VISUAL QUALITY BY DESIGN by Jack L.

Nassar
VISUAL QUALITY
BY DESIGN
A Professional Paper Sponsored by
American Society of Interior Designers
Haworth, Inc.

Haworth, Inc.
One Haworth Center, Holland, MI 49423
www.haworth.com

All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof,

may not be reproduced in any form without written
permission from the sponsors or author.

Printed in the United States of America

Written by Jack L. Nasar, Ph.D.

FORWARD

As an architecture student, I learned that the visual quality of a

space mattered. The perceived meanings of and preferences for
environments have great importance, often affecting function.
I have experienced, first-hand, the negative psychological effects
of public housing designed to be vandal proof, but stigmatized as
the projects by occupants and others. For more than 30 years,
I have maintained an interest in understanding and measuring the
non-verbal meanings conveyed by places, writing a dissertation
on it, and conducting hundreds of interviews, observing patterns
of use, programming facilities, and conducting post-occupancy
evaluations. Doing this scientific research for a host of different
kinds of places, with various methods, in different cities and
countries and with diverse populations, I have found certain
enduring and consistent patterns of response to places.

Still, important questions remain for design, including: Jack L. Nasar

The underlying causes for some responses

The factors affecting meaning
The specific, physical definition of factors that affect peoples
perception of visual quality
The visual quality elements that have the most benefit for
occupants and function

Solid scientific studies continue to address these and other questions.

The material that follows is derived from this scientific research. New
technologies and approaches to simulation through virtual reality
and neuroscience have allowed controlled exploration of
the psycho-physiological experience of moving through space.
High quality occupant evaluations of meanings can help answer
the second, third, and fourth questions. Research has shown that
perceived visual quality has powerful effects. Future studies more
fully describe specific benefits for different types of interior designs,
but theory and scientific evidence already indicate that good design
is good business. I would like to thank Sally Augustin, Heidi Quellet,
Jeff Reuschel, Melisa Sorenson and many others from Haworths
research and marketing departments who provided document
support for editing and graphic designing this paper.

Jack L. Nasar (Ph.D., FAICP), The Ohio State University

CONTENTS

4 CH. 1: CONTEXT FOR

VISUAL QUALITY

14 CH. 2: HUMAN AND

ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSIONS

20 CH. 3: PERCEIVED VISUAL QUALITY

26 CH. 4: FEELINGS IN A PLACE AND

THOUGHTS ABOUT A PLACE

30 CH. 5: INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP

DIFFERENCES AND CONCERNS

32 CH. 6: THE FUTURE IN VISUAL

QUALITY RESEARCH
AND DESIGN

34 APPENDIX: PLANNING AND

EVALUATING VISUAL QUALITY:
LESSONS LEARNED

40 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Figure 1a

CH. 1

CONTEXT FOR
VISUAL QUALITY
Imagine walking into two
unfamiliar offices (Figures 1a
and 1b). The first office has
rows of look-alike gray cubicles
lined up one after the other.
The second one also has multiple
rows, but it offers some focal
point objects, and an ordered
variety in materials, lighting,
height, and views into other
parts of the space. Scientific
research indicates that people
would evaluate the first one
(Figure 1a) as less pleasant
Figures 1a and 1b:
than the second (Figure 1b), Scientific research indicates
that people would judge
and they might avoid or leave the interior on the right (b)
it more quickly. The second as more attractive than the
interior on the left (a).
office creates a pleasant
impression. In both offices,
environmental cues, many
of which escape conscious
notice, shape human feelings, Figure 2a

thoughts and behavior.

4
Figure 1b

Figures 2a and 2b: The two

restaurant interiors convey Visual quality has important impacts on
different meanings about the human experience, impacts that can affect
likely interior milieu, service, worker productivity, consumer behavior,
expense and quality of food. and the bottom line.

Interior environments convey an ambiance

that evokes consistent feelings and interpre-
tations from people. Research shows
that individuals evaluate spaces for their
pleasantness as well as their calming and
exciting qualities. We also make inferences
Figure 2b about qualities such as prestige, status,
character, safety, and friendliness based
on the environments we encounter.

* Please refer to the bibliography for the published

research mentioned in the monograph.

5
Humans have an invisible mental map for
environmental features that shape their
behavior. For instance, potential customers
who enter an unfamiliar restaurant make
judgments from its appearance about its
prices, food quality, and service (Figures
2a and 2b). Large and bright letters on
exterior signs suggest lower prices and
poor quality and service than do smaller,
less obtrusive lettering. On the exterior,
brighter colors and lighting suggest lower
prices and poorer food quality and service
than do softer surfaces, darker colors, and
lower-level lighting (Figures 3a and3 b).
These judgments are rooted in the customers
past experiences, and, whether they are
accurate or not for a specific instance, they
do influence behavior.
6
Interiors can have value as a source
of delight. Successful designs convey
desired meanings to occupants and
visitors. Designs that do this can add
value for the client, occupant and visitors.
Thus, a design should reflect a visual
plan or a set of principles that guide
visual form. To create such a plan, we
need to know how people evaluate
the environment and what meanings
they see in it.
There are two approaches to creating such
a plan. The first method relies on a designers
experience and insight, while the other
relies on scientific inquiry. The first method,
relying on designers experience, works
from the top down; the second, relying on
scientific inquiry, works from the bottom
6

Figure 3a
up. Both use a creative process that
generates ideas, presents them, and
tests them. Each has unique flaws
and strengths that can complement
one another.
The designer brings a history of project-
specific knowledge to new projects; the
scientist brings principles from con-
trolled studies. The designer may have
unintentional biases, which the scientific
approach can eliminate. However,
principles from controlled scientific
studies may not apply directly to every
specific, real design context. Good
design and design research recognize
and use the best of both approaches.
This paper presents best practices and
scientific findings that designers can add
to their own experiential knowledge to
create more successful designs.
Through experience, interior designers
develop intuitive ideas about visual
quality. They are trained to understand
the impact of a space based on the
aesthetics and feelings a space evokes.
Their instinctual reactions are centered
on visual quality attributes such as the
color, context, scale, spatial balance and
complexity of a space. Social scientists,
on the other hand, develop ideas about
visual quality through the systematic
study of environmental preferences
and meanings, sometimes in relation to
the same attributes that guide designer
instinctual reactions. The advance of
knowledge regarding visual quality
depends on both approaches. Social
scientists can use designers ideas as
hypotheses for testing, and interior
designers can use the scientific findings
as design hypotheses to implement and
test. They can also use a combination of
both scientific and intuitive knowledge
to shape a spaces visual quality to
achieve client and user goals.
Although research and occupant
evaluations will continue to advance
our understanding of environmental
meanings, we already have a substantial
knowledge base. The rest of the paper
discusses: 1) the science of studying
visual quality and environmental
meanings; 2) design meanings; 3)
whether meaning matters; 4) how
meaning influences us; and 5) guide-
lines for improving the visual quality
of spaces.
7
Figure 3b
IN OUR MINDS OR THE ENVIRONMENT
Before considering the scientific approach,
consider this question: where do prefe-
ences and meanings lie in our minds
or in the environment? If in our minds,
environmental preferences are highly
variable, only a matter of taste, and designers
would have no guidelines to achieve
desired responses. If preferences and
meanings arise from the environment,
humans would have some consistent
patterns of response, and designers
could use them as a basis for design.
Many people believe visual quality cannot
be studied scientifically because preferences
(aesthetics) are qualitative and subjective.
More than 30 years of research contradict
the view that preferences are trivial and
variable. Although environmental prefer-
ences and meanings vary from individual
to individual, it is possible to make some
generalizations about how humans respond
to environments. These generalizations
bring order to apparent variability by high-
lighting areas of agreement universal
principles. Individuals may not agree
completely on their responses to an
environment, but there is enough overlap
between people to make some generaliza-
tions about responses. Just as we weigh
objects, we can measure shared preferences
and meanings. Any given design will vary in
8

its likelihood of evoking a desired meaning
among the people who experience it,
but certain design features will generally
evoke desired responses. Using this infor-
mation about general responses, designers
can help advance their clients goals.
Consider this example: A client wanted
to know how to improve a places
appearance, so the planner conducted
a pre-occupancy (or pre-design) evalu-
ation that systematically manipulated
two different design elements: contrast
(the degree of contrast in color, size, and
brightness of the design elements relative
to the background), and variety (the
number of elements in the environment).
This yielded nine environments with
mixed low, medium, or high contrasts,
with a low, medium, or high variety. User
ratings of these environments showed
that people preferred and felt most calm
with the environment having a mix of low
contrast and moderate to high variety.
Users also said they wanted to visit
those environments more often than the
others. The high contrast and high variety
environment was judged as most exciting.
Based on the clients goals a pleasant
and attractive environment the results
suggested that the design should have
low contrast elements with moderate
variety. Had the client wanted an exciting
place, the results would have called for
higher contrast and variety. Specific
designs can be tested after completion
of the design phase but before imple-
mentation for the meanings to be
conveyed to occupants. Client objectives
are paramount in the design of a space;
space plans must have a design character
that aligns with client goals for staff
and customer experiences.
PLACES CONVEY MEANINGS
The places where we want to spend
time are the ones we think we would
enjoy. They are appealing places that
invite us in. Think of the Taj Majal and
the Sydney Opera House. People pay
money and travel long distances to
visit places like these because they
look so attractive. Their images are
even used to promote tourism. But
people also seek out places that are
exciting. Consider amusement parks,
gambling casinos in Las Vegas, Times
Square in New York, and the Shinjuku
district in Tokyo, all of which offer an
exciting mix. They feel pleasant and
energizing. These places keep excite-
ment up and visitors involved in what
is going on around them.
In contrast, other places can be
boring. Imagine a work area that is a
sea of sameness: a beige-on-beige
field of cubicles stretching to the
horizon, a stereotypical institutional
space, or a hospital corridor. Such
spaces feel boring; they are unpleasant
and unarousing. People avoid them.
However, not all low arousal places are
bad. Pleasantly unarousing places can
be desirable because of their calming
qualities. Plants and running water in
a hotel atrium can be calming and slow
us down in a pleasant way. So does a
healing garden in a hospital or a fish
tank in a dentists office.
And while calming places attract
humans, their opposites distressing
places drive people away. Think of a
dark, unfamiliar place with mysterious,
haunting sounds, or a confusing place
with sharp angular shapes and you
have conjured up a distressing place.
A control room with blaring sirens and
flashing lights is also distressing.
Places can also convey a different kind
of meaning which carries different
emotional responses. For example, a
space can tell us about the status of its
owner. When we are gauging the status
of the person who occupies a space, we
may think about its size, location (is it a
prime corner space?), and furnishings
(are the door handles aluminum or
9
brass or are there even doors?)
Furnishings and arrangements can also
communicate a message about the
occupants friendliness. Depending on
the places intended function, the cues
to meanings, such as status or friendli-
ness, may create a desirable or undesirable
emotional environment for visitors.
Spaces should convey meaning
appropriate to their function. We have
subconscious rules for the messages
that we expect many types of spaces
to convey. We might find it unnerving
to visit a doctor or a lawyer whose
workspace indicates that he or she is
not successful. These professionals can
influence our lives in profound ways;
thus, we want to be treated by a doctor
who seems successful and competent
(think diplomas on walls). We want a
bank to tell us through its space that
it has security, integrity, and stability,
but also that it is not squandering
our money. Offices of design firms
should look both creative and usable.
Communicating low status is not
always bad. A student workspace or
drop-in community center may have
a bohemian feel, for example.
Our inferences about meaning
influence our behavior. People reveal
their personalities and other information
about themselves in their places, and
we respond accordingly. If someone
arranges their office furniture in an
open, inviting way, we will likely behave
as if they are friendly. Offices are
more welcoming when the furniture is
arranged so that the owner faces the
entrance to the space and when the
space has few, if any, barriers between
the owner and guests. We may also
behave in particular ways when people
seem conscientious because their
office is neater. People who communicate
security through their office design
might also be communicating unfriendli-
ness, but that depends on the specific
purpose of the space. Either way, we
will behave in a way that feels consistent
with the environmental information
presented.
 Figure 4a

DOES APPEARANCE MATTER?

When assessing environments, humans
judge visual quality before anything
else in the physical environment. This
is why curb appeal is so important
in home sales. Many researchers have
asked people what led them to buy
their house, or what they like about
their house or neighborhood. The
most frequently cited reason for
choosing a particular house or neigh-
borhood is the appearance of the
home or neighborhood i.e., its
aesthetics.

An applied example: a post-occupancy

evaluation conducted on low cost,
self-built homes. The homes were built
in a high crime area with a climate that
varied from freezing cold to sweltering
hot. They had no insulation and no
locks on doors or windows. Under
those conditions, what did most
residents report as the first change
or addition they implemented? They
personalized their home by painting
the exterior.

Appearances matter. Appearance is

not separate from function. Perceived
visual quality can have direct effects
on functionality. Physical appearance
incompatible with expectations can
lead people to avoid a place.

Figure 4a and 4b: An unwelcoming entrance can keep visitors away.

10
 Figure 4b

11
MEANINGS AFFECT FUNCTION
Humans have stereotypes about physical
appearance that influence behavior.
Stereotyping may not be admirable,
but humans do it. Walking on a red
carpet, such as at the Academy Awards,
communicates a special status. People
are more likely to follow a person
dressed in a suit crossing a street
against a traffic light than someone
dressed more casually. Similarly,
the perceived visual quality of an
environment can have direct effects
on human behavior.
Consider a post-occupancy evaluation
on a new center for the visual arts on a
university campus. The university hoped
the center would attract students inside
to experience the arts. A research team
observed how visitors used the space in
and around the center, and conducted
interviews with occupants, passersby,
and others in the campus community.
The observations and staff counts of
visitors revealed that few students
entered the facility.
When asked about their impressions
of the facility, many students said they
avoided it and had never gone inside.
When asked why, their primary reason
had to do with their feeling that the
staff was snobbish. Without ever
entering the building, the students
made negative assumptions based
on the non-verbal message that the
exterior, with its chaotic angles and
industrial materials, communicated
to them. The buildings appearance
worked against its intended function.
The entrance could have been designed
to look less like a service entry and
more like a welcoming front entrance
that stood out from its surroundings
and had a prominent sign or banner.
Meanings affect the function of all
kinds of places. Chain restaurants have
created loyal customers by building
reputations for consistent quality of
foods and services. Their exterior and
interior appearances (though some-
times adapted to a local context) convey
this consistency. Thus, many customers
are more comfortable anticipating a
fast food meal at a Wendys or McDonalds
than at an unfamiliar local restaurant.
Boutiques in department stores also
try to communicate the status and
likely cost of their merchandise through
symbolic cues, such as the finishes
on materials, lighting, spaciousness,
spatial organization and the amount
of merchandise on display. Intentionally
or not, offices may convey status,
friendliness or other messages to
potential users. Through design, places
can become more sociable. We like
places that offer lots of sittable surfaces
and movable chairs that offer choice
and views of people passing by. Its
great if the space also has vegetation,
a water feature, and food. In each
case, symbolic cues affect peoples
perceptions and behavior.
12
Appearance is important, and the fact
that different people have a similar
response to the way places look makes
sense. Human survival depended on our
predecessors ability to gauge benefits
and threats to their well-being. People
who did not avoid dangerous areas
or situations did not survive. We are
hardwired to evaluate places.
Scientists have discovered that humans
have many shared characteristics. Spaces
are channels for non-verbal communica-
tion, and design affects the non-verbal
messages communicated. Humans share
certain perceptions and evaluations of
attributes of the physical environment.
For example, humans use similar envi-
ronmental cues (size, darkness, overlap)
to judge distances. Babies avoid and
fear a visual cliff, and most humans have
an innate fear of snakes. In addition,
humans read status in such nonverbal
cues as size, location, and quality of
materials. Large spaces, corner places (at
a distance from the entrance), and higher
quality materials (such as hardwood or
marble) convey power and higher status.
Environmental evaluations are not
primarily subjective, qualitative, or a
matter of taste. To better understand
this, consider a statistical concept used to
gauge the impact of a design change.
Picture an empty office. If you put a
pebble in the office, it might affect human
response to that space, but the effect
would be trivial. If you added a waterfall
to that same office, it would have a large
effect on human response. So the impact
of a change can vary from trivial (pebble)
to large (waterfall). It would be a waste
of time to base a design on factors with
trivial effects. This does not imply we
should ignore details. Rather, for details,
large elements, and the overall design, it
suggests that we should focus on those
factors that make a difference. But what
does this have to do with the nature of
environmental preferences and meanings?
Hundreds of studies on environmental
response have shown that the size of
the effect of individual differences in
environmental preferences are minuscule
compared to the size of the effect
related to physical features. This means
the characteristics of the design matter
much more than differences in individual
preferences among those experiencing
it. Although it may seem counter-
intuitive, environmental meaning rests
in the environment, not in our minds.
Designers who know the shared meanings
of environmental characteristics can use
them to craft guidelines and designs that
convey a desired meaning.

THE WISDOM OF CROWDS

On what basis do we develop guidelines
for design meanings? Ultimately, this
question comes down to values. What
values should serve as the basis for creating
or modifying places? Design values can
be characterized by opposing adjectives,
such as: idealistic vs. pragmatic, artistic
vs. functionalist, formal vs. informal, and
exclusive vs. inclusive.
Although designers consider cost, materials,
and function, decisions related to appear-
ance revolve around whose values to heed
or to what extent the design should reflect
user versus designer values. For most
interiors, democratic values bottom-up,
inclusive, human-oriented should get
more emphasis. Without neglecting craft,
a successful design must work for and
satisfy the users. It must not only meet
technical and functional requirements,
it must have compositional and aesthetic
appeal. Some people reject research on
user reactions, saying it only uncovers
popular norms which change over time,
but that view assumes designer norms
are better and less malleable than
popular norms.
Scientific research cannot supply
appropriate values, but it can offer some
guidance. Two sets of findings argue for
the importance of integrating popular
assessments of environments into design.
First, scientific research consistently finds
major differences between designer and
popular design preferences. The two
groups look at the world differently,
use different criteria in evaluating the
appearance of places, and respond to
the same places differently. Research also
shows that popular preferences have
remarkable stability over time. Designers
do not lead popular taste; the public does.
Second, research on the wisdom of
crowds suggests that the judgments of a
large number of independent observers
who can freely voice their opinions are,
generally speaking, closer to the opinions
voiced by the ultimate users of the space
than are the judgments of a few experts.
This, too, points to the value of tapping
the views of large numbers of users, which
is what design researchers have done.

13
CH. 2

HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSIONS

To understand environmental meanings, we need knowledge of the human perceptual,
cognitive, and evaluation processes. Figure 6 illustrates how environmental factors
lead to environmental appraisals and behavior. At the top, Observer refers to how the
viewers feel (such as happy or sad), their previous experiences, and their purpose.
These states are independent of the characteristics of the environment. Two individuals
may experience the same sunny office differently, because one feels happy while the
other feels sad when they enter the office. Their feelings may have nothing to do
with the office space. A person could feel sad due to clinical depression or the loss
of a loved one. Human purposes also vary in ways that influence judgments of places.

Interior Features

For example, through experience, an
environmentalist and a logger would have
different attitudes toward a hardwood tree;
and commuters rushing to work would
notice less of their surroundings than
would a tourist exploring the same place.
Thus, a variety of personal factors can affect
human responses to the environment.
To the left and below Observer in Figure 6
is Interior Features. This refers to physical
characteristics of spaces, such as size,
shape, height, order and legibility, which
designers can manipulate.
The combination of the observers
emotional state and the physical features
results in Perception, which refers to those
existing features the individual (in his or
her state) will likely perceive. Perceptions
have a likelihood associated with them.
Visualize three interior spaces with
different ceiling heights: 8 feet, 8.5 feet,
and 20 feet high. People would more
likely perceive the 20 foot high interior as preference). In combination with thoughts,
taller, and they would less likely notice the Emotional Appraisals yield higher order
difference between the other two spaces. reflective thoughts (Cognitive Appraisals,
such as judgments about the likely
Human perceptions are also limited; we friendliness of the occupant); and the two
cannot see things that some birds see, kinds of appraisals can affect behavior
nor hear or smell as keenly as a canine. Of (such as whether one approaches, avoids,
the sensory experiences we can perceive, spends time, lingers or spends money).
certain attributes catch our attention more Thus, human behavior within interior
than others. Here, individual differences spaces differs based on visceral reactions
play a role. For example, children, adults, and reflective thought. Those reactions and
and the elderly will differ in their ability to thoughts vary with the physical features
sense their surroundings. of a place.
What individuals perceive, in turn, can
influence their thoughts (Cognition) about
the interior. For example, people recognize
an interior function (such as a law office,
architects office, or dance studio) and draw
inferences about what takes place there.
Perceptions of the features of form (such
as its height, depth, illumination, color
and order) evoke visceral feelings about
the place (Emotional Appraisals, such as

14
 Figure 6

Observer

Perception Cognition

Emotional Cognitive
Appraisals Appraisals

Behavior

15
 Arousing
(Aroused)
Distressing Exciting
(Tense) (Excited)

Unpleasant Pleasant
(Annoyed) (Pleased)

Gloomy Calming
(Bored) (Relaxed)
Unarousing
(Sleepy) Figure 8a Figure 8b

Figure 7: Circular structure of Emotional Appraisals, clockwise from the top:
Arousing, Exciting, Pleasant, and Calming. The diagonal axes of Excitement
and Calming are mixes of the horizontal and vertical axes, Pleasantness and
Arousing. Exciting places feel more pleasant and arousing than boring ones;
calming places feel more pleasant but less arousing than distressed ones.
Figures 8a and 8b: Through thought, we recognize
each object as a chair, but we also draw inferences
(Cognitive Appraisals) about such qualities as their
relative comfort, durability, expense, and the kind
of person who owns it.

HUMAN RESPONSES TO SPACES

Since environment can affect behavior, Humans have four levels of response to calmness, while a noisy, brightly lit,
it makes sense for designers to focus an interior: hard-surfaced interior should evoke
on 1) the major human responses to excitement. Each of those feelings is a
environments; and 2) the attributes of Feelings about it feeling in the interior. As the examples
the environment that people notice. Feelings in it suggest, feelings about or in a space
Thoughts about it involve more than preference.
Human responses refers to the ways
Behavior
people respond to their physical Rigorous scientific investigations have
surroundings. While these responses Feelings about it involve personal judg- identified four key dimensions of human
refer to the environment, they come ments about an interior. Looking at an feelings about (and in) their surroundings:
from the individual. interior, a person might like or dislike the
Attributes of the environment refers space, judge it as friendly or unfriendly, Pleasantness (pleasure)
to physical properties of the environment or judge it as safe or unsafe, or as exciting Arousing (arousal)
(such as height, width, color, shape) or dull. Feelings which refer to the interior Exciting (excited)
rather than the individuals reactions. are feelings about the interior. Calming (calm)

For example: if scientific studies found
1) that pleasantness dominated human
response and that perceived power
was relatively unimportant, and 2) that
humans noticed variations in enclosure
more than variations in color saturation,
then it would make sense for researchers to
study effects of enclosure on pleasantness.
It would also make sense for designers to
use these findings to create interiors that
appear pleasant.
Feelings in it are also feelings, but they
do not refer to the interior. They are
an internal mood state related to the
environment. For example, in one interior,
a female complained that a hidden alcove,
which she had to pass by after dark,
scared her. Her reaction is a feeling in
that interior. Her feeling in the interior
led to a feeling about it. She disliked it.
Different designs can lead people to feel
calm, pleased, excited, aroused, or fearful.
A quiet, dimly lit, soft-surfaced interior
with a fish tank will evoke feelings of
Figure 7 shows the circular ordering
of these feelings. The diagonal axis of
Excitement and Calming are mixes
of the horizontal and vertical axes,
Pleasantness and Arousing. Exciting
places feel more pleasant and more
arousing than boring ones, and calming
places feel more pleasant but less
arousing than distressing ones.

16
 Figure 9a

Thoughts about a space involve inferences

about what the place is and the qualities
of the place. Consider two chairs (shown
in Figures 8a and b). Thoughts involve
recognition of objects as chairs, but
thoughts also involve inferences about
the objects: Is one chair likely to be more
comfortable, durable, inviting, or expensive
than the other? What kind of person
would likely own each chair?

Behavior refers to activities in relation to

the place. A pleasing interior that conveys
positive meanings would attract people
to visit and spend time, whereas an
unpleasant one that conveys negative Figure 9b
meanings would lead them to either Figures 9a and 9b:
avoid it or leave quickly. Visual quality should be
compatible with the
Success in achieving design objectives function. For a gambling
depends on different visual quality goals casino or trading floor, an
related to the activities and function of exciting interior is best. For
the space. Some places need to look a dentists office, a calming
appealing; others exciting or calming. interior suits its purpose.
Some need to appear unpleasant, boring,
or distressing. For example, a gambling
casino or trading floor should probably
have an exciting interior, whereas a
calming interior best suits a dentists office
(Figures 9a and b). To reduce lingering,
we could create a narrow, uncomfortable,
and generally unpleasant interior. To
encourage social interaction, we could size
an interior for interaction at comfortable
social distances and provide pleasant
surroundings. Some tasks, such as concen-
tration or confidential discussions, require
privacy; others, such as collaborative work,
require more open, connected spaces.
Creative thinking benefits from an exciting
and pleasant environment. In sum, the
emotional climate should vary to fit the
activity goals.

17
 Figure 10a

Figure 10b

PROMINENT PERCEPTUAL FEATURES

OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Naturalness appears unified and is perceived as orderly;
Understanding feelings, thoughts, and
Openness whereas, one that lacks organizational
behavior is not enough. We also need to
know which visual attributes stand out Upkeep structure looks chaotic (Figures 10a and
in human perception. Humans are visual Novelty (and style) 10b). What makes an interior appear
animals. Visual quality dominates our orderly? Studies suggest that features
Complexity (also described as diversity, such as repeated elements, uniformity
response to a place; prominent visual
variety, and visual richness) refers to of texture, rhythm, distinctive design
attributes affect both perceived interior
the number and variability of visual elements, low contrast between elements
quality and functionality. Studies to
elements in a place. The more variable the or between objects and their context
derive those important visual attributes
elements, the more complex an interior (in color, size, texture, and shape), and a
have used a variety of methods, from
appears. Variations in materials, height, focal point enhance order. Lighting can
analyzing open-ended reports of peoples
color, shape, size, and layout of elements, also have an effect on perceived order.
likes and dislikes in various environments
and the presence of ornamentation can Research indicates that bright, peripheral,
and the reasons for those preferences, to
all add to perceived complexity. Complexity and uniform lighting increases the
sophisticated quantitative projects that
is among the most studied concepts in perceived clarity of an interior.
use multivariate statistics to derive salient
psychology. People who think about
visual attributes without asking people
visual quality may think of it in terms of Naturalness refers to the perceived
directly about them.
lines, dots, and art, but acousticians think naturalness of an environment. Adding
There are six key visual attributes in about complexity as well, as do writers, plants and water to a space can increase
human perception: among others. an interiors perceived naturalness. Natu-
ralness may be important to perception
Complexity Order relates to perceived structure of because of its connection to human
the complexity. A well-organized interior evolution and survival. A sprinkling of
Order

18

trees near water signaled, to our primitive
ancestors, protection and food. Vegetation,
water elements, curvilinear forms,
smoother textures, edges, and transitions
are found more often in nature than built
environments. Nature also tends to have
fractal-like forms that repeat at various
scales within the same object. For
example, ferns and seashells are made
up of units with the same fundamental
shapes in several size progressions.
Openness and changes in enclosure
are noticed by people (Figures 11a and
11b). Enclosure has to do with both the
area of an interior space and the height
and permeability of the barriers around
it. Permeability refers to the ability to
see through a wall via open spaces in it.
Perceived enclosure relates more to the
character of the vertical edge of a space
than to the area of the space. Increasing
the height or decreasing the permeability
of the edge-defining elements of a space
Figure 11a Figure 11b
increases perceived enclosure more than
increasing the area of a space. This can
serve as a useful manipulation for clients
paying cost per square foot. In terms that from the expected produce increases in
our primitive ancestors on the savanna uncertainty and arousal that attract human
would understand: we want to see whats attention. An individuals experience of a
approaching, and, if its dangerous, be able particular environment depends on his
to run away. We want a barrier between us or her past experience and memory. Past
and danger. experience and memory lead us to classify
objects (such as chairs, bookshelves, desks,
Lighting can also affect perceived enclosure.
or offices) in terms of how well they fit our
A study that tested responses to three
conception of a good (typical) example of
qualities of interior lighting uniform
that class of objects. Thus, an office interior
versus non-uniform, overhead versus
can vary from appearing typical to novel.
peripheral, and bright versus dim found
that uniform, bright, and peripheral lighting Style relates to novelty. Some design
increased perceived spaciousness. That styles can seem more typical than others.
is, to increase perceived enclosure, use Through experience, individuals recognize
non-uniform, dim, and overhead lighting. various residential home interior styles
Variation in enclosure has a big influence such as colonial, Tudor, or modern
on perception because it changes both and they experience their level of novelty.
what humans can see and predict in the Faced with complex information from the
environment, and the ease with which environment, humans developed quick
they can move through it. shorthand ways to simplify, organize and
process that information to act on it. Style
Upkeep refers to the quality of a place, and
and novelty is one such shorthand. Recog-
strongly relates to the quality of materials.
nizing style and novelty of a place brings
Unlike poorly kept places, well-kept places
inferences related to previous experience
have few signs of disorder or decay. For a
with other places in the same category.
positive upkeep score, a place should be
built to last with care, using high-quality
craft processes and materials. Once built,
it should be easy to maintain. Attention
to unseen details can also enhance the
perceived upkeep.
Novelty refers to a perceived discrepancy
from the expected. Increases in discrepancy
19
CH. 3
PERCEIVED VISUAL QUALITY
Now lets consider the links
between the prominent
environmental attributes and
human feelings. The following
discussion focuses on
environmental preferences,
occasionally touching on
what makes places exciting
or calming. Chapter 4
explores methods of
programming emotional
appraisals and meanings.
COMPLEXITY AND ORDER
In theory, complexity increases uncertainty
and arousal and involves people; order
helps reduce the uncertainty and arousal,
and helps people make sense of their
environment. Too much complexity would
create too much uncertainty and arousal,
overloading people. Most people prefer
moderate complexity or a mix of complexity
with order. Complexity and order are
linked to attention and interest.
Research, using a range of different
methods to study a variety of environ-
ments, consistently found preference
associated with order and related ordering
variables (coherence, fittingness, congruity,
organization, legibility, and clarity). In
one study, after individuals rated their
preference for each of 40 places, multi-
variate analyses determined preference
increased with order. Perceived order
affects judgments of the person in the
office. People judge the occupant of an
orderly office as more organized than
the occupant of a disorderly one.
Interest and excitement increases with
environmental complexity. As for prefer-
ence, the results are more complicated.
People prefer moderate complexity to
either low complexity or high complex-
ity and disorder. Excitement rises with
increases in complexity and decreases in
order. Thus, people see places with high
complexity and low order as most exciting,
and places with low complexity and high
order as least exciting. Preference increases
with order and peaks for the mix of moder-
ate to high complexity with high order.
Behavior likely follows preference. One
study showed participants nine environ-
ments that varied in order and complexity
and asked them which ones they would
most like to visit and spend time in. The
participants reported a preference for envi-
ronments with high order and moderate to
high complexity, the same environments
that people judge as most pleasant.
20
21
Figure 12a

NATURALNESS
Early humans probable preferences for
trees, shrubs, and water are still reflected
in the place-preferences of present day
people. Humans generally prefer places
that have more natural than human
influences on them. Naturalness also has
an overlap with complexity and order:
Areas high in naturalness tend to have
the desirable mix of order and complexity
in their smooth transitions and fractal-
like forms.

Preference for nature is one of the

strongest findings in research on
environmental perception. However,
the preference depends on human
perception of naturalness. Individuals
may like a plastic plant or flower viewed
from a distance, but if they get close
enough to discover that it is artificial,
that preference will turn to distaste.

People prefer spaces perceived as natural

over those perceived as built-up (Figures
12a and 12b). When people view and rate
environments with varied amounts of
natural elements, they prefer the ones
with more natural elements. They also
like spaces with vegetation, water, and
views of natural elements. Adding nature
to an office will enhance its perceived
visual quality. Yet, people also enjoy views
of city skylines and bridges, after dark, with
the lights of cars moving intermittently
through the scene. These scenes have
many features of naturalness. Designs
that capture those features may also
receive favorable evaluations.

22
 Figure 12b

The preference for naturalness can affect

spatial behavior. Research found that
commuters chose to drive out of their way
to use a scenic parkway even though they
knew a less-natural expressway was faster.
The experience of nature also has calming
and restorative effects. In the first of many
studies to demonstrate this effect, surgical
patients with a window view of deciduous
trees were found to have faster post-
operative recovery, fewer negative
evaluations by nurses, and fewer required
doses of narcotic painkillers than patients
with a view of a brick wall. Exposure to
nature increases frustration tolerance and
speeds physiological recovery when
compared to exposure to built-up scenes.
Walks or drives through nature are more
restorative than walks or drives through
urban streets. Still water in plaza fountains
has also been found to have calming
effects. Whether these restorative effects
come directly from nature or indirectly
from the experience of a place perceived
as pleasant, results show naturalness can
increase preference, calmness, and stress
recovery. Increased calm and reduced
stress can boost creativity.

23
Figure 13a
OPENNESS
With regard to openness, research points
to preferences for defined openness over
wide-open or blocked views. People like
open views with some sense of enclosure;
they tend to prefer increases in openness,
with an enclosing (or protecting) edge.
Responses to controlled, systematic
manipulations of enclosure indicate a
high preference for spaces with defined
openness. Interior lighting influences
perceived spaciousness and preference.
People judge an interior as more
spacious and preferred if it has bright
peripheral lighting.
Another spatial variable which researchers
call mystery involves the promise of
new information. A path with a turn (which
psychologists call a deflected vista)
promises new information ahead. You
cannot see around the corner, but if you
continue on the path, you might observe
something new. Thus, people perceive
curved paths as offering more new infor-
mation ahead than straight ones (Figures
13a and 13b), and they judge curved paths
Figure 13b
Figure 14
as higher in mystery. Figure14 illustrates
another form of mystery. In it, you can
detect hints of something ahead, and if
you move your head or move forward,
you can distinguish what was hidden.
People like scenes like these that promise
new information ahead.
However, when people feel vulnerable,
such as when they are walking alone at
night, they view a deflected vista as
incompatible, as it might hide a potential
danger such as an attacker. In that case,
mystery reduces preference. When feeling
vulnerable, people avoid areas with
deflected vistas, and judge them as less
safe than other spaces. People feel safer
with open unobstructed views and no
places of cover (hiding places or shade
ahead close to the path) ahead.
In sum, the research on spatial variables
suggests broad patterns of preference
for moderately open spaces and
mystery (under no threat).
24
 Figure 15a
UPKEEP
Variations in upkeep may have associa-
tions with perceived status. Wealthy
individuals and organizations can afford
to spend more on better materials and
maintenance, leading people to view
well-kept places as higher in status. When
animals and plants get sick, age, and
die, they show signs of decay. Studies
consistently find that people respond
more favorably to well-kept than poorly
kept places. This is consistent with human
preference for order. Poor upkeep looks
chaotic, creating disordered complexity
which people dislike. The removal or
buffering of poor upkeep with more
desirable elements (such as foliage) makes
places more appealing. In neighborhoods,
poor upkeep such as litter, dilapidation,
graffiti, and decay signals a breakdown
in the social order, which intensifies fear
of crime, reduces sense of community,
and increases actual crime. Poor upkeep
and visual disorder in interiors is also
undesirable.
Litter tends to attract more litter. A messy
office may give others the impression that
the occupant is less sincere, intelligent,
ambitious, warm and calm. However, a
poorly kept space, possibly hidden from
visitors, is not always undesirable. Certain
creative workers, often star performers,
depend on a complex system that appears
messy to others but gives them a better
chance of making accidental and beneficial
discoveries than they would not make in
a neat office.
NOVELTY (AND STYLE)
Recall that places vary in novelty in ways
that relate to prior experience. Increases
in novelty increase attention and interest,
but people prefer low to moderate novelty.
Many architects differ from non-architects
in response to novelty. Architects tend to
prefer the high novelty of high styles (those
typically seen in designer magazines), while
non-architects prefer the more typical,
vernacular popular styles. Just as in clothing,
where high style clothing is shown at fashion
shows, and popular clothes are actually
worn, these two kinds of styles have
different audiences. Architects opinions
deviate from those of others during their
education. First-year architecture students
exhibit design preferences similar to those
of non-architecture students, but as they
progress through school, their preferences
change. Through extensive exposure
to novel designs in their education,
architecture students come to value higher
levels of novelty. Although they still share
the same mental image of the typical
example with others, as they progress in
their education, their preference for the
typical decreases and their preference for
novelty in design increases. The level of
these changes depends on their schools
educational focus. Students at schools
25
Figure 15b
that focus more on the technical aspects
of design show less change than those at
schools that focus more on design.
Style communicates meaning. Consider
the two styles of house shown in Figures
15a and 15b. Americans consistently judge
farm-style houses as most friendly, Tudor
and colonial style houses as higher in
status, and farm or Tudor style houses as
the most desirable to live in. People also
make inferences from style about the likely
occupants of places, and these inferences
tend to be accurate. For example, one
study had homeowners complete an
extensive personality and identity inventory.
Other people, viewing color slides of the
home interiors, exteriors, or both, used the
same inventory to rate each homeowners
personality and identity. Their ratings
agreed with the homeowners self impres-
sion. The most accurate viewer impressions
came from people viewing the interiors.
Styles of office interiors also convey
meanings to visitors and customers.
Understanding the physical characteristics
of spaces that evoke these meanings and
using that knowledge to plan for desirable
meanings can create designs that enhance
user experience.
CH. 4

FEELINGS IN A
PLACE AND
THOUGHTS
ABOUT A PLACE

Attractive interiors or designs

compatible with a purpose
can improve feelings in and
thoughts about a space,
each of which affect human
behavior and performance
in the space. The following
sections discuss feelings in
and thoughts about a place.

FEELINGS IN A PLACE
People who consider their office attractive also may feel good in that
office; if they judge it as calming they may feel calmer in it; and if they
judge it exciting, they may feel more excited in it. Feelings about the
interior can influence feelings in the place, and these feelings can affect
behavior and performance. Several studies confirm that the perceived
quality of an interior influences peoples feelings in it, and those feelings
affect the way people feel about others in the interior. People in an ugly
interior tend to have higher levels of negative feelings in general, as well
as negative feelings about the space and other people in it. Feelings in a
space are an important ramification of office design.

Peoples emotional state affects their performance at problem solving.

When individuals feel good, they do better at learning, creative thinking,
brainstorming, and examining alternatives. In contrast, when individuals
feel stressed, their attention narrows, making them less able to develop
creative solutions. Stressed people tend to get frustrated more quickly
than others, leading them to quit working on problems more quickly.
For example, studies have found that stressed individuals who experience
a pleasant environment have a higher frustration tolerance (meaning
higher perseverance at a task) and lower

26

physiological stress than others who experience less pleasant envi-
ronments. That said, designs for critical, command-type centers that
require user concentration should look attractive, but have some kind
of unpleasant system to alert users if a problem arises.
Attractive designs perform better than ugly ones. One study, com-
paring evaluations of twelve new or renovated buildings for schools
of design, found that the buildings passersby and occupants judged
as having the most pleasing appearance also worked best. Students,
faculty, staff and visitors judged the attractive facilities as perform-
ing better on a variety of interior features, including the relationship
between spaces, security, accessibility, adaptability, wayfindingand
acoustics.
Workers who feel good in a place tend to be more productive and sat-
isfied with their jobs. Similarly, clients who feel good in a place react
more favorably in it. Briefly, the desired interior appearance
can create the desired feeling (or mood) in the space, which can yield
the desired behavior and enhance business experiences. Conversely,
undesirable appearance can create undesirable feelings and unde-
sirable behaviors, which can reduce worker satisfaction and perfor-
mance.
Research has found decreases in task performance related to bad
smelling air, higher worker density, closer interpersonal distances
between workers, and the inability to control unwanted stimulation.
Moreover, crowding or inadequate control of social contact reduces
sociability. Providing workers with the impression they have some
control over aspects of their workspace (such as temperature,
27
unwanted intrusions, or a place to escape)
reduces their stress and improves their
performance relative to others who feel
they have no such control. Factors such
as these can also enhance organization
performance.
Noise, and in particular the sound of
voices, distracts people, which leads to
lower performance. Although individuals
claim they can multi-task, studies of
individuals doing more than one task at
a time show reduced performance while
multi-tasking. Technologies such as iPods
can give workers perceived control and
buffer unwanted intrusions, and music
does not have the distracting quality of
peoples voices, but the degree to which
the technology distracts attention, it will
have detrimental effects on performance.
We have to evaluate the compatibility of
the appraisal and mood with the purpose
of the space. Some work tasks require
sociability and interaction, whereas
others require privacy. In certain situations,
excitement is desired; for others, calmness
is needed. In each case, the design should
be appropriate for the function.
THOUGHTS ABOUT A PLACE
Research suggests that people regularly
make judgments about status and
friendliness from the design of an interior,
and that office arrangements convey status
and sociability in ways that affect function.
For example, a facility programmer for
a company doing business with the
government learned that his client wanted
an inexpensive looking interior (low status)
so visitors did not think the government
was squandering taxpayers money.
Research has found several office features
that have an effect on judgments of status
and friendliness. A visitor will tend to
judge the occupant of an office with status
symbols as higher in rank, the occupant
of a tidy office as organized, and the
occupant of a messy office as rushed.
A visitor will judge neat but neither
messy nor extremely tidy offices as
more comfortable and welcoming. Other
welcoming cues include a desk placed
next to a wall, with no barriers between
the occupant and visitor, and across-
the-table-corner seating.
Various organizations, work types, and
places may have other meanings they
need to convey for successful operation.
Research has identified adjectives that
describe spatial concepts that we can use
to help define the desired qualities of
an interior for designers to strive towards
(Figure 16, p. 37). A programmer can work
with members of an organization to deter-
mine the adjective pairs/concepts with
the most relevance for the design of a
space. Notice the words come in pairs of
opposite concepts (such as ambiguous
and clear, or private and public).
Suppose an organization decides
formal-informal represents an important
pair to consider. We could ask the relevant
user group to judge, for each space they
use, the degree to which it should be
informal for them to best perform the
needed function in that space. We could
obtain similar judgments for other
relevant concept pairs. Tabulating the
results for each concept can provide
performance guidelines for the design
of each space and the full interior.
Suppose the results indicate that to
function best, a space needs to be
clear (or legible), accessible, encourage
interaction, be warm, and somewhat
contemporary. This means that the design
should make the space easy for users to
locate and access, and once they arrive,
the design should be comfortably open
to encourage interaction, and it should
avoid the use of traditionally-styled
elements. A designer could propose a
plan or plans that satisfy these guidelines.
Prior to installation, one could pre-test
it by getting ratings of the design(s)
on the same descriptors to predict how
well the design or alternatives would
achieve the desired objectives. The
pre-test helps refine the solution that
communicates the meaning closest to
the desired meanings.
28
29
CH. 5
INDIVIDUAL
AND GROUP
DIFFERENCES
AND CONCERNS
So far we have considered
shared reactions to the form
and content of interiors.
Characteristics of the
individual, such as internal
state, purpose, personality,
socioeconomics, and culture,
also affect response to
spaces. Although it is
impractical to tailor a place
to one persons personality,
we can tailor a space to the
most common personality
characteristics of the people
likely to use it.
Because the recognition of novelty or a style depends on past experience,
individuals having different environmental experience might differ in their
response to these factors. Design forms arise from a mix of the local climate,
materials, building practices and culture. Think of design solutions such as the
igloo or the teepee. Cultures or subcultures have a set of rules or expectations
for design, which may differ from the designers expectation. Research shows
that cultures differ in the way they regulate privacy, with some relying more on
physical cues and others relying more on social cues to achieve privacy. Cultures
also differ in perceptions of and reactions to crowding. Other design features,
such as the perceived importance of objects and space, vary across cultures.
Humans also adapt based on environmental experience. Thus, individuals from
small towns judge large towns as much larger, less safe and noisier than
do individuals from large towns. However, migrants from a small town to a
larger one or from a large town to a smaller one eventually adapt; they come
to perceive it the same way as the long-term resident. A person accustomed
to working in a large, quiet, or orderly office will adapt to it, and for them a
move to a smaller, noisier, or less orderly office will at first feel strange, and
possibly stressful.
Groups also differ in their perceptual abilities in relation to the environment.
Older people tend not to notice as much and to be more sensitive to complexity,
novelty, or disorder than younger people. So, designs for older populations
have special requirements, just as designs for younger children must meet
different criteria. Universal design seeks broad solutions that enable and
work for all users.
30

Personality and organizational culture
affect the desirability of certain forms.
Researchers have found attitudes, behavior,
academic performance, and occupational
choice linked to personality, which also
affects certain environmental appraisals.
In studies dating back to the 1940s,
psychologists have derived five robust
dimensions of personality: Extraversion,
Openness to Experience, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism.
Called the Big Five, these dimensions have
been linked to behavior, even in children.
While designing an office for the particular
personality of an individual worker does
not make sense, it does make sense to
evaluate the general types of personalities
that can be anticipated in use and make
some judgments about appropriate spaces
for different people. Ignoring neurotic
personality traits, consider the four
functional personality traits in relation to
work. Individuals vary in the degree to
which they want to interact with others.
Introverts are drained by the experience
of interacting with other people, while
extraverts are energized by the same
experience. Imagine an office having
technical researchers and sales people.
The researchers would tend to be
introverts, and the sales people would
tend to be extraverts. Research has shown
that the introverts would need more
space, control of their privacy, control
of noise interruptions from other people,
and protected furniture arrangements
allowing them to structure interactions
with others than would the extraverts.
Extraverts would want connection to others.
Openness has to do with the degree to
which the individual prefers innovation,
variety, and is creative as well as
imaginative. For creative (open) groups,
the design, while pleasant, should offer
higher complexity, novelty, and less typical
spaces, whereas designs for routine
tasks could have less complexity, novelty
and provide more support for function,
practicality, and details.
31
Agreeableness has to do with the degree
to which the individual considers the
emotional climate. Firms with many people
valuing sociability (agreeableness) could
offer the possibility of natural gathering
places and closer distances between
workers. Firms with many people scoring
lower on agreeableness could offer
support for individual work.
As for conscientiousness, individuals scoring
high on it would tend to delay decisions
to gather information, while individuals
scoring lower would decide more quickly.
Less rushed office cultures would tend to
favor novelty, while others would tend to
favor more traditional forms.
Other individual factors have been linked
by scientists to responses to spaces. Locus
of control has to do with the degree to
which the individual believes that control
of things is internal or external to them-
selves. People with more of an external
center of control feel more at the mercy
of fate than individuals with more of an
internal locus of control. Locus of control
influences preferred distance from other
people. Internals generally like to be
physically closer to other people than
externals. Internals are more likely to
modify an environment to suit their needs
and to exhibit more environmentally
responsible behaviors, such as recycling.
The two groups also exhibit differences
in design preferences, with internals
favoring classical styles and externals
favoring romantic styles.
Group differences arise in part from differ-
ences in shared learning and experience
across cultures and subcultures. Various
surveys of values, attitudes and lifestyles
in the U.S. have found many categories
of people related to social class, life cycle,
location, and other variables, each with
distinct patterns of preference and
consumption. Some of these relate to
occupations and work tasks, and thus to
the kind of interior desirable for that work.
Others relate to other types of spaces,
such as homes. One can determine and
use these socio-demographic preferences
in the programming phase of the design
process, described in the Appendix.
CH. 6
THE FUTURE IN VISUAL QUALITY
RESEARCH AND DESIGN
The last forty years have brought many advances in visual quality research.
In the 1970s, researchers proved they could study aesthetics in relation to the
environment. Those studies showed the first hint of strong commonalities
across people in their preferences, along with the first indication that people
preferred nature and complexity.
The 1980s saw the development of more
sophisticated, multivariate methods and
more realistic stimuli to discover the
important dimensions of perception and
evaluation of the environment. Those
studies showed that responses to color
photos, slides, and computer simulations
could be generalized to user responses on
site. The importance of complexity, order,
naturalness, openness, upkeep, novelty,
and style as attributes that influence
human perception of the environment
was also uncovered during this period,
as was the importance of pleasantness,
arousal, excitement, and calming experi-
ences in human emotional responses to
environments.
By the 1990s, research confirmed consis-
tent patterns of preference for naturalness,
order, complexity, openness, upkeep,
low to moderate novelty, and popular
styles. More recent studies have included
meta-analyses (which apply statistics to
multiple studies to summarize the results)
showing that individual differences in
response to spaces are trivial when
compared to the effects from the varia-
tions in the environmental attributes.
This means that design manipulation of
physical attributes is likely to have strong mix of order and variety can create pleasing
shared effects across the diverse individuals interiors that convey favorable emotional
and groups who experience them. meanings.
Designers can apply these scientific For specific projects, we can either apply
findings to create satisfying interiors. the existing information to guide the
Through scientific studies, we know design, or we can program or plan the
that certain noticeable visual attributes visual characteristics for a particular
influence interior preferences, meanings, context. Programming visual quality has
satisfaction, and task performance. In three steps. First, the programmer gathers
broad terms, people prefer places that information to support project goals (in
offer ordered variety and nature. For this case, the visual quality goals). Second,
design, this indicates that we should (s)he determines the emotional meanings
provide naturalness with a mix of struc- compatible with desired functions. Third,
turing variables, with moderate variety. (s)he seeks the physical characteristics of
a space that support those meanings (see
Structuring variables include:
Appendix for details).
order
coherence
compatibility
typicality
defined open space
popular styles
historical elements
good quality upkeep
Moderate variety entails a moderate level of
perceived complexity or novelty. Ordering
variables can moderate the variety. Using a
32
CONCLUSIONS
Though the research to date has made
great strides toward understanding
perceived visual quality, many questions
remain. We need more and better studies
of the benefits of improved visual quality
and of each desired feature based on
occupant feelings and task performance.
These benefits must be evaluated in
relation to cost. While research has
consistently found preferences related to
complexity, order, naturalness, openness,
upkeep, novelty and style, it has not
adequately determined the physical basis
for each one. Designers need better
information on how to create a space that
achieves the desired perceived character-
istics. In addition, while we know people
respond to the environment in terms
of feelings of excitement, calmness and
arousal, research needs to better identify
the effect of the visual attributes on these
responses, as it has done for pleasantness.

Ultimately, answering these questions will

encourage a different approach to design,
one that gives priority to the occupants
perception of visual quality and meanings,
and tries to incorporate those perceptions
into design. Design educators and practi-
tioners need to understand the importance
of user meanings, gauge likely popular
meanings, apply those findings for visual
quality, and evaluate the results to create
attractive interiors that also work for the
people who use them.
33
APPENDIX

PLANNING AND EVALUATING

VISUAL QUALITY: LESSONS LEARNED

The research findings summarized in this paper can be used to enhance

the visual quality of any project. Using them can create pleasant design
solutions that convey the desired meaning and yield a measurable
economic benefit in worker satisfaction, tenure and performance.
Designers can integrate the findings into the programming phase of a
design project, specifying for the full facility and smaller spaces the
desired visual quality characteristics in terms of the intended function.

MEANING MATTERS
A successful plan for visual quality also
should reflect the other meanings that
spaces and the facility need to convey for
their intended function. Successful interior
designs will plan for meanings compatible
with the facility goals. People see meaning
in places. It is the most important aspect
of their response to places. Meanings
(such as perceived friendliness, sociability,
and status) can affect performance.
Then, as described below, one should:
1. Determine the desired emotional For a pleasant appearance, the design
quality for a space;
2. Select the relevant visual features
to manipulate in that place;
3. Specify the way to manipulate
those features to achieve the
desired emotional quality;
4. If necessary, plan for other meanings;
5. Evaluate.
DETERMINE THE DESIRED
EMOTIONAL QUALITY
For the facility and spaces in it, determine
the emotional reactions and meanings it
should convey to best achieve the planned
purposes. To best plan for desired
reactions, the designer should consider
the importance of each of the key aspects
of human response in relation to the
facility and each space. One must decide
on the degree a space should look or
feel pleasant, exciting, calming and
arousing, or the degree to which people
in the space should feel pleased, excited,
calm or aroused.
SELECT THE RELEVANT VISUAL
VARIABLES TO MANIPULATE
To plan for appearance and meaning
compatible with facility goals, bear in mind
the features of environments that people
notice. Among the thousands of attributes
in environments, some stand out more
than others, and manipulation of those
attributes will most likely have an effect
on human experience in places. The
ones that matter most for design include
complexity, order, naturalness, enclosure,
upkeep, and novelty and style.
SPECIFY THE WAY TO MANIPULATE
THOSE FEATURES TO ACHIEVE THE
DESIRED EMOTIONAL IMPRESSIONS
Different kinds of appearance fit different
kinds of purposes. To work well, some
places, such as a reception area, should
look or feel pleasant and inviting.
should have:
Moderate complexity
Order
Naturalness
Good upkeep
Enclosure
Natural lighting, and peripheral,
non-uniform and bright lighting

34
 Low to moderate novelty and popular PLAN OTHER MEANINGS, IF NECESSARY
rather than high style
Other places, such as a sales office,
gambling casino, or sports bar work best
if they are exciting. To achieve an exciting
appearance, the design should have:
High complexity
Low order
Low naturalness
High novelty and possibly high
(or unfamiliar) style
Other places, such as a testing area,
or a hospital recovery or waiting room,
perform best if they are calming. To
achieve a calming appearance, the design
should have:
Plenty of nature views, plants,
and possibly a water feature
High order
Peripheral, non-uniform, and
dim lighting
For other desired meanings, use visual
quality programming to create a comple-
mentary visual quality plan and guidelines.
The section PLANNING AND EVALUATING
PLACES FOR MEANING describes the way
to conduct a visual quality program.
EVALUATE
You can evaluate any design after
implementation to see if and how well
it achieved the visual quality goals.
Visual quality goals may overlap with
project goals, but the former covers the
emotional quality needed to support the
intended function. Evaluation can help
fine tune the design, empower workers,
and develop guidelines for the future.
35
PLANNING AND EVALUATING
PLACES FOR MEANING
Research may not offer specific guidelines
for some interior design decisions relating
to appearance or emotional response to a
space. For some visual quality goals, such
as making a place look or feel friendly,
studies have not yet definitively identified
the specific design qualities to achieve
that meaning. For specific projects, you
can develop a visual quality program by
determining the visual qualities desired
for the particular project, context, and
populations.
To develop a visual quality program, the
design programmer should investigate,
develop, gather and organize information
to produce design guidelines that support
the visual quality goals for new or existing
facilities. Visual quality programming
recognizes the connection between func-
tion and appearance. It creates guidelines
within which the design should operate.
This consumer-oriented approach has the
additional benefits of involving people in
decisions that affect them.
Scientific tests of visual quality program-
ming have found that public appraisals
of likely meanings of designs accurately
fit the actual meanings conveyed by the
designs and built projects, whereas expert
appraisals by architects and other design
professionals may not.
To develop a visual quality program, a
programmer must select respondents,
stimuli, and measures of response. First,
select a representative group of partici-
pants. If the facility has several different
user groups, try to survey representatives
of all of them. If a random sample of each
group is not possible, offer the survey
to as many members of each group as
possible, possibly using an online format.
Other than requesting background
information, the visual quality program-
ming survey can have two parts.
One part has participants respond to
adjectives, and the other part has them
respond to images. You can ask questions
in terms of what a space should look like
or what it should feel like. If you ask about
what it should look like, you will get more
definitive information about the design
direction that users would prefer. If you
ask about desired feelings that a space
should evoke, you will have more freedom
to work with a range of possible design
options to evoke the feelings. In either
case, the adjectives should include both
positive and negative adjectives, from
lists shown effective in describing
environments (see Figure 16), and
agreed upon by the client. For example,
if the list included the words private,
adaptable, formal, and orderly, it database to help answer future questions.
should also include the words public,
36
fixed,informal, and chaotic. For images,
the survey should show the participants a
series of color photos of interiors. To learn
about what a space should look like, make
sure that the photos represent all kinds of
interior appearances you want partici-
pants to consider. To learn about the feel-
ings the space should invoke, make sure
the photos represent the full range of
emotions you want participants to
consider. Ask the participants to rank the
interiors from the one that comes closest
to giving them the look or feeling they
hope the space being developed should
embody, to the one furthest from this
look or feeling. Also ask for their reasons
for their preferences.
Tabulate the frequency with which
participants select various adjectives as
desirable, and use the tabulation of the
most frequently and least frequently
selected adjectives to give some direction
to the design. Also, tabulate the frequency
with which the participants selected each
interior as the best fit and the frequency
with which they cited various reasons for
their answers. Use this to give additional
direction for the type of interior desired.
The resulting visual quality program can
answer immediate questions about visual
quality, but it should also feed into a
 Figure 16: Environmental
descriptors for assessing desired
spatial concepts and meanings
(from Brill and Kasmar):

Ambiguous Clear

Adaptable Fixed

Complex Simple

Contemporary Traditional

Convenient Inconvenient

Distinctive Ordinary

Homogenous
Diverse
(single
(multiple purpose)
purpose)

Expensive Cheap

Fashionable Unfashionable

Formal Informal

Functional Nonfunctional

Huge Tiny

Inaccessible Accessible

Impressive Unimpressive

Modern Old fashioned

Private Public

Roomy Cramped

Sociopetal Sociofugal

Stylish Unstylish

Tidy Untidy

Uncluttered Cluttered

Uncrowded Crowded

Unusual Usual

37
SAMPLE SURVEY
The sample survey (Figure 17) asks about the feelings the interior should convey. To get
information on what the interior should look like, change the wording before the adjectives
from best describes the character you feel the interior of the new space should convey to
best describes the way the interior of the new space should look, and change the introduction
to the images from just on the feeling to just on the appearance, and the question wording
from feels like to looks like in the question about BEST fits your image of what the new
interior should feel like to the one that LEAST fits your image.

FIGURE 17:
WHAT SHOULD THE NEW INTERIOR Tell us a little about yourself:
FOR X WORKPLACE LOOK LIKE?
Male Female
This survey takes only a couple of
minutes. All of your answers are
Age? ______
confidential and anonymous. There
are no right or wrong answers. So, Number of years worked for the company? _________
please provide your honest opinion.
From the word list, check those words Friendly Dignified
that best describe the character you
Simple Shape Inspiring
feel the interior of the new space
should convey. Imagine completing the Soothing Powerful
sentence: The new X interior should
Colorless Disturbing
look ____. Check as many words as
you think apply. You can also write in Orderly Colorful
words next to the Other listings.
Ornate Chaotic

Modern Familiar

Bright Colors Unusual

Rectilinear Historical

Adventurous Muted colors

Appealing Complex shape

Unappealing Other ________________________

Unfriendly Other ________________________
Impressive Other ________________________
Majestic

38
 Rank from 1-9; where 1=Best Fit and 9 = Worst Fit

We want your opinion about the nine Rank the nine interiors in order from the one you think BEST fits your image of
interiors above. Assume they have the what the new interior should look / feel like to the one that LEAST fits that image /
same cost and square footage. Please involves that feeling.
evaluate them just on the appearance
or feeling they involve. Give your first For the one you liked BEST (#1) what features of it led you to prefer it?
reaction, as it often reflects your real
feelings.

For the one you liked LEAST (#9) what features of it led you to dislike it?

39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baum, A., and & Paullus. (1987). Crowding. In D. Stokols, and I.
Altman (edsEds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology.
NY New York: Wiley.
Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York:
Meredith Corp.
Brill, M. (1970). PAK: Planning Aid Kit. Paper presented at the
123rd meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, San
Francisco.
Cubukcu, E., & Nasar, J. L. (2005). Relation of physical form
to spatial knowledge in large-scale virtual environments.
Environment and Behavior, 37, (3), 397-417.
Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some
preliminary comparisons of high versus popular residential
architecture and public versus architect judgments of same.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333-344.
Dingham, T.M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development,
stability and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195-214.
Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G.W. (1991). Restorative effects of
natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior,
23, 3-26.
Horayangkura, V. (1978). Semantic dimensional structures:
A methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10,
555-584.
Im, S-B. (1984). Visual preferences in enclosed urban spaces:
An exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design.
Environment & Behavior, 16, 235-262.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A
Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasmar, J. V., Griffin, W. V., & Mauritzen, J. H. (1968). Effects of
environmental surroundings on outpatients mood and
perception of psychiatrists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 32, 223-226.
Levine, M. (1982). You-are-here maps: Psychological
considerations. Environment and Behavior, 14, 221-237.
Levine, M., Marchon, I., & Hanley, G. (1984). The placement and
misplacement of you-are-here maps. Environment and Behavior,
16,139-157.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1989). Reinterpretation of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-
factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40.
Michelson, W. (1987). Groups, aggregates, and the environment.
In E. H. Zube & G. T. Moore (Eds.), Advances in Environment,
Behavior, and Design, Vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press.
Nasar, J.L. (1983). Adult viewer preferences in residential scenes.
Environment and Behavior, 15, 589- 614.
Nasar, J. L (1984). Modifiers of perceived spaciousness and
crowding among different cultural groups, ERIC Reports, Nov.,
ED 257 734, 25 pages.
Nasar, J.L. (1987). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence
on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 53, 499- 509.
Nasar, J. L. (1988). Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research,
and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nasar, J.L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house styles.
Environment and Behavior, 21, 235- 257.
Nasar, J. L. (1997). New developments in aesthetics for urban
design. in In G. Moore, G. & R.Marans , R. (Eds.), Advances in
Environment, Behavior, and Design, Vol. 4. New York: Plenum.
Nasar, J. L. (1998). The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nasar, J. L. (1999). Design by Competition: Making Design
Competition Work. New York: Cambridge.
Nasar, J. (2002). What design for a presidential library? Complexity,
typicality, order and historical significance. Empirical Studies of the
Arts, 20, 83-99.
40
Nasar, J. L., & Cubukcu, E. (2006). Preference and interest for
environmental surprise. Paper presented at the Congress of P. S. I.,
October, Spain.
Nasar, J.L., & Devlin, K. (1989). Beauty and the beast: Some
preliminary comparisons of Popular vs. High architecture and
public vs. architect judgments of same. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 9, 333- 344.
Nasar, J.L., & de Nivia, C. (1987). A post-occupancy evaluation
for the design of a light pre-fabricated housing system for low
income groups in Colombia, Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 4, 199- 211.
Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. (1993). Hot Spots of fear of crime: A
multiple-method investigation. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 13, 187-206.
Nasar, J. L. & Jones, K. (1997) Landscapes of fear and stress.
Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323.
Nasar, J. L, Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., & Mrohaly, M.
(1983). The emotional quality of scenes and observation points:
A look at prospect and refuge. Landscape Planning, 10, 355 361.
Nasar, J. L., Stamps, A.E., & Hanyu, K. (2005). Form and function
in public buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,
159-165.
Norman, Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why We
Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Ornstein, R. (1991). The Evolution of Consciousness: Of Darwin,
Freud, and Cranial Fire The Origins of the Way We Think.
New York: Prentice-Hall.
Purcell, A.T. & Nasar, J.L. (1992). Experiencing other peoples
houses: A model of similarities and differences in environmental
experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 199-211.
Rapoport, A. (1990). The Meaning of the Built Environment:
A Non-Verbal Communication Approach. Tucson, AZ: University
of Arizona Press.
41
Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1989). Emotion and Environment.
In D. Stokols , & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 245-280). New York: John Wiley.
Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environ-
ments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.
Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental
preferences: a A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature,
14, 155-175.
Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and
coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 1-16.
Surwiecki, J. (2004). Wisdom of the Crowds. NYNew York:
Random House.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M., &
Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural
and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
11, 201-230.
Wilson, M. A., & Canter, D.V. (1990). The development of
central concepts during professional education: An example of
a multivariate model of the concept of architectural style.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39, 431-455.
Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment
as a source of affect. In I. Altman and & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human
Behavior and the Environment: Advances in Theory and Research,
Vol. 1 (pp. 37-86). New York: Plenum.
Wohlwill, J.F., & Kohn, I. (1973). The environment as experienced
by the migrant: An adaptation-level view. Representative Research
in Social Psychology, 4, 135-164.
Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by Design: Environment / Behavior /
Neuroscience in Architecture, Interiors, Landscape and Planning.
New York: Norton.
NOTES
NOTES
NOTES
608 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002-6006
T: (202) 546 3480
F: (202) 546 3240
W: asid.org

One Haworth Center

Holland, MI 49423
T: (616) 393 3000
W: haworth.com