PRINCIPLES OF DESIGNING

AN EXPERIENTIAL LIGHTING SHOWROOM

Finding the balance between demonstrating the experiential

and the technical-aesthetical qualities of luminaires.

Master Thesis 2018

Tena Kovaček

Architectural Lighting Design – Royal Institute of Technology – Stockholm

Tutor M.Sc., Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Bettina Kahdemann

Title PRINCIPLES OF DESIGNING AN EXPERIENTIAL LIGHTING SHOWROOM Finding the balance between demonstrating the experiential and the technical-aesthetical qualities of luminaires.

Author Tena Kovaček

Tutor M.Sc., Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Bettina Kahdemann

Examiner MA, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Isabel Dominguez

Master Thesis at KTH Royal Institute of Technology,

School of Architecture

Degree Master of Science Architectural Lighting Design

Course Code AF270X

Date June 2018

KEYWORDS

light experience, showroom, architectural lighting, light as exhibit, light as product, perception,

spatial appraisal, quality lighting, improving communication of light's possibilities

ABSTRACT

An analysis of existing showrooms showed that absence of atmosphere makes it hard for clients to

imagine effects in a context, and that lack of guidance by the light makes the experience of the

showroom overwhelming or static. Also, clients often prioritize luminaires' design over light effect,

even in architectural lighting where design should be negligible.

This thesis investigates whether it is possible by prioritizing light effect, to optimize the showroom

experience and to direct clients' focus on the light, while minimizing the influence of design on the

impression and eventually choice of luminaire.

In order to achieve these goals, three main concepts are suggested – guiding light, contrasting

atmospheres and sequence of presenting light effects first and luminaires afterwards. These enable

good communication about light which is essential for clients to focus on the atmosphere created by

the light, rather than price and design.

Experiments were conducted in the basement of a Croatian company's office, where the exhibits

were not the luminaires, but their light.

Visitors' priorities before and after going through the installation changed significantly, which might

mean that the light effect made an impact and influenced examinees to base their choice of

luminaire more on light effect, than design. It is concluded that the used concepts contributed to

putting more focus on the light itself.

Instead of focusing solely on light experience or product, a balance between the two was achieved by

prioritizing and showing the light effect first, and only afterwards joining it with the product, thus

offering visitors a more complete experience of the luminaire.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 MOTIVATION 1

1.2 OBJECTIVES 2

2. METHODOLOGY 3

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL SHOWROOM 5

3.1.1 manufacturer A 4

3.1.2 manufacturer B 5

3.2 ANALYSIS OF A NEW TYPE OF A SHOWROOM 7

3.3 IDENTIFICATION AND RESEARCH OF DESIGN PRINCIPLES

3.3.1 atmospheres 8

3.3.2 guiding light 8

4. EXPERIMENT

4.1 SETUP AND DESIGN

4.1.1 analysis of the basement space 9

4.1.2 design principles

4.1.2.1 criteria for choosing luminaires for experimenting 10

4.1.2.2 visible luminaires 11

4.1.2.3 choice of light effect over physical appearance 11

4.1.2.4 layers of light 11

4.1.2.5 luminaires' illumination 12

4.1.2.6 luminaires' placement 13

4.1.3 lighting layout 13

4.1.4 lighting experience 15

4.2 EVALUATION 20

4.2.1 observations 20

4.2.2 interviews 20

4.2.3 questionnaires

4.2.3.1 questionnaire 'preferences' 20

4.2.3.2 questionnaire 'atmospheres' 21

4.2.3.3 questionnaire 'associations' 21

4.2.4 sequence of testing examinees 21

5. RESULTS

5.1 OBSERVATIONS 22

5.2 INTERVIEWS 22

5.3 QUESTIONNAIRES

5.3.1 questionnaire 'preferences' 23

5.3.2 questionnaire 'atmospheres' 24

5.3.3 questionnaire 'associations' 24

6. DISCUSSION

6.1 ATMOSPHERES 25

6.2 GUIDING LIGHT 25

6.3 LUMINAIRES' ILLUMINATION AND PLACEMENT 26

6.4 CHOICE OF LUMINAIRE 26

6.5 LIMITATIONS 26

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 ATMOSPHERES 27

7.2 GUIDING LIGHT 27

7.3 LUMINAIRES' ILLUMINATION AND PLACEMENT 27

7.4 CHOICE OF LUMINAIRE 27

8. REFERENCES AND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

8.1 REFERENCES 28

8.2 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 31

9. APPENDIX

9.1 ANALYSIS OF THE BASEMENT SPACE 32

9.2 INTERVIEWS – template 34

9.3 EXPERIMENT

9.3.1 used luminaires 35

9.3.2 lighting layout 38

9.3.3 quantitative analysis 39

9.3.4 evaluation

9.3.4.1 observations – observed elements 41

9.3.4.2 interviews – template 41

9.3.4.3 questionnaire 'preferences' – template 42

9.3.4.4 questionnaire 'atmospheres' – template 43

9.3.4.5 questionnaire 'associations' – template 43

9.3.4.6 interviews – choice of luminaire – analysis of results 44

9.3.4.7 questionnaire 'preferences ' – analysis of results 44

9.3.4.8 questionnaire 'atmospheres ' – analysis of results 45

9.3.4.9 questionnaire 'associations' – analysis of results 48

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Lighting showrooms often focus on luminaires' design as well as on their light effects, because of the

clients' desire to see both. However no effort is made to present them in a context which would

enable clients to experience the atmosphere that a certain luminaire can help creating.1

This thesis investigates whether a luminaire as a product – defined by its shape, color, price, size etc.

– and a luminaire as a generator of light – defined by its color temperature, light distribution,

intensity etc. – should be of equal importance and if it is in both clients' and company's interest. It

proposes that presenting light effect and product in the right sequence is crucial in order to promote

light.fig.1

1.1 MOTIVATION

Already when designing a space, architects often have a vision about the light in it, though more in

terms of atmosphere than practical execution. Investors, on the other hand, usually do not have an

idea of the future atmosphere at all.2

Since it is believed that the light itself should come in first place3, I would like to examine if it is

possible to optimize the showroom experience and to direct clients' focus on the light, while

minimizing the influence of design on the impression and eventually choice of luminaire.

Experiments were conducted in the basement of a Croatian company's4 office, which specializes in

selling luminaires – ranging from decorative to architectural, indoor to outdoor – and installing them.

1 See pages 4-7 in this paper.

2 See page 3 in this paper.

3 Veitch & Newsham, 1998.

4 Henceforth referred to as manufacturer B.

fig.1

· of equal importance?

· if shown in a right sequence, promote light?

price size

shape

color light distribution

intensity

color temperature generator

of light

product

luminaire

2

Since the company's goal is to brand themselves more as a creative lighting design company, this

project fits right in. The company already has a decorative-luminaire showroom in the ground floor,

so the basement was used for architectural lighting only, in accordance with my concept – the

exhibits were not luminaires, but their light.

PROFITS fig.2

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The possibility of finding a balance between usual showrooms which focus on the products

themselves and light experience (such as a light show, without purpose) in which luminaires are

invisible and the focus is set on the created atmosphere, is researched. In my opinion, the balanced

showroom is a kind of a functional light show, in which first the experience of light is given, while

luminaires are revealed afterwards, thus demonstrating both the experiential and the technical-

aesthetical qualities of luminaires to clients. This is something I feel is missing in the field and could

be of great practical value to it.

Main questions this paper seeks to answer:

· Is it possible to create a space in which a client would get a perception of a luminaire's light effect

and atmosphere while at the same time a demand for seeing the product itself is fulfilled?

· Usually it is the products that are illuminated, but here the product is the one that emits the light

and needs to be illuminated. How to exhibit products that emit light? How to illuminate the fixture

without interfering with its light effect? Does this help clients and the company's employees for

better communication of light's possibilities?

· Good lighting design makes better spaces, in terms of health, mood, performance, satisfaction and

comfort.5 Is it possible to influence investors' usual preference for cheaper or nicer-looking

products, instead of those with a more suitable light effect, by prioritizing the light effect? If yes,

this would hopefully lead to better lighting design and promoting of light itself.

5 Veitch & Newsham, 1998.

· light effects are in focus rather

than luminaires

· promoting lighting design

· better communication of light's possibilities

between employees and clients

· improving project design by integrating

proper, qualitative lighting

· better lighting creates spaces of

better quality, which leads to many

benefits – health, mood,

performance etc.

· branding themselves as a lighting design

company

· attracting customers

· better communication of light's possibilities

between employees and clients

Who might PROFIT from this concept?

clients / investors lighting designers

people company shifting to lighting design

fig.2

3

2. METHODOLOGY

Here is an overview of the methods used in this paper.fig.3

More details on the individual principles

are found in the relevant chapters.

BACKGROUND

analysis of:

• typical showrooms

• new type of a showroom

identification and research of design principles

atmospheres

guiding light

setup & design

analysis of the basement space

design principles

lighting layout

lighting experience

evaluation

observations · visitors' movement

interviews · preferences

· perception

questionnaires · atmospheres

· associations

· preferences

EXPERIMENT

RESULTS

perception

analysis of lighting

· kinds of luminaires, positions etc.

analysis of architecture

· configuration, materials etc.

analysis of use of the space

· interviews

· observations

fig.3

4

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 ANALYSIS OF A TYPICAL SHOWROOM

In order to define the typical showroom, two showrooms were visited and analyzed, which in my

opinion represent typical showroom's characteristics.

3.1.1 manufacturer A – iGuzzini Asögatan 115, Stockholm, Sweden

Upon entering the showroom, luminaires were noticed first and afterwards their light effects were

presented and explained in detail, with only brief comments on their design.fig.4

Light effects are in focus, but since they are shown individually, no atmosphere is created and it is

hard to imagine the effects in context. Although not directly illuminated, luminaires are constantly

visible and draw attention onto themselves.fig.5

fig.4 The space of the showroom is situated in a

widened corridor between the main entrance of

the company and its office part. Walls are smooth

and painted white.

fig.5 The majority of luminaires are installed on the

ceiling, while only a few of them are mounted next

to each other on one of the walls.

5

3.1.2 manufacturer B – Telektra Industrijska cesta 15, Zagreb, Croatia

The showroom is situated in a space without any windows. It is divided into three parts according to

luminaire type:fig.6

Even though a circular connection through these parts exists, there is no guidance by the light.

Transitions between the parts are abrupt and happen through a narrow, dark and empty space.

fig.7 Decorative lighting showroom

fig.9 Architectural lighting showroom – white

fig.10 Architectural lighting showroom – black

fig.8 Decorative lighting showroom – controlling light

effects through the application on an iPad

1 decorative lighting

showroomfig.7,8

2 architectural lighting

showroom – whitefig.9

3 architectural lighting

showroom – blackfig.10

in focus are: decorative luminaires light effects light effects

surfaces covered in OSB boards which draw the attention and decrease the quality of demonstrating the light effects

plain, smooth and painted white

plain, smooth and painted black

additional elements / comments

of all three parts, this one is the most interesting to clients, because of a variety of luminaires with different appealing physical characteristics and interesting light effects

white panel with the surface ribbed in a few directions for demonstrating a character of light and shadow

many objects, e.g., paintings, car toys, sculpture, help visualizing light effects in real spaces and additionally explain light's characteristics

fig.6

6

INTERVIEWING6

Two employees, usually guiding clients through the showroom and communicating with them about

products (economist,29 and electrical engineer,43 positioned as project managers), and two clients

(an architect,50 and a private investor,58) were interviewed. The aim was to get better insight in the

use and perception of the showroom, and possible problems in the communication of light's

possibilities.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In general clients might be worried about mounting and longevity of products, and are often drawn

by interesting light effects. Occasionally they might be convinced that a certain light effect suits their

project better than a luminaire's design, but when it comes to choosing between price and light

effect, they choose the (lower) price.

During a tour, clients either disperse and are overwhelmed by seeing too many effects at once, or are

static while an employee is showing effects one by one.

Even in architectural lighting, where luminaires' design should be negligible, clients often prioritize it

over light effect.

It is often hard for them to imagine what a luminaire could create in their project, if it is shown out of

context and without a proper atmosphere. Good communication is essential for clients to focus on

the atmosphere created by the light, rather than price and design.

Clients can be divided in groups depending on their demands and knowledge about lighting: fig.11

6 Since all examinees were Croatian nationals, interviews were conducted in Croatian and translated afterwards.

architects usually interested in technical aspects, quality, light effects

- aware of the value of good lighting - choosing good-looking, but also suitable, technically appropriate

luminaires with good light effects

- less worried about the price

investors usually interested in design and price

a. residential, private buyers (e.g., house, apartment) – most clear, know what they want

· expensive and powerful appearance · brand, icon, recognizable · functional · cheapest · technical, most light less energy consumption

all about the product

· a lot of light (investors are usually elderly with bad sight) · atmosphere

all about the light

b. manager (e.g., hotels)

c. public (e.g., school, gym)

fig.11

7

3.2 ANALYSIS OF A NEW TYPE OF A SHOWROOM

iGuzzini 'Light+Building Fair' 2018, Frankfurt7

In Frankfurt, iGuzzini presented a showroom named 'the Light Experience'. Visitors first had a chance

to see, touch and examine exhibited luminaires closely. Afterwards they entered the room where

light effects were presented. Luminaires were not directly illuminated, nor set in focus, but were

constantly present and therefore visible.fig.12,13,14

Information comes from two sides: visual and verbal. A moderator leads visitors through the space,

explains the visual hierarchy, visual references, what visitors should focus on etc., while light effects

are being shown.

Two experiences – seeing the luminaire as a product and as a generator of light – are completely

separated: focus is first set entirely on the product and shifts to the light afterwards. This sequence is

opposite to this paper's concept.

Unlike typical showrooms, here atmospheres are created, helping visitors to visualize incorporation

of products in their projects. Nevertheless, they sometimes remind more of a light show, than real-

life context atmospheres, so they are not of much help to clients, e.g., coloring the whole room in

one color is unlikely to happen in an everyday space.fig.13

The communication of light is good, but the sequence and separation of the two experiences, might

have an unfavorable impact on visitors and light promotion, because visitors might be influenced by

luminaires' design.

7 Even though I did not have the chance to visit the fair personally, I researched it and analyzed its main concepts.

fig.12 Experiencing white light

fig.13 Experiencing one colored light

fig.14 Experiencing many different colored lights

8

atmosphere I atmosphere II

dark bright low high compact spacious uneven uniform no feeling of connection to outside feeling of connection to outside artificial natural high contrasts low contrasts warm cold

3.3 IDENTIFICATION AND RESEARCH OF DESIGN PRINCIPLES

3.3.1 ATMOSPHERES

Atmospheres create context8 and give a feeling of being in a real-life space and not in a showroom.

Different conditions in which a luminaire is usually found are demonstrated, which contributes to

better understanding of their use.9

Atmospheres should be contrasting in order to demonstrate light's power to change one's perception

of a space10

and to put more focus on light than luminaire.fig.15

Transition areas between

atmospheres can be used to emphasize differences in their character.11

fig.15 definition of atmospheres:

3.3.2 GUIDING LIGHT

The guiding light helps leading visitors through the space, changing their focus from one luminaire to

the next, and enables experiencing them one by one.12 It gives time to immerse into a certain effect,

while keeping a background atmosphere lighting at the same time and avoids the problems

mentioned on page 6.

A circular connection can be used to achieve flow from one atmosphere to another.13

Another way to induce movement is to hide luminaires behind architectural elements so that one

has to approach it in order to discover it. There is no need to intensively look for a luminaire creating

a certain light effect – the connection between them is revealed eventually by approaching.

8 Vogels et al., 2017a

9 Wang & Groat, 2013 10

Custers et al., 2010; Durak et al., 2007 11

See page 14 in this paper. 12

The Art of Art Museum Lighting, Light for Art and Culture 13

Rengel, 2003

9

4. EXPERIMENT

4.1 SETUP AND DESIGN

4.1.1 ANALYSIS OF THE BASEMENT SPACE

The focus of the experiments was the basement of the company's office.14

Since there are no

windows and experiments are conducted with artificial light, focus is completely set on light effects.

The space is quite low (2-2,3m) and covers 41m2.15

Architectural elements include beams

intersecting the ceiling, wall and ceiling niches, a column by the entrance and a big installation shaft

dividing the space in two halves. Walls and ceiling are painted white, while the floor is covered in

smooth grey tiles. Each half contains four ceiling surface-mounted office luminaires of the

dimensions 30x120x10cm.16,fig.16a,b

The analysis revealed possible concepts for the lighting layout. The configuration gives an

opportunity to use the circular connection through the space,17

hide luminaires behind architectural

elements and create a different atmosphere in each half which nevertheless could be regarded as

the same space because of their shared dimensions, materials, configuration etc.

14

Refered to as manufacturer B. 15

Plan and 3D sections of the basement space are given in the Appendix on pages 32 and 33. 16

Described in more detail on page 37 in this paper. 17

Rengel, 2003

entrance entrance

fig.16 Top view of the basement

a) without beams b) with beams (red colored elements)

10

cheap expensive

good-looking bad-looking good-looking bad-looking

good light effect ? ? ?

bad light effect ? ? ? X

X – luminaire is not chosen

– luminaire is chosen

? – luminaire might be chosen

fig.17

4.1.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES

4.1.2.1 CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING LUMINAIRES FOR EXPERIMENTING

· CLIENTS' CHOICE

The goal was to compare examinees' preferences with their final choice and see if any compromise

had been made and analyze why.

The table represents possible combinations of factors which might influence a client's choice of

luminaire. E.g., it is likely that a client chooses a luminaire which is cheap, good-looking and has a

good light effect.fig.17

price

The price is easy to manipulate and can be changed according to the experiment's needs. Before

entering the showroom, examinees' price range was determined and they were told that prices of all

luminaires were around the upper limit of their budget, whereby price differences were neutralized

and the option that examinees choose a luminaire because of its low price was eliminated.

design

Cheap, good-looking luminaires with good light effects and expensive, bad-looking luminaires with

bad light effects are not ideal combinations for experimenting. Since it is impossible to know

examinees' preferences beforehand, the design factor was disregarded when choosing luminaires.

Each examinees' impression of each luminaire's aesthetics was examined, in order to bring this factor

back later in the analysis.

light effect

The only combination that isolates good light effect as the reason for choosing a given luminaire is

expensive and bad-looking. However, this might outweigh the light effect and the luminaire might

not be chosen. Nevertheless, solely luminaires with good light effects were chosen for

experimenting.

· EVERYDAY APPLICATION OF LUMINAIRES

Luminaires were also chosen based on light effect typologies – ranging from spotlights to linear

wallwashers – and use in daily life – illuminating different surfaces in different spaces – in order for

clients more easily to find what they look for in their current projects, without adapting the

showroom to each client individually.

11

4.1.2.2 VISIBLE LUMINAIRES

Luminaires are not concealed but surface-mounted, in order to stay visible and enable examination

of the impact of both light effect and design on examinees' choice.

4.1.2.3 CHOICE OF LIGHT EFFECT OVER PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

When choosing between light effect and design, it seems worthwhile to choose a bad-looking

luminaire if its light effect is good and suits a certain space, because:

· during daytime, a luminaire is visible for a longer period, but it is only an object and should not

be chosen only for fitting in in a space with its good looks.fig.18

· during nighttime, a luminaire is visible for a shorter period, but the space is solely created by

the light, while it is not an object anymore. The safety aspect should outweigh aesthetics,

too.fig.19

4.1.2.4 LAYERS OF LIGHT

The concept involves working with layers of light created by:

1. the luminaires themselvesfig.20

2. luminaires illuminating exhibited luminaires – defined according to atmospheresfig.21 and

used for demonstrating luminaires in different ways18

18

Explained in more detail in section 4.1.2.5 on page 12 in this paper.

fig.20 fig.21

fig.18 daytime – luminaire perceived as an object fig.19 nighttime – light creating the space

12

4.1.2.5 LUMINAIRES' ILLUMINATION

Luminaires' illumination follows the principles of the two atmospheres. Luminaires are presented in

two different ways, reflecting their changeable natural environment.

atmosphere I

Each luminaire is illuminated separately and directly by a more artificial and less intense light, with

few visible details and lower color rendering.fig.22-25

Luminaires' illumination in relation to their light effect and placement:

light cast by luminaire (marked red)

illumination of luminaire (marked orange)

luminaire casts light right next to itself (e.g.,W1,C1, W5)

illumination of luminaire might interfere with its light effect

illuminated either by general lighting or with weak and diffused direct light

luminaire casts light further from itself (e.g.,W2)

possible to illuminate luminaire without interfering with its light effect

illuminated by direct and intense light

luminaire casts light which bounces back (e.g.,W4,W5)

bounced light illuminates the luminaire itself

luminaire obtains enough of general lighting of the space (e.g.,W1,C1)

no additional illumination is needed

fig.22

fig.23

fig.24

fig.25

13

nothing light effect whole product

= light effect + luminaire

atmosphere II

Luminaires are illuminated by diffused and uniform general lighting created by existing luminaires

(C4) on the ceiling, reminding of daylight. Since they cast quite intense light, they were covered with

translucent white paper in order to obtain the desired light characteristics. Luminaires are presented

in a clear way, with a possibility of seeing details, high color rendering etc.

4.1.2.6 LUMINAIRES' PLACEMENT

Luminaires are gradually revealed one by one. Light effect appears first, while the luminaire is hidden

behind structural elements – beams, walls, columns, corners etc. – only to appear afterwards.

As visitors move through the showroom, they are led on by effects, while luminaires are revealed as

added details, and the whole product is experienced.fig.26

Luminaires are placed and illuminate surfaces according to their intended use. This should help

visitors to better visualize luminaires' application in their own projects.19

4.1.3 LIGHTING LAYOUT20

Main concepts which help visitors recognize light's value and remove focus from the luminaires

themselves:fig.27 · guiding light

· two contrasting atmospheres

· sequence of focusing on light effects first and on luminaires afterwards

19

Wang & Groat, 2013 20

Plan depicting main concepts is given in the Appendix on page 38., fig.17.

fig.27

1 2 3

fig.26

14

PRINCIPLES OF LUMINAIRE ARRANGEMENT

In addition to concepts presented on pages 10-13, principles below are also followed:

Positions of luminaires and their effects are designed in a way that visitors' gaze is led through the

space from one effect to another, starting from the floor, all the way to the ceiling.21,22,25,,fig.28,29

Visual references encourage visitors to move in the desired direction. Upon entering the space, the

lighting of atmosphere II is designed very neutral, while the intriguing effect in atmosphere I

attracts visitors' attention.23,fig.30

Since the two atmospheres are occasionally seen together, they need to cooperate – starting point

(neutral-intriguing), contrasting niches etc.24,fig.30

When seen from one atmosphere, the other one

becomes more intriguing.

21

Malnar & Vodvarka, 1996 22

Sully, 2015 23 Kelly, 1952 24

See page 15, paragraph 2 and page 17 paragraph 1 respectively, in this paper.

fig.28 luminaire placement

fig.29 atmospheres

fig.30 cooperation of atmospheres

ATM.I ATM.II

SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT

top view of the basement N

15

4.1.4 LIGHTING EXPERIENCE

sequence of experiencing the space25

All used luminaires are LED luminaires, except

the existing fluorescent tubes on the ceiling.26

[1]Upon entering, straight ahead in the

background (atmosphere I), the effect of

projector W2 is cast diagonally. It creates the

impression of light illuminating something

behind the wall, awakens visitors' attention,

and encourages them to move forward and see

what it is. From this point, both atmospheres

are visible simultaneously and contrasts

between them are emphasized.

To the left of the entrance, the brighter space

of atmosphere II should be ignored. Therefore it

is designed to be perceived neutral – with lots

of indirect lighting and no interesting effects

which capture attention. Everything is quite

obvious, leaving the focus on the spotlight in

the background.

[2,3,4]Path light W1 is hidden behind a corner on

the vertical level, and beneath the staircase on

the horizontal. Visitors' gaze is directed towards

the effect on the floor and lower part of the

wall.

25

Sequence of experiencing is given in corners of photos.

Positions of photos take are marked in the plan on page 19, fig.31 26 List of used luminaires is given on pages 35-37.

2

3

4

1

16

[5]The strong and interesting effect of projector

W2 pulls visitors deeper into the space, while

its diagonal orientation leads them further, [7]

fading towards the curve of the wall. [6]

The

luminaire is directly illuminated by projector

W3. Visitors' gaze gradually moves upwards.

[8,9,10]Visitors' gaze ends up on the wall with

grazed light, cast by linear profile W4 hidden

beneath the heater.

5

6

7

8

9

10

5

6

17

[11,12]Moving further, visitors approach the transition part between the atmospheres. The connection

and contrast between them is achieved through contrasting illumination of two simultaneously

visible niches.

[13,14,15]The horizontal ceiling niche in atmosphere I has its vertical sides illuminated by a narrow strip

of warm color temperature light. Approaching it, visitors might get an impression of daylight entering

the space from above. Once closer, it becomes obvious that it is the artificial light cast by projector

W5, accentuating the niche's frame and suggesting lack of connection to the outside. Projector W6's

diffused weak light, illuminating projector W5, stays unnoticed.

[16,17]Line grazer C1's uniform cold color temperature light washes the wall of the vertical wall niche

in atmosphere II downwards. It gives the impression of light coming through a translucent glass

window and creates a feeling of connection to the outside.

14 13

12 11

16 17

15

18

[18]Visitors approach atmosphere II, whose

uniform lighting is this time perceived much

more interesting in contrast to atmosphere I.

[19,20]Hidden behind the ceiling beam and

revealed upon approaching, linear profile C2

washes the ceiling and draws attention

upwards.

[21,22]Finally, linear profile C3's intense light

from behind the column, attracts attention to

the showroom's starting point. Visitors find

themselves again at the beginning, now with a

completely different perception. The light

emphasizes the vertical architectural element

and gives verticality to the space.

18

20

19

21

22

19

fig.31 LIGHTING LAYOUT with positions of photos taken

19

20

4.2 EVALUATION

of visitors preferences, behaviour and perception of the experimental showroom

Five employees, director, five clients and five people with no professional relation to lighting design27

were observed, interviewed and questioned.28 Comparison of these categories led to better

assessment of the results.29

Since all examinees were Croatian nationals, aged 25-68, examinations were conducted in Croatian

and translated afterwards. By examining similar numbers of people in each group it was attempted

to minimize possible differences in results caused by different perceptions and knowledge about

lighting. Since employees included electrical engineers and economists, working in different positions

(project managers and lighting technicians), and clients an architect, an architect and interior

designer, two private investors and a constructor, even results within groups varied.

Unknown factors, such as whether examinees were aware of what they were talking about, were

taken into account. The answers were not unconditionally taken for truth, but carefully analyzed.

4.2.1 OBSERVATIONS

Examinees' movement through the showroom was observed in order to find out whether they were

guided by the light and noticed light effects first and luminaires afterwards.30

4.2.2 INTERVIEWS

Interviews were a tool to get a better insight in the installation's impact on examinees and which part

of it was the most influential.31

4.2.3 QUESTIONNAIRES

4.2.3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE 'preferences'32

After exiting the showroom, clients and professionally unrelated examinees filled out a

questionnaireabout preferences in luminaires' design. The goal was to determine what examinees

perceived good- and bad-looking in order to obtain a reference as to whether their choice was based

on luminaire's design or light effect.

Also photos of luminaires which have not been used were shown, so that examinees would not

connect luminaires to their effects in the showroom too easily.

Answers before and after experiencing the showroom were compared and it was analyzed whether

priorities had changed and the installation had any impact on this.

27

Henceforth referred to as professionally unrelated examinees. 28

The latter were asked to come to the office only for the needs of experimenting and were told to imagine they were

clients. 29 Schreier & Flick, 2013 30

More detail on observed elements is given in the Appendix on page 41. 31

Template of conducted interviews is given in the Appendix on page 41. 32

Template of questionnaire 'preferences' is given on page 42, fig.20.

21

4.2.3.2 QUESTIONNAIRE 'atmospheres'33

The questionnaire aimed to find out how examinees perceived the spaces and whether they were

perceived as contrasting. If yes, this might have set focus on light's power to significantly change the

perception of a space, and helped examinees realize its values and focus more on the light itself.

Results of each individual were analyzed separately, thus letting contrasts in each person's

perception come to expression. Otherwise there would be a risk of losing some contrasts, especially

where features are perceived opposite.34,35

4.2.3.3 QUESTIONNAIRE 'associations'36

Since semantic differential scaling experiments might be meaningless by themselves,37

additional

examination was conducted as a support of the questionnaire 'atmospheres's results.38

Examinees were asked how much the space of each atmosphere reminded of spaces listed in the

table.39 By comparing lighting conditions of associated spaces, examinees' perception of the

experiment's two spaces was indirectly assessed.

4.2.4 SEQUENCE OF TESTING EXAMINEES:

· Examinees' preferences in price were examined before entering the showroom. The price was

adapted to their price range. Examinees' design preferences were not examined before entering,

since the thesis' concept demands that the light effect comes in focus first.

· During the tour, examinees were interviewed, filled in questionnaires 'atmospheres' and

'associations', chose luminaires and explained their reasons for choosing them.

· After exiting, examinees' design preferences were examined through questionnaire 'preferences'.

If a chosen luminaire was rated good-looking, it was impossible to determine if the light effect had

any impact.

If on the other hand, examinees did not choose what was in their opinion a good-looking

luminaire, the light effect might have made an impact.

By asking examinees about reasons for choosing certain luminaires and by examining their design

preferences, a point of reference was obtained, against which it was concluded whether a

compromise has been made.

33

Template of questionnaire 'atmospheres' is given in the Appendix on page 43, fig.37. 34

Analysis of results is given in the Appendix on pages 45-47. 35 Flick, 2011 36

Template of questionnaire 'associations' is given in the Appendix on page 43., fig.38. 37

Tiller & Rea, 1992; Vogels et al., 2017b 38

Houser & Tiller, 2003 39

Spaces listed in the table were chosen because they represent diverse lighting conditions.

22

5. RESULTS

5.1 OBSERVATIONS

GUIDING LIGHT

Upon entering, examinees often only glanced at the whole space briefly, catching the atmosphere

and then focused on light effects individually.

Some examinees stopped by each luminaire, while others went through the space quite fast.

However, the flow through the space was shared by everyone. There was no going back or forth, nor

skipping luminaires. The majority noticed most luminaires' light effects first and only afterwards the

luminaires themselves.

Employees were stopping slightly longer by each luminaire, identifying it and examining how it is

mounted, wired etc.

Clients generally focused both on effects and luminaires. Luminaires W1, C1 and C2 drew attention

with their design, but luminaires W2, W4, W5 and C3 with their effects. Clients related to

architecture paid more attention to effects and only looked at luminaires briefly making sure where

the light comes from. Investors and clients related to construction spent more time observing

luminaires themselves.

Professionally unrelated examinees sometimes focused on light effects, sometimes on luminaires.

Again luminaires W1 and C1 drew attention with their design, but luminaires W2, W5 and C3 with

their effects.

5.2 INTERVIEWS

Interviews confirmed results from observations regarding guiding light and sequence of seeing

effects and luminaires: examinees mostly noticed light effects first and luminaires afterwards. Light

effects of luminaires W2, W4, W5 and C3 came in focus the most.

The communication between visitors and the author of the paper (acting as an employee) was

good. Visitors had little trouble understanding how a certain effect could be incorporated into their

project and it was easy to communicate about light's characteristics (glare, contrasts, intensity etc.).

There were no problems with luminaire visibility: both those in the brighter and darker atmospheres

were visible enough. Examinees hardly missed any information about effects or products.

Having two different atmospheres helped examinees' visualize luminaires and their effects in

different spaces. The effect and the atmosphere a luminaire can create, was equally well understood

in both atmospheres.

GUIDING LIGHT

Most examinees first saw projector W2's diagonal effect on the wall in the background (atmosphere

I), which drew their attention in that direction – the path on the right. Only 3 of 16 examinees took

the left path, because the bright light attracted them.

Examinees liked that they were not static while being shown different effects, nor surrounded by too

many effects, each drawing attention onto itself. They felt comfortable and capable of moving

through the space, experiencing the lighting on their own.

23

4; 23%

4; 23%

3; 18%

2; 12%

2; 12%

1; 6%1; 6%

fig.32 chosen luminaires

C3

W2

W5

C1

W1

C2

W4

Employees' behaviour was sometimes influenced by habit: some took the right path because a table,

removed for the experiment, usually blocks the left route, or noticed the existing luminaires covered

with paper first, only because they looked different than usually.

CHOICE OF LUMINAIRE

Most chosen were luminaires W2 behind the

beam, C3 on the column and W5 in the ceiling

niche.fig.32

After seeing the light effects, employees were

not surprised by the design of luminaires

creating them, because they generally knew

what to expect, clients' expectations were

generally confirmed, while professionally

unrelated examinees were sometimes

pleasantly surprised, sometimes not.

Before entering the showroom, 45% of the examinees claimed to prioritize design, 35% the price,

while only 20% the light effect.fig.33

After the tour through the showroom, 76% of luminaires were chosen for their effect, and only

24% for good design.fig.34 Clients based their choice on effect in 67% of cases and on design in 33%.

Professionally unrelated examinees based their choice on effect in 82% cases and on design in 18%.

5.3 QUESTIONNAIRES

5.3.1 QUESTIONNAIRE 'preferences'

53% of chosen luminaires did not correspond to examinees' design preferences, meaning that they

were described as bad-looking, yet chosen.fig.35

Chosen luminaires were described as good-looking by clients in only 33% of the cases and by

professionally unrelated examinees in 36%.

In two cases, a luminaire was chosen for its effect, yet rated as good-looking.

35%

45%

20%

fig.33 priorities

price design light effect

76%

24%

fig.34 choice

light effect design

35%

53%

12%

fig.35 preferences

good-looking bad-looking neutral

24

5.3.2 QUESTIONNAIRE 'atmospheres'

There were no bigger differences among groups of examinees, except for employees perceiving the

space in both atmospheres relatively compact.40

Professionally unrelated examinees had trouble

defining uniform and uneven lighting, but managed to answer properly after a brief explanation.

Each atmosphere was sometimes perceived completely natural with a feeling of connection to the

outside, while sometimes it was the opposite.

In general, bigger contrasts were perceived in brightness and color temperature and smaller ones in

disturbing-undisturbing and welcoming-unwelcoming feeling.fig.36

5.3.3 QUESTIONNAIRE 'associations'

The space of atmosphere I was associated mostly with wine cellars, bars and art galleries/museums,

while the space of atmosphere II was associated mostly with offices, schools/classrooms and

hospitals. There were no bigger differences among groups, except for employees associating the

space of atmosphere II more strongly with offices.41,fig.37

40

Results of different groups of examinees are presented in tables in the Appendix on pages 45-47. 41

Results of different groups of examinees are presented in the table in the Appendix on page 48.

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

4

hig

h-l

ow

dar

k-b

righ

t

com

pac

t-sp

acio

us

(no

) co

nn

ecti

on

to

o

uts

ide

cosy

-un

com

fort

able

(un

)dis

turb

ing

(un

)wel

com

ing

cold

-war

m

un

ifo

rm-u

nev

en

hig

h-l

ow

co

ntr

asts

nat

ura

l-ar

tifi

cial

High

Low

Average

08

0

14

5043

58

0 1

6057

40

53

33

20

62

58

34

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

clas

sro

om

gym

ho

spit

al

clo

thes

sh

op

mu

seu

m

rest

aura

nt

bar

off

ice

gro

ceri

es s

ho

p

win

e ce

llar

atmosphere I

atmosphere II

fig.36 – The table presents contrasts perceived between each feature, ranging from 1-4. The vertical red line presents

answers' range from 1-4 steps – diversity in answers. The shorter the line, the less diverse the answers. The green line

presents average answers. The lower the value, the less contrasting the two atmospheres are perceived.

fig.37 – The table represents points that each space gathered through examinees' answers.

25

6. DISCUSSION

6.1 ATMOSPHERES

The results of the QUESTIONNAIRE 'ATMOSPHERES' showed that in atmosphere I, some examinees

felt a connection to the outside and perceived the space natural, possibly because the cosy warm

lighting from below reminded them of fire.

The space of atmosphere II was perceived high and big in relation to atmosphere I, but not generally

so, since the perception of its small dimensions could not be influenced significantly.

Employees mostly perceived both atmospheres' spaces compact, perhaps due to a bias from

knowing them beforehand.

Some examinees perceived the spaces opposite than expected in terms of artificial-natural feeling

and connection to the exterior. Nevertheless, the difference in perception of these features was

significant and a contrast was perceived.

Contrasts in perception of brightness and color temperature were bigger, but of disturbing-

undisturbing and welcoming-unwelcoming smaller. The latter were never significant to the

experiment anyway, but were added in order to prevent examinees from identifying the concept and

not to influence their answers.

The results of the QUESTIONNAIRE 'ASSOCIATIONS' showed that the space of atmosphere I was

associated with dimmed spaces with high contrasts and warm color temperature, while the space of

atmosphere II was associated with bright spaces with low contrasts, neutral or cold color

temperature and good visibility.

Employees associated the space of atmosphere II more strongly with an office space, maybe because

it is their everyday work place.

6.2 GUIDING LIGHT

Upon entering the showroom, most of the examinees took the right path – which was also the

intended one – thanks to the visual reference created by luminaire W2, which prompted them to

move towards it. Thus they properly experienced the light effects first and only then discovered the

luminaires. Examinees who took the left path, did not have a chance to experience this sequence

with all luminaires.

Employees' choice of path was sometimes influenced not only by light, but also force of habit. This

might have been avoided by intensifying W2's effect, while the lighting of atmosphere II could have

been more uniform and less intense.

26

6.3 LUMINAIRES' ILLUMINATION AND PLACEMENT

Luminaires' illumination seems not to have influenced their choice greatly, since the most chosen

ones were illuminated differently: by strong direct, diffused weak or general lighting in atmosphere

II.

There was a clear correlation between concealed luminaires and attracting attention with light

effects, maybe because in these cases clients had a chance to experience the light effects isolated.

6.4 CHOICE OF LUMINAIRE

The more concealed luminaires, were also the most chosen ones, and this solely for their light

effect. The latter might be explained by the fact that their design did not steal the attention, or the

fact that their effects were stronger and more interesting might have played a role.

Since 53% of chosen luminaires did not correspond to the examinees' preferences in design, a

compromise in favor of light might have been made. However, although the experiment

successfully set focus on light effect, clients might for some reason eventually buy a luminaire more

attractive in terms of design and price. But what happens after the tour is not the focus of this paper,

which only accounts for the first visual, emotional and behavioural reaction of examinees, and

conveys a message about the product and the hierarchy: first the light that comes out of a product,

second the product itself.

Some employees claimed to prioritize light effect, yet kept searching for luminaires and examining

how they were wired, mounted etc. This might be a manifestation of their professional habits, rather

than indicating priority of design over effect.

Despite attempts to cover a wide range of products, some examinees expressed difficulties with

finding luminaires suiting their current projects' needs.

6.5 LIMITATIONS

The improvised installation might have influenced evaluations of luminaires' effects and design –

the space was not neat and clean, canvas was not absolutely smooth and white, installations were

visible etc.

In two cases where a luminaire was chosen for its effect, yet rated good-looking in the questionnaire,

results might have been compromised. It is hard to know whether a compromise really has been

made in favor of light effect, or design caused the client unconsciously to be more affectionate

about the effect. Whenever luminaires were chosen for their good design, a theoretical possibility

remains that effect plays a role, but this cannot be seen from the questionnaires.

Professionally unrelated examinees chose more luminaires than real clients, possibly because they

had no actual need for purchasing and were less preoccupied with total expenses. Therefore, even

though this group was not numerically bigger, their results were more influencing.

27

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 ATMOSPHERES

Unlike in the showrooms analyzed in sections 3.1 and 3.2, the atmospheres provided a context which

facilitated examinees' visualization of luminaires and their effects in their projects.

The two atmospheres were perceived contrasting, which might have set focus on lighting as a strong

modifier of the space, thus contributing to a better understanding of light's significance in one's

perception of it.42

7.2 GUIDING LIGHT

As predicted in section 3.3.2, examinees were guided by the light, which helped them experience the

showroom more efficiently, than in the analyzed showrooms:43 they were proceeding naturally,

instead of standing still, overwhelmed by too many options, and concentrating on effects

individually, yet feeling the atmosphere around them.

By suggesting a certain path, this tool facilitated executing the concept of presenting light effects first

and luminaires afterwards.44

7.3 LUMINAIRES' ILLUMINATION AND PLACEMENT

Different principles of luminaires' illumination proved not to influence choice of luminaire, however

concealing luminaires seemed an effective tool to shift focus from design to light effect.

7.4 CHOICE OF LUMINAIRE

Priorities before entering and after exiting the showroom changed significantly, possibly due to the

impact of the installation. Before entering the showroom, design was generally prioritized, but

afterwards the light effect.

The installation and its concepts – guiding light, two contrasting atmospheres and sequence of

revealing light effects first and luminaires afterwards – improved communication of light's

possibilities, contributed to putting more focus on the light itself and might have influenced

examinees to base their choice of luminaires more on light effect, than design.

Instead of focusing solely on light experience or product, a balance between the two was achieved

by prioritizing and showing the light effect first, and only afterwards joining it with the product,

thus offering visitors a more complete experience of the luminaire.

This is a step towards putting more focus on lighting rather than other factors, such as price or

aesthetics, which hopefully leads to creating spaces with better lighting.

42

See section 3.3.1 in this paper. 43

See sections 3.1 and 3.2 in this paper. 44

See section 3.3.2 in this paper.

28

8. REFERENCES AND LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

8.1 REFERENCES

JOURNALS

Custers et al., 2010

Custers, P.J.M.; de Kort, Y.A.W.; Ijsselsteijn, W.A.; de Kruiff, M.E. 2010. Lighting in retail

environments: Atmosphere perception in the real world. Lighting Research and Technology, vol.42,

p.331-343.

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477153510377836 [Accessed: March 2018]

Durak et al., 2007

Durak, A.; Camgöz Olguntürkb, N.; Yenerb, C.; Güvenç, D.; Ürcınara, Y. 2007. Impact of lighting

arrangements and illuminances on different impressions of a room. Science Direct – Building and

Environment, vol.42, p.3476-3482.

URL: https://ac-els-cdn-com.focus.lib.kth.se/S0360132306003830/1-s2.0-S0360132306003830-main.pdf?_tid=b6724c71-

c250-4737-9e92-1214769f9d50&acdnat=1524740402_e55236d68a3b5d148e20f691b14f9006 [Accessed: March 2018]

Houser & Tiller, 2003

Houser, K.W. ; Tiller, D.K. 2003. Measuring the subjective response to interior lighting: paired

comparisons and semantic differential scaling. Lighting Research & Technology, vol.35(3), p.183-195

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1191/1365782803li073oa [Accessed: April 2018]

Kelly, 1952

Kelly, R. 1952. Lighting as an Integral Part of Architecture. College Art Association: College Art Journal,

vol.12, no.1, p.24-30.

URL:­http://www.jstor.org.focus.lib.kth.se/stable/pdf/773361.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:a7f4e6a1aa982720e9d97fe6d4ed89

ef [Accessed: April 2018]

Loe et al., 1994

Loe, D.L; Mansfield K.P.; Rowlands E. 1944. Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in

lighting design: Experimental study. Lighting Research and Technology, vol.26, p.119-133.

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/096032719402600301 [Accessed: April 2018]

Tiller & Rea, 1992

Tiller, D.K.; Rea M.S. 1992. Semantic differential scaling: prospects in lighting research. Lighting

Research and Technology, vol.24, p.43-51.

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/096032719202400105 [Accessed: March 2018]

Veitch & Newsham, 1998

Veitch, J.A.; Newsham, G.R. 1998. Lighting Quality And Energy - Efficiency Effects On Task

Performance, Mood, Health, Satisfaction And Comfort. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering

Society, vol.27, p.107-129.

URL: https://www-tandfonline-com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1080/00994480.1998.10748216?needAccess=true

[Accessed: April 2018]

29

Vogels et al., 2017a

Vogels, I.; Stokkermans, M.; De Kort, Y.; Heynderickx, I. 2017. Relation between the perceived

atmosphere of a lit environment and perceptual attributes of light. Lighting Research & Technology.

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477153517722384 [Accessed: April 2018]

Vogels et al., 2017b Vogels, I.; Stokkermans, M.; De Kort, Y.; Heynderickx, I. 2017. A Comparison of Methodologies to

Investigate the Influence of Light on the Atmosphere of a Space. LEUKOS, p.1-25.

URL: https://www-tandfonline-com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1080/15502724.2017.1385399?needAccess=true

[Accessed: April 2018]

BOOKS

Ejhed & Liljefors, 1990

Ejhed, J.; Liljefors, A. 1990. Bättre belysning. Svensk Byggtjanst, Statens rad for byggnadsforskning,

Stockholm, Sweden, T 17.

Flick, 2011

Flick, U. 2011. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Designing Qualitative Research, p.100-108. SAGE

Publications, Ltd.

URL: http://methods.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/base/download/BookChapter/designing-qualitative-research/n10.xml

[Accessed: April 2018]

Malnar & Vodvarka, 1996

Malnar, J.M.; Vodvarka, F. 1992. The interior dimension, p.246. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Rengel, 2003

Rengel, R. 2003. Shaping Interior Space, p.43. New York, Fairchild Publications.

Schreier & Flick, 2013

Schreier, M.; Flick, U. 2013. Qualitative Content Analysis. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data

Analysis, p.170-183. SAGE Publications, Ltd.

URL: http://methods.sagepub.com.focus.lib.kth.se/base/download/BookChapter/the-sage-handbook-of-qualitative-data-

analysis/n12.xml [Accessed: April 2018]

Sully, 2015

Sully, A. 2015. Interior Design: Conceptual Basis, p.42. Springer International Publishing.

URL: https://link-springer-com.focus.lib.kth.se/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16474-8.pdf [Accessed: April 2018]

Wang & Groat , 2013

Wang, D.; Groat, L.N. 2013. Qualitative Research – 7.2.1 An Emphasis on Natural Settings.

Architectural Research Methods, p.218-219. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, Somerset.

URL: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.focus.lib.kth.se/lib/kth/reader.action?docID=1166322&ppg=230 [Accessed: April

2018]

30

WEBSITES & INTERNET SOURCES

Guide. Erco

URL: http://www.erco.com/guide/guide-6188/en/ [Accessed: March 2018]

Light for Art and Culture

Light for Art and Culture. Zumtobel

URL: https://www.zumtobel.com/PDB/teaser/EN/AWB_Kunst_und_Kultur.pdf [Accessed: March 2018]

Oxford Dictionary Online

URL: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/english [Accessed: May 2018]

The Art of Art Museum Lighting

URL: http://thelightingresource.eaton.com/features/2017/the-art-of-art-museum-lighting [Accessed: March 2018]

31

8.2 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

fig.1 – 11 Diagrams, photos and tables produced by the author of this paper.

fig.12 – 14 Photos taken from the video: http://thelightexperience.iguzzini.com/en/invisible/guided-tour

fig.15 – 37 Photos, tables, sketches, drawings and graphs produced by the author of this paper.

photos 1 – 22, page 15 – 18 taken by the author of this paper.

APPENDIX

fig.1 – 4 Drawings and tables produced by the author of this paper.

fig.5 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/lira_1.0_still.jpg

fig.6 http://catalogo.disano.it/resources/RES/f20e8577324d45db977e2a9cbd783a1a_1537w.jpg

fig.7 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/pivot_1.1_still.jpg

fig.8 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/neva_1.0_still.jpg

fig.9 http://mondoarc.designandgo.net/siteimage/scale/300/2000/390100.jpg

fig.10 https://image.architonic.com/img_pro2-4/140/9530/turis-mini-prod-01-b.jpg

fig.11 – 12 Tables produced by the author of this paper.

fig.13 http://img.archiexpo.com/images_ae/photo-g/64752-10707778.jpg

fig.14 https://www.lts-light.eu/tl_files/LTS_Licht_und_Leuchten/data/produktbilder/LK-P%20070.001_AOB_SI-

ELOX.JPG

fig.15 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/trevi_1.0_still.jpg

fig.16 http://catalogo.disano.it/resources/RES/01665d222a0100000080cdde3d2e362a_775.jpg

fig.17 – 20 Drawings and tables produced by the author of this paper.

fig.21 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/pasito_1.0_still.jpg

fig.22 https://www.lts-light.eu/tl_files/LTS_Licht_und_Leuchten/data/produktbilder/LK-P%20070.001_AOB_SI-

ELOX.JPG

fig.23 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/ello_out_1.0_famiglia.jpg

fig.24 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/neva_1.0_still.jpg

fig.25 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/lyss_mini_1.0_still_on.jpg

fig.26 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/lira_1.0_still.jpg

fig.27 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/echo_led_4.0_still.jpg

fig.28 http://mondoarc.designandgo.net/siteimage/scale/300/2000/390100.jpg

fig.28 http://img.archiexpo.com/images_ae/photo-m2/62432-11334553.jpg

fig.30 http://catalogo.disano.it/resources/RES/f20e8577324d45db977e2a9cbd783a1a_1537w.jpg

fig.31 https://www.designplan.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/4afbb12d3b56dc95c3e21af9925000b8

/image_1/cube_1.3.jpg

fig.32 http://img.archiexpo.com/images_ae/photo-g/64752-10707778.jpg

fig.33 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/akro_1.2_still.jpg

fig.34 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/trevi_1.0_still.jpg

fig.35 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/river_wall_5.0_still.jpg

fig.36 https://www.lucelight.it/media/prodotti/foto/step_outside_7.0_still.jpg

fig.37 – 46 Tables and graphs produced by the author of this paper.

32

9. APPENDIX

9.1 ANALYSIS OF THE BASEMENT SPACE

fig.1 EXISTING PLAN

32

33

fig.2 SECTIONS

a) facing North

b) facing South

34

9.2 INTERVIEWS of employees of manufacturer B and clients about the current situation

– template

employees

name, age:

occupation:

position in the company:

1. How good is the overall communication of light's possibilities between You and clients? Rate

from 1-5, where 1 is very bad and 5 is very good.

2. What are the problems in communication?

- in explaining luminaire's characteristics, talking about light level in a space, contrasts,

effects on materials, visualizing luminaire's effect in a certain space etc.?

3. What are types of clients?

4. What each type of client is most interested in when choosing a luminaire? What does one

worry about?

5. What do they base their choice on? Price, design, light effect, IP rating, maintenance etc.?

6. What does a typical tour through the showroom look like?

7. Which part of the showroom is the most interesting to clients? Why?

8. How do clients move through the space? In one way, back and forth, fast or slow, stop often?

9. What do clients pay most attention to?

clients

name, age:

occupation:

1. How good is the overall communication of light's possibilities between you and employees?

Rate from 1-5, where 1 is very bad and 5 is very good.

2. What are the problems in communication?

- in explaining luminaire's characteristics, talking about light level in a space, contrasts,

effects on materials, visualizing luminaire's effect in a certain space etc.?

3. What are you most interested in when choosing a luminaire? What do you worry about?

4. What do You base Your choice on? Price, design, light effect, IP rating, maintenance etc.?

5. Which part of the showroom is the most interesting to you? Why?

6. What do You pay most attention to?

7. How do You move through the space? In one way, back and forth, fast or slow, stop often?

8. Do You have difficulties with visualizing a luminaire in your project when in a showroom? If

yes, why?

9. Do You feel overwhelmed with luminaires and light effects around You?

10. Do You feel like there should be more luminaires in the space?

11. Do You feel like there should be less luminaires in the space?

12. How much would having the atmosphere help You visualize the luminaire's effect in your

project?

13. How satisfied are You with the experience of this showroom?

35

9.3 EXPERIMENT

9.3.1 USED LUMINAIRES

ATMOSPHERE I fig.3,4

name type CCT delivered lumen output

optics IP mounting name / brand

W1 path and step light for outdoor application

2700 K 368 lm asymmetrical 65 wall surface mounted

Lira / Luce&Light

W2 projector 2700 K 798 lm 38° 65 beam surface mounted

1538 Koala / Disano

W3 projector for outdoor applications

2700 K 294 lm 25° 65 beam surface mounted

Pivot / Luce&Light

W4 linear profile for outdoor application

2700 K 1150 lm 30° 67 floor surface mounted

Neva / Luce&Light

W5 projector for outdoor applications

2700 K 96 lm 10° x 180° 65 beam surface mounted

Lyss / Luce&Light

W6 recessed downlight for indoor applications

2700 K 295 lm diffuse 40 placed on a heater

Turis / Luce&Light

fig.3 The table describes luminaires used in atmosphere I.

1

36

photo name description – mounting, position, illumination

W1 Luminaire is placed on the wall, on the height of 40cm, hidden behind the corner, as well as behind the staircase – both in vertical and horizontal plane. This luminaire is enough illuminated by the general lighting of the atmosphere II.

W2 Luminaire is mounted on the beam and casting light on the wall 110cm away from it. It is shielded in order to be possible to create a quite clear oval effect cast on a wall further away from the luminaire. Since it is casting light further from itself, it is possible to illuminate the luminaire with a more intense and direct light, without interfering with its light effect.

W3 Luminaire is placed on the same beam, 40cm from the luminaire W2 and casting direct light towards it. It is shielded in order to direct the light only on the luminaire W2 and spill around as little of it as possible.

W4 Luminaire is concealed on the floor under a heater and is casting light upwards, grazing the wall above the heater. The luminaire's light bouncing from the heater's white and glossy surface, creates bright enough lighting conditions for the luminaire to be visible to clients. It is shielded on the outer side, until its upper edge, in order for visitors to easier imagine it is recessed in the floor.

W5 Luminaire is placed on the vertical side of the ceiling niche, at the height of 2,3m, hidden behind a beam. It is creating a narrow strip of light, cast on all four niche beams, all 180° around.

W6 Luminaire placed at the height of 90cm is illuminating the luminaire W5 with a quite diffused light, in order not to draw attention from the light effect close to the luminaire.

fig.4 The table describes luminaires used in atmosphere I.

The light in this space is less uniform, of warmer color temperature and cast on lower heights, than in

atmosphere II. The illuminance measured in the center of the space, on a height of 100cm and

pointing upwards is 15 lx.45

45

More detail on quantitative measurements in the space is given in the Appendix on page 39.

fig.5

fig.6

fig.7

fig.8

fig.9

fig.10

37

ATMOSPHERE II fig.11,12

name type CCT delivered lumen output

optics IP mounting brand

C1 line grazer for wallwashing

4000 K 3700 lm 28° 68 ceiling surface mounted

line Grazer / Grupo MCI

C2 surface mounted and pendant profile

3000 K 830 lm opal-white flush acrylic glass diffuser

40 beam surface mounted

Lichtkanal 070 / LTS

C3 linear profile for outdoor and underwater application

4000 K 504 lm 40° 68 column surface mounted

Trevi / Luce&Light

C4 surface mounted or suspended luminaire with fluorescent tubes

4000 K 3350 lm paper acting as opal diffuser

20 ceiling surface mounted

Comfort / Disano

fig.11 The table describes luminaires used in atmosphere II.

photo name description

C1 Luminaire is concealed in a niche in a wall, mounted on its horizontal upper side, washing the wall downwards with a uniform light.

C2 Luminaire is concealed behind a beam and washing the ceiling.

C3 Three identical luminaires are placed one above the other and concealed in the gap between the wall which they are illuminating and the column on which they are mounted.

C4 Four of existing luminaires are covered with white paper in order to give a more diffused light and create a general lighting for the atmosphere. Other four in the atmosphere I are turned off.

fig.12 The table describes luminaires used in atmosphere II.

The light in this space is more uniform, of colder color temperature and cast on greater heights, than

in atmosphere I. The illuminance measured in the center of this space, on a height of 100cm and

pointing upwards is 320 lx.46

46

More detail on quantitative measurements in the space is given in the Appendix on page 39.

fig.13

fig.14

fig.15

fig.16

38

9.3.2 LIGHTING LAYOUT

fig.17 CONCEPT – atmospheres and guiding light

38

39

9.3.3 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

In two halves of the basement, one with the atmosphere I and the other with the atmosphere II,

luminance and illuminance were measured, in order to have physical measurements confirming

different characters of these two spaces.47

ILLUMINANCE lux

Illuminance was measured using a luxmeter. Light level measurements are taken from positions of

light effects on surfaces, pointing towards the source of light of each luminaire. Additional

illuminance and luminance measurements were also taken on positions other than these.

LUMINANCE cd/m2

Luminance was measured with 'Aftab Luminance' application on an iPad. The results were

additionally confirmed with approximately evaluated reflectance with the help of the reflectance

scale. Since all light effects are cast on surfaces which are painted white and matte, but not

completely clean and smooth, reflectance values are estimated to be constant = 0,8.

luminaire illuminance E (lux)

reflectance ρ

luminance L (cd/m

2)

L = E · ρ / π

atmosphere I 1 (W1) 344 0,8 87,6

2 105 0,8 26,8

3 96 0,8 24,5

4 17 0,8 4,3

5 (W2) 175 0,8 44,6

6 14 0,8 3,6

7 (W4) 172 0,8 43,8

8 (W5) 289 0,8 73,6

9 23 0,8 5,6

10 15 0,8 3,8

11 11 0,8 2,8

12 87 0,8 22,2

average: 111,5 28,6

atmosphere II 13 (C1) 6520 0,8 1661,1

14 235 0,8 59,9

15 195 0,8 49,7

16 (C2) 480 0,8 122,3

17 (C4) 270 0,8 68,8

18 290 0,8 73,9

19 (C3) 6140 0,8 1564,3

20 380 0,8 96,8

average: 1813,8 462,1

Results in the tablefig.18 show that both average luminance and illuminance values in atmosphere I

are much lower than in atmosphere II. The darkest points are in the center of the space of

atmosphere I.

From questionnaires 'atmospheres' and 'associations' it is obvious that these differences were also

perceived by examinees.48

47

Positions of measurements taken are given in the plan on page 40, fig.19 in the Appendix. 48

See results of questionnaires in sections 9.3.4.8 and 9.3.4.9 in the Appendix.

fig.18

40

fig.19 LIGHTING LAYOUT – measurements

40

41

9.3.4 EVALUATION

9.3.4.1 OBSERVATIONS of examinees' behaviour and movement in the new showroom

1. Are examinees guided by the light or not? Is their movement completely opposite than

expected?

2. Are examinees observing the light effect or the luminaire first?

3. What is the sequence of elements that they observe?

4. Are they touching any luminaires, materials, surfaces etc.?

5. Are they stopping by or spending more/less time in some parts, by some effects/luminaires?

9.3.4.2 INTERVIEWS – template49

name, age:

occupation:

position in the company:50

Questions asked before entering the showroom:

1. What is usually most important to You when choosing a luminaire and what do You base

Your choice on?

2. Is it the price, design, light effect, no glare, IP rating, maintenance etc.?

Questions asked after the tour through the showroom:

3. What was the first thing You noticed when You entered the space?

4. Did You first notice luminaires or their light effects?

5. Which light effects come in focus the most?

6. Why did You take the left/right path when You entered the showroom?

7. Are physical characteristics revealed in a good way in terms of visibility?

8. Did You miss any information about any light effect or product?

9. After seeing the light effect, were Your expectations of the luminaire's physical appearance

confirmed or declined?

10. Did You get an idea of the atmosphere that a luminaire creates in the reality?

11. Did the installation help You visualize the possibilities of a certain luminaire in Your project?

12. Did You get a better understanding of light effect and the atmosphere a luminaire can create

in atmosphere I or II?

13. Was there too little or too many light effects around You?

14. Would You rather stand more still or move more and in more directions?

15. Were You comfortable with moving through the space?

16. Would You choose any luminaire for Your project? Which one?

17. At what point did You decide you want to use a certain luminaire in Your project?

18. Was it when You saw its light effect or its physical characteristics?

19. How good was the overall communication of light's possibilities between You and employees

(in this case me)? Rate from 1-5, where 1 is very bad and 5 is very good.

49

Questions in grey were not posited to employees and the director. 50

Question was posited to employees and the director only.

42

9.3.4.3 QUESTIONNAIRE 'preferences' – template51,fig.20

Rate design of luminaires depending on your personal preferences.

Circle a number which corresponds to Your opinion. 1 stands for poor design and 5 stands for

excellent design.

luminaire design luminaire design

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

51

Marks of pictures were added afterwards for this paper's purposes and knowing the sources of them.

fig.21

fig.22

fig.23

fig.24

fig.25

fig.26

fig.27

fig.28

fig.29

fig.30

fig.31

fig.32

fig.33

fig.34

fig.35

fig.36

fig.20 Questionnaire 'preferences'

43

9.3.4.4 QUESTIONNAIRE 'atmospheres' – template52,fig.37

What is Your impression of space 1/2:

Put X somewhere between two extremes according to Your impression.

high low

dark bright

compact spacious

feeling of connection to outside feeling of no connection to outside

cosy, comfortable uncomfortable

disturbing, tense undisturbing, relaxed

welcoming unwelcoming, unfriendly

cold warm

uniform uneven

high contrasts low contrasts

natural artificial

9.3.4.5 QUESTIONNAIRE 'associations' – templatefig.38

Rate how much the space 1/2 reminds You of spaces listed in the table below by circling a number:

not

at all a lot

school / classroom

1 2 3 4 5

gym

1 2 3 4 5

hospital

1 2 3 4 5

clothes shop 1 2 3 4 5

art gallery / museum

1 2 3 4 5

restaurant

1 2 3 4 5

bar

1 2 3 4 5

office

1 2 3 4 5

groceries shop

1 2 3 4 5

wine cellar

1 2 3 4 5

52 Questions about the light level (dark-bright), light distribution (uniform-uneven) and color temperature (cold-warm) are

taken from Ejhed's & Liljefors' qualitative study including seven descriptors of light experience (Ejhed & Liljefors, 1990), while questions about spaciousness (compact-spacious), tensity (tense-relaxed) and comfort (comfortable-uncomfortable) are taken from the study about lit environment appearance (Loe et al., 1994.)

fig.37 Questionnaire 'atmospheres'

fig.38 Questionnaire 'associations'

44

9.3.4.6 INTERVIEWS choice of luminaire – analysis of results

The results show that out of 17 chosen luminaires, only 4 (24%) were chosen for their design, while

13 (76%) were chosen for their light effect.53

clients (5 examinees)

others (5 examinees)

all examinees (10 examinees)

lum

inai

res:

W1 1 1 2

W2 2 2 4

W4 1 1

W5 1 2 3

C1 1 1 2

C2 1 1 2

C3 3 3

total number of chosen

luminaires:

4 67%

2 33%

9 82%

2 18%

13 76%

4 24%

light effect

design light

effect design

light effect

design

fig.39 The table presents number of chosen luminaires and reason for choosing them: their light effect or design, for two

groups of examinees. 'Others' refers to professionally unrelated examinees.

9.3.4.7 QUESTIONNAIRE 'preferences' – analysis of results

The results show that out of 17 chosen luminaires, in total 9 (53%) were rated as bad-looking, 2

(12%) as neutral and 6 (35%) as good-looking.54

clients (5 examinees)

others (5 examinees)

all examinees (10 examinees)

lum

inai

res:

W1 x x 1 1

W2 x x xx 1 3

W4 x 1

W5 x x x 2 1

C1 x x 1 1

C2 x x 1 1

C3 x xx 1 2

4 67%

0 0%

2 33%

5 46%

2 18%

)

4 36%

9 53%

2 12%

)

6 35%

good-looking neutral bad-looking good-looking neutral bad-looking good-looking neutral bad-looking

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

design rating design rating design rating

fig.40 The table presents number of chosen luminaires and their ratings, for two groups of examinees. 'Others' refers to

professionally unrelated examinees. Ratings 1-2 are counted as bad-looking, 3 as neutral and 4-5 as good-looking.

53

See more in section 'Choice of Luminaire' on page 23, 6.4 and 7.4 in this paper. 54

See more in sections 5.3.1, 6.4 and 7.4 in this paper.

45

9.3.4.8 QUESTIONNAIRE 'atmospheres' – analysis of results

First, fields were given a value 1-5, from left to right side of the tablefig.41

, in order to make the

results calculable. Results for the two atmospheres were overlapped for each examinee individually.

1 2 3 4 5

e.g., high e.g., low

Then steps between each two contrasting features were counted, for each examinee individually. For

example, if an examinee rated the space with atmosphere I as high = 2, and the space with

atmosphere II as high = 4, the steps between one's ratings would be total of 2. Minimum number of

steps is 0, if an examinee rates a feature in both equally. Maximum number of steps is 4, if an

examinee rates a feature in one atmosphere as 1 and in the other one as 5.

Steps were next added together for each group of examinees, for each feature. Eventually results of

all groups were added together, to get an overall average, for each feature.fig.42

Conclusions about a

grade of perceiving the atmospheres as contrasting were drawn out, as well as conclusions about

which features were perceived as most and least contrasting.

employees+director (6 examinees)

clients (5 examinees)

others (5 examinees) al

l

exa

min

ee

s

step

s

tota

l ste

ps

aver

age

step

(t

ota

l div

ided

by

6)

step

s

tota

l ste

ps

aver

age

step

(to

tal d

ivid

ed b

y 5

)

step

s

tota

l ste

ps

aver

age

step

(to

tal d

ivid

ed b

y 5

)

aver

age

step

high 2+2+2+2+2+2 12 2 3+2+3+1+4 13 2,6 1+2+4+1+3 11 2,2 2,3 low

dark 3+2+2+2+4+2 15 2,5 3+4+3+3+3 16 3,2 2+3+3+3+2 13 2,6 2,8 bright

compact 2+0+1+2+1+2 8 1,3 2+2+2+3+2 11 2,2 1+1+1+2+2 7 1,4 1,5 spacious

feeling of connection to outside

4+0+1+2+3+2 12 2 2+3+3+3+3 14 2,8 4+3+2+2+1 12 2,4 2,4 feeling of no

connection to outside

cosy, comfortable

2+0+2+1+0+2 7 1,2 2+3+1+0+3 9 1,8 1+1+2+2+2 8 1,6 1,5 un-

comfortable

disturbing, tense

3+0+1+1+1+2 8 1,3 2+2+2+0+2 8 1,6 1+0+1+1+2 5 1 1,3 undisturbing,

relaxed

welcoming 2+1+1+0+1+2 7 1,2 2+2+2+2+0 8 1,6 0+0+1+3+2 6 1,2 1,3 unwelcoming,

unfriendly

cold 3+3+2+2+2+2 14 2,3 4+3+3+3+2 15 3 2+3+1+4+4 14 2,8 2,7 warm

uniform 1+2+3+2+3+2 13 2,2 2+3+2+2+2 11 2,2 2+2+3+3+3 13 2,6 2,3 uneven

high contrasts

1+2+2+2+3+2 12 2 3+3+4+2+3 15 3 3+2+3+3+0 11 2,2 2,4 low

contrasts

natural 2+2+0+2+2+2 10 1,7 3+4+3+2+2 14 2,8 3+2+1+2+3 11 2,2 2,2 artificial

fig.41

fig.42

46

Tables below present contrasts perceived between each feature, ranging from 1-4. Vertical red line

presents answers' range from 1-4 steps – diversity in answers. The shorter the line, the less diverse

the answers.

Green line presents average answers. The lower the value, the less contrasting the two atmospheres

are perceived.

employees

Bigger contrasts are perceived in brightness of the space, color temperature and uniformity, while

the smaller ones are perceived in its size, coziness and disturbing-undisturbing and welcoming-

unwelcoming feeling.fig.43

fig.43 The table represents results of employees of questionnaire 'atmospheres'.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

hig

h-l

ow

dar

k-b

righ

t

com

pac

t-sp

acio

us

(no

) co

nn

ecti

on

to

th

e o

uts

ide

cosy

-un

com

fort

able

(un

)dis

turb

ing

(un

)wel

com

ing

cold

-war

m

un

ifo

rm-u

nev

en

hig

h-l

ow

co

ntr

asts

nat

ura

l-ar

tifi

cial

High

Low

Average

47

clients

Bigger contrasts are perceived in brightness of the space, color temperature, contrasts and size,

while the smaller ones are perceived in its coziness, dirsturbing-undisturbing, and welcoming-

unwelcoming feeling.fig.44

fig.44 The table represents results of clients of questionnaire 'atmospheres'.

examinees with no professional relation to lighting design

Bigger contrasts are perceived in brightness of the space, color temperature, and uniformity, while

the smaller ones are perceived in its disturbing-undisturbing and welcoming-unwelcoming

feeling.fig.45

fig.45 The table represents results of examinees with no professional relation to lighting design of questionnaire

'atmospheres'.

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

hig

h-l

ow

dar

k-b

righ

t

com

pac

t-sp

acio

us

(no

) co

nn

ecti

on

to

th

e o

uts

ide

cosy

-un

com

fort

able

(un

)dis

turb

ing

(un

)wel

com

ing

cold

-war

m

un

ifo

rm-u

nev

en

hig

h-l

ow

co

ntr

asts

nat

ura

l-ar

tifi

cial

High

Low

Average

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

hig

h-l

ow

dar

k-b

righ

t

com

pac

t-sp

acio

us

(no

) co

nn

ecti

on

to

th

e o

uts

ide

cosy

-un

com

fort

able

(un

)dis

turb

ing

(un

)wel

com

ing

cold

-war

m

un

ifo

rm-u

nev

en

hig

h-l

ow

co

ntr

asts

nat

ura

l-ar

tifi

cial

High

Low

Average

48

9.3.4.9 QUESTIONNAIRE 'associations' – analysis of results

Results were analyzed in a way that ratings of 1, were not taken into account, while ratings 2-5 were

assigned a value 1-4. Afterwards the obtained values were added and demonstrated in tables for the

space of the atmosphere I and II individually.55,fig.46

atmosphere I atmosphere II

emp

loye

es+

dir

ecto

r (6

exa

min

ees)

clie

nts

(5

exa

min

ees)

oth

ers

(5 e

xam

inee

s)

all e

xam

inee

s (1

6 e

xam

inee

s)

emp

loye

es+

dir

ecto

r (6

exa

min

ees)

clie

nts

(5

exa

min

ees)

oth

ers

(5 e

xam

inee

s)

all e

xam

inee

s (1

6 e

xam

inee

s)

school/classroom 0 0 0 0 21 17 19 57

gym 4 1 3 8 13 13 14 40

hospital 0 0 0 0 20 17 16 53

clothes shop 5 6 3 14 11 10 12 33

art gallery/museum 20 14 16 50 6 5 9 20

restaurant 16 13 14 43 1 3 2 6

bar 22 18 18 58 0 2 0 2

office 0 0 0 0 24 17 17 58

groceries shop 0 0 1 1 12 12 10 34

wine cellar 21 19 20 60 0 0 0 0

fig.46 The table represents ratings of different groups of examinees for the two halves of the basement space. 'Others'

refers to professionally unrelated examinees.

55

See more in sections 5.3.3, 6.1 and 7.1 in this paper.