Judging a waiting space

Both texts are newly written practice sources about invented people, places or projects.

Text One: An original account of a trial at an invented community hall.

We wanted to improve the waiting space inside the hall entrance. During the first trial, eight chairs stood in a straight line against the wall. During the second, the same chairs were arranged in four pairs. For two hours on each morning, we counted people who entered and noted which of them actually needed to wait. This mattered because some visitors walked directly into an activity and had no reason to use a chair.

On the first morning, twelve of the nineteen people who needed to wait sat down. The other seven waiting visitors stood near the noticeboard, although four of them appeared to be reading it. On the second morning, fifteen of the eighteen people waiting used a chair. Three visitors moved the paired chairs closer together before a family activity began.

The figures made the paired arrangement appear more successful, but the mornings were not identical. Different activities were taking place, and visitors arrived in groups of different sizes. Comments also complicated our conclusion. One visitor liked being able to sit beside a companion, while another said that the paired chairs made the route through the entrance feel narrower. We recommended another trial rather than declaring one arrangement suitable for everyone.

Text Two: An original report containing results from a different fictional waiting-space trial.

A library tested two arrangements of twelve chairs in its entrance area. Each session lasted thirty minutes, and observers counted only visitors who needed to wait for at least five minutes.

Observers also recorded that some visitors chose to remain standing while speaking to someone.

Synthesise what you learn from both texts about how the evidence should be used to judge the waiting-space arrangements, including which conclusions are supported and which would be unsafe.