Why do offices always have to follow the same formula? I mean, I’m sure there’s a reason for it. It’s probably to do with functional workflows and enhancing efficiency and all that stuff, which I’d probably understand if I was a commercial interior designer, or perhaps a psychologist. But as a humble, garden variety IT consultant, I’m just asking: what’s the go?
Like, couldn’t offices be outside? Sure, there’s the glare factor, but there’s got to be a way around that in this day and age. Anti-glare laptop screens could be the answer, or maybe some kind of enclosed, greenhouse-style space made of tinted glass. That might be a workable option, actually, given the weather here in Melbourne. Commercial glass tinting companies would have a field day with these inside-outside offices.
I’m no more of an expert on window tinting than I am on office design, so here’s another question: do glare-reducing tints block out incoming light? Because if they do, it kind of defeats the purpose of the whole idea, which is to be able to feel like you’re working outside. Wall-to-wall natural light is the name of the game, and obviously we’re trying to minimise screen glare at the same time, and we’re not going to cater to the latter at the expense of the former.
There is another solution, but I doubt it would be very popular, and it would put me out of a job. That is, we could go back to paper-based offices; screen glare would then cease to be a concern. There’d be a whole lot of other concerns, of course, like how to process payments securely and where on god’s green earth that report from 2008 ended up.
For sure, there’s something to be said for offices following a formula. I never said there wasn’t. But the more I think about it, the more I’m starting to see what the rationale is. I’d still be keen on the indoor-outdoor thing, though. Must look into that question about window tinting.