Peer-reviewed artikel over semantische segmentatie van point clouds.
MULTIFILE
Introduction:A space’s atmosphere is an important factor in how that space is experienced. In fact, festival visitors consider the atmosphere as the most important factor in how they experience a festival (Van Vliet 2012). Atmosphere is also what distinguishes physical shops from online web shops (Van Vliet, Moes & Schrandt 2015). Much research underlines the influence of atmosphere on cognitive and emotional processes. As early as 1956, research showed that an assessment of facial expressions in photographs depended on the atmosphere of the space in which the photos were viewed (Maslow & Mintz 1956). The importance of atmosphere inspired the search for ways to influence visitors and allowing them to react to, and even (co-)design, a space’s atmosphere – from museum spaces (Noordegraaf 2012) to urban spaces, from consciously-manipulated spaces to the now inevitable layer of digital information that has entered the public sphere (Mitchell 2005). Researchers have been studying the influence of atmosphere for decades, particularly through the lens of environmental psychology, which focuses on the interplay between humans and their environment (Mehrabian & Russell 1974; Steg, Van den Berg & De Groot 2012). A milestone in atmosphere research was the introduction of the concept of ‘atmospherics’ by Kotler (1973). From here, research into atmosphere mainly took place in the context of marketing research into consumer behaviour in shops and service environments such as restaurants, hotels, museums and festivals (Van Vliet 2014). The question here is whether these gathered insights contribute to understanding how atmosphere works in open public spaces.
MULTIFILE
This paper utilises a methodology named “Risk SituatiOn Awareness Provision” (RiskSOAP). RiskSOAP expresses the capability of a system to meet its safety objectives by controlling its processes and communicating threats and vulnerabilities to increase the situation awareness of its end-users and support their decision-making. In reality safety-related system features might be partially available or unavailable due to design incompleteness or malfunctions. Therefore, respectively, the availability and capability of RiskSOAP mechanisms might fluctuate over time. To examine whether changes in RiskSOAP values correspond to a system degradation, we used the results of a previous study that applied the RiskSOAP methodology to the Überlingen mid-air collision accident. Complementary to the previous application where the RiskSOAP was calculated for four milestones of the specific event, in this study we divided the accident further into seventeen time-points and we calculated the RiskSOAP indicator per time-point. The results confirmed that the degradation of the RiskSOAP capability coincided with the milestones that were closer to the mid-air collision, while the plotting of the RiskSOAP indicator against time showed its nonlinear fluctuation alongside the accident development.
