Two years ago, in this blog, I wrote about the fact that much of our work is invisible. “The truth is, unless there are obvious signs of damage or failure, such as broken panes or water leaking in during rain, windows are still overlooked in the priority of a home’s health. People don’t realize how much efficiency, convenience, safety and other areas have been improved because they still just don’t see it—even when pointed out,” I wrote.
Recently I bought a new cellphone and immediately realized that my charger and a slew of other accessories had been rendered frustratingly obsolete—all in the name of innovation. But the problem is, I don’t see the innovation; I only see that I am being forced to replace components that still work – just not for this phone (same brand, new model). That got me thinking: If the consumer can’t see the innovation that prompted a change, when does innovation hurt brand reputation?
That’s the challenge for our industry. Innovation in fenestration is, by and large, invisible.
When innovations solve genuine problems, improve health, or are the result of information from new research, I can respect it even if it adds to the cost of my purchases. But I have to know about it.
In the fenestration industry, innovations have often been driven by these factors. I don’t imagine any company is selling windows and then adding, “If you want to be able to lock them, you’re going to need to pay extra.” (This is not to be confused with optional upgrades!) Still, innovations in coatings and safety features certainly solve problems by providing hurricane resistance, better insulation, improved safety, and more. And while these may increase the cost, particularly as manufacturing supplies and processes ramp up, the end consumer often can’t see the improvement.
We need research to inspire innovation and verify that consumers are benefiting in ways they can’t physically see.
A prime example is research conducted at Penn State University and published in Vol. 328 of Energy & Buildings titled “Characterizing architectural glazing performance for circadian light.” This research may be a catalyst for innovation in design and development of products but also for new ways to test and measure window performance, particularly for products that will be used in healthcare, education, and other applications that would improve the circadian rhythm of inhabitants.
If research is suggesting that windows can play a role in maintaining circadian rhythm and the optical properties of the glazing is a known and measurable factor within the system, the opportunity for practical application opens many avenues for additional research and development. Where might these products be developed and tested for use in mental health facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, and education?
The study’s authors conclude: “This research has provided comprehensive insights into the circadian performance of architectural glazing, revealing the critical role of specific glazing properties in enhancing indoor circadian health and well-being through natural light and building window systems.”
How important is this to health and well-being? Very! According to the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, “Circadian rhythms are the physical, mental, and behavioral changes an organism experiences over a 24-hour cycle.” These cycles critically influence sleep, hormone levels, appetite, temperature, and more. The long-term effects of unstable circadian rhythms “can increase the risks of obesity, diabetes, mood disorders, heart and blood pressure problems, and cancer, and can also worsen existing health issues.”
Additional research will be needed. The authors note that, “Expanding the application of glazing/window circadian metric to encompass a broader range of environmental conditions like various sky types and solar angles would increase the accuracy and relevance of these predictions. There is also a critical need to standardize these metrics for integration into fenestration rating systems, such as those used by the NFRC, to promote wider industry adoption.”
I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge NFRC’s ties to this study, which was conducted at a member organization (Penn State University) and supervised by NFRC board member Julian Wang, Ph.D. NFRC chief programs officer, Steve Urich, and Neall Digert, with NFRC member company Kingspan Light, Air, and Water, USA, were also involved.
I am grateful for all who are researching the many ways that windows affect our lives. As much as we think we know in 2025, there is always more to learn. I would invite any of you to share interesting research with NFRC by sending links to communications@nfrc.org, and with [DWM] magazine, by emailing dvass@glass.com. The more people who are able to read it, the more who may be inspired.