17th World Congress on Ergonomics Ergonomics, workload and ubiquitous: a case study Prof. Dr. Renato Cesar Ferreira de Souza Architect M.Sc. Theory of Project, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - UFMG, Brazil, Ph.D. Architecture, PCHE High Education, The University of Sheffield, United Kingdom; Professor at School of Architecture UFMG, Brazil; Researcher Coordinator of AIVITS - Laboratory for Virtual Immersive Environments of Low Technology – School of architecture UFMG, Brazil. Email:
[email protected]
M.Sc. Humberto Malard Monteiro Psychologist M.Sc. Ergonomics Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - UFMG, Brazil, Researcher at AIVITS - Laboratory for Virtual Immersive Environments of Low Technology – School of architecture UFMG, Brazil. Email:
[email protected]
M.Sc.Rodrigo Peronti Santiago Architect, M.Sc. Social Memory and Cultural Heritage in Virtual Environments, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil; Researcher Lab Coordinator of AIVITS - Laboratory for Virtual Immersive Environments of Low Technology – School of architecture UFMG, Brazil. Email:
[email protected]
Abstract: This paper presents the results of a reflection considering the intersection point between ubiquitous computing and Ergonomics, and it will exemplify that integration by solving a problem in the regulation of the workload involved when moving in the interior of buildings. It is believed that the Ubiquitous and Ergonomics combined could be a solution to the problem of misunderstandings, loss and a more comfortable ride inside buildings and this will benefit the visitors as well as the people who actually work in the building. In order to achieve its objective this investigation counts on a multidisciplinary view that includes Architecture, Ergonomics and Psychology. The solution to the problem will be presented as an integrated hypothesis and case study, concluding about the benefits of multidisciplinary approaches to deal with ergonomics.
INTRODUCTION: WORKLOAD The idea of workload in Ergonomics is frequently associated with the idea of quantification and objectivity (Monod, Lille, 1976). For didactic purposes, workload is divided into three categories: psychic, physical and cognitive. The first will be given a special attention in this work. When dealing with the psychic workload, it is not possible to quantify an experience that is qualitative in the first place. Pleasure, satisfaction, frustration, rage can barely be controlled by numbers. These are above all subjective experiences by definition. Although being so, specially in the relationship man/work, these feelings have many concrete effects, even if they do not occur regularly. The psychic workload can be a result of the physical and the cognitive workloads separately, or a combination of them. The idea of physical workload is related to the physical strain that one suffers in the environment. Every task that demands a use of the body, either concerning the sensory organs (eyes, ears, touch), or the upper and lower body, could cause it. The physical work load could be also exemplified through the use of individual protection equipments like goggles, helmets, gloves, ear plugs, etc – which can, although
their aim is to protect the body, be harmful to the worker, causing for example body’s traumas or infections due to prolonged use (Wisner. A. 1994) Cognitive workload is related to the mental processes involving an activity like learning, decision making, interpreting, etc. An example of cognitive workload could be given through the activity of a taxi driver, e.g.: his/her cognitive workload could be demonstrated as to what itinerary to take in order to avoid traffic jam in peak hours. The example given refers to a decision making process which is part o the cognitive workload. Managing the workload In the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil – there is a popular shopping centre where a vast variety of product, mainly electronic gadgets, can be purchased at a lower cost. This shopping centre is managed by the city council that is responsible for its maintenance, and its staff consists basically of public workers. In a visit to this shopping centre we noticed a sign on the information bureau charging 25 cents of Euro for information that was given to costumers. Puzzled by being charged for
information in a public shopping centre (where this kind of service must be free) a costumer asked the attendant lady why she was charging in a state shopping centre and if the money was used for any purpose such as maintenance or surveillance. Her answer was outrageously awkward: “actually I do not charge anybody. The sign is only to reduce the number of people searching for help…” That was a concrete example of how workers cope with their workload. There are many strategies to manage great deal of stress at work, and one of the ways was mentioned in the girl’s comment: in order to avoid frequent question by the costumers she makes use of untruthful information aiming to reduce her workload (Dejours 1994). ERGONOMICS AND SPACE The idea people have about accessibility of a built space, in general, is that it is a place where there is an easy access to wheel chairs, lifts are promptly available for disabled people, and in the lack of lifts there will be ramps etc. However, some very important questions must be answered when it comes to designing a space that actually meet users demands. They are: 1) How ordinary people will orient themselves inside a building, in case it is a big and complex built environment? 2) What are the drawbacks users will find in orienting themselves in such environment? 3) Are there clear and well positioned signs so that every one can read, understand and find their way? 4) What type of disability demands is the building prepared to meet with: blindness, deafness, physical disability? These are few of many questions that are waiting for answers. In the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) for example, the buildings consists of long corridors with more than three, even four intersections along them. The question is: how a blind person will orient in a building like this? Imagine this blind person is in such a long corridor and the place she/he is looking for is on the third intersection on the right? How will she/he knows that the wanted intersection is approaching? Will he/she need a private guide for them? How about the deaf people, how can they ask for information? Will there be a person at each reception desk who speak the LIBRAS (Brazilian Language of Signs)? It is known that having a guide for blind people or a LIBRAS speaker at every building is very expensive for a developing country as Brazil, so other forms of accessibility must be thought in order to meet with the demands of everybody (disabled or not). The way proposed here to solve this problem is using technology, particularly the Ubiquitous computing. Cognitive Ergonomics One of the greatest contributions that Ergonomics can provide for Information Science and Architecture, respectively, are the tools used in Ergonomics Work Analysis (EWA) which enable us to study and understand the activity developed during human computer interaction in real work situations. Therefore, through the understanding of how one interacts with a machine it is possible to conceive a “user friendly interface”, that is to say, an interface that takes into account the culture of a given society, and by understanding the culture it is possible to design symbols – for instance, key to represent that a keyboard of a mobile phone is locked; envelope to represent a message in a cellular phone, etc – that make sense
to vast majority of people in a given society, thus easing the operation of electronic gadgets for the layperson (Wisner. A. 1994). A hypothetical situation can show the importance of the cognition of symbols used in common situations. Imagine a person trying to pay his/her credit card bill in a department store. As he/she arrives, heads to the Costumer Assistance Service and faces the following scene: to his/her left a queue with approximately 20 people waiting for assistance of the only open cashier; and to his/her right, an available cash point that announces: “quick and easy”. Motivated by the sign, he/she heads to the cash point and tries to make the payment. Misunderstanding the symbols and sequence of operations, she/he fails many times, but does not give up. Resuming the operation, this time, under the ostensive look of people in the queue, inserts the card, chooses the option, types the password, reads the instruction and is, once again, unsuccessful. Tries twice or three times more and, after new failures, gives up as he/she notices the increasingly number of users that the only cashier available has to help. Although the importance of EWA in the understanding of human behaviour in real work situation must be acknowledged, EWA in some cases is not sufficient to full understand the strategies or the representations used by the worker in a given context, for instance when interacting with informational systems as the cash point abovementioned. So we have to address to the area of Cognitive Ergonomics (CE). The aim of Cognitive Ergonomics is to unveil the articulation of cognitive processes towards problem solving situations at their different complexity levels. It emphasizes the analysis of cognitive processes involved in the interaction with machines, focusing on how people could understand the functions and operate it easily, without loss of attention, stress and other types of wastage. The aim of EC is not to make theories about human cognition (Quoted in Abrahao 2005) and its core roll is to make technical solutions compatible with human needs and characteristics (Marmars & Kontogiannis, 200, quoted in Abrahao 2005) Then, through the lens of Cognitive Ergonomics, we can get a reasonable way to regard the space, highlighting the information related to people’s activities. In this sense, the fields of Architecture and Science of Information could clear how to create a common framework able to help the design of places and objects that are able to be used as interfaces to the applied computational capacities. SPACE, UBICOMP AND ERGONOMICS Information in the space can be considered a good theme to track how new technologies could be applied as to reinforce cognitive aspects related to the operability of machines and improvement of qualities in a place. Therefore, it is important to focus on the qualities of a place, specifying their relations with the spatial elements, and as well with information and ergonomics. Once that question is delineated, the next step will be studying the relationship among components of information technology (it means, the very components as sensors and microprocessors) and the qualities of place, aiming to help the design of spatial elements that could be used as interfaces. The attempt made here is to permit us to regard spatial elements as information itself, or in other words, we are trying to find the same pattern as a communicational situation that belongs to a
more complex phenomenon which could be grasped by technological means. Criticizing the paradigm of information According to Souza (2008), to accomplish a study about information and cognition as a spatial phenomenon one needs to get rid of the ‘mechanistic’ analogies inside the model of communication usually used in science.
Figure 1: The Shannon-Weaver Model of communication (1949) with the inclusion of feedback to suit the model to human communication.
That model is based on the idea of Shannon and Weaver (1949) reflected in the formula Source/Message to Channel/ Receiver as it can be seen in Error! Reference source not found.. In all models derived from this, communication becomes reduced to a question of transmitting information. All the distinctions generated by this model (emitter, encoder, receptor, channel, message) are suitable for establishing separate entities that permit mathematical descriptions and quantifications. Mathematical models and probability studies support this model, enabling it to explain, describe and prescribe a wide range of related phenomena. However, this model is said to be ‘mechanist’ in reference to ‘mechanism’ in philosophy, which is the doctrine according to which natural reality is deemed to have a structure that can be comparable to the structure of a machine, in order to permit the development of explanations based on machine models only. The mechanist vision is part of a long tradition in western culture, the rationalist tradition. Nowadays, the mechanist model of communication has many critics who support alternative approaches. The main criticism is that this model is a conduit metaphor of communication, which in reality cannot contribute to the understanding of human communication. People in fact require much more complex types of relations, and, consequently, models in order to understand how they communicate: they create, for instance, all sort of contexts through which messages can acquire different meanings depending on the relationship between emitter and receptor, their intentions, their previous common history, and so on. Therefore, the mechanist model can be regarded as only an expression of a distortion caused by the rationalist tradition. At least half of the book by Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores, entitled ‘Understanding Computers and Cognition’ (1988), is dedicated to the crisis originated from the adoption of the rationalist model to explain the phenomenon of information in the sciences. To Winograd and Flores (1988) the rationalistic orientation has been the mainspring of western science and technology, and has demonstrated its effectiveness most clearly in the ‘hard’ sciences that explain the operation of deterministic mechanisms whose principles can be captured in terms of formal systems. The tradition finds its highest
expression in mathematics and logic, and has greatly influenced the development of linguistics and cognitive psychology. The main criticism of the point of view of the rationalistic tradition is that, with the empiricism, both stress the necessity to separate subject and object in order to create the means though which reality can be understood. Both make a distinction between a subject, who senses or thinks, and the object, the reality itself, which is sensed or thought. But in both cases, that reality is an object the representation of which by ideas or sensations constitutes a frozen aspect of the wide range of things that the reality really comprehends. The problem of this division is that, like any other dualism, it is a reduction and does not explain many complex problems concerning complex conjunctions of realities. The real itself is negated as being dynamic, changeable in time, being thus incorrectly depicted as a frozen vision of the world. This problem migrates to Cognitive Ergonomics as this field requires ideas based in the cognitive sciences. Thus, all aspects related to the dynamism reality will not be grasped by the communication model of the rationalistic tradition. Among other things, it will be found impossible to study aspects by which that dynamism that present itself in the idea of information, for example language and cognition. The rationalistic tradition regards language as a system of symbols that are composed into patterns that stand for things in the world. Sentences can represent the world either truthfully or falsely, coherently or incoherently, but their ultimate grounding lies in their correspondence to the states of affairs they represent. Also, the assumptions behind the idea of cognition are that all cognitive system are symbolic systems and as such it achieves its intelligence by symbolizing, and representing external and internal situations and events, and by manipulating those symbols. Finally, the abovementioned representational problem proposes that information can be only related to the spatial components of the place representing a meaning inside culture. In short, the adoption of that model would not help since it does not offer enough elements to explain correlations between the concrete elements of a place and the information. The studies of semiotics applied in architecture can be regarded as an attempt to understand physical space as a communicational phenomenon, but those studies derived from the same rationalist tradition through which the problem of representation inside the model of communication is still relevant. For instance, through semiotics, a spatial element should be considered as the conjugation of a signifier - its physical characteristics - with a signified - its meaning inside a cultural repertoire, that means, a sort of reservoir of paradigms to understand spatial elements as meaningful signals. The correspondence between signifier and signified are established through a cultural agreement, and an ideological background which supports all the representations to correspond one to another, space and its cultural significance. The semiotic methods applied in architecture (for example`, those presented in Baudrillard 2005; Eco 2005), however, revealed their relative effectiveness when used to criticize final results, rather than to disclose more about the reality within which a project should be created. A new model of information in the environment
Considering this fact, Souza (2008) has analyzed the paradigm of information, seeking for some alternatives approaches. He found that the investigations led by Maturana (1978) in biology permits to conclude that, in the interactions of the living systems, both among themselves and with their environment, no information is delivered or received. The mechanical view of communication has failed to explain how those living systems adapt themselves to cope with detectable disturbances around them. They are able to survive when their closed, determined, but plastic structures allow them to make adaptations towards a structural coupling with other systems, be they other organisms or their own environment. Therefore, those adaptations are a way of gathering information about how to live, which means that information is regarded as disturbances that are reflected in structural changes to the systems themselves. Taking this biological point of view, cognition can be regarded as the very living process itself (Maturana 1980). According to this point of view, the structural adaptations made by living systems both in terms of each other and with the environment are behaviours that draw up a consensual and cooperative domain which may be regarded as a ‘linguistic’ one. The structural correspondence between the medium and a given living system is always the result of the history of their mutual interactions, while both operate as independent, structurally determined systems: “In the operation of living systems as autopoietic unities in a medium, the coincidence between a given structure of the medium (place in the medium) and a given structure in the living system is always the result of the history of their mutual interactions, while both operate as independent, structurally determined systems. Furthermore, as a result of the structural coupling that takes place during such a history, history becomes embodied both in the structure of the living system and in the structure of the medium, even though both systems necessarily, as structure-determined systems, always operate in the present through locally determined processes.” (Maturana, 1978: 38-39) Through this point of view, human languages are considered one particular achievement, but the way living systems, whether cells or humans in a society, organize themselves physically in the environment can be regarded as an implied linguistic and informational phenomenon. This theoretical approach can be useful when it comes to concluding that a place is the result of a process of spatial organization where the spatial elements play the role of an informational phenomenon.
Spatial structure of information in the space The model developed by Souza (2008) understands information in the environment as a result of disturbances that exist among the internal dwelling systems and which adjust themselves towards adaptation with each other and the environment itself. Far from assuming an interpretive content, in architecture, the elements of such ecological model of information correspond to those formal elements that are the atoms through which meanings are realized in terms of space. The revision of terminology used by some authors as Norberg-Schulz (Norberg-Schulz 1971; Norberg-Schulz 1980), Christopher Alexander (Alexander 1977; Alexander 1979), Bollnow (Bollnow 1967) among others has permitted the representation of the spatial structure of information in a place as being organized on the basis of the following topology:
Figure 3: Spatial Structure of information and elements of the place.
• Central point (centrality) • Internal area; • Horizontal directions; • Vertical directions; • Enclosures; • Entrances. Those elements can be understood as events that unify spatial elements and the activities that happen in a particular place, according to the topology shown. Those structural and topological elements do not have unique and fixed associated meanings, but they are counted as general supports for the entire universe of possible interpretations. This inference is made possible by the topological aspect, which specifies only the relative positions of elements instead of their geometrical properties. To a certain extent, this model permits the comparison of structural and generic aspects from different places, as is suggested illustratively in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Illustrative comparison of the structure of different places. The model, the elements interposed over St. Peter’s Square, Vatican, and over a meeting in a park. Figure 2: Linguistic domains in the interactions of a system with other systems and with the environment.
This informational model has some similarities with some concepts in linguistics, for instance, depending on the authors, the experience one can have by realizing about a spatial element in the place while living there can be similar to
the phatic or the identifying function of language (Finch 1998). SPATIALITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS Once the conception of places is depicted by this model, Souza (2008) understood that information technology components can be applied and spread in the space in order to reinforce four essential qualities of the places: territoriality, privacy, identity, and ambience (Korosec-Serfaty 1985; Malard 1992). The use of those components obviously will depend on the interaction established within the activities in the place concerned. So, the next step is to understand how the components interfere over them, specifically in the qualities of the place. McCullough (2004), inspired by Shafer’s (1999), enumerated ten essential components and functions from which pervasive computing systems have been composed. On the basis of the such classifications, Souza has grouped the properties of ubiquitous computing systems into four generic categories according to the potential of the components and functions, of which ‘place’ is but one(2008): 1) A Group of elements to sense the place (Microprocessors, Sensors, Tags, Communication Links); 2) A Group of elements to modify and actuate in the place (actuators, control process, displays); 3) A Group of elements that represent the place (Fixed Locations, Software Models, Turning); 4) The place itself is called as the referential matrix to the system. By interrelating those components and the four qualities of place (territoriality, privacy, identity, and ambience), Souza has composed a table that permits to generate inferences about the potential relationship between IT components and the qualities (Table 1).
Table 1: The four qualities of a place (territoriality, privacy, identity and ambience) broken down into the phenomena which are, by their turn, related to the spatial elements of the place concerned.
Through that table, it is possible to analyze how an IT component (a) could potentially affect a quality. To do so, it is necessary to reflect on the quality concerned, seeking points that can relate it to the functions of IT components. Column b characterize the spatial conditions of interiority and exteriority by asking how generic IT components can be related to spatial situations of interior/exterior position of people/elements in the place. This column describes general situations where IT components could affect the quality territoriality. By analyzing visibility, column c asks how IT components relate to spatial situations of visibility of people, activities and spatial elements, considering a definition of interior/exterior and helping the quality privacy. This column describes some general applications related to visibility in what visibility is involved with that quality.
Columns d and e describe two spatial conditions to create identity of places: visibility and appropriation. The former describes how the visible appearance of the place can be related to IT components, depicting processes in which the visibility of the place could be transformed into useful information to generate spatial outcomes. The latter describes how IT components could help to transform the way the users use the place into useful data to understand how they appropriate of the spatial elements. The outcomes of using such information are suggested as an application related to identity. Finally, Column f describes how information gathered in the process of appropriation of the place by the user could be related to IT components. All the actions to take care, maintain and preserve the place (including cleansing, maintenance, adjustments and environmental comfort, etc,) are considered in terms of spatial output to reinforce the quality ambience. Using sensors and tags to establish territory We will exemplify with an electronic sensor, asking how it can interfere over the territoriality. Sensors are electronic devices used to detect and measure physical quantities such as temperatures and pressures and convert them into an electronic signal of some kind. When wirelessly connected to a web, the resultant network can be useful to many applications, monitoring, alerting and controlling scenarios in which minute measurements over a range of analytical sensor inputs are delivered. One example of sensors application is the Location Verification Systems project developed through the system TinyOS (http://www.tinyos.net/ and http://webs.cs.berkeley.edu/tos/). It is a specific system designed for use with embedded networked sensors enabling location-based access control. Once a principal location has been verified using a protocol for location verification, it can be granted access to a particular resource according to the desired policy. This approach is combined with physical security; guards or locks might be used to determine who is allowed to enter a building, then location verification is employed to allow wireless access to all those inside. Therefore, the location verification problem is the key technical challenge that must be surmounted in order to implement location-based access control. On the other hand, if we reflect about Territoriality, we will find that it is related to the process in which an area (aerial, terrestrial or aquatic) is maintained in order to preserve and protect a person or group. The activities that take place therein aimed at protecting an area are termed territorial behaviour. Territorial behaviour, therefore, includes all the devices that use the space with the aim of securing that territory. The spatial elements of territoriality permit an easy identification of the violation of boundaries by outsiders, and easy internal communication about any invasive event taking place inside the territory. Invasion of a territory can be either physical or visual, and each is guarded against by a different type of protection. Barriers and physical distances can be used with reference to the former, with visual barriers being used for the latter. The maintenance of territoriality is related to knowledge of the state of the boundaries within, permitting the detection of invasions. In order to improve territoriality of a place, a sensor could be used as to sense external invasions, for instance. It
also could be used as to confirm the boundaries, being deployed in the edges of the place as to sense tags and signalize a gadget that one is using.
Figure 5: Fixed points with sensors create interiority. Defining a territory by sensing the proximity of an electronic tag, a gadget could inform where the boundaries are. Criminals given electronic tags can be an example of such territorial restriction.
Once each quality is related to the IT components, that table makes clear for the designers which spatial condition is appropriated to deploy components aiming to reinforce the qualities of the place. As it has been seen, sensors detect action. They are related to interiority when they are able to sense whether a moveable element is inside or outside a pre-established territorial delimitations. They are related to privacy by sensing proximity, invasion, thus permitting surveillance, and informing when an action is needed to react against invasion. They could permit identification of visible users according to their electronic tag. They could also permit users to identify specific elements in the territory according to specific concerns. By the use of “gesture sensing” technology, they could sense mechanical movements, adjustments in order to tune the ubicomp system, distinguishing how the user appropriates the place. And finally, sensors could integrate systems in order to sense changes in temperature, pressure, light, when the user tunes the system, allowing information about how the user appropriates the place to be gathered. These would permit the creation of collections of info about those variables in order to trigger actions.
which is weak (bad defined) and lacking characterization (without identity). Thus, to develop a partial Ubicomp system to help these specificities, it was imagined two solutions. The first solution was a wearable gadget, a bracelet, able to exert pressure in four points on the fist of the user. Each pressure point was supposed to be understood as a reference to direction. Japanese company Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT) has developed technology that uses the human body as a high-speed network (see http://www. redtacton.com/en/index.html). It also forms a communication link between people and electronic devices, creating a Human Area Network (HAN), enabling fast data transfer between devices using the human body as a conduit. The transceivers called RedTacton - uses the surface of the human body as a safe, high speed network transmission path. Despite this technology is not already available for commercial purposes, we have assumed that HAN is a useful resource to permit easy links between corporal gestures and objects and spaces used as interface to a ubiquitous computing system. Thus, for the first solution, three elements were conjugate in order to compose an ubicomp system: an external gizmo as a box of reception, which permits to choose the target from a menu and upload it into the bracelet; fixed points with sensors in the intersections of corridors and paths, that senses the bracelet by linking it through the body within a plataform in the ground, or through wifi technology; and finally, microprocessors inside the gizmo. The hypothetical solution developed is shown in the Figure 7 and 8.
SOLVING PROBLEMS WITH UBICOMP The initial questions in this paper have posed some hypothesis in order to use components of information technology to reduce the cognitive workload in the interior of buildings, specifically by giving people orientation within. After describing a framework that has enabled the understanding of relations between information/cognition and space, it is now time to detail the aspects of such hypothesis, deploying the developed terminology. The problem described concerns the stress people may have inside a complex and unknown interior. It has been seen that it was mainly concerned with cognitive workload, since information about directions and positions were missing. Thus, analysing the model of information in place, it is possible to asseverate that the problem is about the clear definition of internal directions inside the internal area (see Figure 3). The lack of identifiable marks in the interior, along the directions, is a problem that interferes in the territoriality,
Figure 6: a hypothetical wearable device using Human Area Network to identify and indicate directions in a building, after uploading the indications to the desired path.
The second solution was an improvement of the first. Instead an expensive bracelet with four touches, it was supposed that a modified mobile could be used in order to call attention to the correct direction by vibrating. Each point in the intersections would be defined by platforms in the ground, one to each direction. The central point of the intersection should be sensed by the user as to apprehend it as the centrality of all directions from that point. Then, once the user has reached the central point of an intersection, he could use the feet to search which is the correct direction. When the user touches a platform with HAN that matches with the uploaded sequence of paths, the mobile vibrates, signalling that is a correct direction. Figure 9 show the position of the central point and
the four platform that should be reached.
CONCLUSIONS The second solution introduced refinements which have improved the hypothesis, making it less expensive and more technically arguable as the team of professionals could identify problems and gave them solutions. The framework used has shown that it is possible to agglutinate the knowledge of Ergonomics and Architecture in order to expand the possibilities of Ubicomp applied to improve places. The vocabulary and terminology introduced by such framework gave signs to be powerful enough as to generate hypothesis of solutions, permitting to anticipate future improvements. In terms of a theoretical approach, it has been shown that a new paradigm to regard cognition and information was needed in order to permit Architecture and Ergonomics to accomplish a useful language to analyse information and space. The discussion of the results seems to give direction to new and future investigations that will be done, seeking to enrich the methodology and the theory developed. Bibliographical References
Figure 7 and 8: by touching the panel the user download a desired path from the Reception Panel (7). After, the user is guided within the corridors and spaces, (8) crossing areas of intersections which have HAN in the ground. In this moment, sensors recognize the tag stored in the bracelet according to the selected path, delivering a signal which is converted in pressure in the bracelet. The system works either with the user constantly in frontal position to the direction.
Figure 9: Four platforms and a central point are the elements for the second solution, which has been considered more adequate and less expensive.
Abrahao, J. I. (2005). " Ergonomia, Cogniçao e Trabalho Informatizado." Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa 21(2): 163-171. Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building. New York, Oxford University Press. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, Sara, Silverstein, Murray (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York, Oxford University Press. Baudrillard, J. (2005). The System of Objects, Verso. Bollnow, O. F. (1967). Lived Space. Readings in Existential Phenomenology. N. L. D. O'Connor, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall: pp. 178-186. Dejours, C. (1994). Psicodinâmica do Trabalho. Contribuições da Escola Dejouriana à Análise da Relação Prazer, Sofrimento e Trabalho. 1994, Ed. Atlas. Eco, H. (2005). La estructura ausente. Barcelona, Random House Mondadori. Finch, G. (1998). How to study linguistics London, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1985). Experience and Use of the Dwelling. Home Environments. I. a. C. M. W. Altman. New York, Plenun Press: 65-83. Malard, M. L. (1992). Brazilian Low Cost Housing: Interactions and Conflicts between Residents and Sheffield, Dwellings. Architectural Studies. University of Sheffield. PhD: 239. Maturana, H. (1978). Biology of Language: The Epistemology of Reality. Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought: Essays in Honor of Eric Lenneberg. G. A. Miller, and Elizabeth Lenneberg. New York, Academic Press: 27-63. Maturana, H. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The realization of the Living. Boston, Reidel Publishing Co. McCullough, M. (2004). Digital Ground: architecture, pervasive computing and environmental knowing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology - MIT Press. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, space and architecture London, Studio Visa.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci : towards a phenomenology of architecture New York, Rizzoli. Shafer, S. A. N. (1999). "Ten Dimensions of Ubiquitous Computing." Vision Technology Group, Microsoft Research Retrieved Jan 2007, from http://research.microsoft.com/easyliving/Documents/ 1999%2012%20Ten%20Dimensions.doc. Shannon, C. a. W., Waren (1949). The Mathematical Theory Of Communication. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Souza, R. C. (2008). A place-theoretical Framework for the development of IT in urban spaces. Architecture. Sheffield, The University of Sheffield. Ph.D.: 315. Winograd, T. a. F., Fernando (1988). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. New York, Addison-Wesley Publising Company. Wisner. A. (1994). A inteligência no trabalho. Textos selecionados em ergonomia. SP, Fundacentro.
