Page 1

Little lux.









M 1 2


Introduction Thanks for reading my report. In this booklet, the research process around Little Lux will be de described. For this is a research project, a scientific paper will be included in chapter 4. As reading the same information twice is undesirable, the not everything will be described in detail in both parts; chapter 4 will provide background information on the subject and offer scientific argumentations. The other chapters will mainly focus on describing the process and reflecting on it. So if any information is missing, it’s probably in the other part. For this, there is no concrete order in which you should read this report. Please enjoy reading.

Sebastiaan Krijnen — autor


ta b l e o f c o n t e n t s

1. Context mapping


2. Design & research development


3. Final design & research


4. Research paper


5. Reflection


6. References


7. Appendix




context mapping

_ Figure 1: a picture that was shot by one of the participants during the contextmapping study. It shows the chosen flexible workplace, the Little lamp attatched to the laptop and the Little booklet placed at the left of the table.



_ Figures 2 - 3: the Little booklet that was used during the sensitization phase


P A R T I C I P A N T S Before developing a concrete design and research process, an explorative research study was conducted first. For this, the contextmapping method was used in order to get more knowledge about the needs and dreams of the users in the specific context (Visser et al., 2005). Through two parts of the study, the users were both “sensitized” to the subject and asked to participate in a generative group session. The general research question that

An amount of three female Industrial Design (both bachelor and master) students was recruited to participate in the study. All of them studied in the same building (the Laplace building, located at the University of Technology in Eindhoven) and used similar flexible workplaces there.

was addressed was stated as “What are common social experiences or conflicts at flex workplaces?”

Sensitization So firstly, the participants were sensitized to the subject for a week - individually, in their usual contexts - by means of a small package of small assignments. Although being an explorative study, a concrete starting point was addressed: the expression of being open or closed for conversation. The package consisted of Little lamp and Little booklet. The assignment was to shine the lamp on either their own workplace or away from them, every time they were working in a flexible workplace. In the booklet, they could keep track of these work experiences (i.e. a general term to assess their attitude towards the different moments. Read chapter 4 for more information) throughout the week. This was done by filling in a short form and by taking a photograph of the workspace. As a goal, the assignments made the participants think, reflect, wonder and explore aspects (Visser et al. 2005) of the flexible workplace context. This is quite similar to the cultural probe, which uses experimental design to understand local “cultures” (Gaver et al., 1999). After warming up the users with this sensitization, a group session was arranged.


pa rt 2 Next, the participants needed to be fully prepared for the ideation in the last part. In order to benefit from the new possibilities of current lighting technologies, they were

Group session

introduced to the Philips Hue system (Philips, 2016). A control app was used to remotely change three lamps, distributed around the workplace. Next, the ideation part

pa rt 1

of the study was done.

Here, the three participants and researchers came together for the first time. The session was situated at a

pa rt 3

flexible workplace in the same university. This was done

With the thoughts from the two preceding parts, two final

to make the participants easily relate to their past week.

exercises to design an ideal light application were given.

After a short introduction, a first exercise was given. The

Firstly, they did a short individual brainstorm, followed by

assignment was to create a collage, visualisation or clus-

a presentation and evaluation round. Secondly, this was

tering of the booklet pages and pictures, based on their

repeated, but then as a group. These assignments were

emotions. As Visser et al. (2005) intends, this opened up

intended to make them express their needs and dreams

the participant’s minds as they were connecting and re-

for the future (Visser et al., 2005). It’s quite similar to the

viving their experiences. Next, an evaluation on the ex-

Co-reflection method by Tomico et al. (2009), where an

ercise was done by a short interview (see Appendix B2),

ideal situation is discovered, based on the users’ needs

including questions like “Why did you choose this visualis-

desires and fantasies. During the collective presentations

ation?”, “What are the similarities between the members

and discussions, the participants were stimulated to “de-

(e.g. their social behaviour, choice of work setting, the role

fend” their ideas and thus expressing their personal val-

of the lamp, other lights in the environment)?”, “What are


the differences?”. While the experiences were still fresh in their memories, the next step was to make them fanta-

1. Individual brainstorm to design a new, ideal light situa-

size about possible enhancements or solutions.

tion in flex workplaces (5 minutes) 2. Individuals present ideas to each other (1 minute pitch)


1. Introduction by first impressions and remarks

3. Group brainstorm to design a new, ideal light situation

2. Making a “collage” from the images and booklet pag-

4. Group presents idea/concept/prototype to the re-

es, clustered by emotion


3. Evaluation of what was important by a short interview

5.General discussion on the concept.

pa rt 1

Clustering work experiences on mood

pa rt 2

Showing possibilities of current technologies

pa rt 3

Creative session to design for their conflicts or experiences _ Figures 4 - 7: pictures that were shot during the group session


One participant chose a workspace at her mother’s office, because the people were working seriously which motivated her

“It is pleasant to work at my mother’s office, because then

Results During the study, different types of data were collected: in the sensitization, there were filled in booklets and captured pictures. From the group session, pictures were

One participant chose a workspace at the masterspace to

made to document the outcomes of the exercises. Next

work on her PDP. The people in the workspace had the

to that, part 3 of the group session was fully audio record-

same deadline which gave her a feeling of team spirit.

ed and afterwards, abstracted into a partial transcription. Specific quotes were written down on post-its and

“It is pleasant to have the feeling of working together for

clustered, according to the affinity diagramming method

a certain goal, despite that I am doing individual work.”

(Hanington & Martin, 2012).

One participant chose a workspace depending on the amount of focus she needed which made her more efficient in her workflow.

“Depending on what type of work I have to do, I choose my workspace.”


Conclusion From the overlap in the quotes from the three participants, a possible conclusion can be drawn: the mutual awareness of others working in flex workplaces creates a group consciousness, which positively influences motivation and concentration. As this conclusion is drawn from a small-scaled user research, its validity can be questioned. Although, it is an interesting finding, where the starting point of the research was more about starting conversations. Continuing in this report, this group consciousness (which will not be further defined or validated) will play an inspirational role in the rest of the design and research



design & research development


1 2 _ Figure 8 (top) and 9 (bottom): the prototypes of Hexaflex and Flex during the concept development


Coming from the contextmapping method, the findings

Based on the work intention visibility, a concept and re-

were used as an inspiration for the design and research

search were created. In the next paragraphs you will read

process that will be described in this chapter. Let’s get

how these evolved over time, ultimately leading to the fi-

the main conclusion back: the mutual awareness of others

nal design and research setup.

working in flex workplaces creates a group consciousness, which positively influences motivation and concentration. To create such awareness others, visibility is needed first (not the close relationship with the three constructs of social translucence of Erickson & Kellogg (2000): visibility, awareness and accountability). But what exact (social) information needs to be visible? After summing up a list of possible information types, work intention was chosen as a main direction. This is clearly comparable to the availability information that was used for the contextmapping method; showing your intended work type, e.g. focused

ex l f a x e H .

work, others could estimate your availability from this.

1 concept description

Hexaflex is a modular interface that can be used to indicate your individual work intention. All users of the system own a personal unit of Hexaflex. To select your work intention, it’s possible to rotate the central pointer towards the word that describes your activity type (see figure 10, where a version with only four terms is shown). These types represent different light settings, e.g. deadline is a bright, static light and casual is warm, subtly changing light. Choosing the activity type and placing it on your workplace of choice, will automatically set the surrounding lights to the according light setting. But, all users who are working at the same table, group their units together. As a result, you can see a full overview of all the chosen light settings at one table. So imagine when you enter a flexible workplace, you immediately see different light settings in the room. Approaching the tables, you can then decide to join the group or to choose another table. When you have chosen your table, you attach your unit to the others of the table and accordingly, your light setting will be used around your spot.


_ Figure 10: prototype of Hexaflex that was created during the “Quick and dirty prototyping” workshop

reflection Although you will read that the core of this concept will

mean lunching, chatting, exercising or relaxing. Conclud-

be maintained throughout the rest of the report, some

ing this, the activity type terms needed to be changed for

things were changed. The points that needed to be im-

the next concept.

proved were the weak visibility and the limitations of the activity type terms. Firstly, the visibility of work

But, there was a strong point as well that would recur in

intention is created by both the arrow on the interfaces

the later concept of Flex (see the end of this chapter) and

and the light setting that appears on the workspace. The

the final design of Little Lux. This point is the social trans-

problem with the arrow is that it’s quite small and only

lucence of the interaction with the modular system. The

visible when standing close. But even if you stand close,

social translucence is strong, because all working users

you will only see a jungle of words and arrows in different

at the table can see the grouped interface. If someone

directions. So yes, you would be able to see the activity

decides to join the group, everyone of the group can see if

types from a distance by translating the meaning of the

the new user fits them and vice versa. This mutual aware-

light settings. Although, new users to the system are not

ness can then create an accountability of the users’ ac-

yet familiar with these, which weakens the effect. Second-

tions, i.e. creating or destroying a satisfying light setting at

ly, the activity type terms (e.g. “casual” or “deadline”) are

the workplaces. Not only will this happen when someone

too specific or too vague. For example, someone would

joins, but also when someone changes the light setting.

like the static bright light of the “deadline” setting, while

Then, this person needs to detach his personal unit first,

he isn’t actually working on a deadline. Or the other way

rotate his arrow and finally reattach it to the grouped in-

around, someone could be working on a deadline, while

terface - all happening in front of the others’ eyes. It is

he actually prefers to work in dark, cosy and warm light.

expected that the accountability of actions will result in a

In the same way, “casual” would be too vague, as it could

better balance of activity types at the workspaces.


2. Flex concept description

low-white light, similar to most regular lights)

Flex is a modular interface and very similar to the Hexaflex concept that was described before. Instead of six, Flex

A light setting can be chosen by rotating the arrow of the

has four possible light settings, designated by four icons.

upper part to an icon on the lower part. Then, the lights

The four icons represent four different activity types, in-

integrated in the unit change according to the selected

spired by four different typical activities in (flexible) work-

setting. After a user has selected his desired setting, it can

places. The used icons are:

be placed on an overview board. Here, a top view map of the room is displayed with little square gaps where the

-A lightbulb, e.g. for idea generation, brainstorms or in-

Flex units can be placed. This gives a full overview of the

spiration (colored light, with a gradually changing hue)

other users and their activities. The joining user can easily choose an appropriate workplace by taking the others

-A yin yang symbol, e.g. for a relaxing, meditation or

into account. If someone likes to change his activity type,

working in a calm, natural setting (slightly colored light,

he needs to walk over to the overview board, detach, ro-

gradually changing between green and blue)

tate his unit and reattach. As a result, probably the different activities will start to cluster. When the users in

-A bowl, e.g. for lunching, chatting or other activities that

these clusters are aware of their similar work intentions,

aren’t work-related (randomly flickering and low, warm

a group consciousness could emerge and improve the

light to create the cosy atmosphere of a candle light)

motivation and concentration (see the full storyboard in figure 12).

-A camera shutter, e.g. for focused work, reading or activities that conflict with distraction (static, bright, yel-


research The research that can be conducted with this design, will

consciousness could improve motivation and concentra-

investigate what the effect of the visibility of work inten-

tion. But, as this statement wasn’t scientifically founded

tions. For this, the described situation needs (condition

enough to base a research upon, a more general term

A) to be compared with a version of the design without

will be introduced: work atmosphere. This shines light

the visibility (condition B) - which would be closer to a

on the contribution (for flexible workplace) that the re-

traditional light switch. So, by changing this design fea-

search tries to make: providing design considerations for

ture as an independent variable, a dependent variable

multi-user light interfaces to ultimately improve the work

should be measured and compared for both conditions.

atmosphere. For this, the overall research question could

From the context mapping it was stated that the group

be stated as the following (see above):

_ Figure 11: picture of the working Flex prototype. By rotating the upper part, the LED’s would change according to the light setting icon that was selected in the bottom part.


hypothesis Logically following from the design choices and the re-

work experience.

search that were discussed before, the hypothesis will be the following: the best work experience is achieved by

- Similar to this, I hypothesise that a better distribution

creating a visibility of work intentions in a grouped inter-

of the users’ work intentions (grouping users into differ-

face and through the lights itself. This is has a high prob-

ent parts of a workspace), leads to a more pleasant work

ability, because:


- The visibility of the users’ intention types will probably

- Furthermore, I hypothesise that the visibility of these

lead to a better awareness and accountability; a mu-

work intentions will create a group awareness; when

tual awareness about each others’ attitude/preference/

users feel that there are others working on similar tasks,

tolerance towards conversations, noise disturbance, etc.

this has a motivational - and by this a positive - effect on

will lead to more accountability and thus a more pleasant

the work experience.

_ Figure 12: a storyboard for the interaction of Flux that was presented halfway the project


rfeflection There were a few issues with the design and the research

focus on creating a perfect light setting together. Fortunate-

that would have probably blurred out the results of the

ly, the research will probably find more information about

research. Before continuing with the actual execution of

these work intentions through questionnaires and inter-

the research, some changes needed to be made:

views anyway.

Not really a multi-user interface

Confusing overview table

The interface wasn’t really a multi-user lighting interface.

After a reflection, the overview panel at the beginning of

All the concepts that have been discussed before were

the room was considered as confusing. Regarding the

single-user lighting interfaces - but then in a room with

Flex concept, the most important implementation of so-

more users. That is seemingly multi-user. For the design

cial translucence could be found in this overview table

revision, it was recommended to make the interfaces to-

though. The design argumentation that was brought

gether react on the same lights. The next chapter will ex-

in was that users have to take specific, visible action to

plain how this was exactly done.

choose or change their light setting. Users needed to stand up from their workspace, walk over to the overview,

Work intentions through light settings too weak

detach, change, reattach and walk back to their next seat.

Furthermore, there was still a weak connection between

Although, the overview table doesn’t make the concept

activities and light settings. As the initial function of the

any stronger. Firstly, while it was initially chosen to make

light was mainly to communicate work intentions to oth-

the light application multi-user, it wasn’t really. Secondly,

ers, the translation between these four intentions and

the main interaction location is situated too far from the

four light settings were - just like in Hexaflex - unclear.

actual workplaces. It is quite illogical to think that users

Firstly, users might not have understood this transla-

would stand in front of the panel, look at it and base their

tion. Secondly, there was a chance that users would un-

choice on that; the visibility of information can be easily

derstand, yet not like the light settings. Thirdly, the only

found by simply looking into the room. Though, it might

clue for the meaning behind the setting was a simple,

work for bigger spaces with more workplaces, e.g. librar-

multi-interpretable and thus possibly confusing icon. So,

ies. But as the research would be limited to a relatively

where Flex introduced the icons as an improvement, is

small workplace, this was not an option.

was still unclear. All of these reasons together resulted in the choice of leaving the (communicating) work intentions

Next, the final design and research will be proposed, pro-

(through light settings) behind. Instead, it was decided to

cessing all the aforementioned reflections.


Little Lux Comparing 2 interfaces: social or system mediation

_ Figures 13 - 17: pictures of the two Little Lux designs that were compared during the research


03. final design & research


research question v2 How does the mediation of different light preferences in a multi-user light interface influence the work experience in flexible workplaces?



Since showing the users’ work intentions had become a

Lux was originally designed to make this average/media-

secondary concern, the design was now mostly intended

tion. We will call this condition B from now. The presented

for making the user express their light preference. This

research compares this condition to another version of

shifted the interest of the research towards the follow-

Little Lux, that doesn’t automatically mediate. In this ver-

ing question: how do users create an optimal light setting

sion, condition A, the users of the system only have one

together, even when the have different preferences? In

Little Lux unit. Now the system doesn’t mediate between

other words, how are their light preferences mediated?

the users, the users will have to do it themselves. In the

Niemantsverdriet et al. (2016) proposes that mediation

following research, we’ll be looking for the benefits and

between different preferences could be done by using an

drawbacks of both conditions. Ultimately, this is related

average value. As will be explained in the following chap-

back to the general aim of improving the work atmos-

ter, averaging the settings is required to give all the users

phere. The final research question that was addressed

an equal amount of influence; the social structures of us-

(see above) will be making use of questionnaires and in-

ers in flexible workplaces are often non-hierarchical. Little

terviews (Appendix B) to measure the work experience.

_ Figure 18: condition A of the Little Lux design: users mediate themselves

_ Figure 19: condition B of the Little Lux design: the interface mediates by combining the different light settings

B. L ittle


concept description Little Lux is an interface that combines the different selected light settings from the different users. The upper part of a single Little Lux unit can be rotated, displaying the four representative images of the settings (see figure 5 in chapter 4). With one version of the design (condition B), different units of Little Lux can be pushed to each other. In this case, everyone working in the same lights of the flexible workplace, has his own unit. The settings from the units will then be combined an displayed in all the Hue lamps around the workspace. Since this version is modular, there is no limit to the amount of combined Little Lux units. With the other version of the design (condition B), there is only one Little Lux for all the users. Because of this limitation, user are allowed to twist the Little Lux to all the positions between the four light settings. This way, two adjacent light settings can be mixed. A processing sketch (see Appendix A) was used to simulate the responsiveness to the Hue lamps.


Scan the code or visit to view the concept video of Little Lux


_ Figures 20 - 28: stills from the concept video


04. r es e a rc h pa p e r


Introduction Questionnaire 1 Explanation interface 1 Interaction task Working for 40 min Questionairre 2

Explanation interface 2 Interaction task Working for 40 min Questionnaire 3 Interview

_ Figures 29 - 32: photos taken during one of the research sessions





grounded and s y s t e m at i c r e s e a rc h

Looking back on the semester, I can doubtlessly say I ha-

But why am I so convinced that I’ve learned so much

ven’t ever learned so much about doing research. Obvi-

about doing research, mostly compared to my lacking

ously, this is a crucial moment in my education, as I’m ap-

M11 research project? I think that recent parts of my ed-

proaching the end of my master. Straight away, I’ll stress

ucation (i.e. finishing a successful Constructive Design

the need of the learning points in this reflection, since

Research elective in group work or the individual de-

my previous M11R0 project had a H verdict. Through the

sign-through-research M11R1 project with a focus on a

two main learning goals that were stated in my PDP, i.e.

scientifically grounded report) had already prepared me

“Complete a balanced research project” and “Complete a sci-

for this semester. Now, it was up to me to prove I was

entifically grounded design a systematic research, using at

capable of doing a research project on my own. So did I

least two existing user study methods, a methodology and

prove this? Looking back, I’ve seen the weak points of my

a framework.” my main learning points will be discussed.

M11R0 research, learned about them and tackled them in this semester. A specification of the learning points will

balanced design process

be discussed next.

A first learning point was to really zoom in on a certain

As stated in my PDP, it’s essential for me to create balance

aspect that was tested. Otherwise, it’s impossible to draw

in my research and design processes. One of the goals to

any conclusions, relevant to research question. Although

secure this, was by keeping the iterative-heavy attitude

I had tried to zoom in with my concept as much as possi-

from my M11R1 project. For I needed a finished concept

ble (mostly for the Flex concept), it was still too complex.

and prototype in a very early phase, I couldn’t rely on my

Firstly, this can be illustrated by my hypothesis. It was

usual design intuition. Normally, I would have wanted to

built up by so many aspects, that is would be too hard

explore dozens of concepts and to make fully functioning

to extract what I actually wanted to know. This was then

flashy prototypes, flourishing my CA and TR development.

fixed for the final research. Secondly, the measured de-

Now there wasn’t room for that, I needed to shut off this

pendent variable (work experience) was too broad and

tendency. As a response to my PDP goals, I’ve created a

abstract to research for. I kept holding on strong to this

total of four design iterations with (lo-fi) prototypes. Even

term, as it seemed a relevant result. But unfortunately, I

the final prototype that was used during the research was

couldn’t find appropriate sources to support a definition.

simplistic, yet striking in its purpose. Please note that I

It would even require a full research to specify this term.

faked the technology, without disturbing the results too

Recommending to myself, testing “the user’s satisfaction

much. With this, I’ve learned to make a iterated design

of the final light setting” would have been a lot easier to

that fitted purpose and the time limits of the project. This

test. Hypothetically, more of this satisfaction could then

attitude can be very helpful when doing research or when

possibly lead to the “work experience” I was holding on to

the final prototype doesn’t need to be perfect for a design

so much. So, for future research projects, I’ve learned to


choose something more measurable and concrete.


The second main learning point was to be very critical

of Social Translucence was included from the beginning.

about my research setup. With my current knowledge, it’s

Throughout the whole semester, this framework re-

highly important to assess the (societal) relevance, if the

curred in my aspects of the process. In the final paper,

setup will answer the research question and to make sure

facilitated a large part of the reasoning behind my design

all involved (and hidden) variables stay constant through

and research choices. Talking about methods again, the

the research. A variety of expert meetings throughout the

qualitative and quantitative data analysis was done by

semester helped me to refine it before executing it. The

respectively the open coding method and the Wilcoxon

close relationship with the experts made me more critical

Signed Rank Test (Laerd statistics, 2013). Although a more

about the research setup, resulting in a more iterated and

extensive and accurate analysis could have been done,

grounded research than my M11R0 research. Another ad-

I’ve learned to think in terms of data; before starting the

vantage was the tight planning the project had. Compar-

research, I knew what data from what variables I wanted.

ing it with the M11R0 research again, the research was ex-

When I chose (quite basic) suitable data collection basic

ecuted a lot earlier in the process, leaving enough time for

tools, i.e. questionnaires and unstructured interviews, I was

the analysis and writing of the paper. But, in the future, I

aware of the data I was going to get. In future research

might not always have experts looking over my shoulder

project though, I should have a first idea about the exact

every week. For this, it can be concluded that I should - at

analysis methods too. For this, it’s useful to study what

all terms - make a tight planning for the research and to

different analysis methods (for example, visit https://stat-

remain critical on the research setup. there are for which goals. But in gen-

A last main learning point was way I’ve used different

eral, I’m satisfied how much I learned, as a reponse to the

methods to support my research. In terms of my exper-

feedback from my previous M11R1 assessment:

tise area of US, the contextmapping method (Visser et al., 2005) was valuable to get useful information about the

“The analysis of the user studies and the identification of how

user and his context. Being at the very beginning of the

they in uenced the design process could be done more sys-

project, this method made me explore possible problems

tematically.” (Martens, 2016) from my M11R1 assessment

or experiences before designing and researching for it. This is a direct response to the feedback from my M11R1 project (“…he could have focused first on exploring the problem and then designing for it.” — Jesús Muñoz- Alcántara, M11R1 assessment). Similarly, I’ve used the co-reflection method to get a closer connection between the user and my design during a design process. During this semester, the User Experience Theory and Practice elective me familiarized with different methods, concerning the user experience and empathic design. Through the years of my education these methods have enriched my US expertise and my overall competence as a designer. In the project, I’ve learned to use a framework and a basic usage of two data analysis methods. The framework


06 references

Erickson, T., & Kellogg, W. A. (2000). Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social

Szostek, A. M., Karapanos, E., Eggen, B., & Holenderski,

processes. ACM transactions on computer-human inter-

M. (2008, November). Understanding the implications of

action (TOCHI), 7(1), 59-83.

social translucence for systems supporting communication at work. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference

Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural

on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 649-658).

probes. interactions, 6(1), 21-29.


Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of

Tanaka, A., Tokui, N., & Momeni, A. (2005, November).

design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop

Facilitating collective musical creativity. In Proceedings

innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Rockport

of the 13th annual ACM international conference on


Multimedia (pp. 191-198). ACM.

Laerd statistics. (2013). Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test using

Tomico, O., Frens, J. W., & Overbeeke, C. J. (2009, April).

SPSS Statistics. Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.

Co-reflection: user involvement for highly dynamic de-


sign processes. In CHI’09 Extended Abstracts on Human


Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2695-2698). ACM.

Martens, J. (2016). Feedback M11R1 project https://dpf.

Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., Van der Lugt, R., & Sanders,

E. B. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice.


CoDesign, 1(2), 119-149.

Niemantsverdriet, K., Broekhuijsen, M., Van Essen, H.A., Eggen, B. (2016). Designing for Multi-User Interaction in the Home Environment: Implementing Social Translucence. Unpublished manuscript.

Philips. Hue. Retrieved May 26, 2016 from http://www2.




appendix a1 The following code was used to control the user media-

//setup stage size(800, 600);

tion version of the Little Lux prototype.


int lampID = 24; public int limitLow1 = 60; public int limitHigh1 = 130; public int balance1, balance2, balance3, balance4; public int period1, period2, period3, period4; public int amp1, amp2, amp3, amp4; public int t = 90000; public int hueDelay = 0; int dX; float xOffset = 0.0; float bx; public int finalHues, finalSat, finalBright; public int[] hue = new int[4]; public int[] saturation = new int[4]; public int[] brightness = new int[4]; public int[] timeConstants = new int[4]; public float rotation, rotPos; public byte transTime; // Include Networking things required for the hue import org.apache.http.HttpEntity; import org.apache.http.HttpResponse; import org.apache.http.client.methods.HttpPut; import org.apache.http.impl.client.DefaultHttpClient; import*; import java.awt.*; import java.lang.Object.*; import java.util.Date; final static String HUE_KEY = “21b7893a212b7739b62ea62679e093”; final static String HUE_IP = “”; int timeConstant = 1000; // in millis int lastUpdate = millis(); PFont font; void setup() {


font = loadFont(“Aharoni-Bold-24.vlw”); textFont(font, 24); smooth(); background(255); smooth(); colorMode(HSB, 255, 255, 255); colorMode(RGB); } void draw() { println(bx); if (millis() - lastUpdate > timeConstant) { lastUpdate = millis(); background(255); if (key == ‘1’ || rotation > 0 || rotation <= 90) { natural(); inspiration(); rotPos = rotation/90; timeConstant = int((1-rotPos)*timeConstants[0] + rotPos*timeConstants[1]); finalHues = int((1-rotPos)*hue[0] + rotPos*hue[1]); finalSat = int((1-rotPos)*saturation[0] + rotPos*saturation[1]); finalBright = int((1-rotPos)*brightness[0] + rotPos*brightness[1]); hueDelay = int(25*rotPos); } if (key == ‘2’ || (rotation > 90 && rotation <= 180)) { inspiration(); focus(); rotPos = (rotation - 90)/90; timeConstant = int((1-rotPos)*timeConstants[1] + rotPos*timeConstants[2]); finalHues = int((1-rotPos)*hue[1] + rotPos*hue[2]); finalSat = int((1-rotPos)*saturation[1] + rotPos*saturation[2]); finalBright = int((1-rotPos)*brightness[1] + rotPos*brightness[2]); hueDelay = int(25*(1-rotPos)); }

if (key == ‘3’ || (rotation > 180 && rotation <= 270)) { focus(); candle(); rotPos = (rotation - 180)/90;

sendHSBToHue(25, finalHues+hueDelay, finalSat, finalBright, transTime); sendHSBToHue(26, finalHues-hueDelay, finalSat, finalBright, transTime); t += timeConstant/100;

timeConstant = int((1-rotPos)*timeConstants[2] + rotPos*timeConstants[3]); finalHues = int((1-rotPos)*hue[2] + rotPos*hue[3]); finalSat = int((1-rotPos)*saturation[2] + rotPos*saturation[3]); finalBright = int((1-rotPos)*brightness[2] + rotPos*brightness[3]); hueDelay = 0; }

} noStroke(); background(255); colorMode(HSB); fill(finalHues, finalSat, finalBright); ellipse(width, height*0.5, 150, 150); rectMode(CENTER); translate(width*0.5, height*0.5); rect(0, 0, 150, 150);

if (key == ‘4’ || (rotation > 270 && rotation <= 360)) { candle(); natural(); rotPos = (rotation - 270)/90; timeConstant = int((1-rotPos)*timeConstants[3] + rotPos*timeConstants[0]); finalHues = int((1-rotPos)*hue[3] + rotPos*hue[0]); finalSat = int((1-rotPos)*saturation[3] + rotPos*saturation[0]); finalBright = int((1-rotPos)*brightness[3] + rotPos*brightness[0]); hueDelay = 0;

fill(240); rect(0, 0, 150, 150); rotate((rotation*2*PI)/360); fill(finalHues, finalSat, finalBright); rect(0, 0, 150, 150); } void mousePressed(){ xOffset = mouseX-bx; }

} transTime = byte(timeConstant/100); println(finalHues, “ - “, finalSat, “ - “, finalBright); sendHSBToHue(24, finalHues, finalSat, finalBright, transTime);

void mouseDragged(){ bx = mouseX-xOffset; rotation = constrain(bx, 0, 360); }

The controllable interface is displayed in the image below. By clicking and dragging on the central cube, the “upper part” of the Little Lux can be rotated, just like in the physical prototype.


appendix a2 lastUpdate = millis(); background(255);

The following code was used to control the system mediation version of the Little Lux prototype.

int lampID = 24; public int limitLow1 = 60; public int limitHigh1 = 130; public int balance1, balance2, balance3, balance4; public float period1, period2, period3, period4; public int amp1, amp2, amp3, amp4; public int t = 40000; public int totalBalance = 0;

natural(); inspiration(); focus(); candle(); updateLights(); drawLights(); transTime = byte(timeConstant/100); sendHSBToHue(24, finalHues, finalSat, finalBright, transTime); sendHSBToHue(25, finalHues+constrain(balance[1],0,1)*20, finalSat, finalBright, transTime); sendHSBToHue(26, finalHues-constrain(balance[1],0,1)*20, finalSat, finalBright, transTime); t += timeConstant/100; for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) { print(balance[i]); print(“ - “); } println(totalBalance);

public int finalHues, finalSat, finalBright; public int[] hue = new int[4]; public int[] saturation = new int[4]; public int[] brightness = new int[4]; public int[] timeConstants = new int[4]; public int[] balance = { 0, 0, 0, 0 }; // balance overview of the light settings public float rotation, rotPos; public byte transTime;

} } void drawLights() { noStroke(); background(255); colorMode(HSB); rectMode(CENTER);

import org.apache.http.HttpEntity; import org.apache.http.HttpResponse; import org.apache.http.client.methods.HttpPut; import org.apache.http.impl.client.DefaultHttpClient; import*; import java.awt.*; import java.lang.Object.*; import java.util.Date;

fill(finalHues, finalSat, finalBright); ellipse(width*0.5, height*0.5, 150, 150); textSize(24); textAlign(CENTER); text(“natural”, width*0.2, height*0.8); text(balance[0], width*0.2, height*0.85); text(“inspiration”, width*0.4, height*0.8); text(balance[1], width*0.4, height*0.85);

final static String HUE_KEY = “21b7893a212b7739b62ea62679e093”; final static String HUE_IP = “”;

text(“focus”, width*0.6, height*0.8); text(balance[2], width*0.6, height*0.85);

int timeConstant = 1000; // in millis int lastUpdate = millis();

text(“candle”, width*0.8, height*0.8); text(balance[3], width*0.8, height*0.85);

PFont font; void setup() { //setup stage size(800, 600); mousePressed(); setupHue(); font = loadFont(“Aharoni-Bold-24.vlw”); textFont(font, 24); smooth(); background(255); smooth(); colorMode(HSB, 255, 255, 255); } void draw() { if (millis() - lastUpdate > timeConstant) {


text(totalBalance, width*0.9, height*0.9); } void keyPressed() { if (key == ‘1’ && totalBalance < 4 && balance[0] < 4) { balance[0]++; totalBalance++; } if (key == ‘2’ && totalBalance < 4 && balance[1] < 4) { balance[1]++; totalBalance++; } if (key == ‘3’ && totalBalance < 4 && balance[2] < 4) { balance[2]++; totalBalance++; } if (key == ‘4’ && totalBalance < 4 && balance[3] < 4) { balance[3]++; totalBalance++;

} if (key == ‘q’ && totalBalance > 0 && balance[0] > 0) { balance[0]--; totalBalance--; } if (key == ‘w’ && totalBalance > 0 && balance[1] > 0) { balance[1]--; totalBalance--; } if (key == ‘e’ && totalBalance > 0 && balance[2] > 0) { balance[2]--; totalBalance--; } if (key == ‘r’ && totalBalance > 0 && balance[3] > 0) { balance[3]--; totalBalance--; } }

void updateLights() { if (totalBalance == 0) { finalHues = finalSat = finalBright = 0; timeConstant = max(timeConstants); } else { finalHues = (balance[0]*hue[0] + balance[1]*hue[1] + balance[2]*hue[2] + balance[3]*hue[3])/(totalBalance); finalSat = (balance[0]*saturation[0] + balance[1]*saturation[1] + balance[2]*saturation[2] + balance[3]*saturation[3])/ (totalBalance); finalBright = (balance[0]*brightness[0] + balance[1]*brightness[1] + balance[2]*brightness[2] + balance[3]*brightness[3])/(totalBalance); timeConstant = (balance[0]*timeConstants[0] + balance[1]*timeConstants[1] + balance[2]*timeConstants[2] + balance[3]*timeConstants[3])/(totalBalance); } }

The controllable interface is displayed in the image below. By pressing the 1, 2, 3 or 4 keys on the keyboard, one of the light settings (from left to right) could be added to the final setting. By pressing the q, w, e and r keys, they could be removed.

The following code was used in both sketches to create the four different light settings. void natural() { timeConstants[0] = 500; period2 = 100; //300 + 500*sin((1/400)*t); // vary the period of 300 with a sinus hue too (only longer period) float hueHere = 120 + 25*sin((1/(period2))*t); hue[0] = int(hueHere); brightness[0] = 255; float satHere = 150 + 50*sin((1/(2.3456*period2))*t); saturation[0] = 255; }

void inspiration(){ timeConstants[1] = 200; hue[1] = int(125 + 125*sin(0.005*t)); brightness[1] = 255; saturation[1] = 255; }

void focus(){ timeConstants[2] = 1000; hue[2] = 30; saturation[2] = 150; brightness[2] = 255; }

void candle(){ timeConstants[3] = 100; balance3 = 100; amp3 = int(15*random(0.5,1.5)); period3 = int(4000*random(0.5,1.5)); period4 = int(1200 + 1000 + 500*sin((1/40)*t)); // vary the period of 300 with a sinus hue too (only longer period) hue[3] = 30 - int(random(0,10)); brightness[3] = int(balance3 + amp3*sin(t) + random(1)*30*sin(3*t)); saturation[3] = 230; }


appendix b1



Since questionnaire 3 was identical to questionnaire 2, it isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t included in the appendix.



appendix b2 For the interviews, a set of questions was prepared. These questions were the basis of the unstructured interview.

If you compare this work session to your usual work experience in Laplace, what are the similariies or differences? -How did you like working here? -What influence did the light have on you?

Why did you choose the specific light from the sessions or why did you change them?

How did you get aware/why werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t you aware of the othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; light preferences?

Not every time when the interface was changed, there was communication about it. How did you feel about that? Was there a difference for you with the different situations?

Was there a shift in work or social atmosphere in the workplace, comparing the first and second half? If so, why?

What situation do you prefer? Why?

Was there a shift of the feeling of control? If so, did it change how you felt about working here?


appendix c Executive summary New lighting technologies such as Philips Hue can make

Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first explain why. Different individuals with different

lighting more dynamic than ever. As designers, we are

light preferences need to come to an ideal lighted work

able to control it just as we like. Now these technologies

environment that fits everyone. An important question

are a part of the Internet of Things, more possibilities

is now: how should these light preferences be mediated

come with more issues too. Since lighting has a big social

towards one final light setting? We could assume that

component, connected multi-user lighting can create so-

a smart system could mediate these preferences. But,

cial conflicts. Imagine someone in another room chang-

there might be drawbacks in this, compared to our tra-

ing the light at your office. You wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be able to see

ditional situation. To investigate more about it, this re-

who was accountable for this change. To design for these

search studies what the benefits or drawbacks are with

possible conflicts, more research needs to be done. The

mediating these light preferences. We ask if should it be

framework of Social Translucence is introduced, imple-

done by the users themselves (through social structures)

mented and assessed in the research. As a context, this

or the light interface (through a proposed average value)?

research project took the flexible workplace, due to its rising popularity.

The main conclusions from the research indicate that there is a difference between the two conditions, but not

First, a context mapping study was executed to find com-

particularly in the work experience. A benefit of making

mon social experiences in the flexible workspace context.

the user mediate, was that there could emerge a better

It was found that possibly, a group consciousness could

social atmosphere, as the users can start communicat-

have a positive effect on productivity and motivation,

ing about their preferences. This would make the users

when users see others working too. Through an itera-

aware of the otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preferences anyway. But on the oth-

tive process, different types of social information were

er hand, visualizing these preferences through a personal

found and selected for the design. The first design iter-

device connected to a group, could make these prefer-

ation, Hexaflex, visualized the work intentions of users.

ences more concrete. Plus, users could feel more in con-

The second iteration of Flex was more focused on making

trol of the light, resulting in a higher satisfaction of the

light preferences visible. Ultimately, the work intentions

final light setting. On the other hand, it is important to

information was eliminated from the concept, leaving the

note that the amount of users to the system is essential.

visibility of light preferences as the main function. For the

More users would mean less influence and vice versa.

final design, it was chosen to research how to mediate

The paper describes these findings, summing it up as

different preferences.

valuable insights for future multi-user light interfaces in flexible workspaces



M12 project: Little Lux