drakowsk@syr.edu

Hinds HallStatic Wayfinding Sign System Intervention

RESTROOMS ELEVATOR

Project: Final Project: Intervention

School: School of Information Studies Syracuse University Spring Semester 2012

Class: IST 600 Information Design Professor: Jaime Snyder

By: Damian Rakowsky

“ An interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something.”

System“ Must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose.”

Do

nella Mead

ow

sThe main objective of this field study was to identify an in-

formation system; to observe it, study it, intervene and re-

cord the experience throughout. The hope once finished

is that I would have a better understanding of information

design in general and have a better appreciation of the

specific information phenomenon studied and the way

human users interact with it.

The domain for this field study is Hinds Hall on the Syra-

cuse University campus. It is home to the School of Infor-

mation Studies (iSchool). The information system studied

is its static wayfinding sign system. A system is described

by Meadows (2008) as groups of elements that work

together in a way that bears an outcome. Additionally

it must have three essential pieces: elements, intercon-

nection, and a function or purpose. Information must

flow into the system, having either a positive or negative

effect on the elements of the system that can be mea-

sured. In doing so, elements will interact with each other

to yield the purpose of the system. The following will de-

scribe the static wayfinding sign system using these terms.

Pur

po

se:

Ele

men

ts: Primary Human Users: Guest to building & new staff/

employees and students.

Secondary Human Users: Existing staff/employees and students who are familiar with the building.

Static Wall Mounted & Flag Mounted Signs: Colors, typography, syntax, symbols, locations and sizes.

The Building Itself: Architecture: The buildings physical spaces and corridors and paths they create in the building.

Interior Design: Patterns, wall colors, art, furniture.

Contextually, this system lives within the physical walls

of the building but the same system is used in all build-

ings campus wide. The system was implemented dur-

ing remodeling prior to iSchool’s move into the building.

The iSchool had no creative control over the language,

appearance or materials of the system. It is governed

by Syracuse University’s Physical Plant operations, who

control the uniform appearance. In doing so, it attempts

to keep costs down, ease the upkeep and help maintain

all the buildings up to government, state and local sign

codes.

This study focused on a static information sign system,

where the signs are stationary, inert and not plugged in

either to the Internet or a wall socket. The signs do not

broadcast any digitally dynamic information (such as In-

ternet based or mobile website content). Although some

web based information systems do exist in the building,

the scope centers exclusively on static signs.

To identify primary areas, permanent rooms, egress routes and to direct human users to these places.

The purpose of this system is to identify primary areas and rooms, secondary

rooms, closets, egress, elevators, restrooms and to direct human users to these

places. The elements of this system are human users, signs, architecture, physical

space and interior design. The human user can be broken down to two groups:

primary and secondary users. The primary users are described as guests to the

building -- new staff, faculty, and new students. The secondary users are com-

prised of existing staff, faculty and students who are familiar with the building. The

signs contain several sub-elements: typography (fonts and symbols), visual graph-

ic language (including colors, patterns and materials), and the actual syntax of

the information itself. The physical space made up by the architecture drives the

messages of the signs and dictates not only their location but the visual graphics

and information. Finally the interior design may play a role in what materials and

colors are used on the signs themselves. The interconnections between the ele-

ments are apparent, one directly dictates what the next element will either look

like, say or do.

Info

rmat

ion

Flow

&

Boundries.The static wayfinding sign system in Hinds Hall meets all

the criteria of a system as described by Meadows, the

elements are interconnected and serve a purpose.

Humans use the signs to find their way around the build-

ing and the signs messages and appearance are dic-

tated by the architecture and interior design.

The system can be engaged at multiple locations in the building, but the primary

boundary of the system lies with the physical structure of the building. Inflow into

the system is represented by the human user entering the building and interacting

with the other elements of the system. The user can reengage the system once

in the building multiple times to find other rooms or areas even though they might

have found their first destination. The system can be engaged over and over until

the user exits the building representing the outflow.

More than an information system, this sign system can

further be described as a “Wayfinding” system. Passini

(2000) describes wayfinding as people’s ability to ab-

sorb, digest, understand and use information to find a

specific place. Sless (1994) further classifies wayfinding

as a specific practice of Information Design that focuses

not so much on form but the content of the message

maximizing the user’s ability to proficiently find the de-

sired location. Signs that appear in a wayfinding system

can be classified in one of four categories: Identification,

Regulatory, Directional and Informational as per industry

standards found in wayfinding design and fabrication

firms. Identification signs are used to identify perma-

nent rooms or area; regulatory signs provide warnings or

important safety information. Signs that fall in both these

categories are required to follow national guidelines.

Directional signs direct users within a space or area and

usually include arrows; informational signs provide gen-

eral information about an area or building, such as a

map or directory. Signs in these categories do not have

to follow any laws and are completely at the discretion of

the building owners or managers.

Since this study is about a wayfinding system, I used these descriptions and stan-

dards as base criteria for my observations and evaluations. I observed primary

users engaging the system, interviewed secondary human users and building

staff that are familiar with the existing sign system and regulations. I analyzed sign

syntax, quantity and location of signs throughout the building. I also considered

three concepts described by Passini (2000): could I figure out how to get to the

spot I wanted? Could I determine a route to take? Was there enough there for

me to implement this plan?

Pas

sini

: Describes wayfinding as people’s ability to absorb, digest, under-stand and use informa-tion to find a s specific place.

101

MAR

Y ST

RM

FLORIDA AVE

CHARLES AVE

COMMODORE PLAZA

FULLER ST

GRAND AVE

MAIN H

WY McFARLANE RD

S BAYS

HORE DR

4

2

N

6

5

$

$

$

3

Way

findi

ng S

igns

Direct users within a space and usuallyincludes arrows.

Provide information about an building like maps and directories.

Provide a warning or important safety information.

Signs that identify a permanent room or areas.Id

enti

fica

tio

n:

Reg

ulat

ory

:

Dir

ecti

ona

l:

Info

rmat

iona

l:

Results of the evaluation demonstrate several problems

related to the design and flow of information within the

system. Furthermore, they have created a clear direction

for me to follow in temporarily altering or changing the

system.

• Overall the system lacked sufficient signs. The ones that

do exist have poor impact.

• The signs consist of several different sign sizes, where all

are brown and/or black in color. Lesser important rooms

have signs that are considerably smaller than signs for

offices, restrooms and meeting rooms. The fonts are dif-

ferent from sign to sign, and in some cases the graphic

symbols are not consistent or accurate.

• The existing system is strict and is dictated by the campus wide system. It does

not take into account the interior design or architecture. The dark colors match

almost too well with the wall colors, which make them difficult to notice.

• The directional signs are difficult to locate due their location near the ceiling. Ty-

pography is not consistent form sign to sign – the fonts are too small to read from

a distance.

• It is difficult for visitors to find destinations, meeting rooms and elevators.

• The building lacks sufficient directional or trailblazer signs to lead humans to the

restrooms, which are difficult to find. Due to architectural restrictions, male and

female restrooms do not exist on every floor together and the signs do a poor job

to indicate so.

• Once in the building the architecture is very similar floor to floor making it hard

to remember which floor your on. The lack of signs or identification makes it dif-

ficult to help you locate yourself.

• Identification signs are adequate but unattractive; they identify rooms as

expected and there is a suitable contrast between the typography and back-

ground.

• Regulatory signs are suitable and appear to meet local and national codes.

• NO informational signs or maps exist anywhere in the building, nor are the floors

identified in any manner, specifically in the stairway landings.

• There are no identifying signs or markers that help human users at the primary

entrances on the main floor to initiate the system.

• A request for uniform and stylistic graphics was made.

RESTROOM

337 009

DATA

RESTROOMS ELEVATOR EXIT

Regulatory:

Identification:

HINDS HALL

Way

find

ing

Sig

ns

Directional:

Informational: NONE

The strategy of the intervention was to design and imple-

ment a few new sign types that would help the existing

static wayfinding sign system in a positive way by ad-

dressing the problems uncovered during my investigation.

The following information design principles were the most

salient when designing intervening signs.

• First and foremost, I have the cooperation of the

iSchool administration. Hence, I was able to get feed-

back and direction in the use of the existing graphic

standards.

• The design was directed to the primary users group,

guests and new students.

• It addresses big gaps in the wayfinding system: no infor-

mation signs, few directional signs and poor floor identifi-

cation.

• Important destination graphics should make use of a

pop-out effect as described by Ware (2008), by grabbing

attention using channels such as color, texture or orienta-

tion.

• Create graphically compelling graphics that identify the floors and destination

using principles describes by Visocky O’Grady (2008): Clarify appropriate infor-

mation, utilize basic visual communication principles, consider the surrounding

architecture and create dominant and recessive content.

Intervention of the existing system took place with three new sign types: A, B

and C. All three types use an overall graphic language that includes a standard

color palate, graphic symbols and typographic hierarchy that meets the iSchool’s

criteria. Floor plans are used on sign types A and B that only emphasize the des-

tinations that are difficult to locate (such as restrooms, elevators and stairs). The

majority of classrooms, offices and meeting rooms maintain an even gray tone.

Conversely, the mens restrooms are branded with a blue hue and the womens

with a pink hue, which accentuates the fact that one or the other always appear

on each floor. Egress stairs, elevators, handicap accessible restrooms and “You

Are Here” tags are identified with hues that pop out of the gray background. The

map itself is drawn from a perspective that emphasizes the building architecture

and aids users to orient themselves in the space faster. Also, the maps are always

positioned correctly in alignment with the human user.

Co

lors

:Fo

nt:

New

Pla

n D

esig

n

Sign Type B is an addition to the system that helps identify

floors in the stair landings and acts as a secondary directory

with the specific floor plan exhibited. This sign type makes

for quick acknowledgment of the floor number and features

the primary destination and most importantly which restroom

is located there. Men and women symbols in blue and pink

colors are also shown on this sign and indicate which occurs

on the next floor up or down. A great deal of information is

now obtained at the stair landing that was not there before,

reinforcing floor location and restroom designation.

Signs Type C is an addition to the directional sign category

and they are located in the corridors on all four floors and

direct exclusively to restrooms, elevators and egress stairs.

Several signs were installed on each floor, for a total of 15 in

the entire building, a stark contrast to the four existing signs

that were meant to do the same job. These signs reinforce

the other two sign types using the same graphic language

and act as a reminder to the human users moving about in

the corridors of most often asked question during my obser-

vations and interviews; “Where is the restroom?”

Sign type A is a major addition to the system and ad-

dresses the lack of information signs. It is the primary di-

rectory sign measuring three feet in diameter, containing

dynamic floor plans in varying perspectives that displays

all four floors at once. Locating a desired destination,

creating a plan and implementing it, as described by

Passini (2000), becomes a simpler undertaking with the

complete building in view. There are two of these signs

located on the main floor within eyeshot of the main en-

trances. They address the lack of a real starting point to

engage the sign system.

The S

ign T

Ypes:

A

BC

A grand total of 25 paper mock signs were installed in Hinds Hall. All the design

decisions made with the new sign types were directly in response to the informa-

tion flow problems identified in the existing system. The colors, graphics, fonts,

sizes of the signs, the specific locations of intervening signs all were a deliberate

attempt to impact the system in a positive way. My theory was that the salient

elements that I deemed necessary to change and add would have a favorable

impact for humans using the system.

Flo

or

One

A A B

B C

Locatio

ns

The response to the intervention was instantaneous and

tremendous. I was getting encouraging feedback from

people before I could completely install all the signs.

An experiment was performed involving human users

to determine the complete response and to thoroughly

evaluate the intervention.

To test the primary human users group, guests to the

building and new staff, faculty and students, I requested

humans who had never been in the building to attempt

to find various destinations and to get their overall impres-

sions of the intervening signs. I had them enter the first

floor entrances and proceed to find a men’s restroom. It

can only be found on the ground level, one floor below

or all the way up on the third level.

Inte

rven

tio

n

Sig

n Ty

pe

A

Overall, the results were positive. Out of 16 users, only

two had trouble clearly understanding the graphics and

symbols used to direct them to the restrooms. The other

14 users had no problems quickly determining where they

were on the plan, creating a plan to find the restroom

and implementing it. The two users who had trouble both

found the graphics striking but had trouble understanding

the stacked restroom symbols on Sign Type B, but other-

wise understood the maps themselves. The results are

very promising and show a positive impact on the system.

To test the secondary human users of existing staff, faculty

and students who are familiar with the building, I had a

mass email sent to iSchool associates requesting feed-

back. Once again the response was overwhelmingly

positive. Many people thought the signs were done by

the administration and building management in response

to an upcoming event and encouraged them to keep

the signs up and replace them with a more permanent

medium. Again, a small minority had trouble understand-

ing the stacked restroom symbols on Sign Type B, but still

understood and appreciated the floor maps.

I received additional input from people who I interviewed prior to the interven-

tion to get their post-intervention thoughts on the system. The three significant

comments were that the information graphics and maps worked; they liked the

blue and pink branding of the restrooms; and the overall graphic style was very

dynamic and pleasing.

The salient design principles used during this process have yielded a considerably

positive intervention. In the end, the existing sign system was lacking vital informa-

tion to efficiently accomplish its purpose. The addition of two new sign types and

adding more of a third made a significant difference in enhancing the system.

Tackling this information design problem taught me to better understand how to

really evaluate an existing system for what it’s worth. I was able to spend more

time critically examining the information flow problems beyond the superficial

graphics. Additionally, I realized that information systems are a big part of our

daily routine. The ones that are designed well blend seamlessly into our lives and

the ones that are not can cause us grief, especially if you, really need to find a

bathroom.

Sig

n Ty

pe

C

Sig

n Ty

pe

B

Sless, D. 1994. What is information design? In Designing Information for People, pp. 1-16. Canberra: Communication Research Press.

Ware, C. 2008. Visual Thinking for Design What Can We Easily See,pp. 23-33. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers

Passini, R. 2000. Information Design Sign Posting Information Design,pp. 88-89. First MIT Press paperback edition.

Meadows, D. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer,pp. 11-25. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Visocky O’Grady, J. & Visocky O’Grady, K. 2008. The Information Design Handbook, pp. 64-65, 72-73, 97-125. HOW Books, an impriont of F+W Media, Inc.

Ref

eren

ces