Wayfinding in an Educational Facility Comparing Handicapper and Non-Handicapper Perception and Behavior: Part II

This report addresses use and meaning in relation to wayfinding in the Chatterjee Communication Arts and Sciences (CAS) building at Michigan State University. An approximately equal number of handicapper s with mobility handicaps (TV = 16) and non-handicappers (N = 20) volunteered to follow building scenarios prior to questionnaire completion. Additionally, sixty-one randomly chosen building users were interviewed in a shorter version of the questionnaire to reflect everyday facility usage. The multimethod technique described includes code checklist, scenario instructions and interview questions. No significant differences in wayfinding or building performance based on opinions and behavior of handicappers and non-handicappers were found. Building familiarity was not a critical factor. Using backtrack frequency as the indicator of lostness, 97 percent of all scenario participants became lost at least once. Difficulties in finding specific destinations centered around the adequacy of information provided by building form, directories, signage, and receptionist(s). INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW This article is the second report on a research project in post-occupancy evaluation (POE) of Michigan State University's Chatterjee Communication Arts and Sciences (CAS) building. Part I reported on handicapper and nonhandicapper preference and meaning associated with building entries, restroom stalls, and drinking fountains with the underlying assumption that concepts of user preference and human dignity are important [1]. Results supported the connotation of stigma associated with the handicapper entryway. Stigma was 245 © 1988, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: 10.2190/XUV4-GN4A-L43Q-JV6U http://baywood.com 246 / ROBERTA L. KILTY-PADGETT not associated with restroom stalls and drinking fountains. There were no significant differences in preference for restroom stalls. Either there was no preference or people of both groups favored the barrier free drinking fountain. The focus of Part II is wayfinding within the public areas of this occupied educational facility. Together with Part I, a basic overview of facility performance is presented. The major research question challenged in both parts of the report is, "Does the building perform as and convey an environment more responsive to handicapper needs? " Lynch defined illegible environments as settings where a coherent pattern of parts is not readily evident [2]. As Weisman discussed, illegible designed environments are familiar to everyone [3]. He found that wayfinding behavior is most strongly related to the "goodness of form" of building plan configurations. He identified five "good form" aspects, of which legibility and simplicity of building configuration play important roles. He believes that a person's adequate mental image of an environment requires both a representation of significant locations and an understanding of the spatial relationships between those places. Weisman, in a university building wayfinding study, tested small groups of four and twelve subjects in ten study settings, with a total of seventythree participants where wayfinding behavior assessment was based upon selfreport data [4]. He maintained that familiarity itself may not be sufficient to explain or resolve wayfinding difficulties, and other factors such as visual and spatial design features should be considered to alleviate disorientation. He found no significant relationships between building familiarity and wayfinding behavior, and views increased familiarity, in some environments, as a way to become lost more often. He defines legibility as "the extent to which it facilitates the process of wayfinding. " In an experimental study by Best which examined entry behavior patterns in a large public building, he defined lostness as "the deviation from the most direct route to that room {destination) from one of the main ten entrances" [5]. The main variable affecting lostness was the number of route choices. Over half the errors were attributed to other people being helpful. Beaumont et al. conducted a focused government building evaluation in New Zealand in order to find major reasons for orientation and wayfinding problems [6]. Forty percent of the comments from eighty-six people concerned orientation and wayfinding. Ten percent of the sample was disabled. Using a multi-instrument approach, they did not find wayfinding to be a problem primarily for the first time user, but found wayfinding problems and orientation to be the same for all people, undiscriminated by age, gender, ethnicity, or disability. Zimring and Templer conducted a two-part study in which twenty-four and sixteen sight-related handicappers respectively were tested to evaluate material texture in relationship to wayfinding [7]. In study 1, their purpose was to determine paving surface detectability for visually impaired long cane users. In WAYFINDING PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIOR: PART II / 247 study 2, they tested the cues (countermeasures) identified in study 1 on an outdoor test route. By dividing the sample into two groups who traversed the route with and without countermeasures, they found that familiarity alone did not account for improvement in route negotiation, but was affected by adequacy of environmental cues. Appleyard considers first time users more dependent on the environment for gaining wayfinding knowledge and states, "It should be possible to adjust attributes of form and visibility to enable each building to achieve the desired level of recognition" [8]. In a study by Evans et al. [9], where the effect of building interior color changes on people's orientation behavior and building knowledge was examined, two groups of seven subjects equally unfamiliar with the university building were randomly selected and given a tour through the building with or without interior color changes, prior to testing. Significant results in wayfinding behavior between color coded and non-color coded groups were obtained, the color coded group making significantly fewer errors in wayfinding, in recognition and goal location, thus substantiating the positive influence of visual access, also tested by Gärung et al. [10]. The authors considered goal seeking errors to be any deviation from the shortest path at any given point. They did not think the findings generalizable to users more familiar with the building and considered the problem of interior building orientation most applicable to low frequency users. To what degree familiarity facilitates orientation is discussed in Gärling, et al. [10]. Using four groups of six men and ten women each, two groups participated in building tour sessions with familiarity as the variable. Two remaining groups participated with their sight restricted by goggles, thus limiting visual access through windows, across hallways, and in front of them. Only one of the latter two groups was presented with a floor plan prior to building touring. It was found that familiarity facilitated orientation based on improved performance of subjects across building tours. Limited visual access was found to reduce the effects of familiarity on performance, but presentation of floor plan information counteracted negative effects of sight restriction. Gärling and Lindberg believe that familiarity together with visual access and a floor plan will facilitate spatial orientation in a building [ 11 j . They consider it essential to measure actual performance of users in the building being tested and to do so in actual settings among commonly occurring activities. Passini concurs that tasks should be representative of common wayfinding problems encountered in public spaces [12]. He considers: 1) spatial characteristics of a setting, and 2) wayfinding support systems such as signage and maps as environmental determinants of wayfinding problems. His data showed that all subjects referred to signs, even those who preferred to rely on the understanding of spatial settings for solving wayfinding problems. Passini defined spatial orientation in two ways: 1) having to do with knowing where one is and having an adequate cognitive map, and 2) knowing what to do 248 / ROBERTA L. KILTY-PADGETT in order to go places, including information processing into a cognitive map [13]. Perceptual and cognitive processes, how a person relates to the spatial environment and to destinations, his memory, and learning are all involved in wayfinding. Gärling, et al. present three factors affecting spatial orientation and wayfinding [14]. They are: 1. degree of differentiation of parts of the environment; 2. degree of visual access to destinations from different vantage points; and 3. complexity of spatial layout. Context and Conceptual Background for this Evaluation The general context was described in Part I and will not be repeated here. An expanded description of building configuration is included for clarification purposes. The CAS basement houses Audiology and Speech Sciences for reasons of sound control. The two story main building block contains classrooms, offices, and radio/television studios. The perimeter of the first two floors and three "U" shaped office floors above wrap around the west, south, and east sides and act as a noise buffer for the radio/television studios, centralized for sound control. Although the facility houses instructional television, broadcast television, and other technologically related student/faculty programs, the focus of this study was on plan configuration of public areas as opposed to building or media technology. A campus map and CAS site plan are shown in Figure 1. Individual floor plans are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The general belief that the CAS building is barrier free and thus responsive to handicapper needs is cited in Part I. The timing for evaluation was right because the building was relatively new, and the users had an adequate length of time to adapt to their new surroundings. Objectives of the stu