## 4 Results
### Experimentation  
Next, each of the scenarios is further detailed, presenting their respective infrastructure analyses (see Figure 6):  
* Scenario 1: In Scenario 1, a context is presented wherein the metro experiments include a flexible arrangement of platform use by participants, meaning there are no limitations or markings on the floor. It is important to note that participants have the option to board or alight from the train voluntarily, with the only condition being that they can make their desired choice when the bell rings. To carry out this scenario, the platform has a total area of 20 m\({}^{2}\) where participants can board and alight. * Scenario 2: In Scenario 2, a context is presented wherein the metro experiments involve platform markings on the floor, indicating the areas for boarding and alighting when the bell rings. Additionally, participants hear a command saying, \"Let passengers alight before boarding\", which means that some participants will have to wait on the platform for a certain period before boarding the train. To execute this scenario, the platform has markings on the floor, with a designated waiting area for boarding passengers and an area for alighting passengers. Each area measures 16 m\({}^{2}\) and 4 m\({}^{2}\), respectively. The following are the data obtained in the laboratory during the execution of scenarios 1 and 2 in the different groups established for this study, based on the participants' own experience. As seen in Table 3, the scenario without floor markings shows an average time of 1.30 s/ passenger for boarding and alighting from the train. This time is measured from the moment the first passenger boards or alighting from the train until the last passenger does so. The standard deviation in this scenario is 0.39 s/passenger. In this scenario, an average of 16 passengers board and alight, while 9 remain inside the train on average. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Physical Element** & **Standard Description to Achieve Accessibility** & **Yes/No** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Signage} & The signage that identifies the station or provides information about the surroundings will be located in a way that does not obstruct access to the platform or the 360\({}^{\circ}\) turn of a wheelchair (with a minimum diameter of 1.5 m). & Yes \\ \cline{2-3}  & The signage should have a clear height of 2.1 m from the lowest point of the information panel. & Yes \\ \cline{2-3}  & The signage will be located in a visible area. & Yes \\ \cline{2-3}  & The signage should have an appropriate font size. & Yes \\ \cline{2-3}  & The signage should have a color contrast between the text and the background. & Yes \\ \cline{2-3}  & The ground-level support of the signage should not have any protrusions. & Yes \\ \cline{2-3}  & The signage has a Braille system located at a height between 0.9 and 1.2 m. & No \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._Similarly, Table 4 shows Scenario 2, where there are markings on the floor. The average time value is 1.33 s/passenger, and the standard deviation is 0.42 s/passenger. On average, the number of passengers who board and alight from the train is 16, while 8 passengers, on average, remain inside the train. It is also observed that the values in Scenario 2 do not differ significantly from those obtained in Scenario 1. A T-Student test shows that it is not possible to establish a significance difference between the two variable groups (comparing the time between Scenario 1 vs. Scenario 2), indicating a \(p\)-value greater than 0.05. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Run**} & **Boarding** & **Alighting** & **Total Boarding +** & **Passengers Inside** & **Time (s)** & **Time (s/Passenger)** \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Passengers** & **Passengers** & **Alighting** & **Alighting** & **The Train Carriage** & **Time (s)** & **Time (s/Passenger)** \\ \hline  
\hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}