Comments on: Information design: professional vs amateur [part 2]

By: Patricia

Patricia — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:42:10 +0000

This is a late response, but I wanted to add something.
The No Exit view says in Spanish: No hay salida. It doesn’t mean “no exit’, it means “there is no exit”, literally, at all. So the store’s Hispanic customers will feel trapped….

By: mark gadzikowski

mark gadzikowski — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:22:52 +0000

The signage implements color without meaning. With both entrances and exits in red, their message is blurred (not to mention that red connotes danger). With the blurring of lines with color, the mind blurs or ignores the printed word.

If the sign backgrounds were color coded–for example, green for OK to use, and red for do not use–then the reader isn’t numbed or overwhelmed by a superfluous and unintended color message. The results would be instant and measurable.

By: clinton carlson

clinton carlson — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:35:20 +0000

Long time reader, first time writer.

Love the observation Drew. I started a collection of similar amateur vs. the pros photos a few years ago.

There’s a great book by the late philosopher Gillian Rose that has had a big impact on my thoughts on information design, and I think it might be applicable to this setting. In her book Visual Methodologies She suggests that there are three ways in which we give meaning to visual images: 1) the content, what is the picture or message; 2) location, where do we encounter it; and 3) how is it reproduced.

This scenario isn’t wayfinding (where content can be subtle but must be easily found). It needs impact and intervention. And I think Rose is right that at least one of these factors needs to be unexpected to have impact or raise curiosity. Either messaging that is surprising, “don’t you $%#& dare exit these doors” or a reproduction methods such as what we see, to intervene with our busy minds. Maybe the door shouldn’t look like a door from the inside?… probably not legal.

Maybe the message needs to be more playful?

And I do think consequences are an important issue.

If it really is an issue of theft, then I’m pretty certain there isn’t a signage solution.

How about that, first comment… and I dropped a reference to an obscure philosopher. Yee-hah.

By: John Arthur

John Arthur — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:49:05 +0000

There was talk about Expected vs. Unexpected in the last post, but I think something was overlooked.

I don’t know about you, but everytime I’m at the front of a store, and I see a door, I expect to be able to use it. Especially if its at a place where there’s lots of in/out traffic, purchase points, etc. Anytime I run into an emergency exit between an entrance an (non-emergency) exit, my brain hurts. I expect to see a lot of doors, but I don’t expect to have to think to make the right choice.

Emergency exits around a store work when they’re not where you expect to come in and go out, because they stand out.

I would argue that signage isn’t going to fix the underlying problem: people (I) expect to be able to use a door near the expected entrance/exit points. Instead, either allow the door to be used (it should still function in the event of an emergency), or don’t build it there.

Bottom line, my guess is the paper sign didn’t do that much better. Signage changes will simply be a duct-tape fix. Such is the power of expectations.