Re: Typeface for wayfinding

Elizabeth wrote:

> Recent psychology research
> has shown that the more
> connections within the brain
> are stimulated then the
> quicker recognition kicks
> in. Therefore real images,
> i.e. a photograph of a real
> baby (with texture, form and
> colour) will be more likely
> to invoke a quicker response.
> Can anyone tell me whether
> any articles have been
> written on this from a
> design/signage persepctive?

I'm afraid I don't have any kind of bibliography for you (not my
research area), but I do have a couple of questions about the "quicker
recognition" premise.

Given that signage is not a monolith, but is situationally specific,
it seems to me that the main difficulty those of us who tend to follow
signs encounter is seldom "quick recognition" but ease of
interpretation (i.e., how easy is it for us to decode intended meaning?).

Let's go back to road signs, for a moment....

There are cases I can think of (and I'm sure others will have more)
where "quick recognition" (prompting some kind of quick corrective
action) is crucial.

I would place road signs that warn motorists of sharp turns and big
dips in the road ahead in this category.

Also, signs warning of the sudden disappearance of any kind of
protective shoulder even though you're driving on the side of a
precipitous cliff.

And signs warning of rock- or mudslides ahead.

And possibly even signs warning of large animals crossing the road
ahead....

Each of these refers to material conditions which are not all that
difficult to recognize and respond to if you're aware of the
surrounding environment to begin with. (If, however, you've been
playing video games or watching movies rather than looking out the
window, you will lack the necessary sense of place for "quick
recognition," IMO.)

But the signs I mentioned before showing a man, woman and child
crossing the freeway on foot are, I think, in a different category at
the other end of the signage continuum.

These kinds of signs fly in the face of "common sense" and everything
we know about expected traffic patterns on roadways, and require
considerable interpretation. It is not enough to just quickly
recognize the figures of a man, woman, and child. You have to then
decide what these figures mean in this context ... and then decide
what your reaction is supposed to be (what kind of behavior is
expected of me?).

And this is not so easy.

Those of us driving on 5-lane freeways at 65mph (or more, in the
"fast" lanes) are not supposed to just slam on the brakes when we see
moving shadows ahead, and if we do, there will be consequences ...
some of them quite dire.

Of course, "unmarked" families are not supposed to be running across
10 lanes of open freeway, either ... so the whole thing is one of
those impossible situations for which there are no simple answers or
single righteous behaviors to follow.

As for me, I interpret the sign (which I always dread seeing) to mean
that I need to be *mindful* of what's going on around me when I drive
in these areas (rather than just driving on auto-pilot, as seasoned
drivers so often do).

Other than that, my responsive actions are limited to pulling over
into the slower lanes, where I can swerve onto the shoulder if need be
and travel at slower speeds so that my stopping distance isn't quite
so bad. But by the time I make all these adjustments (and I don't
always), I've probably passed through the pedestrians' preferred
crossing zone, anyway. (It's always unclear to me just how far the
danger zone extends.)

And since I know all of the above actions would be inadequate were I
to actually encounter this situation, mostly I just hope to hell no
family tries to run across the freeway when I'm driving on it....

None of this has anything to do with "quick recognition," though.

I've thought long & hard about what this particular sign *means* for
me, and how to react whenever I see it. So there's nothing spontaneous
-- or universal -- about my interpretation.

No doubt, one of the "Minutemen" who patrol the U.S.-Mexican border
across the southwest would "recognize" and react differently to the
sign than do I.

Certainly, we would attach very different meanings to it, and I don't
think replacing the illustration with a photograph would make any
difference, one way or the other.


Also, I know this isn't my expertise (and bear in mind that I'm a
visual illiterate compared to most folks on this list), but ...

Wouldn't photos actually be a lot harder to make out than a
well-designed icon, when viewed from a distance at typical roadsign
size? (not to mention when viewed under varying weather and lighting
conditions? and at rapid travel speeds?).

Photos are fine on the roadside, I think, at billboard size, but if
they were to get much smaller than that, I'm pretty sure I would find
all the detail overwhelming.

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
[email protected]








___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________