We were initially told that the shades in the Knight Computing Center were always down. For the most part, this was confirmed during our visits and via the questionnaire results. The illuminance measurements in the room began to provide insight into why the shades always need to be closed. It is interesting to note that although the illuminance data correspond to our expectations of glare conditions, the illuminance data is not necessarily a direct indicator of glare. For example, on a sunny day, a huge reduction in illuminance level (from 176 footcandles to 8.2 footcandles) was experienced on the desk in the row nearest the windows when the mesh shade was closed. If this were a direct indicator of glare, one would look at these data and infer that a 95% reduction in illuminance would surely eliminate the glare problem. However, it was found that the glare was not sufficiently reduced under this condition, and the solid shade had to be closed to eliminate the problem, even though the additional reduction was very small (from 8.2 footcandles to 4.4 footcandles) compared to the initial reduction. It is therefore possible to infer that although the illuminance levels on the desk surface are not necessarily directly indicative of glare problems, in general, the data do show that the amount of solar radiation entering the room is drastically reduced when the shades are closed. Obviously, the shades only address glare from external sources, namely solar radiation in the form of sunlight. Even though the fluorescent lights within the room have the potential to cause glare under certain conditions, this case study focused primarily on sunlight. Similarly, other variables (such as time-of-day, time-of-year, height of computer monitor, and height of user) were omitted in order to limit the scope of the study to obtain meaningful results.
Recognizing that the issue of glare (and to what degree it is a problem) is, at least to a certain extent, a subjective issue, a questionnaire was developed in an attempt to quantify people's perception of the glare problems. A total of 24 questionnaires were received, all of which indicated that at least the mesh shades were closed. Based on a combination of the survey results and our subjective evaluation, we realized that when the mesh shades are closed, any glare problems reported by the respondents can be attributed to the fluorescent lights in the room, and not sunlight. What this really means is that it was of little use to ask people to fill out surveys indicating whether or not they experienced glare, since the shades are always kept closed for the purpose of eliminating glare. More meaningful data could have been obtained if we were able to control the shade variable and have respondents fill out the surveys under the shade conditions set by us, however during our visits to take illuminance data, it became obvious that under sunny or even overcast conditions, it is impossible to expect people to even use the lab without the shades closed.
There was one exception to the trend in survey results. One respondent indicated that when he had been in the lab on sunny days, even with the mesh shades closed, he still experienced glare problems from sunlight. This was confirmed by our subjective evaluation of the glare conditions. Under sunny conditions, with all the shades open, glare was a very severe problem, and the computers in the back row of the room simply could not be used. Even with the mesh shade closed, glare was still found to be a severe problem. The glare conditions are summarized in the following table:
Extent of Glare Problems
| Outdoor Conditions: | Sunny | Overcast | Night-time |
| Shades Open | SEVERE | NOTICEABLE | NO PROBLEM |
| Mesh Shade Closed | SEVERE | NO PROBLEM | NO PROBLEM |
| Solid Shade Closed | NO PROBLEM | NO PROBLEM | NO PROBLEM |
There are a number of options which could potentially reduce or eliminate the glare problems in the room which warrant the continual use of the shades:
- First, the orientation of the room seems inappropriate. Perhaps it could be re-oriented such that the monitors do not face the windows. This would likely involve a 180 degree rotation of the desks, which could still be accommodated by the network and power connections in the floor boxes. Such an orientation would still leave a whiteboard along the side of the room for instructor use. Thirteen percent of the surveys suggested such a re-orientation, even pointing out that this would not only eliminate the glare problem, but would allow users to enjoy the view out of the windows directly in front of them. We discussed the current orientation of the room with the Project Architect, Alan Halleck, AIA of Yost Grube Hall Architects. He informed us that the first floor of the building is completely occupied with administrative offices (including the Dean's office) and classrooms. During design, they initially considered including the computing center as part of the library (in which case the computing center probably would have faced west), but the school's program director decided that it was desirable to keep it separate. Alan told us that the room ended up where it is because it was simply unspecified space late in the project. So, to a certain extent, placement of the computing center was somewhat of an afterthought, which is not surprising considering its relatively low importance compared with most other spaces in the building. [see floor plans]
- Second, the room could be relocated. Computing centers do not even require windows at all, especially if the windows only cause glare problems and cannot be used for view anyway. Any other exterior facing of the building (north, east, or west) would have been more appropriate than a south-facing location.
- Third, it may be possible to reduce the problem by using glare-reduction screens over each of the computer monitors, particularly those nearest the windows. This solution would address both sunlight and interior glare from the overhead fluorescent lights. The screens might not be sufficient, however, to reduce the glare from direct sunlight on a sunny day.
The questionnaire results, combined
with subjective observations and illuminance
measurements, support the hypothesis that the shades are
always closed because of glare. We cannot discount
other possible uses of the shades (such as temperature
influence, etc.), but the shades are certainly directly
addressing the glare issues. The combination of
mesh and solid shades was determined to be very
appropriate given the requirements imposed by the
different outdoor conditions. The mesh shade, in
itself, is not sufficient to eliminate glare on sunny
days, and the solid shade is excessive on overcast
days. Therefore, the shades seem to be acting as an
appropriate band-aid to an unfortunate problem which
could have been avoided altogether.
We would like to thank the following people for their assistance in gathering information, equipment, and access necessary to successfully conduct this case study:
- Matthew Latterell, Assistant Dean, Educational Information and Technology, University of Oregon School of Law
- Alan Halleck, AIA, Project Architect, Yost Grube Hall Architects, Portland, Oregon
- Wendy Turner, Graduate Teaching Fellow, Architecture 591, University of Oregon