Solar Energy Vol. 73, No. 2, pp.

95103, 2002
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon PII: S 0 0 3 8 0 9 2 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 3 7 3 All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0038-092X / 02 / $ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com / locate / solener

USER ACCEPTANCE STUDIES TO EVALUATE DISCOMFORT GLARE IN

DAYLIT ROOMS
MARTINE VELDS
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Berlageweg 1, 2628 CR Delft, The Netherlands

Received 17 August 2001; revised version accepted 28 March 2002

AbstractAs for now, it seems to be infeasible to predict or measure the perceived degree of discomfort glare
from windows. Within an international research project between Delft University of Technology and Berlin
University of Technology, user acceptance studies are carried out in full-scale rooms under real sky conditions
to study discomfort glare in daylit situations. The aim of the studies was to draw up a relation between glare
assessments and measured quantities. For this purpose two test rooms are used: one room was occupied by the
subject, in the other one the required measuring equipment was placed. An electronic questionnaire was
developed for these studies and installed on the computer of the subject. Continuous measurements were
necessary to link subjective assessments to measured quantities that are obtained concurrently. The obtained
relation can be used to predict the average visual comfort evaluation under specific lighting conditions and to
propose visual comfort criteria to maintain visual comfort. The study showed that the vertical illuminance
measured near the facade and the average sky luminance measured from the back of the room are good
measures to monitor visual comfort under intermediate and overcast sky conditions. The visual comfort criteria
should nonetheless be used with care, since the diversity of individual preferences is large. The user preferably
has an user interface to overrule the glare protection when it is controlled on these visual comfort criteria.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. INTRODUCTION current lighting conditions. This is lacking in most

of the existing studies, although the prevailing
Years of research in the field of discomfort glare
lighting conditions are critical in the assessment
from windows have not yet led to reliable glare
of discomfort glare.
formulae. The Daylight Glare Index (e.g. Hopkin-
Taking this into consideration, the user accept-
son, 1970) and the Predicted Glare Sensation Vote
ance studies, carried out within an international
(e.g. Tokura et al., 1996) give higher calculated
research project between Delft University of
degrees of discomfort glare than those perceived
Technology and Berlin University of Technology,
under real sky conditions. A number of promising
are based on the principle of linking subjective
evaluation methods to assess discomfort glare
assessments to measured quantities that are ob-
from windows is not in the final stage of develop-
tained concurrently. The studies carried out at the
ment yet. Examples of these methods are the J
Institute for Electronics and Lighting Technology
index (e.g. Meyer et al., 1996), the Stationary
(ELLI) of Berlin University of Technology have
Virtual Reality (e.g. Wienold et al., 1998) and the
been principally based on the use of:
Visual Comfort Evaluation Method (e.g. van der
two test rooms,
Voorden et al., 1998).
an electronic questionnaire,
As for now, it seems therefore to be infeasible
continuous measurements.
to predict or measure the perceived degree of
This will be discussed in more detail in Sections
discomfort glare from windows. Whereas discom-
24.
fort glare is a subjective feature, subjective
evaluations are needed to acquire information on
this aspect. Daylighting conditions can fluctuate 2. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
constantly, it is therefore necessary to know under
Two identical test rooms were used in the user
what conditions the subjects assessments are
acceptance studies (see Fig. 1). One room was
made. Measurements need to be taken at the same
occupied by the test person, the Subject Room.
time glare assessments are made, to register the
The quantities in regard to the illumination were
mainly obtained from a room containing measur-

E-mail: m.velds@bk.tudelft.nl ing equipment only, the Measuring Room (see

95
96 M. Velds
Fig. 1. Test rooms at the TU Berlin.
Fig. 2). In this set-up, the subject was not
disturbed by any measuring equipment. The
facades of both rooms had three windows: the two
windows at the right side and in the middle of the
facade were 100 cm width and 185 cm high, the
window at the left side of the facade was 90 cm
width, 175 cm high.
Three tables were placed in the Subject Room.
One table was placed at the back of the room, two
near the facade. On one of these tables a computer
was placed (see Fig. 2). In this set-up the subject
was able to conduct two distinct tasks:
a task at the computer, the so-called VDU task,
facing the side wall, or
reading or writing tasks at the desk, the so-
called horizontal task, facing the window.
A daylight responsive artificial lighting control
system, LUXMATE Professional (e.g.
Zumtobel, 1996), was installed in both test rooms.
The control system was installed to maintain a
minimum illuminance level at the work plane, to
ensure that the subject did not perceive any
problems with conducting a task. This was neces-
sary since it is uncertain whether this influences
the perceived discomfort glare (Velds, 2000). The
daylight responsive artificial lighting control sys-
tem needed to maintain an illuminance level of
500 lux at the work plane. With this, the corre-
sponding demanded illuminance level for VDU
tasks of 300 lux was realised as well. The system
controlled the luminaires identically in both
rooms, realising a comparable artificial lighting
contribution in both rooms.
Whereas the test rooms have South facing
facades, direct sunlight can enter the rooms during
a large part of the day. Therefore automatically
controlled blinds were installed, to assure that the
discomfort glare was perceived from the sky seen
through the window opening and not from direct
sunlight. LUXMATE Professional also controlled
the exterior blinds of both rooms.
3. COLLECTION OF SUBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENTS
An electronic questionnaire that runs under
Windows 95 has been developed for these
experiments. This so-called pop-up questionnaire
was installed on the computer available in the
Subject Room. An example page is shown in
Fig. 3.
The pop-up questionnaire generated questions
that appeared at the computer screen regularly.
The structure and functioning of the questionnaire
prevented the user from being bothered with
questions that are not essential at a specific
moment, whereas it selected essential series of
questions in two ways:
weather dependent. Questions on discomfort
glare from windows were not asked when
direct sun was on the facade or when the sky
luminance was low. The measured quantities
 User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms 97

Fig. 2. Subject Room.

necessary to evaluate this were collected on a
computer in the Measuring Room and evalu-
ated by the pop-up questionnaire over a net-
work.
answer dependent. The pop-up questionnaire
automatically asked a cluster of questions with
a different theme, when the subject indicated
that the cluster asked was not relevant. This
occurred, for example, when the subject did
not perceive discomfort glare from windows,
although the sky luminance was relatively
high. In this case, the pop-up questionnaire
continued with another group of questions.
The core of the pop-up questionnaire was based
on the assessment of the degree of perceived
discomfort glare according to the Glare Sensation
Vote (Iwata, 1992a). The glare categories were
connected to an approximate period of time that
this degree of glare would be tolerated, to give the
subjects guidance in the selection for one of the
rather abstract categories used in the experiment:
just perceptible glare: Glare Sensation Vote
(GSV) 5 0
The borderline between imperceptible and
perceptible discomfort glare would be the
point where glare would be first noticed by the
subject.
just acceptable glare: GSV5 1
Acceptable discomfort glare would be the
glare that the subjects could tolerate for ap-
98
Fig. 3. Pop-up questionnaire.
proximately 1 day, when working in someone
elses room. If they had to work under these
lighting conditions in their own room, they
would use blinds, additional artificial light or
other measures to decrease the perceived dis-
comfort glare.
just uncomfortable glare: GSV5 2
Uncomfortable discomfort glare would be
tolerated for approximately 15 to 30 min, for
example when finishing a certain task would
take this time. After this adjustments to the
lighting situation would be made, when the
same degree of discomfort glare would still be
available.
just intolerable glare: GSV5 3
The intolerable discomfort glare would be
the turning point where the subject would no
longer work under these lighting conditions
and immediately change them.
A corresponding time-span was, for example,
also used in glare experiments conducted by
Osterhaus (1996).
A second question dealing with glare was
included in the questionnaire. The perceived
degree of discomfort glare does not give any
indication whether it is acceptable for users in the
M. Velds
room (Hopkinson, 1970). Therefore the subjects
were asked to evaluate the acceptability of the
degree of discomfort glare for their normal daily
work. This information has led to a sharp defini-
tion: a percentage of dissatisfied subjects for a
specific sky luminance, a visual comfort criterion.
The remaining part of the questionnaire dealt
with personal information and personal prefer-
ences, the illumination of the room and tasks, the
installed control systems and artificial lighting
installation, the impression of the room and
possible disturbance factors. The main part of
these questions was based on those used within
the POEs of IEA Task 21 Daylight in Buildings
(Hygge and Lofberg, 1997).
Although every cluster of questions was com-
pleted with an open field where subjects could
write their comments or complaints that came up
in the testing period, an additional Disturbance
Menu was installed at the computer, which can
be opened at any time (see Fig. 4). This offered
the subjects the opportunity to record remarks or
complaints during the testing period, when no
questions were asked. It is important to register
these remarks, since they mostly indicate the
cause for a decrease in user acceptance or sabot-
 User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms 99

Fig. 4. Disturbance Menu.

age. Assessments made through the Disturbance the discomfort glare perceived when looking
Menu were also related to the acquired measure- outside, with a view direction towards the
ments. window (VDU-2).
Subjects participated at least half a day in the In case the subjects worked on a horizontal
experiments. They were asked to take their posi-
tion at the desk near the facade. They could
conduct their own, brought, work during the
experiments. It is the task under which they
normally would perceive discomfort glare. In case
the difficulty of the task influences the glare
perception, the task brought by the subjects
represented the one in normal offices.
The task performed by the subjects was a
significant parameter in the discomfort glare
assessments. If they were working behind the
computer, they were asked to evaluate:
the perceived discomfort glare from the win-
dow while facing the computer, realising a
view direction towards the East side wall
(VDU-1, see Fig. 5), as well as Fig. 5. Glare assessments in pilot study.
100 M. Velds

task, a reading or writing task, only the glare

assessment when looking outside, with a view
direction towards the window, was made (WIN).
Although questions appeared on the computer
screen within a regular time-span, the subject
might not have been in the test room, or was not
to be disturbed at the specific moment. The pop-
up questionnaire registered the time when assess-
ments were made, so that the questions could be
answered later. In case the subjects were disturbed
by the lighting conditions in the room, the func-
tioning of the installed systems or something else
in the room at other moments, they were asked to
report this in the Disturbance Menu.
Fig. 6. Schematic of the position of sensors in Measuring
Room.
4. COLLECTION OF LIGHTING QUANTITIES

Since the subject was more or less free to

a sensor facing the window at 1.20 m from the
choose the time of responding to questions and
facade, measuring, Eeye,w, the vertical illumi-
the Disturbance Menu could be used at any time,
nance at eye level of the subjects working at
continuous monitoring of physical quantities was
horizontal task, while looking outside the
necessary. A radioclock was installed at the
window,
computers with measuring programs and the
a sensor was placed at the position of subject
computer with the questionnaire to synchronise
working at the computer, facing the wall,
the computers in time. This allowed an evaluation
measuring, Eeye,VDU, the vertical illuminance at
of concurrent assessments after the experiment.
eye level of the subjects working at the VDU.
All measured quantities were collected on com-
One vertical illuminance sensor was placed at
puters, which were connected through a network.
the window to record whether the blinds were
In this study, the luminance values were col-
lowered. The, so-called, Ewp -values of this sensor
lected by means of measurements with a CCD
were used to trigger specific clusters with ques-
camera (e.g. Wolf et al., 1995). Utilisation of the
tions in the pop up questionnaire. The position of
camera for luminance measurements required
the sensors is showed in Fig. 6.
specific software, activating a file with calibration
For the collection of the measured illuminance
factors for this specific camera. The camera was
values, software developed at the Berlin Universi-
equipped with a correction filter corresponding to
ty of Technology (Knoop, 1998) was used. In the
the V(l) correction, to take the relative spectral
Measuring Room illuminance and power mea-
sensitivity for the human eye into consideration.
surements were taken each minute. The program
A maximum error of 10% was found in the range
included the calculation of the daylight contribu-
from 80 up to 18,000 cd / m 2 . The CCD camera
tion from the total illuminance in each sensor and
was positioned at the back of the Subject room
registration of measurement time.
and connected to the computer in this room. An
automatic mode for the software to measure
luminance within a regular time-span was not
5. RESULTS
available at the time of the experiment. Therefore
the subject made the pictures themselves. Each The experiment was carried out between Sep-
time questions of the pop-up questionnaire were tember 1998 and February 1999. In total 23
answered, or the Disturbance Menu was used, the persons participated in this experiment, 16 male, 7
subject was asked specifically to make a picture female. Ten subjects used eye correction. The
with the CCD camera, in order to register current subjects age ranged from 21 to 57 years and the
luminance values. average age was 31 years. Most participants were
Two vertical illuminance sensors were placed engineers, students or members of the scientific
in the Measuring Room at 1.20 m height, to staff of the TU Berlin.
measure the vertical illuminance at the approxi- With the procedure and measurements as de-
mate position of the subjects eyes in the Subject scribed in the previous sections, relations between
Room: subjective assessments and measured quantities
 User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms
Fig. 7. Degree of discomfort glare as function of the vertical illuminance measured at 1.2 m from the facade, orientated towards
the window.
are drawn up. An example is given in Fig. 7, for
the vertical illuminance measured towards the
window, Eeye,w , a representative measure for the
sky luminance. The relation between the degree of
discomfort glare and the percentage of dissatisfied
subjects is also determined (Fig. 8).
Figs. 7 and 8 show that a differentiation should
be made between visual comfort criteria for work
behind a VDU and those for horizontal tasks. The
glare assessment behind the VDU is only slightly
more critical then those for the horizontal tasks.
More significant is the percentage of dissatisfied
subjects, which is higher when working at the
VDU. This means that, even though the orienta-
Fig. 8. Percentage of dissatisfied subjects corresponding with
the degree of discomfort glare.
101
tion of the VDU is towards the East wall and the
visible light source is smaller, these assessments
are more crucial in the evaluation of discomfort
glare in a room.
The study showed that the vertical illuminance
measured near the facade (r 5 0.7130 for quad-
ratic regression) and in a lesser extent the average
sky luminance measured from the back of the
room (r 5 0.6359 for quadratic regression) are
good measures to monitor visual comfort under
intermediate and overcast sky conditions. Maxi-
mum lighting quantities corresponding with a
percentage of dissatisfied subjects can be used as
visual comfort criteria. Glare protection, e.g.
blinds, can be controlled on these criteria, to
prevent the user of the room form being glared
from windows. Results for the vertical illumi-
nances, Eeye,w , as well as average sky luminances,
Lsky , obtained from the Figs. 7 and 8, are shown
in Table 1.
Nonetheless, these criteria should be used with
care. The variety in individual assessments with
respect to visual comfort shown in this study (see
Fig. 7) and previous research (Hopkinson, 1970;
Osterhaus, 1996) should be taken into considera-
tion. Therefore, users should have the opportunity
to overrule or influence the glare control.
In the here described study, subjects were asked
to indicate the problems that they perceived with
both the installed blind control and the daylight
responsive artificial lighting control system. The
results reinforced the need for an user interface.
102 M. Velds
Table 1. Vertical illuminance, Eeye,w , and average sky luminance, Lsky , values with corresponding percentage of dissatisfied
subjects
Dissatisfied Behind VDU
subjects GSV Lsky [cd / m 2 ] Eeye,w [lux]
20% 0.9 3450 3700
25% 1.2 3900 4100
50% 1.9 6300 6300
The lacking possibility to overrule the system was
the most important complaint with respect to the
control systems: 24% of the subjects for the blind
control and 44% of the subjects for the artificial
lighting control system 1 . This means that the user
should have the opportunity to overrule or in-
fluence the artificial lighting control system as
well as the blind control.
The actual control that the user should have
over the lighting should also be given considera-
tion. Veitch and Gifford (1992) conducted experi-
ments that indicated that control over the work-
place lighting could lead to a decrease of per-
formance and influence the users mood. Having
too many choices and the requirement to make
frequent adjustments in the workplace (Heer-
wagen et al., 1991) can cause stress and frustra-
tion.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The procedure used in the here-described user
acceptance studies is a suitable procedure to study
discomfort glare from windows. Long term moni-
toring of the subjective assessments and measured
quantities is necessary in these studies. For these
reasons, it is a typical method for researchers and
product developers.
The minimum required quantities to monitor
visual comfort under intermediate as well as
overcast sky conditions are vertical illuminances
measured near the facade or average sky lumi-
nances. With this low number of required mea-
surements to correlate subjective assessments with
measured quantities, this procedure is also appro-
priate to analyse visual comfort in field studies. A
daylight responsive artificial lighting control sys-
tem is preferably installed to assure that the
subjects do not perceive any problems with the
lighting of the task, which could influence the
glare perception. Besides this, blinds should be
1
The system can be overruled, but this attribute is not used in
the experiments since the system is only used to control
direct sunlight and maintain a minimum illuminance level
at the workplane. Within this experiment, preferences for
illuminance levels or blind control are not studied.
Horizontal task
GSV Lsky [cd / m 2 ] Eeye,w [lux]
1.5 4400 5700
1.6 4900 6300
2.4 7900 9400
installed to block direct sunlight out of the room,
when discomfort glare from intermediate and
overcast skies is studied only. In the field studies,
the pop-up questionnaire can be installed at the
users own computer to obtain the subjective
evaluation.
The here described user acceptance studies are
preferred over existing studies in full scale rooms
under realistic lighting conditions, whereas a
relation between measured quantities and subjec-
tive evaluations can be drawn up. With this
relation it is possible to:
determine the absolute quality of a daylighting
design
determine criteria that can be set to maintain
visual comfort in a room.
The set visual comfort criteria should be used
with care. Additional research is required to
obtain information on the necessary influence a
user should have over installed control systems, in
order to maintain a comfortable workplace.
AcknowledgementsThese studies were carried out within an
international research project between Delft University of
Technology and Berlin University of Technology. The studies
were financially supported by Luxmate Controls (A), Huppe
Sonnenschutzsysteme (D) and Stichting Bouwresearch (NL).
REFERENCES
Heerwagen J. H., Loveland J. and Diamond R. (1991) Coping
with discomforts. In Proceedings of the World Solar Con-
gress, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Hopkinson R. G. (1970) Glare from windows. Construction
Research and Development Journal 2, 98105, 169175.
Hygge S. and Lofberg H. A. (1997) User evaluation of visual
comfort in some buildings of the Daylight Europe Project.
In Proceedings of Right Light, 4 th European Conference on
Energy-Efficient Lighting, Vol. 2, pp. 6974, Copenhagen,
Denmark
Knoop T. (1998) Tageslichtabhangige Beleuchtungssysteme
auf der Basis von Installations-bussen, Ph.D. thesis of Berlin
University of Technology, Berlin, Germany
Meyer J. J., Francioli D. and Kerkhoven H. (1996) A new
model for the assessment of visual comfort at VDT-work-
stations. In Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and
Safety I, Proceedings of the XIth Annual International
Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference, Vol. 2,
pp. 233238, Zurich, Switzerland
Osterhaus W. K. E. (1996) Discomfort glare from large area
glare sources at computer workstations. In Building with
daylight: Energy efficient design. Proceedings 1996 Inter-
national Daylight Workshop. University of Western Aus-
tralia, Perth, Australia
 User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms
Tokura M., Iwata T. and Shukuya M. (1996) Experimental
study on discomfort glare caused by windows, part 3.
Development of a method for evaluating discomfort glare
from a large light source. Journal of Architecture, Planning
and Environmental Engineering 489, 1725.
Veitch J. A. and Gifford R. (1992) Personal control of
workplace lighting: Too much of a good thing? Paper
presented at the IES Annual Conference, San Diego,
California, USA
Velds M. (2000) Assessment of lighting quality in office
rooms with daylighting systems. Ph.D. thesis, Delft Uni-
versity of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
van der Voorden M., Velds M. and Iwata I. (1998) Validation of
103
the VCE method, an approach to assess visual comfort in
daylit offices. In Proceedings of Eurosun 98, Portoroz,
Slovenia
Wienold J., Beckinger K., Apian-Bennewitz P., Reetz C. and
Reinhart C. (1998) Stationary Virtual Reality (SVR) A
new method for predicting user acceptance of daylighting
systems. In Proceedings of the First CIE Symposium on
Lighting Quality, pp. 178182, Ottawa, Canada
Wolf S., Stefanov E. and Riemann M. (1995) Image resolved
measurement of luminance using a CCD camera. Light &
Engineering 3, 3444.
Zumtobel (1996) LUXMATE Lighting Management, Product
information, Dornbirn, Austria.