A Confusing Landscape
The Norwegian Building Authority (DiBK) was receiving a steady stream of building applications—many of them flawed. Not because applicants didn’t care, but because they didn’t fully understand what was expected of them. One requirement in particular caused widespread confusion: aesthetic quality.
What does it really mean for a building to “adapt to its surroundings”? How do you evaluate “visual qualities”? And how do you translate that into something that makes sense in an application?
The Mission
Making aesthetic requirements understandable for everyone
My task was to make it easier for both professionals and private individuals to understand and meet the aesthetic requirements in building applications. But that turned out to be easier said than done.
I began by gathering insights from architects, homeowners, municipal case officers, and legal experts. Stories of confusion, rejection, and frustration poured in. I mapped user journeys and pinpointed pain points. A clear picture emerged: people wanted to get it right—they just didn’t know how.
Barriers to Clarity
Legal complexity, technical limits, and the many meanings of “aesthetics”
The road ahead was anything but smooth. Internally, there was skepticism. Could the legislation really be simplified without compromising its intent? And would the technical limitations of the platform even allow for a user-friendly solution?
Another major challenge: “aesthetics” meant different things to different people. For some, it was about colors and materials; for others, it was about how a building fit into the landscape. How could one guide accommodate such a wide range of interpretations? And with such a diverse user base—ranging from seasoned professionals to first-time applicants—how could we meet everyone’s needs?
From Idea to Implementation
How collaboration and iteration led to a user-friendly guide
We had to prioritise. After careful consideration, we chose to focus on private individuals as the primary audience for the guide. Their needs were fundamentally different from those of architects. They needed plain language, clear examples, and help formulating the text for their applications.
We also narrowed the scope to the types of construction projects most commonly submitted by private individuals, rather than trying to cover every possible scenario.
Bridging the Gap
Connecting legislation with everyday life
Through multiple rounds of testing, iteration, and close collaboration with legal and technical teams, we developed and launched a new guide as part of DiBK’s digital services.
