Information design: professional vs amateur [part 2]
[You're reading part 2 (of 2). Read part 1.]
After the lively discussion on the power of information design from my last post, I was compelled to gather more objective data to inform the conversation. So last weekend, I went back to this same big-box hardware store, and grabbed a few more images. Not sure if they help or hurt.
When you approach the store, you can enter on either side of a large foyer area. These are the entrance doors on the east-facing side of the foyer. (The primary photo from the original post is the inside of the west-facing entrance to the foyer.) Notice how dangerous it also looks to enter the building.
East entrance doors
This is the inside of that same set of doors. No handwritten note, but you’ll see that “NO EXIT” is written here in at least six-inch tall lettering.
Reverse side of east entrance doors
After you’ve entered the foyer, you pass through another set of doors into the actual store, which is where you pass the theft-detection gates. When you turn around to look back into the foyer, this is your view. So 95% of people that see the original handwritten note would have already passed through this gauntlet.
Reverse side of primary entrance doors
Once you’ve gone through the checkout lanes into the exit foyer, this is the inside of the door through which they actually want you to leave. If you dare.
Exit doors
Looking more closely at the situation, it’s no wonder they need a handwritten note. All of the other information on the doors, whether positive or negative, is treated in the exact same fashion: big bold type on solid blocks of red. At first glance, no customer is going to be able to tell them apart. And from all the focus grouping I’ve been a part of, most people tend to associate red in information design as something dangerous or requiring caution.
As a final observation, while I was taking these photos I actually watched a couple leave the wrong way through the very set of doors that started this whole discussion.
There was talk about Expected vs. Unexpected in the last post, but I think something was overlooked.
I don’t know about you, but everytime I’m at the front of a store, and I see a door, I expect to be able to use it. Especially if its at a place where there’s lots of in/out traffic, purchase points, etc. Anytime I run into an emergency exit between an entrance an (non-emergency) exit, my brain hurts. I expect to see a lot of doors, but I don’t expect to have to think to make the right choice.
Emergency exits around a store work when they’re not where you expect to come in and go out, because they stand out.
I would argue that signage isn’t going to fix the underlying problem: people (I) expect to be able to use a door near the expected entrance/exit points. Instead, either allow the door to be used (it should still function in the event of an emergency), or don’t build it there.
Bottom line, my guess is the paper sign didn’t do that much better. Signage changes will simply be a duct-tape fix. Such is the power of expectations.
JA
Long time reader, first time writer.
Love the observation Drew. I started a collection of similar amateur vs. the pros photos a few years ago.
There’s a great book by the late philosopher Gillian Rose that has had a big impact on my thoughts on information design, and I think it might be applicable to this setting. In her book Visual Methodologies She suggests that there are three ways in which we give meaning to visual images: 1) the content, what is the picture or message; 2) location, where do we encounter it; and 3) how is it reproduced.
This scenario isn’t wayfinding (where content can be subtle but must be easily found). It needs impact and intervention. And I think Rose is right that at least one of these factors needs to be unexpected to have impact or raise curiosity. Either messaging that is surprising, “don’t you $%#& dare exit these doors” or a reproduction methods such as what we see, to intervene with our busy minds. Maybe the door shouldn’t look like a door from the inside?… probably not legal.
Maybe the message needs to be more playful?
And I do think consequences are an important issue.
If it really is an issue of theft, then I’m pretty certain there isn’t a signage solution.
How about that, first comment… and I dropped a reference to an obscure philosopher. Yee-hah.
The signage implements color without meaning. With both entrances and exits in red, their message is blurred (not to mention that red connotes danger). With the blurring of lines with color, the mind blurs or ignores the printed word.
If the sign backgrounds were color coded–for example, green for OK to use, and red for do not use–then the reader isn’t numbed or overwhelmed by a superfluous and unintended color message. The results would be instant and measurable.