institute
Annual Report, 1965, pp. 6-14.
Birren, Faber, Light, Color and Environment, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York 1965.

17.

Performance and fatigue

Cook, Desmond L., "The Hawthorne Effect in Educational
Research, "Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1962.
Every architect should be familiar with the Hawthorne

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY

experiments, w hich showed that "a direct relationship

between illumination and production was nonexistent".

Khek, J. and J. Krivohlavy, "Variati on of Incidence of
Error w ith Visual Task Difficu lty", Light and Lighting,
May , 1966.

This documents what cou ld prove to be a very impo rtant

theory. showing increase of fatig ue due to excessive
lighting.
Stone, P. T., " Ergonomics of the Env ironment". paper
presented at IES National Lighting Conference, Churchill
College, Cambridge, England , March 25-27, 1968.

Claimed performance increases in trade journals documenting new lighting installations.

18.

Stress-sensory deprivation
Carson , 0., "An Environmental Approach to Human Stress
and Well Being : with Implications for Planning". Mental
Health Research Inst itute Reprint 1944, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Myers, Th omas I., "Tolerance for Sensory and Perceptual
Deprivation", Chapte r in Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen
Years of Research, edi ted by J. P. Zubek, App leton Century-C rofts, New York, 1967.

19.

Acoustical and thermal environment

Bolt, R. H .. K. N. Stevens and W. A. Rosenblith, "A Community's
Reaction to Noise: Can it Be Forecast?" Noise Control, V o l. 1,
No.1, January, 1955, pp. 63-71.

20.

Visual environment

Best, Go rdon A., "D irection Find ing in Large Buildings",

dissertation, Universi ty of Man chester, Institute of Science
and Techno logy, Manchester, Eng land , 1967 .
Birren, Faber and Henry L. Logan, " Th e Agreeab le Environment",

Progressive Architecture, August, 1960.

Bodman, H. W./ "Quality of Interior Lighting Based on Luminance",
Transactions of the Illumination Engineering Society, (London),
Vol. 32, No.1, 1967,
Co l lins, Wendy M., "The Determination of the Minimum
Identifiable Glare Sensation I nterval Using a PairComparison Method" Depar tment of Scientific and
Industrial Research, Building Research Station, Note No. E 1172February, 1962.
I

119

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hardy, A, c., "The Colour Co-ordination of Ti le and Other

Factory Coloured Produc ts of the Building Industry in
Relation to BS2660", The Co lour Group, 1965.
Hardy, A. C., "Colour in Landscape", I nternational Conference
Keele University, July, 1965.
Hardy, A. C., "Insultation and Fenestration", Electricity,
July/August, 1967, pp. 268 -270.
Hardy, A . C. , " Space Perception and Externa l Enclosu re"

Hopkinson, R, G, and W. M . Collins, "An Experimental Study of

the Glare from a Lumi nous Ceiling", Department of Science and
Industrial Research, Buildi ng Research Station, Note No. E1275.
Manning, Peter, "Windows, Environmen t and Peop le", Interbuild/
Arena, OctOber, 1967.

Markus, ThomasA. and Adrian R, Hi ll , "Some Factors Influencing Vision Through Meshes", unpublished paper, Un iversi ty of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, Sco tl and,
Page, J. K., "The Role of L ighting in the Search for Better
I nteriors--Some Probl ems " , Illuminating Engineering Society
(London), Vo l. 27, No, 4,1962.
"Proceedings of I nitial Meeting Estab lishing CI E Study
Comm ittee on Psychology in the Visua l Environment",
Sven Hesselgren, Chairm an, St ock hOlm, 1968.
Wohlwil l , Joachim F, " Th e Phys ica l Environment: A Problem
for a Psychology of Stimulation", The JOllrnal of Social Issues,
Vol. XX I I, No.4, pp . 29-38, 1966.
Jay, Peter, "Visual Percepti on and Appare nt Br ightness",
unpublished paper, London , 19 Oc tober, 1967.
Performance Criteria for the Luminous Environment, pp. 20-36,
[See 7006J .
Markus, T. A., "T he Function of Windows--A Reapp raisa l",
Building Science, Vol. 2, pp, 97- 121, Pergamon Press,
Great Britain, 1967 .

Cullen, Gordon, TOWNSCAPE, Reinhold Publish ing Corporation,

New York, 196 1.

21.

Environmental psychology

Canter, David V., "Office Sile, An Example of Psychological

Research in Architecture" , The Architects Journal Informa tion
Library, 24 Ap ril , 1968.

120

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wapner, Sey mour and Hein z Werner, "Changes in Psychologica!

Distance Under Condi t ions of Oanger", Journal of Personality,

Vol. 24, No.2, December, 1955.

Lynch, Kevin, The Image o f the City, The Technology Press &
Harva rd University Press , Ca mbridge, Massachusetts, 1960.

22.

Behavioral sci ence

Gutnam, Ro bert, "Th e Questi ons Arch itects Ask"

Transactions of the Bartlett Society, Vol. 4, 1965-66.

Altman, Irwin, "The Effects of Social Isolation and Group
Composition on Perform ance" H uman Relations, Vol. 20, No.4,

1967, pp_ 313-340.

Studer, Raymond G. and D. Stea, "Archi tectural Programming
and Human Behavior", Journal of Social Issues, 22,4 Oct., 1966_

Roeth lisberger, F. J. and Dickson, W. J., Managemen t and the

Worker, H arvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966.

23,

Anthropology
Hal l, E. T., Hidden Dimensions, Doubleday, 1966.
Hall, E. T., The Silent Language, Fawcett Publications, Inc.
Greenwich, Conn., 1959
Meade, Margaret, Conference Procedures, Columbia University

Alumni News
Jacobs, Jane, Life and Dea th of American Cities.

24_

Public health and saf ety - ophth almology

Cogan, David, M.D., "Popu lar Misconceptions Pertaining

t o Ophthal mo logy" , N. E. Journal of Medicine, Vol. 24,1941

pp. 462-466.
Th e Director of ophthalmology at the Massachusetts Eye and
Ear Infi rmary presents the medical analysis of illumination
leve ls.
Spivack, M ayer, "Sensory Distortions in Tunne ls and Corridors",

Hospital and Community Psychiatry, American Psych iatric

Associat ion, January, 1967.
Cogan, David, "Damage to Rats' Eyes for Continuous Exposure
to Light", Stenographic Record, seminar sponsored by The
State University Construction Fund, State University of

New York, at Saratoga Springs, N.Y., July 6-7, 1967.

121

BIBLIOGRAPHY I

25.

Educations methods
Demos, George D., "Contro lled Physical Classroom Environments
and Their Effects Upon Elementary Schoo l Ch ildren (Windowless
. Classroom Study)", Research Project by the Off ice of River
side County Superintendent of Schools. Riverside. Californ ia
Manning, Peter, "An Experimental Study to Seek More Effective
Communica tion to Architect s of the Resu lts of Bu i lding
Research", Institute of Advanced Architectu ral Studies.

26.

Research programs, organization summaries, bibliographies, index es

Annual Report, Illum inating Engineering Research Institu te,

196 1,1962,1963,1965,345 East 47th St., New York 17, NY
Evans, Benjamin H" AlA Research Survey, the Ameri can Institute
of Arch itects, 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C.
Hopkinson, R. G .. "Environmental Research and Bui lding Pract ice",
Light and Lighting, July, 1968
Report of the Illu m inati ng Engineeri ng Research Institute
Symposium on Light and Vision Research , at So ester berg ,
14 16 June, 1965.
Research Bu lletin 1, University of Strathclyde, Department of
Architecture and Bui lding Science, September, 1968.
List of Published Social Survey Repor ts, The Government Social
Survey, Atlantic House, London, 1968.

122

Underlying all d iscussions was the recognition of the important

role of total environment in determining effective li ghting criteria.
Especially noteworthy was the emphasis everyone placed on
humanistic elements of perception, such as proper rendition of
color; acquisition of meaningful information; avoidance of discomfort, distraction and gloom; and creation of a comfortable, pleasing environment. Not iceably de-emphasized by the part icipants
were mechanistic factors - - foo t candle tables, brightness ratio,
scisso rs curve, etc.
The specialists as well as the generalists agreed that many problems
in lighti ng design cannot be met simply by applying a number or
even a set of numbers. The designer and the architect often face
situations which are not clear-cut, not strictly black or white,
therefore must base many of their final decisions on their own
va lue judgements. The participants further agreed that any set of
criteria for light ing des ign, to be of real value, must offer guidelines upon which these judgements can be f irmly based.

concluded that Dr. Ralph Hopkinson's formula as presented in the

British Illuminating Engineering Society (I ES) Code offers a better
ap proach. (See Appendix F of this report.)
Finally, everyone (i ncluding the architects) agreed that in cu rren t
practice the architect too often does not become sufficiently involved with decisions on lighting design. The conse nsu s of the conference was that the architect has t he right general backgrou nd f or
this responsibility and that he mu st become more involved . To aid
him in this resp onsibility, performance criteria must be written in
terms meani ngful and useful to him. It was agreed that the f ina l
report should be written w it h that approach in mind .

Conference Participants

State University Construction Fund

Richard G. Jacques
Director of Research and Development

Wi lliam C. Sawyer

Research Associate, Project Coordinator

Rima E. Bostick
Research Consultant

State University of New York

Morton Gassman
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities Programming & Research Office of

Architecture & Facilities

Thomas Dav is
Assistant for Facilities Research, Department of Architecture & Facilities

Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc.

Jonathan King
Vice-President and T reasu rer

M. I. T. Project Group Leaders

Dr. AlbertG. H. Dietz

Professor of Building Engineering at M.I.T. Director of the Project. Past director of Building Researc h Institute; past Director of American Society for Testing and Material s; past Chairman Building Research Advisory Board ; Materials
Advisory Board Committees for Department of Defense.

126

Many current guidelines disavowed

1.

Low levels of illumination cause organic harm to the eyes.

This was rejected. Medical evidence does not substantiate t h e
claim. Poor illumination causes no more organic harm to t h e
eyes than indistinct sound damages the ears.

2.

The footcandle is the best criterion for determining the

proper illumination of a space. (Agreement was unanimous
t hat) this standard is inadequate. The conferees recommended
that a performance index be developed that would consider
quality of lighting as well as qu antity

3.

Increasing the level of light intensity is the only way to improve visual performance. Increasing intensity will result in
improvement only when all other factors remain const ant.
Even then, large increments are necessary to produce small
degrees of improvement. Quality, not quant ity, is the key . A
small improvement in the quality of the luminous environment will produce a much greater degree of improvement in
performance than will a large increase in intensity.

4.

Rooms with uniform task distribution require uniform lighting. Adoption of a single cut-off value for the total area of a
room ignores th e fact that visibility is often satisfactory over
a wide ra nge of illumination. Since value judgements are used
in creating criteria, the conferees pointed out that if 70 to 80
percent of the area meets the required criteria the lighting is
likely to be satisfactory.

5.

Uniform lighting is desirable even in rooms with non-uniform

task distribution. T he participants disagreed marked ly with
this genera lization; they proposed instead a moderate level of
high-quality room lighting, suitable for most tasks, augmented
by local lighting for the performance of unusally difficult or
specialized tasks.

Th e present techni que of identifying the most difficult visual task

to be p~rformed in a room and t hen specify ing the total lighting
design based on this tas k was labeled as ineffective and inefficient.
Often the most difficult task is performed only 5 percent or less of
the time the room is be ing used; to design the total room lighting
specifically to meet t ha t five percent would be unrealistic and
costly. Instead, all tasks should be identified at the outset and the
percentages of times used should be analyzed. Total room lighting
should not be designed for the most difficult task unless it is unquestionably the most predominant task. Additional light can be
suppl ied as needed.

Present analysis techniques challenged

Another technique that came under fire was the American system
for determining direct glare discomfort in lighting. The conferences

125

Robert J. Pelletier
Research Associate, Department of Architecture, M.I.T. Extensive experience
in hospital design and research, and other phases of research in design and
construction.

Professor Robert Rathbone

Department of Humanities, Project Editor
William M. C. Lam
Lighting Consultant, William M.e. Lam & Associates. Primary consultant to
M.I.T. for this project. Extensive experience in coordinating lighting and
architecture. Projects have included a broad range: schools, cultural centers,
office buildings, hospitals, streets, campuses.

Specialists

Dr. H. Richard Blackwell

Director, Institute for Research in Vision, Ohio State University. His findings
form the basis of current U.S. lighting criteria.
Dr. Robert M. Boynton
Professor of Psychology, Director of Center for Visual Science at University
of Rochester.
John M. Chorlton
Headed the committee responsible for the 1962 American Standard Guide for
School lighting. Chairman of Education Committee, IES; member College
lighting Committee.
Dr. David Cogan
Chief of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Mass.
Henry Willard Williams Professor of Ophthalmology, Harvard University.

Or. James J. Gibson

Professor of Psychology at Cornell. Author of "Perception of the Visual World"
and "The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems."
James W. Griffith
Chairman, Department of I ndustrial Engineering, Southern Methodist University. Authority of Day lighting; U. S. Delegate to numerous international meetings on the subject. Vice-President, IES.
Dr. R. G. Hopkinson
Professor of Environmental Design and Engineering, University College,
London. Studies on glare adopted by IES of Great Britain_ Research on lighting formed basis of building regulations issued by Government Education
Authorities. Formerly in charge of the lighting work at the Building Research
Station, England; Past Pres. IES, Great Britain.

Peter Manning
Founded and directed Pilkington Research Unit at University of Liverpool,
a mUlti-disciplinary team investigating the "total environment" within buildings. Editor of "Office design: a study of environment" and other reports.

127

Thomas Markus
Professor of Building Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Studies in
use of glass and windows. Research in environmenta l problems. Established
lighting research department at Pilkington Brothers Glass Co. Author of "The
Function of Windows - A reappraisal".

Foster K. Sampson
Consulting engineer in all phases of electrical design, including schoo ls and
universities. Member, comm ittee responsible for the 1962 Amer ican Standard
Guide for School Ligh ting.

J. M. Waldram
Consu lting lighting engineer (England): daylight, street lighting, problems of
seeing and visibi lity. new methods of interior lighting; Past President, IES of
Great Britain .
Dr. Brian W. P. We lls
Professor of Psychology, clinica l psycholog ist. Concerned w ith problems of
architectural psychology; member of Pilkington Research Unit.

Generalists

John Hancock Callender

Professor of Design and Co nstruction, Pratt Institute. Director of demonstratio n project to reduce cost of high-rise and low-income housing.
Ranger Farrell
Architect. Acoustical- lighting consultant to numerous educational construc tion projects.
George Hutchinson
Architect, partner, Perkins and Will , Ch icago. Many projects in the area of
higher education: University of Denver, Utica College, Knox Col lege, Concor dia Teachers Col lege. Chicago Housing Authority _ Federal Housing Administration . Chicago Planning Commission.
Alexander Kouzmanoff
Architect and Professor. Victor Christ-Janer Associates. Currently developing
Nassau College for S.U .C.F .
G. Th eodore Larson
Pr ofessor. Director of School Environments Research Pr oject , University of
Michigan. Current study: the effects of environment on t he learning process.
Bernard Rubin
Electrical Consulting Engineer. Formerly design eng ineer for the H ydro- Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
Bernard Spring
Professor. Senior Research Architect and Lecturer at School of Architecture,
Princeton University: Technology of Environmental Control. Co-director,
A l A Research in Education, Princeton University.
Peter Tirion
Architect. Full-time staff member of the Metropo li tan Toronto Schoo l
Board's Study of Educational Facilities.

128

After t he two days of conference Messrs. Dietz, DeMartino, Lam

and Markus met to review the extens ive discussio ns and decide
how they should affect the final document. They concluded that:

Recog ni zing that weighting of the activities, needs, and

ability of the visua l environmen t to provide for t hose needs
were not accurately quantifiable, it was decided not to furnish check lists as proposed at Skidmore but instead that
SUCF could best ach ieve its objectives by controlling the
entire lighting design process (see Part II - L ig hting Design
Practice), and that:
a.
Th e needs, priorities, and environmental character istics
be listed in an open-end fash ion so they would be revised by
designers for the ir specif ic projects and by the SUCF on the
basis of user surveys (see Chapter 5).
b.
A type of "light budgeti ng" system be developed t hat
would have some control of performance, but recognize and
encourage log ica l va lue judgements (see Chapter 6).
c.
SUCF require a logical design process that would insure
co nside ration of the relevant factors and partic ip ation in
"transpare nt" decisions by all parties - - architect (designer), the Fund, and user (see Chapter 7)

Th e so-called "psych ological" factors were deemed of sufficient importance to be given substantial weig ht in the performance criteria. It was suggested the pr inciples be presented
even though they were not yet quantifiable. (See Part I Lighting Design Pri nciples.)

Participants

Dr. Albert G. H. Dietz

Head of M.I.T. Project Group
Wi lliam M. C. Lam
Consultant, M.I.T. Proj ect Group
Lawrence A. DeMartino
State University Construction Fund

Dr. R. G. Hopkinson
University College, London

Dr. H. Richard Blackwell

Director, Institute for Research in Vision, Ohio State University

James W. Griffith
Chairman, Department of Indu strial Engineering, Southern Methodist
University

Thomas Markus
Professor of Building Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

The Visua l Perform ance Index (VPI) proposed by Bl ackwell

at the Skidmore Conference was not yet sufficiently developed to be used as an exact perform ance cri t erion for penci l
handwri ting, no r was the visibility of pencil handwri t ing
considered t he dominant determinant of t otal performance
of the visual environment. However the work appeared im portant and vali d as far as it went, and thus current developments shou ld be included in the report in a format most useful for aiding value judgement of one of the aspects of visu al
environment.
It was decided that, while Equivalent Spherica l Illu mination
Es wou ld be the most convenient unit for engineering purposes, that the corresponding values of Relative Contrast Sensitivity (RCS) would give more realistic impressions for comparison of alternate I ighting systems . Thus the data would be
presented for computi ng ESI from actual illumination levels
(m easu red and computed ), and also a chart for converting Es
to RCS.

131

Hopkinson's Discomfort-Glare Formula appeared to be relevant onl y to regular arrangements of " meaningless" light
fixtures (t hose that are not a positive contributi on to biological needs), and thus not usefu l for evaluat ion of w indows or
t he best forms of art ifi cia l illumination (that may not use
regular arrangements of distracting "meaningless" light fixtures). T herefore, while no limiting glare index could be listed,
t he fo rmula was considered useful (w ithin its limits) as a helpfu I reference.

2lc:

Q)

:;:
Q)

~~--~--~~-------------------------------------~-----

Typical specular materials

Lum ina ire refl ecto r materials:

Silver
Chromium
Aluminum: Polished
A lzak po l ished
Sta i n less stee I

90-92%
63-66%
60-70%
75-85%
50-60%

Clear glass or plastic

Stainless steel

8-10%
50-60%

Luminaire reflector materials:

White paint
White porcelain ename l

70-90%
60-83%

Masonry and structural materials:

White plaster
Wh ite te rra-cotta
White porcelain enamel
L imestone
Sandstone
Marble
Gray cement
Granite
Brick : Red
Ligh t buff
Dark buff

90-92%
65-80%
60-83%
35-60%
20-40%
30-70010
20-30%
20-25%
10-20%
40-45%
35-40%

Light birch
L ight oak
Dark oak
Mahogany
Wal nut

35-50%
25-35%
10- 15%
6-12%
5-10%

New white paint

Old whi te paint

75- 90%
50-70%

Building materials:

Typical diffusing materials

Wood:

Paint:

From: Flynn, John E. and Segi l, Arthur W. Archirecturallnterior Systems (Van Nostrand Re inh old Co., New York: 1970), p . 126.

133

We see better the more light we have, up to a point, but this

light must be free from glare.

We see better if t he main visual task is distinguished from its

surroundings by being brighter, or more contrasting, or more
colourfu l, or al l three. It is therefore importan t to identify the
main focal points and build up the lighting from their requirements.

We see better if t he things we have to look at are seen in an

unobtrusive and unconfusing setting, neither so br ight nor so
colourful t ha t it attracts the attention away, nor so dark that
work appears excessively bright with the result that the eyes
are riveted on to the visual task . Good lighting therefore provides a moderate and comfortable level of general lighting,
with preferential lighting on the work. This can be called
foeallighting.

4
5

The surroundings should be moderately bright, and this

should be achieved by combination of lighting and decoration.
No source of light should be a source of glare discomfort. Excessively bright areas should never be visible. Windows should
be provided with curtains, blinds or louvres to be brought into use when the sky is very bright.

Plenty of light should reach t he ceiling, in crder to dispel any

feeling of gloom, and to reduce glare .

7
8

Sources of light shou ld be chosen to ensure that the colour

rendering which they give is satisfactory for the situat ion in
which they will be found.
Care should be taken to eliminate any discomfort from flickering light sources.

9
10

A dull uniformity should at all costs be avoided. Small brilliant points of light can give sparkle to a scene without causing glare.
The lighting of a building should be considered always in relation to its design and in particular to the scheme of decoration to be installed. On no account should lighting be considered to be merely a matter of windows or fittings. The
whole environment enters into a good light ing installation .

"Some Principles of Good Lighting" from Arch itec tural Physics: lighting by

From

R. G. Hopkinson (Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1963. Page 125).

135

SPACE PROGRAM CHART

BEHAVIORAL

SPACE

OBJECTIVES

1. ___________________

4. ________________

WHEN USED:

LIGHTING BUDGET

2. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

5. _________________

Day

TYPE:

3. _____________________

6. ________________

Night _ _%

d l-->- e
cc

BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

NUMERICAL

VISUAL SUBACTIVITIES

cc
c..

ACTIVITY NEEDS
AND
SUB-ACTIVITIES

C PARTICIPANTS

Circulation information
Physical Dangers
Orientation in space
enclosure
time
weather
Restful visual activity of interest
non-activity
No distraction by high signal-noise ratio
upsetting constancies
upsetting expectations

VISUAL
OBJECTIVES

EVENTS

i LOCATION j
HOR. VERT.

>Icc

Looking at:

INFORMATION NEEDS

a-

~~

-;;;
y

0
....I

... .
'"c:

<!l'"

()

0
....I

REMARKS

OBJECT
CHAR.

m INFORM. NEEDS

...'"

r:

;;:

()

<0

<0

<0

2D

3D

FACTORS

>y

<0

cc

...
<0

::;

E ~
0

II.

Cl

:e
r:...
'::;

~
I:!
::;

8
~ ~

...
'"'" .,...
.e
C1>

0.
I::

I:!

I-

....

orX

....I::
<0

'":l:

0
... "0

'""".e""
Uti)

P PRIME LIGHT SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

q POSITION RELATIVE r
S WAVE CHAR.
To surface

I::

I::

<!l

n NEG.

Color
<0
y

U CRITERIA

CHARACTERISTICS OF VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

Positive, clear articulation of paths, nodes and areas by building

elements and graphics
Adequate illumination, shadows, gradients: minimum disability
glare, irrelevant disturbing pattern
Spatial and structural articulation
Clear windows, skylights
No glaring light fixtures; relevant order of focus for activity
and characteristics of space
No mixed color sources on similar surfaces in similar
circumstances
Illuminated wall and ceiling surfaces during the day to balance
window brightness and to relate to exterior daytime
conditions

Routes, signs, layouts of objects and

building elements
Levels, edges, obstacles, people, and other
moving objects
Shape of space; relation to exterior
Nature of enclosing structure
Daylight reference
View of sky, winds, rain, sunlight, artwork,
and other people
Isolation when desired
No disturbing color
Expected relationship of brightness:
interior surfaces to exterior

Movement
Relaxation - Stimulation

FOOTNOTES

HARDWARE SYSTEM

INFORMATION NEEDS

BIOLOGICAL AND ACTIVITY NEEDS

_ _%

PROJECT

.Cl <0

N-

",Cl

... r:

<!l

To viewer

"0
Cl

E~

.~~

o r:

Q) r:
'"
.-

... Cl

SIZE

>

o .,

X c
.~ ]' co
:a:<c :a: ~

<0

N
.;:

'"

(5

c..

E
::;

E
::;

Y
-<0

~
rao.
c..tI)

...... .--"' ......

::;0.

II.tI)

()

'"

REMARKS

Unit of
Measure

<0
.::;

0"_
<0

cc>""

SPACE PROG RAM CHART

SPACE

TYPICAL
DINING HALL

BEHAVIORAL

1.

PLEASURABLE, FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE

4,

WHEN USED:

OBJECTIVES

2.

ENJOYMENT OF FOOD

5.

Day

3.

GOOD RESOURCE UTILIZATION

6.

Night~

BIOLOGICAL AND ACTIVITY NEEDS

>-

BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

l-

cc

cc

0...

Circulation information
Physical Dangers
Orientation in space
enclosure
time
weather
Restful visual activity of interest
non-activity
No distraction by high signal-noise ratio
upsetting constancies
upsetting expectations

10
20

ACTIVITY NEEDS
AND
SUB-ACTIVITIES

VISUAL
OBJECTIVES

(/)

0:

is

U.

u.

I(/)

zW

Ci

:l

<'

I-

;;;:

Looking at:

20

FOOD

.J

>
0

<'
~

W
W
I

I-

.J

>-

-~~

Q)

...J

C!l

Q)

...

130

...J

0>

:;::

0>

C!l

2D

10

3D

0>

cc

E
...

:l

0>

:c...

>t,)
!!:!

..

...

':l

:;,

'"C

....C

<c

~ c ....
0>
0
u. I-

(,)
(.)

0>

'"0..

POSITION RELATIVE

tp

...'" aJ::.....

I-

0>

(,)

~
0
... -0

'" '"

"'J::.

(,)(.1)

N",0>

... C

C!l<C

(ij
E~

...o ""c

z<c

0>

.~ ~
0>""
.c

><c

2,9

FACES, GESTURES,

1(',

r>TH"Nr::

LECTURE; AUDIO-VISUAL

PROJECTION

VIEWING PERFORMANCE

PEOPLE

SERVING

PROPS

UTENSILS, FOOD

FLOOR

Min

12

5,9

Ll

REMARKS

0>

X
'"
2:

.~

t:

:E

'"
'0
0...

...... -"' ......

:l

:l

_0
0>
:lo..

.- 0
0>

u.(.I)

t::
&:.lJi

RES
DIMMING: FLEXIBLE
RM. CHARACTER

DIMMING; AVOID
Rm. Li9ht on Screen

1,2,9

11,13

cc>

0> '"

WAVE CHAR.

12
1,2,4

25'12 17 '1z 17

2,9

60

2,5
14

.~ ~

2:

0>

:l
0'_

15

DARKEN SPACE

o..!!

Unit of
Measure

-0
_0> 0>

NUMERICAL
CRITERIA

SIZE

V>

29

To viewer

29 14

SURROUNDINGS

100

0
0>

2!

CLEANING

(ij

...

...'"

P PRIME LIGHT SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

To surface

FACTORS

>t,)

0>

n NEG.

Color
(,)

ICC

m INFORM. NEEDS

TABLE & ROOM DECOR

o~
u :l-

I-

0:
I-

OBJECT
CHAR.

Positive, clear articulation of paths, nodes and areas by building

elements and graphics
Adequate illumination, shadows, gradients: minimum disability
glare, irrelevant disturbing pattern
Spatial and structural articulation
Clear windows, skylights
No glaring light fixtures; relevant order of focus for activity
and characteristics of space
No mixed color sources on similar surfaces in similar
circumstances
Illuminated wall and ceiling surfaces during the day to balance
window brightness and to relate to exterior daytime
conditions

1,11,1

READING/BROWSING

LECTURE

,.1

FOOTNOTES

CHARACTERISTICS OF VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

SOCIAL DANCING

15

Ci

0:

:l 0

INFORMATION NEEDS

DISHES, UTENSILS

FACES, GESTURES,
CLOTHING
MAGAZINES. BOOKS
NOTICES

CONVERSATION

z U
Z
z

REMARKS

HOR. VERT.

i LOCATION j

EVENTS

W
U

EATING/DRINKING

PARTICIPANTS
w

PROJECT

TYPE:

HARDWARE SYSTEM

Routes, signs, layouts of objects and

building elements
Levels, edges, obstacles, people, and other
moving objects
Shape of space; relation to exterior
Nature of enclosing structure
Daylight reference
View of sky, winds, rain, sunlight, artwork,
and other people
Isolation when desired
No disturbing color
Expected relationship of brightness:
interior surfaces to exterior

aMovement
Relaxation - Stimulation

~%

INFORMATION NEEDS

VISUAL SUB-ACTIVITIES

LIGHTING BUDGET

BR
DR

10/1

BR

10/1