Making new signage visible

[whole diary]

[Richard Fairhurst]

Slab serifs like Glypha have been in vogue for a couple of years. Archer and Belizio are fairly similar (a little less angular) and crop up very often. Personally I prefer it to NR^» (Network Rail - home page) Brunel, which seems to be a fairly uninspired Frutiger knockoff to me, but Rail Alphabet is a classic and I'm sad to see it go.

That said, 75 seems over-bold for signage use, and I'm really not convinced by the spacing on that Chippenham example - would have been better to right-align the text against the arrow, and then put the icons on the left-hand edge of the sign. The reversed-out icons are also less clear than black-on-white would have been.

[Red Squirrel]

I think the Siobhan Sharpes of this world need to understand the difference between signage (which needs to convey information clearly, quickly and concisely) and branding (which is all about aspirations and emotions). Britain did world-leading research in the fifties and sixties which led to the superb road sign standards we take for granted today, and to the typefaces used by BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)), its successors, and LT. What these standards have in common is that they use mixed case letters and sans serif fonts, both of which have been proven to improve legibility.

Out of interest, I wonder what feedback GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) got when they had these signs evaluated for vision-impaired accessibility. Or, and perhaps more to the point, I wonder if they had them assessed at all?

[stuving]

In 2009 there was a report "Better Rail Stations" (to Lord Adonis) about improving stations. That recommended as one of its minimum standards:

Station Signage
To ensure network consistency and reduced franchise costs, all signage should be in standard ‘Brunel’ script with white letters on a dark blue background. Thereafter, name signs should not be changed when train company ownership changes.

We all know that the incoming government in 2010 did not favour dictating standard in this way as much as the previous one, but is there any current government policy in this area? Surprisingly, yes: "Design standards for accessible railway stations: a code of practice by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland" (2015). Here, under "K3. Signs - font" this has:

e. Research into legibility has led to the design of a number of typefaces that are used by the transport industry. Clear typefaces include Helvetica, Arial, Rail Alphabet, Brunel, New
Johnston and Airport.

f. Over-stylised designs and ornate typefaces can be very difficult to read and should be avoided.

This and other guidance is derived from sources such as the Sign Design Guide (2000) and BS8300:9.2.3.1. It also lists mandated standards, and while there is no national standard in this area there is PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) TSI:4.1.2.11.1&2:

1. The minimum height of letters shall be calculated according to the following formula: Reading distance in mm divided by 250 = font size (e.g. 10 000 mm / 250 = 40 mm).

2. Sans-serif fonts, in mixed case, shall be used for all written information (i.e. not in capital letters only).

3. Compressed descenders and ascenders shall not be used.

4. Descenders shall be clearly recognisable and have a minimum size ratio of 20 per cent to the
upper-case characters.

Correction: The quotes above were from the previous guide, withdrawn in 2015. However, apart from the few words now struck out everything is still there, though with different numbering. Items 2, 3, and 4 are no longer cited as in the PRM TSI, because they are not in the latest version - but they now appear as guidance.

[paul7575]

The GW^▸ (Great Western) always has to be different. 

As if they'd ever use some random typeface such as er...  "Brunel"   

Paul

[didcotdean]

Glypha is sold as a condensed typeface that is good for legibility - for magazines and advertising. Not signage that I can see.

As already said above by Richard 75 seems too black for signage; it over emphasises the slab-serifs. 65 would have been sufficient.

[Red Squirrel]

I don't think we should assume competence on the part of the people who decided on using Glypha for signage, as opposed to branding.

By far the worst example of this kind of thing I know of is Moto services: Can you see anything wrong in this photo?



Moto chose to apply their branding to their direction signage - so all signs are round with blue circles. In one fell swoop of arrogance and stupidity they cast aside decades of good practice and replaced it with a forest of incomprehensible nonsense. I'm sure there are people who can instantly work out that a bus facing right in a blue circle two signs to the right of a left arrow in a blue circle means 'buses keep left', but I'm guessing most people would have to think about it!

[John R]

I would agree with that. The signage in their service stations doesn't have the same intuitive feel that you immediately expect, and therefore takes a bit longer to assimilate.

[trainer]

I complained to Moto staff years ago when I got lost on one of their service stations and couldn't get out!  The signage had just been put up and I received sympathy from the person I spoke to who told me that more than one person had had the same issue.  They have changed nothing since.

On the sighting of signs, Yatton station has an electronic PIS^▸ (Passenger Information System) display which is obscured from most passengers on the Up Platform because of (from memory) a beam holding up the roof.  (I'll try to remember to check the obstruction when I go next.)

[JayMac]

As a recently qualified motorist I have to say that it's not just Moto who have woeful signage. All motorway service stations I've visited seem to have signage designed to confuse. Of particular concern is the first direction signage you encounter off the slip road. You're slowing from motorway speed so clear concise signage is needed.

[Timmer]

As a recently qualified motorist I have to say that it's not just Moto who have woeful signage. All motorway service stations I've visited seem to have signage designed to confuse. Of particular concern is the first direction signage you encounter off the slip road. You're slowing from motorway speed so clear concise signage is needed.

Glad it's not just me who thinks signage at some service stations for entry and exits is woeful.

[grahame]

As a recently qualified motorist I have to say that it's not just Moto who have woeful signage.

Glad it's not just me who thinks signage at some service stations for entry and exits is woeful.

You're talking traffic signage?   I've had problems around some service areas too.   And at times, internal signage tends to be far more aimed at helping you find opportunities to spend your money than to find that loo you stopped for in the first place which - with notable exceptions - are accessed by passing far more sales outlets than necessary!

When I'm giving a training course in a new room, I always take a careful look at the placement of delegate chairs / tables, their distance, angle and lighting to the projection screen, and whether anything's in the way.  And I make sure I don't foul  anyone's view during teaching / lecture / demo sessions, and select fonts that are large enough to be visible from the furthest seats.  Surely service area and railway station designers go through a similar exercise, but in much more detail considering how much longer their solutions will last.

[Timmer]

You're talking traffic signage?   I've had problems around some service areas too.   And at times, internal signage tends to be far more aimed at helping you find opportunities to spend your money than to find that loo you stopped for in the first place which - with notable exceptions - are accessed by passing far more sales outlets than necessary!

I am. And yes plenty of advertising ways to spend your money whilst you are there and you sure can at a British service station where prices are quite frankly ridiculously expensive, same at airports. Captive market. Thing is people will pay the prices charged so they will continue to charge what they do. I'm waiting for the 'they have higher overheads' comment. Yes they do but not be as much as the mark up you see compared to supermarkets and town centre eating establishments.

[CyclingSid]

Before we got side-tracked into inflammatory subjects like motorway service stations and similar "rip offs", there were indications that there had once been an attempt at common standards across the system.
Going off-piste in another direction, another niggle of mine (minor in the overall scheme of things) are door operating buttons on trains. Should there not be a standard layout so that Open is always top (or whatever, but consistent). I find myself pressing a Close button when I am already mentally off the train, but failing to do it physically, because all the other buttons on the journey in that position have been Open.

[Red Squirrel]

Before we got side-tracked into inflammatory subjects like motorway service stations...

I'm not sure it was that much of a side-track, within the context of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) applying a 'branded' typeface to direction signage.

As far as Moto is concerned - and their signage is uniquely woeful - it is worth noting that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s guidelines of April 2008 state that:

In design terms, roadside facilities schemes should... ...ensure that all traffic signing (including road markings) for drivers using the site complies with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
(TSRGD)

For reference, here is the relevant TSRGD

Moto's signage doesn't come within a country mile of this: Maybe they got lost following their own signs.

All this is relevant to the subject because what is good for MSA's should be good for railway stations.

[stuving]

As far as Moto is concerned - and their signage is uniquely woeful - it is worth noting that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)'s guidelines of April 2008 state that:

That DfT policy (circular 01/2008) was replaced by a new one (02/2013) which is shorter but still contains:

SIGNING
B25. All signing of roadside facilities and signing arrangements within sites must comply with the current Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and any other guidance as may be issued from time to time by the Department for Transport or the Highways Agency. Approval must be sought from the Highways Agency’s signs specialist for the use of all non prescribed signs. Advice and working drawings may be obtained from traffic.signs@dft.gsi.gov

Both document set out "policy" as advice to planning authorities, to be applied to applications. What isn't clear to me is how this policy might be enforced retrospectively. Is it planning enforcement, by the local PA^▸ (Public Address), like demolishing your secret house extension? Does that only work for conditions in the decision notice of approval, or is the policy in the circular an implied term of any approval? And which version applies - depending on when the offending signs were put up?

In the case of station signage, that was a code of practice containing guidance. The relevant web page says:

This code will help train operators and anybody else carrying out rail infrastructure improvements to design more accessible trains and stations. It has been published to ensure that any infrastructure work at stations makes railway travel easier for disabled passengers.

So how does that work? How does publishing that code "ensure" anything - that would require something approaching enforcement, wouldn't it? It may not be in a franchise contract, but a bit of naming and shaming wouldn't go amiss.