Researchers from TU Delft published a new paper entitled “Interface design for lighting and shading controls: device type, position, and system cues influencing user preference and acceptance”. The study explores how people interact with smart building technologies, and what makes them accept or reject in everyday office environments.

As office buildings add more automated lighting and shading systems, poorly designed controls can frustrate users and reduce acceptance. The study shows that it is not the technology itself, but how easy it is to use, reach, and understand, that drives user satisfaction. Interfaces that ignore user expectations risk being ignored or misused.

Testing lighting and shading controls in a realistic office setting

The researchers set up a controlled office lab, mimicking the real office conditions at TU Delft demosite, where 20 participants tested a variety of control interfaces. They compared analog and digital devices, different positions (wall-mounted, desk-mounted, or split), and levels of system information. Participants’ experiences were measured using an adapted Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) and follow-up interviews, giving both quantitative and qualitative insights.

Key findings: position and information drive acceptance

The study found that interface position strongly affects user satisfaction. Reachability and ease of use were the main predictors of overall acceptance. While many participants first thought they would prefer simple analog controls, hands-on interaction shifted their preferences toward digital interfaces with clear, information-rich displays. Desk-mounted digital controls scored highest overall, but in shared offices, wall-mounted controls were preferred for visibility and easy access. This highlights that context matters: one-size-fits-all designs do not work.

The research also demonstrates that usability testing is a powerful tool for evaluating human–building interaction. By engaging participants in realistic tasks, the study captured informed and consistent feedback, connecting numerical usability scores with participants’ personal experiences and confirming the robustness of the methodology.

Ultimately, the TU Delft study confirms that for SMARTeeSTORY, the human element is the ultimate benchmark of success. In our demosite, we are applying these lessons by integrating informative and easy-to-access digital controls that provide users with immediate feedback and ease of reach. By aligning system transparency with physical accessibility, we aren't just retrofitting a historical building with sensors, we are creating a environment where smart technology and human preference work synergically to reduce energy consumption.

Read the full study here.