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.