PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013 1353

Green Expectations: The Story of a Customizable Lighting

Control Panel Designed to Reduce Energy Use
Michael Lee, C. Melody Carswell, Will Seidelman, Michelle Sublette

Center for Visualization and Virtual Environments and Department of Psychology

University of Kentucky

Environmental control and sustainability have become increasingly important in the design of workspaces.
Lighting systems in particular have undergone many changes through the incorporation of computer-
integrated control panels working in tandem with occupancy and light sensors. Such control panels can
allow for increased perceived environmental control which has been shown to improve job satisfaction and
productivity (Kroner, 1992; O’Neil, 2004). However, these controls must be designed effectively according
to a number of principles regarding interaction design, including good stimulus-response compatibility and
adherence to population stereotypes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usability of one such control
panel being used in a smart, green building, and to see how the shortcomings in the design may force users
to default to the most familiar setting, which may not be the most energy efficient.

INTRODUCTION Relevant Principles- Literature Review

The nature of workspaces has changed dramatically in
the last 20 to 30 years, a change that can certainly be seen in
the changes in lighting design and controls. One driving force
behind these changes is from the research regarding
environmental control. Environmental control, when it is
exercised by workers, has been shown to have a positive
impact, such as increases in job satisfaction and productivity
(Kroner, 1992; O’Neil, 2004). Another driving force is the
move toward sustainability. Not only does using less energy
Copyright 2013 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI 10.1177/1541931213571299
Norman’s principles of interaction design. Donald
Norman has vigorously defended the importance of several
interaction principles across the past two decades, including
The Design of Everyday Things (1988) and his essay on
gestural interfaces (2010). These include visibility, feedback,
consistency, non-destructive operations, discoverability,
scalability, and reliability. Of these seven, perhaps the most
applicable and important to the design of these control panels
are visibility, feedback, consistency, discoverability, and
reliability. An evaluation of the light control panel using

have the rather noble element of environmental responsibility,
it also affects the bottom line of businesses. A smaller energy
bill will lead to monetary savings, and incentives from the
government and utility companies allow for even more
financial benefits.
The dual concerns of giving workers control of their
environment and energy savings have created a market for
companies that design and sell adaptable and programmable
environmental controls for new or existing buildings. In terms
of lighting control, these concerns are oftentimes met with
some degree of “dimming,” or a variation in brightness. There
have been dimmers in one form or another dating all the way
back to the late 1800s, but it wasn’t until Joel Spira’s invention
of the solid state dimmer in 1959 that dimmers became safe
and available for widespread use. Spira’s dimmers were able to
fit in standard wallboxes, allowing them to replace typical light
switches. These rotary dimmers, which can still be found
frequently today, led to Spira founding Lutron Electronics
Company in 1961. Since then, many more designs have been
developed for occupants to customize their space, including
the integration of multiple systems including window shades,
daylight sensors, and occupancy/vacancy sensors to further
improve energy performance without expending on user
preference or comfort.
The first goal of this research is to analyze the design
effectiveness of the typical light control panel in a smart,
sustainable building. However, the impact does not stop here.
Although the focus is on lighting controls, the lessons learned
can be applied to other environmental control interfaces,
particularly when the aim is for energy savings and individual
control, which can impact performance. Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERNstimuli
these principles is in the Findings section.
Stimulus-Response compatibility. (Fitts, 1953, 1954)
“Things that go together.” This phrase seems to
simplistically capture S-R compatibility (Proctor, 1990).
Strong stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility can be seen in
physical correspondences as well as designs which adhere to
stereotypes. Direct relationships are the best (1 to 1, 2 to 2,
3to 3), and the weakest is random (1 to 2, 2 to 1, 3 to 3).
Direct relationships for lighting controls such as these could
be shown with buttons 1, 2, and 3 through gradual changes in
brightness (e.g. 1 to bright, 2 to dim, 3 to dark) or spatial
coordination (e.g. 1 to far side of room, 2 to middle of room,
3 to near side of room). Spatial coordination must take into
account the mapping of the 2-dimensional, vertical interface
onto the 3-dimensional layout of the room. Discrepancies in
S- R compatibility have been shown to cause more errors to
be made and a longer time for the activation of controlled
elements. Errors and wasted time can lead to dissatisfaction
and frustration.
Expectancies and stereotypes. When designing any
sort of product, one should design it in agreement with
whatever expectancies target users may have. (Peacock,
2004). One classic example of a population stereotype, which
coincidentally corresponds with this study well, is the light
switch stereotype. In the US, it is expected that a switch
down is off and a switch up is on. However, in Great Britain,
it is the opposite; down is on and up is off (Jack, 1985; Flach
1995).
Delays. Vogels in 2004 presented his findings on the
sensitivity of time delays on visual-haptic interfaces. Two
were perceived as being asynchronous when there was
UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013
a delay of about 45 milliseconds. As this time increases,
delays can affect performance depending on the task,
particularly if the length of the delay is variable.
Lighting and Energy Savings
According to the most recent Energy Consumption
Survey of commercial buildings by the Energy Information
Administration in 2003, lighting contributed to 39% of the
annual electricity usage. However, individually controlled
manual dimming has been shown to lead to 6% energy savings
(DiLouie, 2004). “Daylight harvesting” dimming , which
allows for the electrical lights to dim according to the amount
of natural light permeating the space, has been shown to
generate energy savings of 30%-40% (DiLouie, 2004; Leslie,
2005). In addition to improved energy efficiency, dimming has
also been associated with improvements in productivity from
anywhere from 2.8% to 7.8%. There was also a reported 15%
less absenteeism when dimming strategies were added to the
workplace (DiLouie, 2004; Leslie, 2005).
Behavioral changes in energy use. Behavioral
changes are estimated to reduce energy use by a minimum of
10% (DeVries, 2011). Due to the many aspects which
influence behaviors, it is difficult to get a strong, definitive
estimate. Such behavior changes are frequently attempted
using feedback or rewards or by trying to influence
motivational factors such as preferences or intentions. These
strategies, however, assume that the task of interest is a
reasoned action even though habits may often rule in tasks
such as this. The task of turning a light on or off becomes
automatic. Such automatic actions are triggered by the
situation and thusly become difficult to influence with explicit
intentions (DeVries, 2011). Despite the challenge of changing
automatic responses, it has been found that an intervention as
simple as posting a reminder to “turn off the lights” over light
switches can reduce energy usage by 15% (Rea, 1987). This
shows that behavior changes can occur and can reduce energy
use by more than the 10% DeVries claimed.
CASE STUDY
Description of system
Description of Building. Conservation and control
were certainly taken into account when designing the target
building. This building, located on the campus of an R1 state
university, is the first building on this campus to be LEED
certified, a rating system from the United States Green
Building Council based on sustainability, flexibility, and
energy efficiency. This building houses faculty and graduate
students from multiple disciplines (e.g. psychology and graphic
design), although lab space is primarily held by computer
science and electrical engineering. A number of the research
projects conducted here involve the use of projectors, so
lighting control is imperative. The building was designed in
such a way to facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration on
research projects. The open lab spaces and public seating areas
are meant to encourage conversation among students and
faculty who may have otherwise been separated by walls and
doors. The openness also allows for some flexibility as the
environment may change as new research projects begin.
Flexibility can also be beneficial as individuals cycle
in and outat NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016
Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com
1354
as the building’s users. An academic setting such as this must
adapt to a transient population as people may use a space for an
afternoon seminar, a class for a semester, or a research project
lasting years. This requires the design of all aspects of this
building, particularly controls, to be usable and intuitive. As
new users come into the building, it is imperative that they be
able to effectively utilize these features for their task. The
design should be usable so as not to impair them, and, ideally,
should enrich their experience.
Figure 1: Diagram of Room and Control Panel
Description of Controls. This building has a number
of different control panels to control the lights. These
controls allow for users to activate a number of preset
“lighting scenes,” or combinations of light positions and
levels. These scenes will set the lights of a room to a
particular brightness or may turn on a specific section of
lights (Appendix 1). The control panels can vary in
appearance, number of buttons, and presence or absence of
rocker switches (Figure 3). A common control panel is the 5-
button model of the LUTRON® seeTouch® QS Wallstation
(Appendix 1). It contains five buttons with a pin-point LED
on the left side of each button. Each button is backlit for
visibility in low lighting. This particular control panel
controls the lighting for the lab meeting space shown in
(Figure 1 and Appendix 1), which is similar to other spaces
throughout this building. While two control panels in the
building may have the same appearance, their functions could
be totally different given a particular area. Conversely, two
control panels may differ in appearance yet may control the
lighting for the same area (Appendix 2). There are also some
control panels which do not control the lights, but rather
electrical outlets and the power running to them.
Additionally, all control panels are connected to a centralized
computer where control requests are processed and logged. It
is important to note that this communication causes a delay
ranging from approximately 0.5 seconds to beyond 2 seconds.
This central computer also allows for customization of each
individual scene, the programmable element. This is very
helpful in the context of a flexible work environment. While
two lab bays may be identical in shape and size with identical
control panels, each may require a different set of lighting
scenes to better facilitate the research taking place. While the
scenes can be customized, many areas have not changed from
the default settings (shown in Appendix 1).
Given the nature of the building and its LEED goals
of sustainability, flexibility, and energy efficiency, the
lighting controls described above must be easy to use so as to
not inhibit these LEED criteria. Our research is to examine the
effectiveness of these control panels in getting users to set
their lights to lower settings for personal preference as well as
energy savings, adding a new LEED goal, “usability.”
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013
METHODS
Observation. Data was collected at all points during a
typical week during the academic year when the weather
ranged from mostly clear to mostly cloudy. The setting of the
room (e.g. occupancy and description of lighting) was
recorded. Six hundred instances were recorded, 187 of which
were recorded as “occupied.”
Surveys. 30 regular workers in the building were
surveyed, 27 of whom had worked there more than 10 months.
Age, race, and gender were not recorded, but the sample varied
greatly in terms of age, and was international, including
students and faculty from China, India, as well as the U.S.
Participants were asked how long they had been in the
building, if the controls had changed since they had moved in,
how often they use the controls, if they know if the controls in
their workspace have multiple levels, and if they use them.
Stimulus-response compatibility. Fifty U.S. adults
were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk to complete an
S-R compatibility survey using Qualtrics online survey
software. The average age of the participant was 36 and only
10 reported having seen a control panel like the one presented
(none of which reported frequent use). After being provided
with some context in terms of the building and the workspace,
participants were then asked to match a scene to a particular
button. They were given one diagram of the light scene,
depicting which ones are on, off, or dim (Appendix 2, second
column). Then, they were shown a diagram of the control
panel (Appendix 2, third column, but not numbered) and
asked to select the button they believe corresponds with the
given light settings.
FINDINGS
Heuristic evaluation
Visibility. There is very low visibility regarding the
interactions with the light controls. The control panels
throughout the building are all completely blank, providing no
signifiers of any kind. According to Lutron, each button can be
engraved with a simple numerical label or a verbal label such
as what it controls (shades, lights, etc.), what area it controls
(room, hall, etc.), or its function (on, off, dim, etc.). However,
these cost more and were not used in this building.
Figure 2: Diagram of panel with engravings and photo of actual panel
Feedback. There is some feedback when a button is
pressed on a control panel. The pinpoint LED on the button
turns on or off and there is a mild audible and haptic “click.”
However, in workspaces controlled by multiple control panels,
if a button has been pressed at the one light switch, a button
press at the other panel may receive the same feedback cues in
terms of the “click” and the LED, but no lighting change will
occur until the button is pressed again (Appendix 2).
Additionally, feedback is weakened by the delay between a
button press and the lighting scene change.Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016
This delay, which
1355
varies from 0.5 seconds to 2 seconds, is certainly greater than
the 0.045 seconds established by Vogels and appears to affect
performance.
Consistency and Standards. This is where the inter-
control panel design is weak (i.e. there is a lack of external
consistency). While the same control panel may appear
throughout the building, how it is to be used can change
drastically (Appendices 1 and 2, 5-button design). In one
area pressing a button will turn a particular area on and off
while in another, pressing the same button will only turn it on
with a different button turning it off. One control panel may
have each button control a particular section of the area while
another one will have each button control the entire area but
with varying amounts of brightness. Also, within a given
area, multiple designs may exist (Appendix 2). As mentioned
in the Feedback section, the significance of the LED can
change based on the area. While these variations can be a
positive in the flexible environment prized in a collaborative
research facility such as this, it is the appearance of
consistency which can cause problems.
Figure 3: Diagrams of control panels throughout the building
Reliability and Discoverability. This is where
expectancies and S-R compatibility come in to play and users
struggle with the intra-control panel design. Reliability gets at
the discontinuities between what the user expects to happen
and what actually does happen. Users may approach a control
panel and press a button thinking they are dimming the lights
when the actual result is turning off one-third of the lights.
The user may then press a different button, expecting the other
section to turn off, when, in fact, all of the lights are turned on
to a dimmed setting, the original objective. The difficulty in
discovering the function of controls may lead users to rely
on a limited subset of functions.
Results
Observation. A significant difference was found
among use of the “all on,” “all off,” and “other” settings for
occupied rooms (χ2(2)=69.25, p<0.001). “Other” included
anything other than “all on” and “all off” (e.g. dimmed
setting, section on). The data showed that 59% of the time a
room was occupied, the room had the “all on” setting, which
is a significantly higher frequency of selection than what
would be predicated if all three settings were equally likely to
be chosen (Table 1).
Table 1: Observation of Occupied Rooms
Table 1: Observation of Occupied Rooms
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013
Table 1: Observation of Occupied Rooms
All On Other All Off
59% 6.5% 34.5%
Surveys. Quantitative analysis shows that 80%
of those surveyed knew that their lights had multiple
levels (significantly different from chance, p=0.001).
However, only 67% of these participants claimed to use
the levels (p=0.15). Qualitative analysis showed that
two occupants claim to use low settings regularly while
four claim to adjust depending on the scenario (e.g.
brightness outdoors or presence of other people in the
workspace). Two participants mentioned that their
controls had gone from binary to complex since they
had arrived in the building (both have been in the
building since it was first opened).
Stimulus-response compatibility. For a
summary of these results, please consult Figure 3. For
each lighting scene, there were reliable preferences for
one or two buttons. These buttons had a greater
frequency of selection than what would be predicted if
all buttons were equally likely to be chosen. For only
two scenes, “all on” and “all off,” were the most
frequently selected buttons also correct (Table 2).
Table 2: S-R Compatibility Accuracy Percentages
All On Room On Hallway On Dim
65%* 29% 13% 13%
χ2=66.17 χ2=22.21 χ2=23.67 χ2=30.96
χ2 testing done with 4 degrees of freedom
* = significantly different from chance at α=0.05
DISCUSSION
The heuristic evaluation shows that there are
many violations in the design. The results from the
observation and survey results showed that users in the
building would usually use the highest energy use
setting. The stimulus-response compatibility results
showed that the participants were able to identify the
functionality of the top button and the bottom button as
turning all lights on or off, but the middle buttons were
not successfully identified with the correct scene. This
shows poor stimulus-response compatibility for the
middle buttons. Users may make the decision to use the
top and bottom buttons, which correspond to the
stereotypical mapping, because they understand them.
These two buttons allow for the user to get work done,
but more energy may be used than necessary (e.g. more
lights turned on than needed), and there may be a setting
more ideal for the task at hand (e.g. dimmed lighting for
use of projectors). Also, if individuals are unable to
effectively use the controls, then do the benefits such as
Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016
1356
job satisfaction and productivity diminish? Newsham
(2004) found that participants that did not exercise their
right to adjust lighting did not receive the added job
satisfaction benefits (although productivity results were
inconclusive and long term field studies are needed).
Limitations and Future Directions
One limitation of this study is a lack of “hard”
data. Data such as kilowatts of energy used or measures of
luminosity were not gathered. We continued under the rule
of thumb that if fewer lights were on (or they were
dimmed), then less energy was being used. In future
research, measures of energy used and luminosity will be
included. Another limitation is due to a lack of
acceptability measures from users regarding the lower light
scenarios. Users may be less productive, or express
discomfort in some lighting settings. Future research will
include measures of acceptability and satisfaction from
users as well as measures of productivity. Translation of
the real- world scenario into an online survey format is also
a limitation. In the future, more classical usability testing
strategies will be employed, such as think-alouds or co-
discovery, in the building itself using both current occupants
and naive users. Future research will also include
manipulation of control mappings, feasible given the
All Off programmable nature of the panels, to determine the actual
44%* impact of control design on lighting use.
χ2=20.96
REFERENCES
Bourgeois, D., Reinhart, C., & Macdonald, I. (2006). Adding advanced
behavioural models in whole building energy simulation: A
study on the total energy impact of manual and automated
lighting control. Energy & Buildings,38, 814-823.
DeVries, P., Aarts, H., & Midden, C. J. H. (2011). Changing simple energy-
related
consumer behaviors: How the enactment of intentions is
thwarted by acting and non-acting habits. Environment and
Behavior, 43, 612-633.
DiLouie, C. (2004). Personal control: boosting productivity, energy savings.
Lighting Controls Association.
http://lightingcontrolsassociation.org/personal-control-boosting-
productivity-energy-savings/
Fitts, P.M., & Deininger, R.L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence
among paired elements within stimulus and response codes.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483-492
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S–R compatibility: Spatial
characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
Flach, J. M., Dominguez, C. O. (1995). USE - Centered Design:
Integrating the User, Instrument, and Goal. Ergonomics in
Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 3, 19-
24.
Jack, D. D. (1985). Rocker Switch Tactile Coding and Direction of Motion
Stereotypes. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics,29, 437-
441.Jeong, K., & Proctor, R.W. (2011). Inhabitant-Centered
Interaction Technology for Future Homes. Ergonomics in Design:
The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 19, 9-14.
PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 57th ANNUAL MEETING - 2013 1357

Kroner, W. M., Stark-Martin, J. A., & Willemain, T. R. (1992). Rensselaer's

West Bend Mutual study: Using advanced office technology to
increase productivity. Troy, N.Y: Center for Architectural
Research.
Leslie, R., Raghavan, R., Howlett, O., & Eaton, C. (2005). The potential of
simplified concepts for daylight harvesting. Lighting Research
and Technology, 37, 21-40.
Mardaljevic, J. J., Heschong, L. L., & Lee, E. E. (2009). Daylight metrics and
energy savings. Lighting Research & Technology, 41, 261-283.
Newsham, G., et al. (2004). Effect of dimming control on office worker
satisfaction and performance. IESNA Annual Conference
Proceedings, 19-41.
Norman, D. A. & Nielsen, J. (2010). Gestural interfaces: a step backward in
usability. Interactions 17, (September - October), 46-49.
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/gestural_interfaces_a_step_backwards_i
n_u sability_6.html
Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
O’Neil, Michael J. (1994). Work space adjustability, storage, and enclosure as
predictors of employee reactions and performance. Environment
and Behavior, 26, 504-526
Peacock, B., & Schlegel, R. (2004). Expectancy and Compatibility.
Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors
Applications, 12, 4-31.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design, beyond
human- computer interaction. Wiley.
Rea, M.S., Dillon, R.F., & Levy, A.W. (1987). The effectiveness of light
switch reminders in reducing light usage. Lighting Research and
Technology, 19, 81-85.
Reinhart, C. F. (2004). Lightswitch-2002: a model for manual and
automated control of electric lighting and blinds. Solar
Energy, 77, 15-28.
Spira, J. S. (1959). U.S. Patent No. 3,032,688. New York, NY: U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office.
Vogels, I. M. L. C. (2004). Detection of Temporal Delays in Visual-Haptic
Interfaces. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society, 46, 118-134.

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 5, 2016