<p>The purpose of this study is to survey and evaluate if the individual contrast sensitivity and preferences for horizontal and vertical lighting level correspond to the values that standard SS-EN 12464-1 recommends for the workplace- and surrounding light levels.</p><p>This study examines if lighting should be adapted after the individuals’ need or if a general value can be found that will cover every individuals’ need for a workplace and surrounding light level. This study also examines if parameters like sex, age and/or glasses/lenses have an effect on the amount of lighting that the test subjects need. Lastly we compared the values concerning the relationship between workplace- and surrounding light levels with standard SS-EN 12464-1’s recommendations.</p><p>The study is carried out with an experimental design that surveys 220 test subjects who were chosen by a selection of convenience. The test subjects did perform a test where they estimated their individual need for lighting in office environments regarding lighting for workplace and its surroundings. Every test subject carried out the test where they repeated the same attempt three times, to establish if the individual lighting need oscillated or if it was constant, whereupon the results were analyzed, compiled and compared to standard SS-EN 12464-1.</p><p>The results show that the minim- and maxim value for the test subjects is between 70 – 4300 lux. The result varies with different parameters such as sex, age and glasses/lenses. We could also state that the relationship between workplace- and surrounding light levels is slightly higher than what standard SS-EN 12464-1 recommends, which should be taken into consideration when planning future lighting constructions.</p><p>Based on the results in this study, our conclusion is that standard SS-EN 12464-1 does not cover the needs on the comfort levels that the test subjects indicated. The values that the test subjects indicated differ from the values that standard SS-EN 12464-1 recommends.</p><p>Since there is a huge spread of the experienced need for lighting between individuals and age groups, we draw the conclusion that general values of measure can’t be applied as a standard on neither workplace- nor surrounding light levels. To fulfill the needs that users have, the lighting construction should be adapted for the individual and give a lighting flood that will fill the individual needs for workplace lighting.</p>

The purpose of this study is to survey and evaluate if the individual contrast sensitivity and preferences for horizontal and vertical lighting level correspond to the values that standard SS-EN 12464-1 recommends for the workplace- and surrounding light levels. This study examines if lighting should be adapted after the individuals’ need or if a general value can be found that will cover every individuals’ need for a workplace and surrounding light level. This study also examines if parameters like sex, age and/or glasses/lenses have an effect on the amount of lighting that the test subjects need. Lastly we compared the values concerning the relationship between workplace- and surrounding light levels with standard SS-EN 12464-1’s recommendations. The study is carried out with an experimental design that surveys 220 test subjects who were chosen by a selection of convenience. The test subjects did perform a test where they estimated their individual need for lighting in office environments regarding lighting for workplace and its surroundings. Every test subject carried out the test where they repeated the same attempt three times, to establish if the individual lighting need oscillated or if it was constant, whereupon the results were analyzed, compiled and compared to standard SS-EN 12464-1. The results show that the minim- and maxim value for the test subjects is between 70 – 4300 lux. The result varies with different parameters such as sex, age and glasses/lenses. We could also state that the relationship between workplace- and surrounding light levels is slightly higher than what standard SS-EN 12464-1 recommends, which should be taken into consideration when planning future lighting constructions. Based on the results in this study, our conclusion is that standard SS-EN 12464-1 does not cover the needs on the comfort levels that the test subjects indicated. The values that the test subjects indicated differ from the values that standard SS-EN 12464-1 recommends. Since there is a huge spread of the experienced need for lighting between individuals and age groups, we draw the conclusion that general values of measure can’t be applied as a standard on neither workplace- nor surrounding light levels. To fulfill the needs that users have, the lighting construction should be adapted for the individual and give a lighting flood that will fill the individual needs for workplace lighting.

Genom vår utbildning till belysningsvetare vid avdelningen för Belysningslärapå Tekniska Högskolan Jönköping har vi kommit i kontakt med standard SSEN12464-1. En standard som specificerar belysning för offentligainomhusmiljöer. Det vi fått lära oss under utbildningen stämmer inte överensmed vad standarden säger, vi har därför formulerat följande frågeställningar isyfte att undersöka denna skillnad. · Hur väl uppfyller den europeiska belysningsstandarden den svenskaarbetsmiljölagens intentioner vad gäller belysning? · Kan man uppnå arbetsmiljölagen intentioner med en standard? Genom litteraturstudier och intervjuer har vi undersökt området kring dessafrågeställningar. En analys har genomförts där vi genom jämförelser av intervjuutlåtande och litteratur har fått fram ett resultat.Vi har funnit att det finns meningsskiljaktigheter mellan belysningsteknikenoch belysningsvetenskapen om hur belysning skall planeras och hur man skallkontrollera den. Belysningstekniken menar att fysikaliska mätvärden är säkrareatt utgå ifrån då dessa är objektiva medan belysningsvetenskapen hävdar attman inte kan utvärdera en visuell miljö med fysikaliska mätvärden.Den slutsats vi kom fram till är att standarden har svårigheter att uppfyllaarbetsmiljölagen. Standarden lever inte upp till arbetsmiljölagens krav påergonomi, standarden saknar koppling till rummet och brukaren enligt vårslutsats. Vi kom samtidigt fram till att en standard nödvändigtvis inte behövervara ett dåligt utgångsmaterial för belysningsplanering. Däremot bör denversion som används idag starkt omarbetas då den saknar koppling till rummetoch brukaren. / In our education to become Lighting designers at Jönköping University at theDepartment of lighting Science we have come in contact with standard SS-EN12464-1. The information we have acquired during our education does notcomply with the information contained in the standard. We decided toinvestigate: · How well the European lighting standard SS-EN 12464-1 does respondto the intentions of the Swedish work environmental act? · If it´s possible to secure the intentions of the work environmental act´sintentions with a standard? We have investigated this issue through studies of literature and interviews. Aresult has been reached through comparisons of literature and interviews.We found that there are differences between lighting technology and lightingscience when deciding on how lighting should be planned and how it´s qualityshould be secured. Lighting technology argue that it´s safer to use photometryas it´s more objective, meanwhile lighting science argue that you can’t evaluatea visual environment with instruments.Our conclusion is that the standard has difficulties fulfilling the workenvironment act. The standard fails to fulfill the demands specified in the workenvironmental act´s demands for ergonomics; it lacks the connection to userand space according to our conclusion. At the same time we reached theconclusion that a standard is not necessarily a bad starting point when planninglight. However the version currently in use needs to be strongly revised as itlacks the connection to user and space.

<p>Genom vår utbildning till belysningsvetare vid avdelningen för Belysningslärapå Tekniska Högskolan Jönköping har vi kommit i kontakt med standard SSEN12464-1. En standard som specificerar belysning för offentligainomhusmiljöer. Det vi fått lära oss under utbildningen stämmer inte överensmed vad standarden säger, vi har därför formulerat följande frågeställningar isyfte att undersöka denna skillnad.</p><p>· Hur väl uppfyller den europeiska belysningsstandarden den svenskaarbetsmiljölagens intentioner vad gäller belysning?</p><p>· Kan man uppnå arbetsmiljölagen intentioner med en standard?</p><p>Genom litteraturstudier och intervjuer har vi undersökt området kring dessafrågeställningar. En analys har genomförts där vi genom jämförelser av intervjuutlåtande och litteratur har fått fram ett resultat.Vi har funnit att det finns meningsskiljaktigheter mellan belysningsteknikenoch belysningsvetenskapen om hur belysning skall planeras och hur man skallkontrollera den. Belysningstekniken menar att fysikaliska mätvärden är säkrareatt utgå ifrån då dessa är objektiva medan belysningsvetenskapen hävdar attman inte kan utvärdera en visuell miljö med fysikaliska mätvärden.Den slutsats vi kom fram till är att standarden har svårigheter att uppfyllaarbetsmiljölagen. Standarden lever inte upp till arbetsmiljölagens krav påergonomi, standarden saknar koppling till rummet och brukaren enligt vårslutsats. Vi kom samtidigt fram till att en standard nödvändigtvis inte behövervara ett dåligt utgångsmaterial för belysningsplanering. Däremot bör denversion som används idag starkt omarbetas då den saknar koppling till rummetoch brukaren.</p> / <p>In our education to become Lighting designers at Jönköping University at theDepartment of lighting Science we have come in contact with standard SS-EN12464-1. The information we have acquired during our education does notcomply with the information contained in the standard. We decided toinvestigate:</p><p>· How well the European lighting standard SS-EN 12464-1 does respondto the intentions of the Swedish work environmental act?</p><p>· If it´s possible to secure the intentions of the work environmental act´sintentions with a standard?</p><p>We have investigated this issue through studies of literature and interviews. Aresult has been reached through comparisons of literature and interviews.We found that there are differences between lighting technology and lightingscience when deciding on how lighting should be planned and how it´s qualityshould be secured. Lighting technology argue that it´s safer to use photometryas it´s more objective, meanwhile lighting science argue that you can’t evaluatea visual environment with instruments.Our conclusion is that the standard has difficulties fulfilling the workenvironment act. The standard fails to fulfill the demands specified in the workenvironmental act´s demands for ergonomics; it lacks the connection to userand space according to our conclusion. At the same time we reached theconclusion that a standard is not necessarily a bad starting point when planninglight. However the version currently in use needs to be strongly revised as itlacks the connection to user and space.</p>