Proceedings of: Workshop on Improving Building Design for Persons with Low Vision

Identify Design Directives that affect Low Vision

Comment by [Participant]: I think that one of the things that I feel that we don’t do enough of is really looking at the process of doing environmental programming, where you find out – and I thought about yesterday, because the first step in doing it is finding as much as you can about a profile of your user – you know, and what are their characteristics, and then to think about the next step: What are the design directives based on research that you find that help you to make a decision about what you’re going to do?

There’s an interesting old book that Victor Regnier and Jon Pynoos from USC did that was called, actually, “Design Directives” and – for doing senior housing or whatever it was. And it’s such a wonderful format, you know, because someone who doesn’t know anything about it can look at it and think, oh, you know, that makes sense.

The problem is with so many of these literature searches now, in fact because of the Internet, you get so much junk, and then you get some of these groups that do a synopsis of research, like in interior design they have informed design from the University of Minnesota, and it’s – well, they’ve already lost their funding.

And the Environmental Design Research Association has another thing that’s called Research Design Direct Connection, I think it is, which is a very good synopsis because most people are not researchers and they don’t know how to interpret this stuff.

If you can work out some kind of a template or a format for feeding in the wonderful information we got yesterday. I thought, well, you couldn’t do any better user profile. I mean, you can add a few little things to it, but it was great. And then, what are the next steps to how do you apply that research that’s done, and really talk about “evidencebased design”, [which] is the new buzzword. But it has to be based on a good [research] – I mean, one little article or one little research study that they did at some little university or whatever, and I think that some of the things that I’ve [seen come] across my desk (and I think ?), why would you research that? So in thinking about some of those things, it helps if you start out with sort of a template that you could follow.

Design (Performance or Prescriptive) Criteria for Contrast and Glare (anchor criteria to safety) in private and public areas

Okay. What about the issues of contrast? That’s not really dealt with in any of the criteria, or even looking at contrasts especially in terms of stairs, in terms of hallways, in terms of doors. It’s a major topic that could be incorporated in criteria.

Comment by [Participant]: You could define intent without being so prescriptive as to say doors have to be dark and walls have to be light, but defining intent. That’s circulation, entrances, vertical circulation; stairs should be enhanced and made safer by providing proper contrast that allows for persons with all levels of vision to progress though space safely.

I think you have to anchor it in a very basic principle – safety – because there people can’t challenge it. Safety is safety.

And that’s what I think Susan was alluding to yesterday, and that’s kind of what I was, talking about yesterday also is that this criteria – I mean, we don’t have to get prescriptive – and certainly we’ll talk about that a little bit – to do research to bring those findings back into criteria. There’s things that we can offer to the agencies to write in the criteria, and that would at least encourage the design team to think about these issues, and right now they probably don’t. I think contrast is a good one.

Comment by Fred Krimgold: I think what was mentioned by a number of people yesterday that seems a very important early step, and that is the problem of definition; you mentioned topics but I think we really need to say, where do problems occur? Where are the issues now? What is the evidence of a failure or of a limitation of access so that we’re focused on what issue we’re looking at before we begin talking about potential solutions, before we begin talking about other factors or even how to deliver the answers. And we have to – in a sense we have to market those problems before we can market the solutions.

Response by [Participant]: A guideline can speak, though, to the designer. It can speak to also the owners’ representative, which is our government, because they’re also having to review and understand, comprehend and look at and pay for, on behalf of the people, these projects.

So is it fair to say, leading from what you said, that common problems to be avoided are [identified] and just list some of the common problems to give them some intent without actually prescribing it as a solution?

Response by Fred Krimgold: But I think that a disciplined – and some part scientific and some part maybe not – exploration and elaboration of what those issues are and why they’re important. But why they’re important I think is what Susan was referring to, in part.

Well, I’m not disagreeing. I’m with you, because I’m that “kumbaya” guy – but there is a chance –

Response by Fred Krimgold: Go ahead; disagree.

I’ve known this guy for, what, 30 years? We’ve never had a disagreement.

There is a chance, I think, with [Susan], and I think with Kurt being here, to get something in the criteria very quickly. And, again, I think, as Greg says, it doesn’t have to be prescriptive but it does – I think there’s a chance to get a page in there that says, listen, you should – the design team should look at contrast and the design – there is stuff written about it later but I think it’s a workplace – glare in the workplace, at the workstation, and not really glare in terms of circulation. And I think most designers think, hey, you move down that hallway, you’ll be out of it, you know.

I think the signage issue needs to be discussed. I mean, you know, the door part is there but not really making the signage large enough so that people with –

Comment by Marsha Mazz: Well, signs are already required to be a certain size when they designate permanent rooms and spaces. That’s already in the ADA standards, the contrast –

Well, GSA must not be following that because –

Response by Marsha Mazz: GSA established that standard.

Yeah, I know, but I’m saying I’ve been in enough courthouses I don’t think they’re following that because the signage is pretty small.

Response by Marsha Mazz: The overhead signs and directional signs, it’s slightly different. But for the sign that designates that room, says you are here, there is already a standard for that. Now, any of these standards can be improved, but there is in fact already a standard.

And I completely agree with the comments from my colleague across the table. We’re always asked to explain why – what are the benefits. Just saying that glare is a problem doesn’t tell anybody much about that problem. It doesn’t say why it interferes with someone’s ability to use the building, and if you fix the problem, what the result will be. And I think we need to be able to say that.

Well, I’ve written enough federal design criteria to know that you don’t spend a lot of time talking about those issues. You basically come in and you – it’s direction, and you’ve got GSA/VA here to either agree or disagree with me – where the agencies come in and tell the design team, these are the issues we want you to consider. And sometimes it’s prescriptive, sometimes it’s performance and sometimes it leaves the decision up to the design team. And all I’m saying is –

Comment by Fred Krimgold: And sometimes they’re wrong.

Response by Marsha Mazz: Yes.

Yes, sometimes they’re wrong. But, quite frankly, here’s the part, Fred, if we don’t put it in. we wait for years and years, several years and get [nothing] – well, let me finish. You know, it’s funny; we develop the research – and, as I said, we don’t do research; I’m just saying it is an opportunity to bring this low-vision issue into the criteria, you know, relatively rapidly.

And, again, I’m not saying we do prescriptive or you’ve got to do it this way, but to me it’s a no-brainer to go in and say, listen, consider contrast in circulation [areas]. GSA may have been the lead architect on the signage but I know I’ve been in enough GSA buildings and VA buildings to know that their signage directing people around is problematic for 20/20 vision.

And, Kurt, we’ve seen that. So, there’s no reason not to write something so a design team can deal with it.

And again with glare – I think glare is covered now, although there’s no –

Comment by Jim Woods: It’s not. It’s not.

There’s not, in the workplace? So again, there’s an issue – glare, not only in the workplace but in circulation. And, again, I’ve been in enough – especially GSA [facilities] to recognize that you hit that lobby and, even if you’re well-sighted, you’ve got orientation problems. So --

Continued Comment by Jim Woods: Earle, we have criteria right now. The best we’ve been able to do in the P-100 is have some illumination criteria. The issue for me is accountability, one of the big issues: if we’ve got measurable criteria in terms that you could design to and evaluate. And we see this in the post-occupancy evaluations all the time. Nobody is accountable for the number. If you don’t have the numbers down [defined in] there – and this is a liability issue – designers are going to kill me for this. Okay?

No, they won’t kill you for that. If you take –

Continued Comment by Jim Woods: If you get a number down, it has to be measurable, and it has to relate to the psychophysiology of what’s going on in a public space or private space. But those are the design issues. Then the architects can start dealing with it and the engineers can start solving some problems. But until you get the criteria, it’s very difficult.

Response by [Participant]: There’s a basic thing also with glare, and I can speak from this from not having a disability with vision or anything; it’s just over time. And what I find myself telling my teenage boys [is] look at that with your young eyes instead of my old eyes, and you deal with it differently.

The concept of glare, as an architecture student, is nowhere near what it is when you’re in your 50s or, you know, I’m below those ages where you start defining it as issues. It changes, and so [does] your concept of what the issue is –you can intellectually say you understand it but you don’t until you start feeling it or it’s a measurable thing that you can identify where that barrier is. So if you have a design criteria that says reduce glare, you know, among the other 2,000 things you’ve got to do, that one is going to get no attention. It’s just the practical way of life.

Question and Comment by Kurt Knight: Is that VA criteria [or] another governmental criteria? I think as far as problem identification, there needs to be some description of the problem. It doesn’t need to go on and on forever. For example, if we were going to improve our standards for low vision, we would probably put a statement in our design guidance or someplace that VA recognizes, because of the aging population of its patient load, that low vision is an increasing issue, and therefore we’re going to charge the architects with doing something about it at this stage.

And many of these things are architectural-design issues. No matter what you say or what parameters you put down, an architect has to sit down and pick interiors, pick lighting schemes, all that. I don’t know how we can do a lot to make that very prescriptive because it’s so vast.

Comment by Tom Williams: We have to know what criteria we’re working towards. And as somebody said earlier, you have to identify it or define it in some fashion so that it doesn’t become a nebulous, subjective criteria that nobody knows or understands until after the building is built and occupied –

I understand that, Tom, but here’s my concern – and I’m all for that, okay? I mean, I’ve pushed measurement for years and years and years. My concern is if we wait for that, if we look at [the P 100], I would say 80 percent of us probably [ignore] it, right?

And same with this. So why do we say, oh, for low vision we’re going to wait until we – I’m saying we need to get stuff in there now.

Comment by Fred Krimgold: What I’m suggesting is that in the process –

Response by Marsha Mazz: Earle, can we take a straw poll right at this very minute and ask how many people in this room are ready to move on to developing guidance and how many are not?

Continued Comment by Fred Krimgold: Let’s define what we mean. But I suggest in a kumbaya –

There’s nothing kumbaya about you.

Continued Comment by Fred Krimgold: I’m making an effort to speak your language, right? But we really embrace a two-track approach, one which is do the best that we can with what we’ve got now, recognizing that there’s a short-term opportunity, and that we do that responsibly, recognizing that it may preempt more accurate, more responsible activity later – so be careful about that – and at the same time not trimming it off but right now laying the foundation to take advantage of the terrific multidisciplinary opportunity represented by this meeting –

I agree.

Continued Comment by Fred Krimgold: The fact is we’ve got experts [here] who really know what the conditions are and that’s in terms of the architectural approach. It’s one thing to say that the architect is the one that has to define the environment and has to choose the materials and so on, but that’s got to be done on the basis of understanding the physiology. That’s got to be done on the basis of understanding the phenomenon. And that’s not simple, it’s not evident, and it’s not intuitive.

Response by [Participant]: But there’s a lot already available.

Continued Comment by Fred Krimgold: Well, what’s available we should apply, but that requires an organized and disciplined approach. But the other thing is that there are a lot of things that aren’t clear or available or resolved, and those we have to recognize and structure an approach to resolve it.

Conflicts with energy requirements and codes

Comment by Jim Woods: One other issue that really is burning me that I want to get on the table right now, and that’s timeliness.

That’s what?

Continued Comment by Jim Woods: Timeliness. We’ve got a huge change – sea change with regard to Zero Net Energy (ZNE) buildings.

Right.

Continued Comment by Jim Woods: A lot of changes are being made in codes and standards, as we speak, to go to Zero Net Energy, which is a thermodynamic impossibility, okay? Now, it’s going to impact lighting like crazy.

Responses from [two Participants]: Oh, yes. Yes

Continued Comment by Jim Woods: And it’s going to impact low-vision persons even worse. So those cases are happening right now. They’re happening. There’s no reason we can’t get in and have something that increases the awareness of what the consequences are in terms of health issues with regard to lighting, et cetera. I don’t think we have a choice but to do some of these right away.

Comment by Greg Knoop: I think we also have to be willing to take one of these to the existing language and find the problem-makers in the codes for this subject matter, not just what do we have to add in but what do we have to take out?

Response by [Participant]: Right.

Continued Comment by Greg Knoop: Things like atriums and courtyards are not program elements; they are solutions. Great space or lobby is the program element. So what we should be careful of is to prescribe a solution that’s guised as program space that actually creates problems. Let the solutions of creating a pleasant, low-glare, you know, wonderful environment that does less harm, those solutions come from the architect. We’re going to give them a greater hand rather than tying it further. I think that’s important to do.

Reduction in lighting power density (watts/sf)

Comment by Robert Dupuy: I think an important thing that’s been missing in this whole discussion is energy codes. And the federal government has its own energy code. Every state has some energy code. Cities have energy codes. Some are enforced, some are not. The federal government, on some of the federal projects I’ve worked on, has said, well, forget the code; don’t worry about it. They don’t have to comply with states, their law and things like this.

But these codes are definitely causing a major problem for people like myself as a practitioner who deals with this on a daily basis. The watts per square foot, are continually dropping; the technology is not there to compensate for it, and therefore things like me talking about, you know, low vision and people wayfinding and so forth – the codes are requiring us to produce less-light, you know, space. And so there is a huge disconnect going on here that really needs to be addressed. It’s really a major problem.

And the Zero Net Energy thing – the LEED buildings, we see lots of facilities for the elderly wanting a LEED certification, LEED gold, all of that. And so, you know, we’re looking at 30 percent below code for lighting. Well, that’s absurd if you have low vision. Even if you have normal vision it’s getting to be ridiculous. It’s a major, major issue.

And I think that’s what Jim – that’s what you were talking about.

Response by Jim Woods: That’s exactly what –

And, quite frankly, at least with GSA, almost 100 percent is being driven, you know, in that direction.

Response by Jim Woods: [The political pressure is] huge.

Continued Comment by Robert Dupuy: Absolutely. It’s the driving force of building design now – 30 percent reduction in energy and Zero [Net] Energy in the next 15 years. We don’t even know how we’re going to do it, but that is legislatively mandated. It’s not a code.

Response by [Participant]: Right.

Continued Comment by Robert Dupuy: It’s a law that says, you shall do this.

No relationship between LEED requirements for certification and health and safety of occupants, especially LV occupants

The other piece is LEED certification. And, again, the A/Es are now mandated to get LEED certification. And, there you’ve got a bunch of checklists and there’s really no relationship between those solutions, that checklist, and any of the issues we’re talking about.

Large show of interest

Comment by Fred Krimgold: What I was thinking about – what we talked about briefly yesterday at dinner – was the possibility of, right now, from this meeting, identifying people who would be interested in developing a longer-term collaboration for the development of specific research projects that would bring together the talents in the room here. And maybe NIBS could provide a kind of center point for coordinating that activity in the near future.

It was very encouraging to hear that NIH has a serious interest in this area and that apparently the program we heard about yesterday is not the only opportunity. But if we could, leaving here today, have a list of the interested parties and their contact information and a way of pushing this proposal idea – concrete proposal idea forward, that we could do that refinement over the Internet and really come to some specific action in the near term that would not preclude the kind of activity you’re talking about as immediately relevant, but would actually initiate the second track that I mentioned.

Okay, let me – do you want to ask for who would like to be involved in developing a proposal?

Response by Fred Krimgold: Yes, who would be interested in that discussion? Now, a number of issues have been raised. I have a sense that it has been raised.

Keep them up because I’m presuming that Fred would like to sort of honcho that effort.

Response by Fred Krimgold: I’ll share the honcho.

I’m not saying honcho; just kind of, you know. Just keep your hands up, just so she doesn’t – and we’ll send it out to everybody if you decide –

Response by Fred Krimgold: Actually, let me do it the other way. Who doesn’t want to?

NIBS can serve as a forum

All right. Stephanie will send it out and ask you to comment back. And then, I would think, Fred, you might want to put together a small group, identify some topics, and then send that out [to] get a consensus of which project we should go over and go after. And NIBS would be glad to sort of act as that forum.

Response by Fred Krimgold: Excellent.

That would allow federal dollars to transfer. Many of you don’t even know who we are. We’re private, a 501(c)(3), but we actually were established by Congress, so we have enabling legislation that does two really interesting things. This is all building-related. One is it allows the federal agencies to fund my services, my contracts to do certain things – develop criteria and do research, information dissemination, without going through federal procurement requirements, okay? So they don’t have to go out and competitive bid, in essence.

So they can come to us directly if they have a problem and fund us. We have a fairly small staff of about 20, 25 and we go out and contract with experts that basically do the work. The second piece which agencies find interesting is the legislation encourages federal agencies to use the recommendations and criteria that come out of the institute. It doesn’t say we have to. So it’s not like the federal standards we’re already using, but it says if something comes out in the [form of guidelines or standards], because NIBS is an open, unbiased, no specific constituency, then the agencies are encouraged to use it. So that’s two very beneficial attributes. And we have significant contracts with almost all of the agencies – GSA and military, VA, DOE, DHS that have to deal with buildings.

Are low energy consumption and high lighting quality compatible goals?

Comment by [Participant]: One research area or group we may need to bring [on board] are people who are on the energy side, because they’re the ones we’re arm wrestling over some of these issues. So where have they overstepped and where can they give in order to help us on several topics? So we’re going to need some interaction with your people who are –

Now, yeah, just one small thing [that] keeps coming up. In fact, Susan mentioned it in passing when she [referred to] the energy bill [and indicated that] it [excluded] accessibility. It does and it doesn’t. People list this.

The EISA legislation of 2007 – the Energy Independence and Security Act, which is the last energy law that we have on the books – defines high-performance buildings – there’s a whole section in there on high-performance buildings – defines high-performance buildings as allinclusive, comprehensive, and in fact mentions things like energy sustainability, security, safety, cost-effective, but it specifically doesn’t mention accessibility only because of some conflict it was in, in Congress at the time, but it does say it should be all-comprehensive, allinclusive and comprehensive.

And if you go to the criteria – or you go to the website that most federal agencies use to distribute their criteria, which is The Whole Building Design Guide, which is a website out of the institute [NIBS], whole building design is defined including accessibility as a major component of that. So --

Comment by Marsha Mazz: And accessibility is a component of sustainability.

Yeah. So it’s in there although the word [accessibility] was not in the definition. Now, most agencies, because of the push towards zero net energy, have excluded all that. I mean, they just focused on green. And, you know, we’re constantly up on the Hill, testifying that the agency shouldn’t forget all of the other things, including functionality, operations and maintenance, accessibility and safety, and all of the other issues; and not just focus on sustainability at this point.

Comment by Kurt Knight: But it is a fact that if solutions are going to be identified in research, they need to recognize that it’s not going to be very appropriate, or you’re going to have a hard sell, if you’re going to double the energy for lighting or something in a building. You have to look for solutions that help the issue but also the energy conservation.

Well, that’s just a game we play in this city. We’ve got a project with the Department of Homeland Security who is interested – all agencies have stovepipes. DHS is interested in glass and chem bio. Okay, that’s what they like. And I’d love to get them in a room with Susan to discuss this.

They’ve recognized they want to develop new glass, new envelope systems that have a higher degree of glass protection, but at least they’ve recognized they’re not going to do that unless those systems are energy conserving and [are from] sustainable materials. So you know, they’ve folded that all in, so everybody has sort of got to ride that horse right now because that’s the horse to ride.

Comment by Kurt Knight: And it’s not just the [energy consumption]. Reality is energy [cost] is going to increase significantly. Ten years from now we’re going to pay a lot more money for energy than we do now, and it’s a major issue for the whole country.

And so, whether you’re private or public sector in that high-performance building group, some companies are thinking about times when they can’t get energy, and how do they continue their operations in that kind of scenario? So [the] energy [issue] is not going to go away; it’s going to get worse or more difficult all the time.

Response by Mary Ann Hay: I don’t think we’re talking about doubling the energy for lighting. I think even if we could have a time-out on the energy-code reductions with lighting it would help tremendously, because what happens is it’s just across-theboard cuts that keep pushing it down further.

And one of the biggest challenges with the energy code is it doesn’t take into account the three-dimensional qualities of the space. So it just looks at the wattage per square foot [of floor area], and that wattage per square foot is the same whether you have an eight-foot ceiling or you have a 20-foot ceiling.

So I think there needs to be a serious look at the energy codes and stopping this drive to just keep reducing and maybe focus on other areas of the built environment where there can be significant energy reductions. But, I mean, for an office environment, one watt a square foot, that’s very difficult to provide a quality illuminated environment that addresses low-vision issues, provides appropriate glare control, provides vertical illumination. You know, there’s a lot of difficulties with that. So to say you have to cut this 30 percent, it’s not going to happen. We’re going to have very low light levels, and the technology, it’s not keeping up with it.

Comment by [Participant]: I think the challenge for us is to take those limitations, though, and find other ways to respond.

Response by [Participant]: Yeah, but if you get pigeonholed into this box, you don’t have enough energy, you can’t meet the minimum lighting codes.

Comment by [Participant]: I think one of the hopes is that we would create the impetus to create better technologies to address these issues, to actually harvest energy that’s free and therefore offset the energy use in buildings. Is that realistic in the next 10 years? It’s hard to say, but if we use more energy to light buildings, then we’re going to have to harvest more energy for those buildings.

Comment by Jim Woods: As part of the research, I would like to attack the myth that lighting is going to cause more [whole building] energy consumption. When we do actual measurements of energy consumption in a building, there has been no change in 30 years against the CBECS database.

Testing the ABA

Just a couple of new stories for you guys. I’ve been here a long time so I know a lot of stories. I came to the U.S. in ‘74, and the ABA got passed in ‘68. In ‘74, I see every morning two young architects. They come in: very good-looking, young and walking good. But at 10:00, I see a lot of noise in the hallways, riding around in the wheelchairs. I see nothing wrong with them. Everything looked really very well.

So finally one day I asked [why were those] rubber tires and these floors are made of [concrete] flooring so noisy. So I asked my colleagues, I said, well, what’s going on? These guys come in looking good; suddenly at 10:00 they got into the wheelchairs, and then this all day, and I’ve been seeing it for four or five days.

They said, well, they’re testing the American barriers – like what barriers, architectural barriers to see what barriers need to be moved to have easy access.

And, you know, in 40 years, a lot of progress, but it took so long to get to this point. Even now, like Tom was saying yesterday, there are issues with the doors, there are issues with the [elevators]. Still there are issues for future access. But I see a lot of opportunity and I think it can be achieved. It will take a lot of experience, a lot of [work]. That’s one story I wanted to tell.

Uncertainties

The other story is, we had a chief judge in Los Angeles and the building, 1970 design, and bathrooms were really old. He’s very unhappy with the bathroom, so he called the GSA manager: I want to get my bathroom redone. I want a brand-new bathroom.

So it took about three, four months, and the judge opened the bathroom and he looks in there. He saw handicap-accessible grab bars [on the wall] – high up. And he [had a discussion] with the building manager. I’m going to put you in [jail]. He said, but I had nothing to do with it. Talk to the design folks.

So he called the project manager and he was so mad. He said, do I look handicapped? I never asked you to – he said, Judge, that’s the law, and the law was passed by Congress, and everybody has to comply with the law – handicapped bathroom within so many feet. We have to have a handicapped bathroom. He mumbled and grumbled but it’s too late; now it’s already built.

Anyhow, about six months later he went on a fishing trip in Wyoming somewhere, and he slipped on the rock [while he was] fishing and he had vertical fractures in both his legs. He was in surgery and all that good stuff for six months. He came back six months later on crutches.

So he called the project manager and the building manager. He thanked both of them for building the bathroom there. And now he said, I want you to build the whole area so I can go in my wheelchair.

Comment by Marsha Mazz: It just proves that disability is the only minority group you get to join after birth.

And, [this] judge was so powerful but he was going to [approve] some $300 million for new projects within the POE. And when we did the POE, we had to do the justification for the POE: I want new courtroom.

So he came with the crutches but he wanted to make sure that we didn’t take the video while he uses the crutches. He sat down nicely, but he didn’t want anyone to know that he’s handicapped, [so he ordered that the design team] put a barricade or some kind of a banister so you couldn’t see him going on the wheelchair. So he [became aware of the need for accessibility design] changes as well of their disabilities.

Anyhow, those are the stories.

Comment by Earle Kennett: Okay. Thank you, Vijay. Vijay is full of stories. You should travel around the country with him.