No standard for beauty
The discussion regarding applicable standards for sign systems is something that comes and goes within the wayfinding community. More often than not, it becomes an argument about the balancing act between known solutions and new solutions. It is hard not to have the impression that creative designs present – to some people – a risk to the efficacy of their wayfinding system.
This fear is probably based on the myth of the designer as a head-in-the-clouds ‘creative’ type whose sole job is to channel their personal creativity into work for a client.
A designer is not a creative or an artist. A designer is a problem solver, working within a set of constraints. To ignore these constraints is to decide not to design. Yes, often solutions will require the designer to think creatively, but this should completely override the constraints that have already been set in place.
There is a delicate balance to be found between constrained standards and alluring aesthetics. In that space often dwells many design solutions, but it requires independent thinking and energy to unearth it.
What do we gain by conforming to standards in signage design?
We don’t view constraints as limiting, rather, they are necessary to direct our thinking and our solutions. For us, the benefits far outweigh the perceived limitations:
First, they provide a base level of efficacy that can be used to assess designs – this particularly relates to legibility and vision requirements.
Second, they represent a level of conformity to information that helps users recognise when a given type of information is being displayed, such as accessible amenities or route selection.
Third, they offer the client assurance that the system will work.
This last point is often underrated. Simply saying that a design conforms to the relevant standard often assures the client that the system being presented will minimise problems for their users. Whether that is actually the case or not comes down to the standard itself, how it’s applied, and if it addresses the underlying problem.
Standards, standards everywhere: but do they solve the problem?
While often necessary, standards can also stifle creative solutions to existing problems. By saying that a sign needs to be an exact height, typeface and colour, there is a tacit removal of the designer’s role to question the need for a sign in the first place. Standards don’t look at end results – they are chiefly concerned with methodology.
One such example is the desire to place Braille and tactile signs throughout large institutions. Imagine you are entering a multi-room conference centre and you need to find the right auditorium. Close your eyes. Navigate your way to a small panel somewhere on the wall that tells you where you currently are, and how to reach the correct door. Now imagine there’s a large number of people around you, and you have to feel your way across a crowded and bustling auditorium. Suddenly finding your way to your seat becomes difficult, if not impossible.
The requirement for Braille directional signage is often unhelpful as it relies on a standard that ignores the actual needs and abilities of the users. If the guiding standard was “visually impaired people can find their way through the environment” rather than “provision must be made for Braille and tactile signage”, then the solution that accompanies that standard would make more sense. However, research in the United States indicates that only 10% of the legally blind can read Braille, and this number is continually dropping. In short, the standard is not aligned to users' needs or abilities.
Reliance on standards alone then has its limitations. While these systems are easier to design and (in theory) save time, they aren’t actually addressing the core problem. We need to be prepared to look outside of the standard to reveal better solutions.
Balancing the scales of standards and beauty
Wayfinding strategy and design is bespoke work. People come to us because they have problems they cannot solve themselves. They also have discovered (likely after a few failed attempts) that traditional systems that manufacturers provide don’t quite fit the bill. Instead, they need considered solutions to complex problems, or, they require integrated architectural and signage solutions.
This is where good design truly creates value. It isn’t through making things look good, but by solving tricky problems through analytical and creative thinking. However, we must also acknowledge that there is an aesthetic basis for the success of some solutions, and the failure of others.
As a species, we have evolved to be drawn to things that look attractive. Although subjective, a large number of qualities make sense in our line of design – symmetry, scale, relationship, and iconography are all important. There is also a school of thought regarding user interface design which posits that when people ask for, or describe, interfaces which are intuitive, they are actually talking about having a positive aesthetic reaction to it. When all other factors are considered equal, people will opt for the more aesthetically pleasing option.
It is in this space that the sweet spot between standards and beauty can be identified. The design of a wayfinding system is more than just how it works, or how it looks. It is the fusion of both that creates the best experience for users. Standards and standardised designs will help ensure that the directional information works, but a truly effective wayfinding system will also combine clear directions and beautiful design.
Finding this balance isn’t easy. We should know, it’s what we spend most of our time doing. Standards have immense power over the way designs function, and trust in the absolute letter of these can be misplaced. Designers should question how it is that these standards are agreed upon, and who it is that benefits from their solutions.
We ask many questions throughout the process to find this perfect balance. But the one we ask most commonly and constantly is this:
“Does it work?”