Abstract
Designers have consistently employed user surveys to construct a program of what users find desirable in their built environments. In a small investigation about the work environment, it was initially speculated that utilitarian ends would dominate over aesthetic ones in a list of desirable qualities of the work environment generated by respondents. 113 participants responded to a request to list up to five things they liked about the physical environment of their work place. In grouping responses, a new category of information became imminent: non- work-utilitarian ends. In a z-test of proportion, initial hypothesis about dominance of utilitarian ends was not supported. Of greater interest, however, was the relative prominence of the non-work-utilitarian category. A binomial test found that the number of responses indicating that category was not due to random occurrence (p < .001). The discovered lesson is that building designers may wish to re-evaluate this phenomenon that is meaningful to users in conceptualizing the physical environment of work.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/nordes.2005.076
Citation
Stephen, A.(2005) Grounded Information for Responsive Designing: An Example of the Physical Environment of Work, in Binder, T., Redström, J. (eds.), Nordes 2005: In the making, 29-31 May, Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Copenhagen, Denmark. https://doi.org/10.21606/nordes.2005.076
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Grounded Information for Responsive Designing: An Example of the Physical Environment of Work
Designers have consistently employed user surveys to construct a program of what users find desirable in their built environments. In a small investigation about the work environment, it was initially speculated that utilitarian ends would dominate over aesthetic ones in a list of desirable qualities of the work environment generated by respondents. 113 participants responded to a request to list up to five things they liked about the physical environment of their work place. In grouping responses, a new category of information became imminent: non- work-utilitarian ends. In a z-test of proportion, initial hypothesis about dominance of utilitarian ends was not supported. Of greater interest, however, was the relative prominence of the non-work-utilitarian category. A binomial test found that the number of responses indicating that category was not due to random occurrence (p < .001). The discovered lesson is that building designers may wish to re-evaluate this phenomenon that is meaningful to users in conceptualizing the physical environment of work.