user | interface

USER | INTERFACENIRAJ KAPADIA

NIRAJ J. KAPADIAM. ARCH 2011

KAPADIA i

USER | INTERFACE

A B ST R AC T

TUser interface design is the study of the interaction between man and machine. Advancements in user interface stem from both technological innovations as well as social changes in our world. This thesis aims to apply the principles of user interface to enhance the interaction between humans and the built environment; a relationship that inherently has the intimacy and tangibility that the tech world may never experience, yet is oftentimes estranged from the user.

Architecturally, this interface can occur at thresholds, details, or material joints. As a means to test the advantages that user interface oriented design can have on a space, these principles will be applied towards redesigning an entrance to the Bay Area Rapid Transit subway station located at the Embarcadero in San Francisco. A transit station affords the greatest opportunity for interface as it requires special attention to material quality, wayfinding, lighting, security, and information transmission. By applying the adaptability of computational interfaces to the tactility of architectural spaces, a more meaningful interface between user and building can be explored.

KAPADIA i

USER | INTERFACE

A B ST R AC T

User interface design is the study of the interaction between man and machine. Advancements in user interface stem from both technological innovations as well as social changes in our world. This thesis aims to apply the principles of user interface to enhance the interaction between humans and the built environment; a relationship that inherently has the intimacy and tangibility that the tech world may never experience, yet is oftentimes estranged from the user.

Architecturally, this interface can occur at thresholds, details, or material joints. As a means to test the advantages that user interface oriented design can have on a space, these principles will be applied towards redesigning an entrance to the Bay Area Rapid Transit subway station located at the Embarcadero in San Francisco. A transit station affords the greatest opportunity for interface as it requires special attention to material quality, wayfinding, lighting, security, and information transmission. By applying the adaptability of computational interfaces to the tactility of architectural spaces, a more meaningful interface between user and building can be explored.

KAPADIA iii

USER | INTERFACE

Abstract Part I: Exploring User | Interface __defining the problem __interface with cars (HMI) __interface with computers (HCI) __interface with buildings (BUI)

Part II: Exploring the Design Problem __thesis alignment - transit station __history of transit stations __station interface __thesis alignment - clients __BART system history __San Francisco city profile __site mapping __split street section __Embarcadero station entrances __demographics __panoramic images __street section

Part III: Designing User | Interface __contextual design __tracking user interactions __station amenities __user profiles __activity mapping __design scales - site, street, body, hand __synthesizing design ideas - materials, details, technology __methodology - narratives __summation Part IV: References

17192023273032374446495259

61636873757779

101109123

Co NT E NTS

KAPADIA iii

USER | INTERFACE

Abstract Part I: Exploring User | Interface __defining the problem __interface with cars (HMI) __interface with computers (HCI) __interface with buildings (BUI)

Part II: Exploring the Design Problem __thesis alignment - transit station __history of transit stations __station interface __thesis alignment - clients __BART system history __San Francisco city profile __site mapping __split street section __Embarcadero station entrances __demographics __panoramic images __street section

Part III: Designing User | Interface __contextual design __tracking user interactions __station amenities __user profiles __activity mapping __design scales - site, street, body, hand __synthesizing design ideas - materials, details, technology __methodology - narratives __summation Part IV: References

17192023273032374446495259

61636873757779

101109123

Co NT E NTS

KAPADIA 1

USER | INTERFACE

PA RT I : E x P lo R I N g I N T E R FAC E

The central idea of this thesis focuses on how and where people interact with the building and, in turn, with one another. The first step is to research human-machine interfaces in order to get a better understanding of the nature of interaction that occurs between user and inanimate object. As case studies, the evolution of the computer interface as well as the automobile interface will be reviewed.

This project uses the analogy of user interface as a strategy to develop and synthesize design ideas. For example, in the technology world, the human-machine interface is constantly evolving based on not only changes in technology, but also changes in society that necessitate novel applications of that technology: as smartphones are becoming more affordable and more common, there is a tremendous push towards innovative forms of input into a tiny screen. The ways in which these problems get solved by designers and engineers are precisely what this thesis aims to study in order to apply the principles behind such solutions towards an architectural interface.

As society evolves, technology adapts to fulfill the new needs. This type of constant evolution is the model to emulate to move towards an enhanced building-user interface. Buildings have the added inherent benefit of immersing the user fully--operating on a spatial level--allowing for a whole body interaction that the technology world can only represent intangibly. The interface between user and building provides a fertile opportunity that, if designed in accordance with the needs of the user can lead to a richer architectural experience.

KAPADIA 1

USER | INTERFACE

PA RT I : E x P lo R I N g I N T E R FAC E

The central idea of this thesis focuses on how and where people interact with the building and, in turn, with one another. The first step is to research human-machine interfaces in order to get a better understanding of the nature of interaction that occurs between user and inanimate object. As case studies, the evolution of the computer interface as well as the automobile interface will be reviewed.

This project uses the analogy of user interface as a strategy to develop and synthesize design ideas. For example, in the technology world, the human-machine interface is constantly evolving based on not only changes in technology, but also changes in society that necessitate novel applications of that technology: as smartphones are becoming more affordable and more common, there is a tremendous push towards innovative forms of input into a tiny screen. The ways in which these problems get solved by designers and engineers are precisely what this thesis aims to study in order to apply the principles behind such solutions towards an architectural interface.

As society evolves, technology adapts to fulfill the new needs. This type of constant evolution is the model to emulate to move towards an enhanced building-user interface. Buildings have the added inherent benefit of immersing the user fully--operating on a spatial level--allowing for a whole body interaction that the technology world can only represent intangibly. The interface between user and building provides a fertile opportunity that, if designed in accordance with the needs of the user can lead to a richer architectural experience.

KAPADIA 3

USER | INTERFACE

|PROCESSING|INPUT > > OUTPUTsingle level input

levers

buttons

switches

if/then statements

pre-set pool of outcomes

cyclical response

direct output

predictable, reproducible output

output does work directly on object

multiple inputs

intermediate input devices (mouse, touch)

complex input

computation of best possible solution from pool of multiple

results

reciprocral response

graphical output

output is on intermediary medium

(screen, projection, etc)

multiple, tactile input

whole body experience

environmental input

user needs through direct manipulation

evolutionary method that adapts to user

biological response

personalized, pertinent information

direct relationship between output type and medium

enhanced architectural experience

Interface, simply defined, involves the machine accepting user input, processing an outcome, and finally delivering an understandable output back to the user. As the diagram to the left demonstrates, however, there are many levels of complexity at which this interface cycle can operate.

The basic human-machine interface is a cyclical one in which an outcome is derived from a pre-set pool of choices based on singular input (i.e. heavy machinery, automobiles). The computer-human interface is able to understand more complex input and able to process the best possible solution; as such it is a reciprocal process (i.e. Windows OS, Mac OS, smartphones). The next step in this movement would be what this thesis proposes: a building user interface (BUI). The concept would be to integrate technology into the building in order to create a biological response that is able to evolve with the users’ needs.

The next sections will explore human-machine and human-computer interfaces in greater detail to determine how to adopt the lessons to enhance architectural interfaces.

D E F I N I N G T H E P RO B L E MIDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITY

KAPADIA 3

USER | INTERFACE

|PROCESSING|INPUT > > OUTPUTsingle level input

levers

buttons

switches

if/then statements

pre-set pool of outcomes

cyclical response

direct output

predictable, reproducible output

output does work directly on object

multiple inputs

intermediate input devices (mouse, touch)

complex input

computation of best possible solution from pool of multiple

results

reciprocral response

graphical output

output is on intermediary medium

(screen, projection, etc)

multiple, tactile input

whole body experience

environmental input

user needs through direct manipulation

evolutionary method that adapts to user

biological response

personalized, pertinent information

direct relationship between output type and medium

enhanced architectural experience

Interface, simply defined, involves the machine accepting user input, processing an outcome, and finally delivering an understandable output back to the user. As the diagram to the left demonstrates, however, there are many levels of complexity at which this interface cycle can operate.

The basic human-machine interface is a cyclical one in which an outcome is derived from a pre-set pool of choices based on singular input (i.e. heavy machinery, automobiles). The computer-human interface is able to understand more complex input and able to process the best possible solution; as such it is a reciprocal process (i.e. Windows OS, Mac OS, smartphones). The next step in this movement would be what this thesis proposes: a building user interface (BUI). The concept would be to integrate technology into the building in order to create a biological response that is able to evolve with the users’ needs.

The next sections will explore human-machine and human-computer interfaces in greater detail to determine how to adopt the lessons to enhance architectural interfaces.

D E F I N I N G T H E P RO B L E MIDENTIFYING THE OPPORTUNITY

KAPADIA 4 KAPADIA 5

USER | INTERFACE USER | INTERFACE

Interface evolution has been a significant factor in the automobile industry and has consequently lead to the proliferation of the automobile. The Ford Model T came around before there was standardization of pedals and shifters. Driving it today would be like an exercise in mechanical engineering. 1 Today’s automobile interface is convenient enough that it gives anyone the confidence to jump into a new car and be able to drive it with little to no learning curve.

The true utility in investigating the car user interface, however, is in looking at where it is headed in the future. We are accustomed to the locations and operations of the lever and shifter we have today, but does that mean they are exactly where they “need” to be?

1 www.carspit.com

H U M A n-M AC H I n E I n T E R FAC E (H M I)HISToRy oF AUToMoBIlE INTERFACE To answer this question, we can turn to a more recent revolution in automobiles: the Toyota Prius.

When the second generation Prius first hit the market in 2005, its redesigned shifter, ignition button, and other interface changes made it difficult to adapt to for the general user. It took some time for people to adjust to the new interface, but now the small innovations debuted in the Prius have become standard fare on many other cars. Further enhancements to interface can be seen in the high-end car arena. For example, Ferrari, known for power and design, has taken steps to overhaul the driver interface. “The engineers have thus reinterpreted the positioning of the major commands to provide a truly driver-oriented cockpit.”1 This evolution of interface is necessitated by changes in both technology (i.e. mobile devices) and human behavior (i.e. our constant need for connectivity).

The lesson learned from automobile interfaces is that changes in typical interfaces need to be easily adoptable by the general public and, more critically, should be carefully evaluated by the designers and undertaken only when moving towards a concerted goal of improving overall usability.

1 http://www.gizmag.com/ferrari-advances-driver-car-interface/12648/How To Drive a Ford ModelT

KAPADIA 4 KAPADIA 5

Interface evolution has been a significant factor in the automobile industry and has consequently lead to the proliferation of the automobile. The Ford Model T came around before there was standardization of pedals and shifters. Driving it today would be like an exercise in mechanical engineering. 1 Today’s automobile interface is convenient enough that it gives anyone the confidence to jump into a new car and be able to drive it with little to no learning curve.

The true utility in investigating the car user interface, however, is in looking at where it is headed in the future. We are accustomed to the locations and operations of the lever and shifter we have today, but does that mean they are exactly where they “need” to be?

1 www.carspit.com

H U M A n-M AC H I n E I n T E R FAC E (H M I)HISToRy oF AUToMoBIlE INTERFACE To answer this question, we can turn to a more recent revolution in automobiles: the Toyota Prius.

When the second generation Prius first hit the market in 2005, its redesigned shifter, ignition button, and other interface changes made it difficult to adapt to for the general user. It took some time for people to adjust to the new interface, but now the small innovations debuted in the Prius have become standard fare on many other cars. Further enhancements to interface can be seen in the high-end car arena. For example, Ferrari, known for power and design, has taken steps to overhaul the driver interface. “The engineers have thus reinterpreted the positioning of the major commands to provide a truly driver-oriented cockpit.”1 This evolution of interface is necessitated by changes in both technology (i.e. mobile devices) and human behavior (i.e. our constant need for connectivity).

The lesson learned from automobile interfaces is that changes in typical interfaces need to be easily adoptable by the general public and, more critically, should be carefully evaluated by the designers and undertaken only when moving towards a concerted goal of improving overall usability.

1 http://www.gizmag.com/ferrari-advances-driver-car-interface/12648/How To Drive a Ford ModelT

KAPADIA 6 KAPADIA 7

The process of input to output on computers began five decades ago as a rather onerous one involving punch cards and cryptic code1. This was the proverbial “primitive hut” for computers: it performed the necessary task without embellishment. Why then was there a trend towards making the computer more accessible to the layperson? Why is there today a rekindled effort to connect more tangibly and less abstractly to the input-output continuum, a graphical user interface (GUI)? The answer lies in both technological and behavioral changes.

As a thought experiment, conceive for a moment of a world in which the computer interface remained in the punch-card realm. There may even be some pleasant ramifications: maybe everyone would be a lot more electronically

1 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/BusinessAutomation/12-1961/

H U M A n-CO M P U T E R I n T E R FAC E (H C I)THE EVolUTIoN oF gUI savvy. Perhaps every individual would have an inherent respect for both the

processing power and the mechanical workings of computers. Would work be done as efficiently as it is done today? Likely no, but it is conceivable that we would have learned to live with the technology and adapted it in different ways than we have today.

So even if interface had not changed dramatically from the punch card days or days of manually inputting command line code, computers could have conceivably been a major part of our lives. What would be missing, however, is the human element of the machine. This is where user interface design enters.

User interface design aspires to recognize that the end user is a thinking, feeling entity1. In order to appeal to that end user, the software should cater to the way

1 Kay, 192.

1960 1970 1980 1990

KAPADIA 6 KAPADIA 7

The process of input to output on computers began five decades ago as a rather onerous one involving punch cards and cryptic code1. This was the proverbial “primitive hut” for computers: it performed the necessary task without embellishment. Why then was there a trend towards making the computer more accessible to the layperson? Why is there today a rekindled effort to connect more tangibly and less abstractly to the input-output continuum, a graphical user interface (GUI)? The answer lies in both technological and behavioral changes.

As a thought experiment, conceive for a moment of a world in which the computer interface remained in the punch-card realm. There may even be some pleasant ramifications: maybe everyone would be a lot more electronically

1 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/BusinessAutomation/12-1961/

H U M A n-CO M P U T E R I n T E R FAC E (H C I)THE EVolUTIoN oF gUI savvy. Perhaps every individual would have an inherent respect for both the

processing power and the mechanical workings of computers. Would work be done as efficiently as it is done today? Likely no, but it is conceivable that we would have learned to live with the technology and adapted it in different ways than we have today.

So even if interface had not changed dramatically from the punch card days or days of manually inputting command line code, computers could have conceivably been a major part of our lives. What would be missing, however, is the human element of the machine. This is where user interface design enters.

User interface design aspires to recognize that the end user is a thinking, feeling entity1. In order to appeal to that end user, the software should cater to the way

1 Kay, 192.

1960 1970 1980 1990

KAPADIA 8 KAPADIA 9

H U M A n-CO M P U T E R I n T E R FAC E (H C I)THE EVolUTIoN oF gUI

in which that end user interacts with the hardware. The changes in graphical user interfaces have reflected both evolution in hardware (speeds, capabilities, etc.) as well as sociological changes in the way computers are used. Computers are used today for much more than productivity alone, they are a source of communication, entertainment, commerce, education, and much more. As such, consumers have opted for more than just performance upgrades, they seek more intuitive control and functionality.

The trend today is to connect the user more directly to the computer using more intuitive controls such as gesture based input on touchscreens.1 This is an attempt at enhancing physical interface with computers to be more natural and analogous to other tangible interfaces that the user is more familiar with such as books. This is evident in the Apple iPad as well as a number of Google Android based tablets on the market.

1 Carroll, 2009.

1990 2000 2010

In enhancing the input component of the HCI, tech companies are experiencing certain backlash as people are finding the tap and pinch controls of touchscreens intuitive, but are having trouble getting accustomed to typing on a virtual keyboard. The need for virtual keyboards trumps their perceived drawbacks, so rather than working backwards towards physical keys, many companies are coming out with novel input solutions. For example, Swype Inc introduced a

method of swiping across the screen and thus reinvented typing by working with the flatness of the virtual keyboard.1

Human-computer interfaces constantly adapt to new conditions, making them very versatile. This ability to evolve through innovation and rethinking of the interaction is a lesson that can be applied to a building user interface.

1 Segan, 2011.

KAPADIA 8 KAPADIA 9

H U M A n-CO M P U T E R I n T E R FAC E (H C I)THE EVolUTIoN oF gUI

in which that end user interacts with the hardware. The changes in graphical user interfaces have reflected both evolution in hardware (speeds, capabilities, etc.) as well as sociological changes in the way computers are used. Computers are used today for much more than productivity alone, they are a source of communication, entertainment, commerce, education, and much more. As such, consumers have opted for more than just performance upgrades, they seek more intuitive control and functionality.

The trend today is to connect the user more directly to the computer using more intuitive controls such as gesture based input on touchscreens.1 This is an attempt at enhancing physical interface with computers to be more natural and analogous to other tangible interfaces that the user is more familiar with such as books. This is evident in the Apple iPad as well as a number of Google Android based tablets on the market.

1 Carroll, 2009.

1990 2000 2010

In enhancing the input component of the HCI, tech companies are experiencing certain backlash as people are finding the tap and pinch controls of touchscreens intuitive, but are having trouble getting accustomed to typing on a virtual keyboard. The need for virtual keyboards trumps their perceived drawbacks, so rather than working backwards towards physical keys, many companies are coming out with novel input solutions. For example, Swype Inc introduced a

method of swiping across the screen and thus reinvented typing by working with the flatness of the virtual keyboard.1

Human-computer interfaces constantly adapt to new conditions, making them very versatile. This ability to evolve through innovation and rethinking of the interaction is a lesson that can be applied to a building user interface.

1 Segan, 2011.

KAPADIA 11

USER | INTERFACE

KAPADIA 10

USER | INTERFACE

B U I L D I n G U S E R I n T E R FAC E (B U I)INTERACTIoN AS BUIlDINg INTERFACE

So how does this relate to architecture? In any interface--human-machine interface, human-computer interface and building-user interface--the user has three primary concerns: the task, the mechanism for completing the task, and the interface for interacting with the mechanism (see graphic to the left). The user is the center of this cycle that can start at one of the three nodes.

As the research into computer and automobile interface reveals, the utility to the user stems from the ability of the interface to keep up with constantly evolving tasks and mechanisms. In a building interface, the designer can use this technique of identifying interfaces in order to design the architecture for tasks that are more advanced than simply providing shelter.

Designing a better way to interface with a building can result in that building being able to teach us something new about our environment.1 For example, feedback systems and automated

1 Fox and Kemp, 142.

USERINTERFACE

MECHANISM

KAPADIA 11

USER | INTERFACE

KAPADIA 10

USER | INTERFACE

B U I L D I n G U S E R I n T E R FAC E (B U I)INTERACTIoN AS BUIlDINg INTERFACE

So how does this relate to architecture? In any interface--human-machine interface, human-computer interface and building-user interface--the user has three primary concerns: the task, the mechanism for completing the task, and the interface for interacting with the mechanism (see graphic to the left). The user is the center of this cycle that can start at one of the three nodes.

As the research into computer and automobile interface reveals, the utility to the user stems from the ability of the interface to keep up with constantly evolving tasks and mechanisms. In a building interface, the designer can use this technique of identifying interfaces in order to design the architecture for tasks that are more advanced than simply providing shelter.

Designing a better way to interface with a building can result in that building being able to teach us something new about our environment.1 For example, feedback systems and automated

1 Fox and Kemp, 142.

USERINTERFACE

MECHANISM

KAPADIA 12 KAPADIA 13

I n T E R FAC E - B U I L D I n G SINTERACTIoN AS BUIlDINg INTERFACE

Another key element of BUI is to design for future evolution of the spaces. Software design and hardware compatibility in the tech world are so successful because they function as the framework upon which the true interface lies. In the same way, a successful application of user interface design to architecture will involve open space planning and using materials and connections that have the ability to be adapted to changing needs.

In conceiving of these design elements, it will be critical to maintain a familiarity so that users can interface with the buildings as intuitively as possible. The perceived learning curve of any new venture is a major determining factor of the success of the interface. As is typical with adoption of new technology or new methods, it is not how well we can learn the new, but how well we can unlearn the old that will determine the effectiveness of these new tools.1

Moving forward, the emphasis of BUI will be to: a) Locating important nodes and designing interaction around these nodes. b) Retain room for growth/evolution of the space so the building can “learn” how to adapt to the users’ needs.

1 Kay, 199.

mechanisms can facilitate in many sustainable strategies involved in passively heating and cooling a building. The building can automatically open windows at night for night flushing. In the case of a transit center threshold, the building can inform travelers of the best possible route and inform them of the comparative costs in dollars, carbon emissions, etc of their transit choices.

By providing multiple levels of services to the user, the building makes the most efficient use of materials, form, and technology to enhance the user’s experience. An important aspect of any design based on BUI will be its ability to respond to a variety of design problems with one adaptable solution.

The methodology proposed to design such solutions is to locate the important nodes within a building where interaction occurs and design outward from there. Here is where interface is critical. Much as the designers of early operating systems programmed menus and buttons to be intuitive, architectural interactions should be intuitive and informative. By allowing the building to engage with the occupants, the building becomes an active participant in the interaction between users.

I n T E R FAC E - B U I L D I n G SINTERACTIoN AS BUIlDINg INTERFACE

Another key element of BUI is to design for future evolution of the spaces. Software design and hardware compatibility in the tech world are so successful because they function as the framework upon which the true interface lies. In the same way, a successful application of user interface design to architecture will involve open space planning and using materials and connections that have the ability to be adapted to changing needs.

In conceiving of these design elements, it will be critical to maintain a familiarity so that users can interface with the buildings as intuitively as possible. The perceived learning curve of any new venture is a major determining factor of the success of the interface. As is typical with adoption of new technology or new methods, it is not how well we can learn the new, but how well we can unlearn the old that will determine the effectiveness of these new tools.1

Moving forward, the emphasis of BUI will be to: a) Locating important nodes and designing interaction around these nodes. b) Retain room for growth/evolution of the space so the building can “learn” how to adapt to the users’ needs.

1 Kay, 199.

mechanisms can facilitate in many sustainable strategies involved in passively heating and cooling a building. The building can automatically open windows at night for night flushing. In the case of a transit center threshold, the building can inform travelers of the best possible route and inform them of the comparative costs in dollars, carbon emissions, etc of their transit choices.

By providing multiple levels of services to the user, the building makes the most efficient use of materials, form, and technology to enhance the user’s experience. An important aspect of any design based on BUI will be its ability to respond to a variety of design problems with one adaptable solution.

The methodology proposed to design such solutions is to locate the important nodes within a building where interaction occurs and design outward from there. Here is where interface is critical. Much as the designers of early operating systems programmed menus and buttons to be intuitive, architectural interactions should be intuitive and informative. By allowing the building to engage with the occupants, the building becomes an active participant in the interaction between users.

Caption

H EA D I N gSUBHEADINg

In architecture, interface comes in many varieties of high and low tech as well as a range of interactivity. The graphic to the left diagrams selected projects based on their primary architectural emphasis, with low-tech solutions closer to the center of the cocentric circles. The relative level of interactivity of each project is represented by the diameter of the project circle. Taking Jean nouvel’s Arab Institute, for example, we see that it interacts with the environment in a high-tech way. As evidenced in Jean nouvel’s work, high technology is a tool that architects use to build reality and it should not be the aim.1

Rather, the aim should be perfect union of technology and architecture. Designing an enhanced building-user interface affords the opportunity to do more with the often brief and estranged relationship we have with buildings. As we will explore in the next section, BUI can create spaces that are more evocative, more informative, and more efficient.

1 Aurora and Montes, 6.

Caption

In architecture, interface comes in many varieties of high and low tech as well as a range of interactivity. The graphic to the left diagrams selected projects based on their primary architectural emphasis, with low-tech solutions closer to the center of the cocentric circles. The relative level of interactivity of each project is represented by the diameter of the project circle. Taking Jean nouvel’s Arab Institute, for example, we see that it interacts with the environment in a high-tech way. As evidenced in Jean nouvel’s work, high technology is a tool that architects use to build reality and it should not be the aim.1

Rather, the aim should be perfect union of technology and architecture. Designing an enhanced building-user interface affords the opportunity to do more with the often brief and estranged relationship we have with buildings. As we will explore in the next section, BUI can create spaces that are more evocative, more informative, and more efficient.

1 Aurora and Montes, 6.

KAPADIA 17

USER | INTERFACE

lEM PA RT I I : E x P lo R I N g T H E D ES I g N P Ro B l E M

In order to test the theory of building-user interface, the site and program has to be carefully selected. The concept is one that can be applied universally to architecture, so the most appropriate case study should be one that pushes the limits of the idea.

A public place is ideal because it necessitates the greatest interaction between user and building. Also, the user is not necessarily familiar with the building, so communication has to be in a language that is clear, easily understandable, universal, and oriented towards the user.

A transit station is well suited to fit this criteria. Principles of user interface design can be applied towards station-specific needs such as wayfinding, information transmission, variety of user groups, and public space to name a few. A train station is utilized by wide range of user groups who inherently have their own tempos; for example commuters will want to get through the station quickly and efficiently while tourists will need more guidance and are more likely to meander. A successful design will need to support these various needs.

The next chapter will parse the unique conditions of a train station to demonstrate how it can best align with the overall idea of user interface design. Further, the next section discusses the appropriateness of San Francisco’s Embarcadero station as a specific site for the design.

KAPADIA 17

USER | INTERFACE

lEM PA RT I I : E x P lo R I N g T H E D ES I g N P Ro B l E M

In order to test the theory of building-user interface, the site and program has to be carefully selected. The concept is one that can be applied universally to architecture, so the most appropriate case study should be one that pushes the limits of the idea.

A public place is ideal because it necessitates the greatest interaction between user and building. Also, the user is not necessarily familiar with the building, so communication has to be in a language that is clear, easily understandable, universal, and oriented towards the user.

A transit station is well suited to fit this criteria. Principles of user interface design can be applied towards station-specific needs such as wayfinding, information transmission, variety of user groups, and public space to name a few. A train station is utilized by wide range of user groups who inherently have their own tempos; for example commuters will want to get through the station quickly and efficiently while tourists will need more guidance and are more likely to meander. A successful design will need to support these various needs.

The next chapter will parse the unique conditions of a train station to demonstrate how it can best align with the overall idea of user interface design. Further, the next section discusses the appropriateness of San Francisco’s Embarcadero station as a specific site for the design.

T H ES I S A l I g N M E NTTyPology oF TRANSIT STATIoN

Abstract Alignment to Building Type

transit center is focused around machine (train)trains were themselves major innovations and have evolved throughout the centuries; their demise in the late 20th Century presents a good problem/opportunity to investigate through design

user is intimately connected to the machine in the train riding experience

entrances to transit station and structural expressionism provide opportunities for interface

built in 1972, the BART is an example of modern transit stations and presents a whole new set of problems/opportunities

these issues are important to both commuters and tourists (and other demographics) albeit at different scales of magnitude

architectural goals: locate station > experience descent into station > happy ride

User interface design is the study of the interaction between man and machine. Advancements in user interface stem from both technological innovations

as well as social changes in our world. This thesis aims to apply the principles of user interface to enhance the interaction between humans and

the built environment; a relationship that has the intimacy and tangibility that the technology world

may never experience, yet is paradoxically estranged from the user.

Architecturally, this interface can occur at thresholds, details, material joints, signage, circulation, and at many more locations. As a means to test the

advantages that user interface oriented design can have on a space, these principles will be applied

towards redesigning an entrance to the Bay Area Rapid Transit subway station located at the Embarcadero in San Francisco. A transit station affords the greatest opportunity for interface as it requires special attention to material quality, wayfinding, lighting, security, and information

transmission. By applying the adaptability of computational interfaces to the tactility of architectural spaces, a more meaningful user

interface between user and building can be explored.

T H ES I S A l I g N M E NTTyPology oF TRANSIT STATIoN

Abstract Alignment to Building Type

transit center is focused around machine (train)trains were themselves major innovations and have evolved throughout the centuries; their demise in the late 20th Century presents a good problem/opportunity to investigate through design

user is intimately connected to the machine in the train riding experience

entrances to transit station and structural expressionism provide opportunities for interface

built in 1972, the BART is an example of modern transit stations and presents a whole new set of problems/opportunities

these issues are important to both commuters and tourists (and other demographics) albeit at different scales of magnitude

architectural goals: locate station > experience descent into station > happy ride

long and tall. Born of necessity, the barrel vault of King’s Cross station became the iconic structural organizing element for railway stations.

As station grew in size, they became like cities of their own. Demand for rail travel lead to station design that were extremely large and monumental in their appearance, such as Grand Central Station in new York. As technology expanded to personal automobiles in the 20th Century, the viability and lure of rail transit diminished.

However with the today’s focus on sustainability, many nations are reinvesting in rail transit. Further innovations in technology allow for faster, more reliable trains, such as the MagLev system being used in parts of Europe and Japan.

Rail transit is thoroughly seated in human culture and civilization and in today’s milieu of environmental consciousness, may be set to see an renaissance of its own.

H I STo Ry o F T R A N S I T STAT I o NSARCHETYPAL PRECEDEnT / ORIGInS

We begin the discussion by looking at the history of train stations. The train station has been an cultural institution for nearly two centuries. As a technological innovation, rail transport played a major role in expanding a region’s economy. In fact, the train’s origin was based in economy: the most efficient way to transporting people and goods.1 Though it involved major investment in infrastructure, the benefits of rail transit outweighed the costs and millions of miles of rail was laid down all over the world.

As the need for rail transit increased, technology and innovation naturally continued to enhance the efficiency of the trains, but also aided in improving the stations themselves which became “a new type of machine”2.

Trains travelled to the heart of cities and station grew to be the major economic centers of the region. The first passenger station was built in 1930 at Crown Street in Liverpool. This was a major shift in paradigm. The station was a new typology, one that united the people with the machine. In addition, the physical needs of the station were new as well. Due to large locomotives that spewed exhaust, the space needed to be both

1 Ferrarini, 82 Ferrarini, 5

Crown Street Station, Liverpool; first passenger rail station.