Behavioural analysis (research)

Spring 2011 AENG 334 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

Human Factors in Architectural Design Dr. Nagwa Sherif Dr. Zeinab Shafik Arch. Rasha El Sayed

By:

Farida Mahgoub

Maya Kazamel

Reham Hamad

Esraa Khalil

Heidi Allam ElDin

Sara AbdelSamei

Outline of Presentation  Research Question  Significant Results from the Questionnaire  Criteria of Design  Investigation of Plans; The original plans  Modified Plans; Suggested solutions  Inspiration Examples  Conclusion

Research question  The research question was meant to clarify what we would investigate in the questionnaire and later in the re-design of the dorms.

 At first, when designing the questionnaire, we were

investigating two pairs of design factors  Socialization/ privacy  Efficiency/ flexibility

How do factors of socialization associate with factors of privacy?

Research question

cont’d

 After carrying out an initial trial questionnaire and analyzing the results, we

decided to carry out another more detailed questionnaire, based on our initial results.  From the results of this second questionnaire, we generated a list of design

criteria, for both design factors.  However, in our re-design, we felt that socialization/ privacy was a greater

problem and so we focused on that aspect of design.

Significant Results Questionnaire

from the

 Factors that affect the user’s privacy 2% 6%

6%

Outdoor windows looking into room Location of door

19% 7%

Noise through walls

Common bathrooms

34% 26%

Insufficient number of bathrooms Presence of room-mates Other: Workers coming to work on floor w/o previous warning

 Would a partition in a double room increase your

sense of privacy?

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Yes

No

Significant Results Questionnaire

from the

ď&#x201A;&#x2014; Are you able to have visitors in your room? 25 20 15 10 5 0

Yes

No

ď&#x201A;&#x2014; Where do you prefer to sit with visitors? 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Room

Cafeteria

Upstairs commons

Downstairs commons

Courtyard

Significant Results Questionnaire

from the

ď&#x201A;&#x2014; Is the location of the study area appropriate? Yes 42% No 58%

Courtyard Study

Cafeteria

Study is surrounded by glass walls (too distracting)

Significant Results Observations

from the

There is cross-circulation cutting through the ground floor common area to reach the security offices.

Socio-fugal seating arrangement

Significant Results Observations

from the

Courtyard gives identity to place and acts as a strong social space

Significant Results Observations Double room design (good balance between privacy and features of a shared space)

Privacy screens

from the

Results of observations  Factors that most affect the users’ privacy are the limited

number of bathrooms, lack of acoustic privacy followed by outdoor windows looking into room and the location of the doors.  Users were divided on the use of privacy screens.  Most of the students preferred to sit with visitors in their rooms  Students thought that the glass study room and its location adversely affected its function.

Criteria of Design ď&#x201A;&#x2014; Entrance

Common Area

Office

Office Reception

Office

Office ENT

Criteria of Design  Social Spaces  Furniture needs to be socio-petal  Small cluster of furniture instead of one large bundle  A clearly defined space (for semi-public = segregated common rooms)

either by a temporary or permanent partition

 Study  In zoning should be placed far away from distracting and busy spaces

Criteria of Design  Bedrooms  Door swings should be considered; not reveal the bed-side of the room

when opened.  Should accommodate seating for visitors.  Should be acoustically-isolated.

 Bathrooms

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Good 1

Bad 2

 Should be clustered in small groups rather than one large section for

bathrooms.

The original plans Overlayed

GF

FF

SF Original

The original plans GF

Students have to pass through reception to get to commons

FF

SF Original

Elevators should be accessible from outside

The original plans GF Doors open inwards, revealing bed-side of room. Supervisorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s room is too big

FF

SF Original

Bathrooms are all in one place

Handicapped room does not have toilet

Each seating area has TVsthis is very distracting

Door reveals private side of room Bathrooms are all in one place

The original plans GF

Switched to a segregated common room in order to create a semi-private social space

No quiet zone for studying

FF

SF Original

Bathrooms are all in one place

No toilets for handicapped rooms

Bathrooms are all in one place