A typology of user translations with examples from the MIST lighting scripts
| Typology | Change in relations | Daylighting | Motion sensing | System control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting | Users maintain the relations inscribed by designers and adjust their lifestyles to fit the script | Adapting to undesirable conditions of dimness and glaring light | Accommodating the frequent triggering of automated sensors | Using the card system as designed |
| Tinkering | Users make slight modifications to the script by altering the relations without having significant implications on the design performance as a whole | Shutting part of the openings | Calling on an intermediary, the facility management company, to adjust the sensors in the units | Moving furniture and walking away from sensors while doing activities so that the sensors do not detect user movement |
| Switching on the lights of the rooms adjacent to the dim ones | ||||
| Placing a portable light on a large suitcase to mimic a ceiling light | ||||
| Overriding the dimmer and using lights at their maximum settings | ||||
| Adjusting | Users significantly change the script by drastically altering the relations to conform with user desires and needs | Closing off all the openings | Introducing additional portable lights | Partially blocking the sensor with a piece of tape so that it does not turn the light on unless the user passes by a specific area |
| Introducing additional portable lights | ||||
| Resisting | Users wholly reject the script by severing relations with the system in favour of alternative socio-material configurations | Avoiding the units or some rooms | Disrupting the system completely and switching the sensors on and off through the control panel | Covering the sensor entirely Choosing not to fix the light when it stops working |
| Leaving the units and working at laboratories, where lights are more manageable |
| Typology | Change in relations | Daylighting | Motion sensing | System control |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting | Users maintain the relations inscribed by designers and adjust their lifestyles to fit the script | Adapting to undesirable conditions of dimness and glaring light | Accommodating the frequent triggering of automated sensors | Using the card system as designed |
| Tinkering | Users make slight modifications to the script by altering the relations without having significant implications on the design performance as a whole | Shutting part of the openings | Calling on an intermediary, the facility management company, to adjust the sensors in the units | Moving furniture and walking away from sensors while doing activities so that the sensors do not detect user movement |
| Switching on the lights of the rooms adjacent to the dim ones | ||||
| Placing a portable light on a large suitcase to mimic a ceiling light | ||||
| Overriding the dimmer and using lights at their maximum settings | ||||
| Adjusting | Users significantly change the script by drastically altering the relations to conform with user desires and needs | Closing off all the openings | Introducing additional portable lights | Partially blocking the sensor with a piece of tape so that it does not turn the light on unless the user passes by a specific area |
| Introducing additional portable lights | ||||
| Resisting | Users wholly reject the script by severing relations with the system in favour of alternative socio-material configurations | Avoiding the units or some rooms | Disrupting the system completely and switching the sensors on and off through the control panel | Covering the sensor entirely |
| Leaving the units and working at laboratories, where lights are more manageable |