## 3 Results
### Within-Subject Analysis (Follow-Up POE Investigation)  
#### 3.1.1 Objective Comparison  
1. Horizontal illuminance on a room area (E\({}_{\text{h-room}}\))--The overview of the results for the mean value of horizontal illuminance E\({}_{\text{h-room}}\) of the calculated sensor points of the ten rooms' areas at the work plane height is shown in Figure 4a,b. Where the mean E\({}_{\text{h-room}}\) values in October were below 200 lux for all sky conditions, the amount of daylight increased, as expected, during the second POE in June. On average, the rooms received 200 lux or more horizontal illuminance during June. Since the participants mostly worked under the clear sky condition, more details of the results for the clear sky condition are illustrated in the right image. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Variable Description** & **Variable Name** \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Momentary} & Satisfaction with light at the desk area & Light desk \\  & Satisfaction with natural light (daylight) & Natural \\  & Satisfaction with artificial (electric lighting) & Artificial \\  & Satisfaction with glare from sunlight & Glare sun \\  & Satisfaction with glare from artificial lighting & Glare artificial \\  & Satisfaction with lighting quality & Lighting quality \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Annual} & Satisfaction with light at the desk area & A-Light desk \\  & Satisfaction with natural light (daylight) & A-Natural \\  & Satisfaction with artificial (electric lighting) & A-Artificial \\ \cline{1-1}  & Satisfaction with glare from sunlight & A-Glare sun \\ \cline{1-1}  & Satisfaction with glare from artificial lighting & A-Glare artificial \\ \cline{1-1}  & Satisfaction with lighting quality & A-Lighting quality \\ \cline{1-1}  & Satisfaction with the view to outside & A-View \\ \cline{1-1}  & Satisfaction with overall indoor environmental & A-IEQ \\ \cline{1-1}  & quality (i.e., thermal, acoustic) & A-IEQ \\ \cline{1-1}  & Satisfaction with job & A-Job \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Description of the variables included in the analysis with their variable name. Satisfaction variables are all on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very satisfactory to 7 = very unsatisfactory). 2. Horizontal illuminance on a task area (E\({}_{\text{h-task}}\))--Based on the position of the desk area in each room, the mean horizontal illuminance received on task area E\({}_{\text{h-task}}\) was calculated. As presented in Figure 4c,d, on average, the amount of daylight received at the task area in June was approximately 100 lux higher compared to October. Under the clear sky condition, the areas received, on average, 300 lux with a variation between 100 and 800 lux (see Figure 4d). 3. Vertical eye illuminance (E\({}_{\text{v-eye}}\))--Vertical eye illuminance E\({}_{\text{v-eye}}\) was calculated at the center point of each room with a viewing direction towards the daylight opening. The results of E\({}_{\text{v-eye}}\) under three different sky conditions are illustrated in Figure 4e. 4. Daylight Autonomy (DA) and Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA)--The highest value for DA was found for the rooms on the second floor, with an average of 44 \(\pm\) 8%. The rooms on the third floor at the north-east side had DA values around 29 \(\pm\) 3%, and the south-west side had the lowest DA values around 2 \(\pm\) 0.3%. sDA values of all rooms were lower than 50% of the space area. 5. Daylight Glare Probability (DGP)--The center point of each room with a direction towards windows was elected for DGP analysis. The results of this analysis show that, under the 'clear' sky condition, DGP values were in the range of intolerable glare (DGP > 0.45) for 70% of the rooms in October and for all the rooms in June. Under 'overcast' and 'intermediate' sky conditions, DGP values were below the 'imperceptible' level (DGP < 0.35) in October and at the 'perceptible' level (0.40 \(<\) DGP < 0.35) in June.