Datensatz

Zusammenfassung

Predicting or evaluating the quality of spatial situations is a major unsolved problem in
architecture, because of the lack of generally accepted objective methods. Whereas psychophysics
or cognitive science use exact methods and concepts, their common measurands
and categories unfortunately do little to objectify the character of architectural interiors.
Judgements in everyday language are not clearly divided into different
perceptional, cognitive or emotional categories and seem at a first glance subjective and
fuzzy. However, they reflect the human perception and awareness directly and naturally,
and, systematic patterns provided, they may lead to generalizable predications.
This study was motivated by two main goals: First an exemplary statistical investigation
about conciseness and intersubjectivity of colloquial judgements in general, and second
an evaluation of assumed relations between judgements and measurable features of the
scene.
In a brainstorming session with 24 participants most common and subjectively important
categories to characterize interiors were collected. Subsequently, pictures of 15 different
interiors were rated in 12 of those categories by 42 subjects in two groups (architects and
laypersons). The experiment used a novel internet based questionnaire technique derived
from the semantic differential. Each category was represented by a pair of oppositional
adjectives and evaluated on a nine step Likert-like scale.
Conciseness and intersubjectivity differed from category to category, but averaged ratings
showed clear correlations: Interrelations within evaluation categories could be demonstrated
as well as correlations to basic image features of the evaluated interiors (color,
brightness, saturation, amount of edges). In accordance with the assumptions, for example,
warmth of the scene correlated with coziness (r2=0.82) as well as with red rgb value
(r2=0.66). Furthermore, group specific differences were clearly apparent: architects
responded more consistently and tended to prefer more austere designs.
Rating spatial situations using terms of everyday language provided qualitatively and
quantitatively meaningful results. Especially systematic comparisons to image features
seem to be a viable method for getting further insights into the underlying signification of
judgements. Extending this data basis appears to be a promising way towards predicting
and quantifying the character and ambience of rooms by their physical features.