87 static but fully functional. The display was covered by an external monitor, camera and microphone in the lift to observe reactions and behaviour. Fortyseven people (average age 29.5 years) participated in this phase. Participants used two configurations for the keypad interface: in one case, the buttons were arranged in a 4 × 2 matrix; in the other case, the buttons were aligned in a vertical column in the centre of the keypad. The matrix layout resulted in 17% faster reaction times. The buttons positioned higher up on the panel were the quickest to locate and press in both configurations, probably because they were closer to the user's natural field of vision, while the alarm and dooropening buttons – rarely used in everyday life – recorded the slowest reaction times, indicating less familiarity and immediacy. THE CRITICAL MOMENT: THE EMERGENCY SIMULATION The emergency simulation clearly highlighted the limitations of the standard procedure set out in EN 81-28. When asked to press the alarm button for at least three seconds, only 79% of participants with normal hearing managed to activate the call correctly, while in the group of deaf and hard-of-hearing people, the success rate dropped to 43%. In many cases, participants pressed the button repeatedly, up to 8, 9 and even 14 times, without managing to activate the alarm. The authors themselves link this behaviour to anxiety and the widespread belief that “pressing several times” makes the action more effective. Making the situation even more critical is the fact that only 57.4% of people with normal hearing and just 27% of deaf people had noticed the label with instructions, located above the control panel. And even among those who managed to activate the call, many were unable to understand the voice message or communicate with the operator. The experimental procedure clearly highlighted the limitations of the traditional system. When the emergency call was activated by double-pressing a confirmation button and audio-video communication with the option of text messages, the success rate was 100% in both groups. All participants were able to initiate the call and communicate their name without hesitation or error. To complete the picture, several deaf participants were reluctant to enter the booth even when it was stationary, for fear of being trapped without the possibility of communicating. This is a strong signal, confirming that the problem is not only technical but also deeply psychological. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Monitors, guided sequences and controlled environments may have influenced behaviour. But precisely for this reason, if critical issues arise in protected conditions, the risk is greater in reality. Overall, the picture that emerges is consistent: the current emergency procedure is not intuitive, causes frustration and fails too often, especially for deaf people. The dual pressure of video and text communication has always proven effective. The emergency button must be unique, obvious, accessible and provide clear multisensory feedback. Labels that are not visible need to be redesigned. The screens in the car, currently used for advertising, can become decisive tools for reassurance and communication. Our daily lives are largely based on listening and verbal communication. In an emergency, this becomes a barrier. Knowing that someone sees you, reads you, responds to you is not a technical detail: it is safety, dignity, humanity. THE RESEARCH CONTINUES The research does not stop here. Further testing phases are planned to investigate aspects that were not explored in this study, such as the size and legibility of labels, the type of font used, the height and position of control panels, the number and layout of buttons, as well as the use of touchscreens and digital interfaces. The authors also point to the need to extend the analysis to other user groups and other types of disabilities, in order to understand how different physical, sensory and cognitive conditions can affect comfort and safety when using lifts. The aim is to build a solid database, based on scientific evidence, that can support truly inclusive design. A further change will have to concern the environment in which the tests are conducted. While the laboratory has made it possible to control variables and measure behaviour, the authors recognise that more realistic and complex scenarios – real buildings, people flows, noise, environmental stress – will be essential to validate and refine the solutions that emerge. In other words, experimentation will have to leave the “perfect” car to confront everyday reality. The direction has been set: there is no need to add accessories, but rather to rethink the interface. It is not a question of adapting people to the system, but of designing systems capable of adapting to people. It is on this ground that the next stages of research will be played out. SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES • Trabucco D., Perrucci G., Giacomello E., Costa M., Bisogni delle persone sorde nell’uso degli ascensori, Buildings 2024 - https://www. mdpi.com/2075-5309/14/10/3300 • Perrucci G., Costa M., Giacomello E., Trabucco D., Valutazione del comfort e della sicurezza nell’uso dei dispositivi di interazione uomo–macchina degli ascensori, Buildings 2025 - https://www. mdpi.com/2075-5309/15/5/709
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDUyNTU=