Typophile - Is Avenir an appropriate typeface for wayshowing signage? - Comments

Before they did a massive

nadine_chahine — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:57:45 -0700

Before they did a massive reno a few years ago, the airport at Minneapolis-St. Paul was actually pretty good too — I haven’t been there lately. If you watch the movie Airport, you get a half-decent sense of the terminal, where they shot the interiors.

Actually, the signage of the movie Airport was created especially for the movie by Paul Mijksenaar from Holland. He was asked to do this because of his work on one of the NY airports. I can’t remember which. Anyway, he has a picture in his office standing right next to Steven Spielberg. Quite cool!

As wayfinding goes, I find that I strongly favour what Paul does. One of his showcase projects is Schiphol in Amsterdam and he’s done airports all over the world.

He himself has lectured and written a lot about wayfinding and has established several keypoints that a system is based on. Out of the 7 points, the choice of typeface is defined as last. His personal favourite is Frutiger which he himself is turning into a global airport typeface via the numerous projects that he has worked on.

Anyway, just thought that the discussion was missing a key figure. As for the question, Avenir is a great typeface, Avenir Next even more, but if you like the Adrian Frutiger touch then you should go for the Frutiger.

Am I the only one tired of

joeclark — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:26:04 -0700

Am I the only one tired of Linda Cunningham’s claims that she authored various research papers while refusing to cite any sources? (TRIS returns no hits relating to signage and wayfinding for “Cunningham, L,” nor does any other obvious search.)

She’s quite off the mark in her dismissal of my criticism of Tiresias Screenfont. Among other things, it’s a screenfont, not a signage font.

—
Joe Clark
http://joeclark.org/

Jem, why don’t you make

Bruce — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:17:04 -0700

Jem, why don’t you make some tiled output in the size, colors, and typefaces you think might work, mount them on something light and rigid (Sintra? Fomecor?) and actually fasten those dummies to a wall/doorway/exterior location. (I know you don’t want to divulge much so I’m not sure what places you are planning.) Then approach the dummies as you would if you were a “spatial consumer” just a bit lost and first encountering the signs. That can give you a much better sense of the suitability of, say, Avenir for your project than discussions here. Right on, Carl, for all the factors you mentioned above. If the signage is to be seen from cars, be sure to evaluate at the typical speed of travel, too. Then report back to us on what you find.

Wayfinding debates are

Linda Cunningham — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:11:05 -0700

Wayfinding debates are almost as anal-retentive for detail as font construction ones. ;-)

Saul Goode, Jem. I also

biddy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:28:32 -0700

Saul Goode, Jem. I also agree with Carl. It very much depends on the “type” of wayfinding system we’re talking about, and of course the scope of the project. For small brand oriented wayfinding projects, you could probably get away with using anything.

There will always be type wayfinding debates, even the experts don’t agree. Paul Arthur and Romedi Passini disagree with Erik Spiekermann on x-height for example. (There was a debate on Typophile not to long ago about that as well.)

Thank you Cossgrove, I

Jem — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:02:40 -0700

Thank you Cossgrove, I totally agree.
I would prefer to keep the details of the project confidential, though all the factors you mention will definitely be taken into consideration if need be.

As far as the Avenir question, I think you have answered it.

Tiff: From the outside of

Linda Cunningham — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:40:55 -0700

Tiff: From the outside of this discussion—as a non-wayfinding designer—I’d say a lot of this is science, but some of it must be subjective. Maybe a little bit of “we read best what we read most”

Defining “subjective” is, ah, well, subjective. ;-) If you reread my message about constructing a test, you’ll note that the construction part is objective (a question from my thesis was, “what is the floor like?” 1 point for polished concrete, 2 points for textured or painted concrete, 3 points for textured and painted concrete, 4 points for low-pile wall-to-wall carpet or area rugs, 5 points for dense wall-to-wall carpet). That should be pretty easy for anyone to score.

But for a wayfinding task (“where is the washroom?”), that’s subjective: a venue might do well objectively on one or more individual elements — floor/wall colour/texture, lighting, font type/size, location/colour/size of sign, for example — but how those elements come together to facilitate the process is a subjective analysis.

In creating the test, what’s important is that as many of the objective elements are covered that can impact the subjective question.

Familiarity doesn’t hurt, of course, unless what’s being used is so ubiquitous that the intended audience tunes it out like so much white noise. Finding a balance between that comfort and perking the right kind of attention — you don’t want an “ewww” reaction either! — isn’t easy.

Jem: The say the work of Fruitger, Unger and Muller-Brockmann etc. only look nice is in ‘my opinion’ disrespectful. Most of the designers mentioned on that list have proved their capabilities many times over.

Well, you’re pushing your luck with “many times over.” They’ve done fab work in isolated venues, to say that everything they touch turns to gold is incorrect.

Anyway, so I guess the answer is No, Avenir is not appropriate for wayshowing signage. Or is it? ;-)

In the right weight, with appropriate colours, lighting, intended audience, and architecture, maybe. :-) Depends....

Carl: I think the real answer lies in getting specific about the application, and that goes back to the other factors that tend to be important in wayfinding applications.

If you substituted “useability” for “wayfinding,” you would have been dead on: that’s what it boils down to.

“Looks nice” isn’t high up on the useability list as you might think. Louis Sullivan once proclaimed that “Form Follows Function” and it seems that a lot of design (type, architectural, and interior) is more interested in exploiting technology than being useful these days.

I think the real answer lies

crossgrove — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:05:07 -0700

I think the real answer lies in getting specific about the application, and that goes back to the other factors that tend to be important in wayfinding applications. Some wayfinding applications are so cakey they hardly require any usability research or traffic analysis (tropical resort complex), and can be set in nearly any font you like. Some are so critical and fraught with legal and accessibility issues it’s unwise to start them without a team who can cover all the angles (Hospital site with multiple buildings, multiple car entries, designated emergency area), and there, type choice is more about clarity.

This is why we also can’t make a blanket statement about Avenir. In some situations it might be perfect. So, with that in mind, we should know more about the project. And by that, I mean, what distances will people use the signage from? Will the system need to work indoors, outdoors, or both? Who are the users (age and ability demographics)? What speed is the traffic: slow strolls, fast walking, gurneys and ambulances racing, highway traffic? Night, day, or both? Is there existing illumination? Reflected or transmitted illumination? Does the budget include illuminated sign bases? Will the signage hang overhead? As you can see it becomes very particular, and the answers to these questions help you make your decisions. It’s when users have very limited time or opportunities to take in the information on signage that the clarity and differentiation of a typeface becomes important. There’s more, but I think you need to pinpoint your other variables first.

Apologies Biddy if you were

Jem — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:38:36 -0700

Apologies Biddy if you were offended, I must say I am disappointed how angry this post has become. Nothing more boring than a post that deteriorates into an ’us and them’ debate.

As Linda stated:
“a common mistake made by designers is that anyone who does a sign thinks they are an “expert” at wayfinding”

Blanket statements like that are just unhelpful.

That is why I started this post, to try and learn more about one aspect of signage design; typography (and I have, thanks Stephen&Terminal). I don’t consider myself an expert, never said I was.

This post was not intended to be 101 primer on wayfinding either, that should be keep for another post (or another forum)

Anyway, so I guess the answer is No, Avenir is not appropriate for wayshowing signage.
Or is it? ;-)

Adrian Frutiger Josef Muller

biddy — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:50:20 -0700

Adrian Frutiger
Josef Muller Brockmann
Erik Spiekermann
Per Mollerup
Gerard Unger
…Biddy?

a little respect please.

Give me a break. This isn’t meant to be a flame-war. This is an open discussion. A lot of people have worked on wayfinding systems but some of those places (and people) you have mentioned are more interested in following established rules of acceptance as opposed to actual field research.

There are very few studies on typography legibility on signage as extensive as that done on the Clearview Highway System. Very few if any of the groups of people on your list have researched one particular area of wayfinding signage as extensively.

While I respect Massimo Vignelli’s contributions to the field of design, he’s hardly the best person to name here as he restricts his typeface usage to just a few typefaces. His major wayfinding systems primarily use Azkidenz-Grotesk or Helvetica.

No one would argue with Erik Spiekermann’s name on the list, as well as others and...with the exception of Massimo...I didn’t single anyone out. So why single me out?

You came here looking for answers right? So please respect the people who can help you with your questions. Should I have just said Avenir won’t cut it?

You also left out the people who have written one of the few manuals on the subject of wayfinding: Paul Arthur and Romedi Passini.

From the outside of this

Miss Tiffany — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:44:41 -0700

From the outside of this discussion—as a non-wayfinding designer—I’d say a lot of this is science, but some of it must be subjective. Maybe a little bit of “we read best what we read most”?

Not that qualifies as being

Linda Cunningham — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:40:48 -0700

Not that qualifies as being “outstandingly great” — there’s a large mass of “they do X very well, Y really poorly, and everything else falls somewhere in the middle with a lot that needs improving” though....

(And far too much of “you’ve got to be kidding!” but we won’t go there.) :-(

Sorry Linda, I meant

Jem — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:33:19 -0700

Sorry Linda, I meant examples other than the ones I have already mentioned.
(being Ungers work and the Charles De Gaulle)

Agree Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport signage is good.

Tiff: I’m a huge fan of

Linda Cunningham — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:00:34 -0700

Tiff: I’m a huge fan of Unger’s work, and the link you posted up is terrific.

Road signage has its own quirks (as we’ve discussed previously, speed being the primary one), and to some degree, a smaller range of variables and sample size to test. For starters, you don’t generally get transportation engineers wanting to mess around with different colours of asphalt for different roads, or little kids who drive. ;-)

At the opposite end of things, you’ve got airports — if you can do an airport well, you’ve got it made.

Off the top of my head, CDG is probably the most exemplary example, unless they’ve changed something radically since the last time I was there. There, it’s not “just” the signs, it’s little things like how the chime (which I gather has been discontinued), the decor, and the architecture work together.

The expression “sense of place” is horrifically and frequently inappropriately used to communicate a venue’s zeitgeist: CDG is one of the few places where it really exists.

Before they did a massive reno a few years ago, the airport at Minneapolis-St. Paul was actually pretty good too — I haven’t been there lately. If you watch the movie Airport, you get a half-decent sense of the terminal, where they shot the interiors.

Linda, do you have any

Jem — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:32:04 -0700

Linda, do you have any examples of wayshowing signage that you consider to be successful?

Is Avenir an appropriate typeface for wayshowing signage?

Jem — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:53:03 -0700

A question.
Is Avenir an appropriate typeface for wayshowing signage?

My feeling is due to its open and organic letter shapes, long ascenders and descenders, a more contained and regular typeface would be better suited. If I could recommend a font for signage, it would be the likes of Univers, Frutiger, Meta, even Argo.

Am I wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AvenirSP.png