Making new signage visible

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

What isn't clear to me is how this policy might be enforced retrospectively.

Maybe Moto have 'grandfather rights'. The brand came into being in 2001; were any explicit standards in place at that time?

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.

...specifically, vision-impaired passengers in this context. Which leads me back to wondering if GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) actually thought to have the signage assessed, or consider the RNIB^» (Royal National Institute for the Blind - about)'s guidelines which, among other things, specifically advise against using light text or symbols against a dark background.

[Bmblbzzz]

I suppose it's debatable whether those icons are white on a black square or the black square is part of the icon itself. Personally I think they'd probably be more legible in black on white with perhaps a narrow black outline round the (assumed) square of 'icon space'.

As to the visually impaired, I do know one man, sufficiently impaired to be registered blind since birth, who finds it easier to make out white on black. Not that one individual is good reason to go against RNIB^» (Royal National Institute for the Blind - about) advice.

[Bmblbzzz]

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.

I hadn't given thought to the position but I do find the Open and Close symbols insufficiently distinct. There isn't enough doorness in them.

[Red Squirrel]

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.

I hadn't given thought to the position but I do find the Open and Close symbols insufficiently distinct. There isn't enough doorness in them.

It's clear from context whether you want to open or shut the door, so you only need one button labelled 'Door'.

[stuving]

If you look in the current GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) franchise (dated 22 March 2015), page 174, under SCHEDULE 4 Persons with Disabilities and Disability Discrimination/2. Physical Alterations and Accessibility of Stations is:

2.7 (a) establish and manage the Minor Works’ Budget to fund the carrying out of Minor Works. For the purposes of this paragraph 2.7, Minor Works means small scale physical alterations or additions to improve accessibility of Stations to Disabled Persons, not involving substantial works of construction or reconstruction. The Minor Works:
...
(iv) must comply with the standards provided for in the Code of Practice, unless otherwise agreed with the prior consent of the Secretary of State;

And, among the definitions of terms, there are:

“Code of Practice” means the code of practice for protecting the interests of users of railway passenger services or station services who have disabilities, as prepared, revised from time to time and published by the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 71B of the Act;

“Act” means the Railways Act 1993 and any regulations or orders made thereunder;

Now, the code of practice referred to above says in its introduction:

The version of the document published on the Department for Transport’s (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) website will be considered the official version for the purposes of the Railways Act 1993. Train and station operators, and anybody else who carries out work on Great Britain’s railway network, should ensure that they are familiar with this version and should check the website on a regular basis for updates.

Mind you, the inside cover text includes:

Although this report was commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the DfT. The information or guidance in this document (including third party information, products and services) is provided by DfT on an ‘as is’ basis, without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind whether express or implied.

The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.

Hmm ... so HMG do not endorse it, but have made it an implied term of franchise contracts (and are presumably required by that act to do so). Sow how keen to you imagine they are going to be to enforce that contract term?

[plymothian]

I mentioned, when he was passing, to the station manager at Newton Abbot that the signs appear smaller and harder to read.  He said 'they're compliant and lovely'.

[Timmer]

I mentioned, when he was passing, to the station manager at Newton Abbot that the signs appear smaller and harder to read.  He said 'they're compliant and lovely'.

Well he would say that wouldn't he. He's trained and programmed to say things like that. 

[stuving]

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.

I hadn't given thought to the position but I do find the Open and Close symbols insufficiently distinct. There isn't enough doorness in them.

I'm sure I read about some trains having their door control buttons changed to the "standard" layout during a makeover, but I can't remember what class nor find the item again.

But thinking about the symbols, rather than the positions, I've always found it surprisingly difficult to pick which does which, as evidenced by needing to stop and think. Obviously it's not intuitive, at least for me. The same symbols (more or less) are used on lifts, with a longer history, and induce the same hesitation.

Looking about on line, I found other similar comments, and one guy saying that after much searching he could find no trace of any good engineering design, or research to support it, ever being done. Product designers had just copied each other, adding their own ideas. There was also a lot of borrowing symbols both ways with VCR designers, though the relationship between tape motion and lift doors isn't obvious. I can't find any design standard either, whether labelled as "accessibility" or not.

Two people had though about it, and come up with the same idea as I did, though with less explanation. This was my reasoning:

Arrows usually indicate direction or motion, but for motion they are almost entirely conventional; if you'd never seen one you wouldn't guess what it meant. Presumably two arrows, with or without a single line between them, are meant to suggest moving doors. But if I want the doors to open or close, I'm not really interested in them in motion - I'm thinking more about the end state; the doors open or closed. And those two arrows pointing inwards (especially with no line between) look more "open" than the outwards ones. In other words, there is visibly more of a gap in the middle.

So I suggest making the arrows smaller, and putting two vertical lines at the outside (with arrows pushing them) and a wide gap in the middle, or two lines close together in the middle with little arrows pushing them shut. @i'm not sure if that conveys "doorness", but I think it has more "shutness" or "openness".

[Bmblbzzz]

I think that's a pretty good consideration of what it is that makes the door open/close signs unintuitive.

[Red Squirrel]

But you don't need two buttons!

If the door is open, then the only valid operation is to close them. If they are closed, the only valid operation is to open them. It they are opening or closing, then hitting the button again must mean you want them to stop opening or closing. Controls Logic 101.

So one button, with a pictogram of a door. Ajar, if you like.

[stuving]

But you don't need two buttons!

If the door is open, then the only valid operation is to close them. If they are closed, the only valid operation is to open them. It they are opening or closing, then hitting the button again must mean you want them to stop opening or closing. Controls Logic 101.

So one button, with a pictogram of a door. Ajar, if you like.

I was thinking more about lifts, and commonality (though it's open to question whether lift door buttons really do anything at all).

But, apart from marginal cases where the door thinks it's doing something different from what you see, you would need to test that to see if a single button is intuitive. Is "move the door to wherever it isn't" easy eough to understand, compared to "... to open" or "... to closed"? Maybe, maybe not; good design depends on finding that out first.

[JayMac]

Maybe it's just what people expect. And therefore that is what is designed in. A button to open and a button to close. A single button may confuse. Does it open the door or close it? I imagine many people won't even consider that a single button can do both.

Manufacturers would certainly fit a single button on cost grounds if there weren't some other reason.

[Bmblbzzz]

You could say that carriage external doors don't need a close button at all, since they all nowadays close automatically. So the only function of the button could be to open the door. Many internal doors are also self-closing. You'd still need some sort of lock button (or physical mechanism?) on toilet doors.

[JayMac]

I'm sure I read about some trains having their door control buttons changed to the "standard" layout during a makeover, but I can't remember what class nor find the item again.

Class 150s had their original small square buttons replaced with larger round, more tactile buttons, including braille, to comply with RVAR.

[Red Squirrel]

Well... there's a button on the door of my car. As long as the key's in my pocket, pushing the button either locks it or unlocks it dependent on it's current state. Then I get in and - lo! - there's a button on the dash which closes the power relays if the car is switched off, or opens them if it's switched on. I think this sort of logic is common to most modern cars, but I will admit that I am only assuming that somewhere in a multi-billion pound development project they found a budget to check that people found that sort of logic intuitive.