National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 5 - Curbside and Ground Transportation
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 147
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 148
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 149
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 150
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 151
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 152
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 153
Page 154
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 154
Page 155
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 155
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 156
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 157
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 158
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 159
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 160
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 161
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 162
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 163
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 164
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 165
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 166
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 167
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 168
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 169
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 170
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 171
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 172
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 173
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 174
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 175
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 176
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 177
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 178
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Terminal." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13640.
×
Page 179

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6.1 Wayfinding Philosophy and Principles An airport should be able to identify wayfinding problems and define what wayfinding success looks like. Philosophically, the goal of an airport’s wayfinding system is simple: to help improve the passenger experience. Begin by developing a clear wayfinding strategy (Section 2.3). An airport that creates a positive passenger experience will create a positive impression of their airport. A key principle of any wayfinding strategy is to value it. It is critical to think of your airport’s wayfinding system as a building system; just like the HVAC system, the communication system, the electrical system, etc. All of these systems require maintenance and service in order for your air- port to operate efficiently. Your wayfinding system should be treated no differently. This is a very important concept to make part of every airport’s culture. In order for the airport’s wayfinding to be successful it must be treated as an integral part of the airport’s building systems. To develop a wayfinding strategy, apply these key principle concepts by asking: • Continuity—Is your wayfinding system the one common thread that provides continuity in a diverse architectural environment as your passengers navigate from one space to another? • Connectivity—Does your wayfinding system deliver the right message at the right location at the right time? • Consistency—Think of wayfinding as a giant exercise in packaging information that can be clearly communicated to the user. Does your wayfinding system communicate information in a consistent manner throughout the passenger journey? Consistency becomes visible to pas- sengers through the following design elements: – Terminology and Message Hierarchy, – Visibility and Legibility, – Typography and Symbology, – Format and Color, and – Placement. The wayfinding inside a terminal should not be expected to overcome architectural wayfinding barriers. Solution: Insist that every architectural project be evaluated from a passenger’s wayfind- ing perspective and seize opportunities to correct architectural problems whenever possible. Wayfinding information must compete with visual images such as regulatory, advertising, retail concessions, etc. Seldom is all this information implemented as a system. Solution: Develop information zones based on the airport’s architecture to avoid competition. To determine how successful an individual airport terminal building is in terms of wayfinding efficiency, it is worth considering measuring the Level of Service achieved for passengers’ wayfind- ing experience. The Airports Council International (ACI) and other organizations conduct annual 93 C H A P T E R 6 Terminal

94 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside passenger satisfaction surveys that include measures for wayfinding, or an airport can conduct their own survey. 6.1.1 Wayfinding Analysis and Checklist The simplest and most straightforward way to analyze a wayfinding system is to physically conduct a field survey of existing conditions by walking the terminal with floor plans and cam- era in hand. Mark each location on the plan and key them with the photo for easy reference later (Figure 6.1). Information Database Keeping track of this information can quickly become an overwhelming task. Regardless of the airport size taking time to create (and maintain) a computerized database will yield a posi- tive return on the time invested. Plan early and define what information needs to be included. Determine if this information should be part of the airport’s database. Each of the items on this checklist is centered on establishing and maintaining a consistent sign system. There are a lot of considerations that go into each of these topics and they are dis- cussed in greater detail in other sections, but here is a quick checklist of things to look for: Terminology—check for consistent wording in all forms of communication such as the following: • Signs, • Directory maps, • Handout maps, • Website maps, and • Various forms of verbal communication such as those provided at Information desks. For an example of inconsistent terminology, the following is a list taken from a field survey at one airport that found six different messages referring to the same destination: • Train, • Transportation, • Train Central City, • Train to Central City, Figure 6.1. Example photo from a typical field survey.

• Train to Central City/Terminal A-E, and • Terminals A-E/Train to Central City. For airports that have both mass transit trains as well as an airport train this issue can become even more complex. To resolve the inconsistency the message must be analyzed based on what is trying to be com- municated. There was a reason each one of the six different messages was used and step one is understanding why. Step two is separating the key words from the unnecessary or extraneous words. Step three is looking for any other words not currently used that may help clarify the message. Step four is culling the list into words that are accurate and clearly communicate the information nec- essary for a passenger to make the correct choice. Step five is test the best choice(s) for comprehen- sion. The goal is to use the fewest words possible that clearly communicate the message. Hierarchy. Check for consistent order and placement of messages. Establishing primary messaging versus secondary messaging will help with this task. While this list will vary from one airport to another it is helpful in understanding the concept. Typical primary messages in a terminal are: • Ticketing/Check-in, • Baggage Claim, • Gates, and • Ground Transportation. Typical secondary messages in a terminal are: • Concessions, • Elevators, • Information (Desks or Directories), • Parking, and • Restrooms. Hierarchy also includes prioritizing what information to list at a given decision point in the route. In other words, what is the minimum amount of information necessary to move a passen- ger to the next decision point? The goal is to avoid information overload. A common wayfinding myth is thinking the best way to solve a wayfinding problem is to list every possible destination, but in reality this is rarely the case. Really, the more complex the wayfinding problem, the sim- pler the solution needs to be. (See Section 6.5.1.1 Message Hierarchy for additional details.) Location. The wayfinding signs must be consistently located in the right place with the right message. It is important to think about where passengers are most likely to look for the informa- tion (e.g., they will be looking for baggage claim information as soon as they deplane), and to consider decision points. In addition, it must be remembered that placement affects many things including visibility, legibility, and arrows, but ultimately it impacts a passenger making the cor- rect decision with confidence. Figure 6.2 is a diagram that illustrates this point. Visibility. Can you see the sign from the location passengers are most likely to look for it? Consistent sign placement is important. Same goes for lighting. Check the lighting in both day and night conditions. Another factor that impacts visibility is designating information zones so that advertising and retail signs do not encroach on the wayfinding information. While adver- tising and concessions do generate revenue, passengers will not feel comfortable taking time to shop or read the ads if they are lost or confused and worried about missing their flight. Viewing angles are also an important part of visibility. Avoid exceeding a 10-degree angle from the natural line of vision, particularly in spaces with high ceilings or transition areas that involve changing levels. Check for basic conformance and note any locations that seem problematic. Terminal 95

Legibility. There are many factors that impact sign legibility with a litany of studies, charts, and formulas for calculating distance and letter height. For the purpose of this checklist, using 40 feet of viewing distance for every inch of letter height is recommended for the vast majority of pedestrian conditions, (a 3 inch tall letter would be legible from 120 feet). (Reference Section 6.5.3 Typography for additional information about legibility.) Format. Arrows, typography and symbology. Consistent application of the arrow, symbol, and message will help instill passenger confidence in the wayfinding. These applications should be based on a sign grid standard developed to insure proper legibility for each component. Con- sistently following a sign grid with pre-determined sizes for arrows, symbols, and messages will also provide major dividends when making future changes (Figure 6.3). Frequency. What is the right number of signs? Philosophically the fewer signs the better because it helps simplify the wayfinding, reduces visual clutter, and it also helps reduce the cost of the sign system. However, a complex architectural space may require additional signs to com- pensate for lacking an intuitive wayfinding design. Locations that may need additional signs to account for other users include the following: • In the concourse, not just those walking down it, • Coming out of restrooms, • Coming out of a concession area, and • Especially those arriving on a flight that need confirmation of which way to go. 96 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Never combine two items of routing information on one sign by using a slanted arrow (45 degrees) for continuing straight ahead for a short distance and then turning. In these cases, two signs should be used; one meaning ‘straight ahead’ and the other, at the decision point, for a right or left direction. A similar situation occurs when a directional sign in front of an exit directs users to a destination point that is beyond the actual exit. Source: The Port Authority of NY & NJ Signing and Wayfinding Airport Standards Manual. Figure 6.2. Placement affects many things, but ultimately it impacts a passenger making the correct decision with confidence. These diagrams help illustrate this point.

The goal is to be as consistent as possible and still use the same frequency because it is expected, especially for long corridors that may pass through visually busy graphic environments, then fur- ther down are not so busy. If there are no key decision points along a given route, research results indicate that signs should be added to reassure the passenger they are still on the correct path. Consider placing these reassurance signs every 150 to 250 feet39. Mounting height. The airport architecture ultimately dictates the mounting height of the over- head directional signs, so it is important to survey the varying conditions in order to determine a consistent mounting height for these sign types as well as identify exceptions such as low ceilings. Color. If the wayfinding system incorporates color as a wayfinding device then this issue becomes critical to maintaining the integrity. When applied as part of a comprehensive wayfind- ing strategy color coding can be an effective tool to speed up visual search and help passengers locate the specific information they need on the sign. However, the colors used must be limited in Terminal 97 Figure 6.3. The above graphic is an example of a typical sign grid study of how different letter heights affect the overall sign grid as the size and proportions change. Note that “Ground Transportation” is used to represent the longest line length.

98 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside number and visually distinct or this advantage will be lost. Many airports that have grown over the years do not have a consistent application of color in their sign program. Even on a subconscious level inconsistent color application undermines the passenger perception of the wayfinding system and ultimately the airport itself. (Reference Section 6.5.5 on Color for additional details.) Directory maps. Make sure every map is oriented in a “heads up” position to match the posi- tion of the viewer. Any maps that are not properly oriented should be corrected immediately. Continuity and connectivity. In overall terms there should be an effective wayfinding strategy that establishes clear routes throughout the terminal building. Depending on the size and complex- ity of an airport analyzing the continuity and connectivity of the wayfinding can be a very involved process that requires time, effort and a certain level of wayfinding expertise. See Section 2.3 for details of the key concepts. Evaluation. A number of methods can be used to evaluate a wayfinding system. Four approaches are the following: • An ergonomic assessment in which signs representative of the entire signing system are evalu- ated with respect to conspicuity, legibility, information load, comprehension, and placement. • A survey of airport staff to determine most frequently asked questions. • A task analysis involving passengers unfamiliar with the airport who describe their experience as they attempt to navigate along the more important wayfinding chains. • A survey of passengers selected for being unfamiliar with the airport Ergonomic sign assessment. The ergonomic assessment would establish the major wayfind- ing chains and then evaluate signs along the route with respect to the qualities noted. The wayfinding chain concept is introduced in Section 2.3.3.1. Frequently asked questions survey. When passengers experience wayfinding difficulties they are likely to ask airport staff for help. Interviews with staff can be used to identify the most com- mon wayfinding questions in each area of the airport. Key staff (e.g., official airport volunteers) can be given a list with the most common questions (this reduces workload for staff assisting in the sur- vey), and can tabulate the number of times they are asked various questions over a defined period. Any additional questions can be added as they are asked. Frequently asked questions will assist in identifying signing problems. Any FAQ survey must account for time of day and the actual date. There is a wealth of knowledge passed along by the traveling public that remains unharnessed because airport workers and personnel either do not know what to do with the information, do not care, or do not feel it is important enough to share. Thus, communicating and educating the personnel and daily users (such as airlines, TSA, concessionaires, etc.) would help in the feedback solicitation process. The reality is these comments that pour in come from a variety of users to a variety of personnel. Depending upon their familiarity with airport planning/design practices these comments may be assigned incorrectly (for example, many complaints at airports are wrongly-associated with airlines), so it is important to gather accurate information. Task analysis. Major wayfinding chains would need to be established. People unfamiliar with the airport, but potential passengers, would be recruited and asked to travel to various destina- tions within the airport accompanied by a researcher. A verbal protocol would be used whereby each participant would voice their thoughts as they carry out the wayfinding tasks, giving the researcher insight into where and why wayfinding problems occur. Survey of unfamiliar passengers. Unfamiliar passengers willing to fill in a survey could be recruited in the parking garage before they enter the terminal. The survey would be collected at the gate. The questions should focus on where along the journey the participant was not confi- dent about their path or where they got lost, where they looked for and could not find specific signs, and where they had to ask someone for directions.

Recommendations. The above wayfinding evaluations will determine what corrective action(s) may be necessary. The list of corrective actions can be prioritized in one of these several ways: • Cost—Least expensive to most expensive. • Time—Short term solutions versus long term solutions. • Benefit—What changes will yield the biggest improvement to minor improvement. Resources are finite, so by using each of these criteria an airport should be able to develop an action plan that will provide the best wayfinding value for the capital dollar. If the corrections are minimal, cost may not be an issue and implementation of the changes can be expedited fairly easily. However, if the correction cost is substantial, an airport may be reluctant to make the nec- essary financial commitment. In this case a testing period may help. Testing. Establishing a test area can be a very beneficial process to make any final modifica- tions and confirm the proposed corrective actions. Virtually every airport will have different wayfinding issues. The following are suggested steps to follow: • Select a test area that will yield a valid study. • Establish a baseline by surveying the existing wayfinding system in the test area using one of the methods discussed above. Terminal 99 Port Columbus International Airport—Pilot Test Project In 2001 Port Columbus International Airport began a test sign survey to help them evaluate proposed changes to their wayfinding system. The test period lasted two months. A passenger survey was administered by the Airport Ambassadors (volun- teers) to 126 respondents over a 5-day period. When the results of the test survey were tabulated, the overall response was very positive and provided the airport the confirmation they needed to implement a $1.8M wayfinding program for the ter- minal, three concourses, and parking garage. The big question is how have the wayfinding changes impacted the passenger wayfinding experience? Since the completion of the new sign system in 2003, the ACI ASQs have shown a continued trend of improved passenger satisfaction with the wayfinding experience at Port Columbus International Airport. This is an impor- tant aspect to view these measures as part of a continuum and not just as a snap- shot in time. Keys to the success of the pilot test project: • Simple and quick survey that measured: – Familiarity of the airport. – Legibility. – Comprehension. – Preference and effectiveness of the color coded signs versus the non-color coded signs. • Test known problem area – Based on customer complaints • Test signs were digital paper prints – Economical – Able to make changes on the fly • Approximate cost was $15,000, and the pilot test lasted approximately 2 months

• Develop a plan for the proposed changes and implement. • Administer the same survey. • Evaluate the results and make recommendations. 6.1.2 Architectural Complexity Based on research studies and aviation industry surveys the number one factor that impacts the passenger wayfinding experience is the role of the architectural configuration. As expected the results show that an increase in plan complexity is related to a decrease in wayfinding performance. Despite the use of signs, the plan configuration was found to exert a significant influence on wayfinding performance, because participants with access to signing in the most complex settings still made more wrong turns than those in the simplest settings with no signs. The presence of signs is not always able to compensate for wayfinding problems due to the complexity of the floor plan. However, this is exactly what a sign system in a complex airport environment is expected to do. Therefore, it is imperative that airport planners understand the importance of wayfinding as part of the design process to create more intuitive architectural spaces where passengers know things instinctively. Conversely, wayfinding systems must account for complex architectural spaces in the planning and design process. 6.1.2.1 Linear Wayfinding Designing open spaces that provide visual access to the destination creates the ideal linear wayfinding environment and will typically decrease the dependence on signs. Creating visual access can reduce the number of signs needed. Linear wayfinding describes exactly what it sounds like: the process of connecting point A to point B, origination to destination. 6.1.2.2 Non-Linear Wayfinding Even without the supporting research, it is easy to acknowledge that airports can be very com- plex; both operationally as well as architecturally. When looking for answers to solve complex wayfinding issues, the first challenge is how to physically and visually get your mind around the problem? The answer is it has to start globally. An airport with multiple levels and buildings needs to be viewed in a manner that can tie them all together. Using diagrams like the exploded axonometric view in Figure 6.4 provides an excellent method for understanding and evaluating passenger flow. This type of planning diagram can be used to evaluate linear wayfinding scenar- ios as well as identify and investigate an airport’s non-linear wayfinding scenarios that can be dif- ficult to track on a single floor plan. The identification and support of non-linear wayfinding scenarios is difficult. However, the successful resolution of the non-linear scenarios can yield some of the biggest improvements to the passenger wayfinding experience. Examples of non-linear scenarios will vary from one air- port to another and are not easily documented, but the following are several examples to help understand what constitutes a non-linear wayfinding condition. The walk versus ride for connecting flights is one of the more challenging wayfinding scenar- ios to communicate to passengers and requires a global analysis to reach a comprehensive solu- tion. For example: PHL has a Shuttle Bus connection at Gates A1, C16 and F10 which sounds simple but from a passenger’s perspective the connections are not actual gates. To complicate the issue there is no information provided to address the walk vs. ride option like there is at Boston Logan (see Figure 6.5). The new McNamara Terminal in Detroit has 78 gates in one long concourse. The plan con- figuration simplifies the general wayfinding with an architectural space with clear visual access. Given these positive attributes, there is the physical challenge of simply walking from one end of 100 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside

the mile-long concourse to the other to get to your gate. The wayfinding challenge is how to com- municate to a passenger if they should walk to their gate or ride the Express Tram? The directory shown in Figure 6.6 is well organized and helps orient passengers where they are in the concourse, but does not tell a passenger if it is quicker to walk or ride to their gate. The walk vs. ride issue at DTW has a two-part solution shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. The MUFIDs add an extra column on the far right to indicate if a passenger should ride the Express Tram. The directional signs in the concourse indicate specific gate ranges to passengers to ride the Express Tram for the quickest connection. A comprehensive design and planning approach at DTW helps provide the passenger with a positive wayfinding experience. 6.2 Considering Terminal Users in Design (Human Factors) 6.2.1 Terminal Users Categories There are a number of user groups that travel through airport terminal buildings. These include departing passengers, arriving passengers, passengers with a connecting flight, and non- Terminal 101 Linear Wayfinding Fewings40 refers to linear wayfinding as a sequential series of destinations. He also notes three key variables that affect the traveler’s wayfinding experience: • Visual access • Architectural differentiation • Plan configuration Wayfinding indoors also follows the same intrinsic process of a series of problem solving tasks that allow the traveler to reach his or her destination. In other words, when trying to get to a destination, the traveler tends to make a decision to go to an intermediate destination, such as stairway, hallway or intersection point. Often, this may be simply to get to the end of their line of sight and to see what the next set of options may be. In a large airport terminal, some decisions are made for the traveler in that intermediate destinations have to be sequential; for example, a typ- ical sequence would include: check-in, security, passport control and departure gate in that order. In smaller terminal buildings, the traveler can immediately see the air- craft parked on the far side of the terminal but the same intermediate ‘obstacles’ still have to be negotiated. Inside buildings, people use several cues or visual and spatial variables in order to find their way around. These variables include visual access, architectural differentiation and plan configuration. Internal design features also have an impact on wayfinding performance. Starting with visual access, when a person is trying to find a facility or location, or trying to get orientated within a building, it is easier to manage if there are landmarks associated with specific areas or zones. In addition, wayfinding is eased if there is direct visual access to the loca- tion that they are aiming towards; for example, as already mentioned, parked air- craft that are visible when passengers enter the terminal. Therefore, the extent to which different parts of the building can be seen from other parts of the building can have a direct effect on the ease of wayfinding within that environment.

travelling visitors who are picking up or dropping off passengers. Terminal users include famil- iar and unfamiliar passengers and visitors. In addition, users may have physical, visual, cogni- tive disabilities that may make the wayfinding task more challenging. Unfamiliar passengers may have added stress from fatigue or jetlag. The wayfinding system must consider and accommo- date all terminal visitors and passengers. 6.2.2 Terminal User Tasks and Information Requirements Passengers can be separated into three basic types: departing, arriving, and connecting. Within these three types, a passenger can also be classified as a domestic or international passenger. Accounting for the information requirements for all of the various passenger combinations is a tedious but important step in developing a well planned wayfinding system. 6.2.2.1 Departing Passengers A typical wayfinding task for the departing passenger includes the following wayfinding chain elements: entrance, ticketing counter, security checkpoint and airline gate. In addition to these, 102 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.4. Passenger flow diagram used for planning purposes. Red and blue dashed lines represent typical passenger circulation paths to help identify each decision point in the wayfinding journey.

Terminal 103 Image courtesy of: Boston Logan International Airport. Figure 6.5. “Making Connections” at BOS is a good example of the type of planning and communication that can help overcome the complexity of architectural configuration. Figure 6.6. Airport directory map at DTW.

other secondary destinations should also be considered such as elevators, washrooms, telephones, frequent traveler lounges, stores, Internet stations, currency exchange counters and information kiosks. Understanding the difference between these primary and secondary destinations will help airports establish a clear message hierarchy. Many airport terminals service a large array of airlines. The scale of the departures hall and the large number of available airline ticketing counters can easily overwhelm unfamiliar passengers entering the terminal. Airline ticketing counters should be organized systematically and signs, directories, or maps should be used near entrances to direct passengers to ticketing counters that are not directly in view. Large airports have a number of gates, sometimes spanning several buildings. For example, airports like Denver and Atlanta have gates distributed across multiple concourse buildings that are accessed primarily by underground rail. Research has shown that decision points that require a change in level have a greater negative impact on wayfinding compared to same-level decision points56. In order to guide passengers through a complex path between origin and destination, more wayfinding tools are required such as signs, maps, and directories. 6.2.2.2 Arriving Passengers A typical wayfinding task for an international arriving passenger includes the following primary wayfinding chain elements: passport control, customs, baggage claim area, baggage carousel, exit to parking, car rental, ground transportation, or passenger pickup. Domestic passengers experi- ence similar wayfinding tasks minus the passport control and customs. Other secondary wayfind- ing destinations may include elevators, washrooms, telephones, and information counters. In large airports arriving passengers may have to walk a long distance from their gate in order to reach the baggage claim area. In these cases signs should be placed every 150–250 feet along the path to remind passengers they are heading in the right direction. Carousels in the baggage claim area should be well-marked with flight number and departure city. In large terminals that have several carousels, a directory should be placed at the entrance to the baggage claim area to iden- tify flight information for each carousel. To aid passengers as they wait for their luggage, an infor- mation desk for ground transportation should be located adjacent to the baggage claim area. 6.2.2.3 Connecting Passengers Many passengers arrive at an airport terminal for a layover before taking a connecting flight to their destination. For international passengers, a typical wayfinding task may include primary des- 104 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.7. MUFIDs and directional signing at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport (DTW).

tinations such as: arrival gate, customs, baggage claim, security checkpoint, and departure gate. Domestic passengers experience similar wayfinding tasks minus customs. For most connections, baggage is automatically transferred to the connecting flight. However passengers making a con- nection from an international flight are frequently required to claim their bags before making their connection. Maps are very useful in orienting passengers within a terminal, especially when they need to walk long distances, change levels, or change buildings or terminals. 6.2.3 Meeting Point for Non-travelling Visitors Arriving passengers are frequently greeted by friends or relatives in the terminal. During peak hours these airport visitors can create a lot of congestion if they get lost within the terminal. Air- ports can have multiple exits so the meeter/greeter area for arriving passengers should be clearly marked on signs and directory maps. 6.2.4 Visibility Index (VI) In order to assess the need for signs, designers should consider conducting a line of sight analy- sis. The simplest navigation task occurs when the destination is visible from the origin. A sight line analysis is an important tool that can be applied to determine the visibility of terminal as a whole or of its subsystems and components. Changes in layout or signage can be evaluated in terms of their visibility. The Visibility Index (VI) is a common quantitative measure used to eval- uate the ease of orientation and wayfinding within a facility. The Visibility Index is established based on the availability of sight lines between key nodes within a facility57,58,59,60. For an airport terminal there are many destinations for each origin, and a destination with many sight lines becomes very visible. The more visible the various origins and destinations are, the more the users are oriented. Similarly, the Visibility Index can be calculated for a chain of nodes, such as the path originating from the curb to aircraft. For a terminal to be 100% visible every destination would have to be visible from every origin. Where sight lines are not available, passengers require other devices that provide orientation information, such as signs, maps, and other visual cues. 6.3 Signs and Wayfinding 6.3.1 Departures and Arrivals Sequence A comprehensive signage program for the terminal area begins the moment a passenger enters the building. This can be either a departing, arriving terminating, or an arriving connecting pas- senger. To provide an overview of the elements to consider when planning a wayfinding system for the terminal, the following represents a checklist for the primary signs: From Ticketing • Directional signs—overhead and/or free standing to the gate. • Airport directories—for orientation and information. • MUFIDs—for flight and gate information. Security Checkpoint • Identification of the checkpoint. • Informational. • Regulatory (TSA-required signs. See Chapter 8.) Gate Area • Directional signs—overhead or free standing to the gate. • Airport directories—for orientation and information. Terminal 105

• MUFIDs—for flight and gate information. • Gate identification. Departing passengers can access a terminal by one of several means: passenger drop-off, self- park, airport or hotel shuttle, commercial vehicle, and mass transit. For passengers checking bags or without a boarding pass, step one is to provide necessary wayfinding to the ticketing level or area. The departure circulation tree (Figure 6.8) is a generic visual representation of this wayfinding checklist. Using this information as a model, a circulation tree can be developed for any airport to track the connectivity of passenger movements and identify the decision points. Similar checklists and circulation trees can be developed to track the connectivity and decision points for an arriving terminating passenger or an arriving connecting passenger. 6.3.2 Transit—Internal Rail System vs. External In the last two decades there has been a revolution in rail transit at airports. A number of air- ports have developed train links from the airport to downtowns on top of developing rail tran- sit to connecting airport terminals and parking. A difficulty has developed with the rise of these transit systems: the confusion between internal and external rail systems. This problem exists on the terminal landside or non-secure area. In the follow up interviews with wayfinding design professionals they were all asked what is one of the most problematic wayfinding areas and almost every designer cited the transit connec- tions. The case in point is demonstrated at Newark International Airport where this difficulty is most visible. The external transportation system run by the New Jersey Department of Transportation and Amtrak is connected to the airport by the AirTrain, an internal monorail system. The wayfinding system does not properly explain the difference between the internal AirTrain and the external transit system, creating confusion among passengers that perceive it as one system. The AirTrain 106 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.8. Departure circulation tree.

is branded in some applications and generic on other signs and explained on some signs and not on others (Figure 6.9). The on-airport AirTrain makes frequent stops around the airport—including the airline termi- nals, parking lots, hotel shuttle areas and rental car facilities (Figure 6.10). Also, every AirTrain ride around the airport is free. The off-airport AirTrain Newark provides easy connections to and from NJ TRANSIT and Amtrak through one gateway—Newark Liberty International Airport Station. Many airport designers see the solution in differentiation. This can be accomplished by ensur- ing that rail transit to the city looks like it is part of an overarching urban system; the internal air- port transportation system is integrated into the overall airport wayfinding, rather than looking like a unique entity. At Boston Logan International Airport, the transportation system from the airport to the city is called the Silver Line, similar to the color structure of other transit links to the city. This tran- sit link is portrayed in maps at the same time. Meanwhile the internal transit system, the Logan shuttle, is clearly linked with the wayfinding system internal to the airport. Both transit systems use buses as the means of transport. The differing graphic identity and wayfinding systems are what keep the two systems from being confused with each other. Terminal 107 Figures 6.9. Examples of AirTrain information at EWR.

On the airside or secure area of the airport several airports have chosen to brand their trains that serve as an APM system between terminals, concourses, and gates. The odds of these trains being confused with any train service on the landside is minimized because only ticketed passen- gers have access to these trains. However, there is a potential for confusion for unfamiliar passengers who may not understand what this branded service is. Therefore, the signing for these types of trains can require additional information such as the examples show in Figures 6.11a and 6.11b. 6.3.3 Security Screening Checkpoints (SSCP) Since 9/11 security checkpoints have become in some people’s eyes a destination that should be part of the wayfinding system. However, security checkpoints can be one of the more stress- ful aspects of the passenger experience. Each airport layout is different but typically all that is necessary is simple identification that is not overly exaggerated. Areas like security and customs are operated by the TSA (Transportation and Security Admin- istration) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) respectively. Both areas are controlled sep- arately from the airport and can create breaks in the wayfinding continuity. Therefore, the wayfinding to and through the security checkpoints should focus on directing passengers to the gates located past security. Minimizing the attention given to security checkpoints will help com- bat the negative perceptions associated with why they are there as well as the process itself. 108 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.10. Examples of AirTrain Map at EWR.

There can be exceptions. Some airports have had to add new security checkpoints creating choices for the passenger and may justify the need to include “Security Checkpoint” as part of the wayfinding system. Throughput is a top priority and providing information in advance that prepares passengers for the security activities is more important than identifying the security checkpoint itself. 6.4 Sign Categories 6.4.1 Informational Informational messages typically provide specific and supplementary information about the airport services and functions. Also there are orientational messages that are often graphic, such as maps, so that visitors can develop a sense of the airport layout and their location within the airport. Information can also be provided by airport personnel at information desks. 6.4.1.1 Information Desks and Volunteers Information desks and kiosks provide flight information. Therefore airports should provide training for staff and volunteers on the best methods to give clear instructions and directions on using the airport wayfinding system. Their experience consoling worried passengers provides a key component to the passenger wayfinding experience (Figure 6.12). Prepare an information book for volunteer use with scripted directions to insure consistent instruction. Train volunteers and staff in giving directions using signs and handouts. Interpreters should also be able to help orient people to the facility and play a role in teaching people how to use the sign system on their own. Develop requirements and skills for these positions that could include the following: • Knowledge of the airport facility and operations. • Direct people to appropriate destinations or services. • Ability to answer the commonly asked questions regarding passenger services. • Enjoy working with people of all ages. Terminal 109 (a) (b) Figure 6.11a. DFW Skylink connects all gates; Figure 6.11b. DTW Express Tram connects only the A gates in the McNamara Terminal.

• Ability to work with large groups and deal with the possible confusion and noise that often accompanies large crowds. • Computer skills for staff stationed at an information desk with internet access. • Proficiency in English both written and verbal. 6.4.1.2 Directories Airport directories are one of several ways passenger use to navigate the airport. They are an important wayfinding tool, and are effective when implemented correctly. For many years all air- port directories were static images, but with advances in technology digital directories applica- tions are becoming available. The following list contains general guidelines for directories: • Directories should be located: – Appropriately at major decision points. – Near an asymmetrical part of the building or landmark so people have some feature to key on when possible. – Near information desks when possible. • Include orientation on two levels – Big picture that conveys the overall layout of the airport. – Specific area details around the directory location. • Align the map in a heads up orientation so forward is up, and make sure the map is aligned with the airport’s layout. • Incorporate memorable architectural elements and landmarks into the map design when possible. • Use terminology and symbols that are consistent airport wide. • Coordinate directory information with other forms of communication for consistency – Handout maps. – Online maps. It is important to understand that some passengers will not devote time to the study of maps and signs, and opt instead to ask for verbal route directions. This is why it is a good idea to locate directories and information desks with a live person near each other whenever possible. 6.4.1.3 Digital Directories Options for digital applications for directories continue to evolve. Digital directory applica- tions can be separated into two basic categories: passive and interactive. Passive digital directo- ries display a static image using a flat screen monitor. Interactive directories allow users to search 110 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.12. An airport ambassador at DIA, dressed in western wear, helps answer questions from an arriving passenger. Photo courtesy of Denver International Airport.

Terminal 111 “You Are Here” Maps A U.S. study41 evaluated airport terminal wayfinding systems at O’Hare airport in Chicago, focusing on visual elements such as signs, maps, and directions (Fig- ure 6.13). The experimental design used respondent self-reporting and behavior tracing to identify specific problems that lead to poor spatial orientation and wayfinding performance. In a survey, infrequent travelers reported that they per- ceived the “you are here” and corridor signs were with the most important infor- mation sources for navigation. A separate sample of 19 passengers was asked to consult the “you are here” map to determine the appropriate heading and direction to the desired facility. Only 2 of the 19 passengers were able to determine the correct course of action. Frequent comments included, “I’m not even sure where I am on this map” and, “Now that I know where it is, how do I get there?” The authors attribute the poor performance of the “you are here” sign to the fixed alignment of the map which is misaligned with the orientation of the passenger. Fewings also emphasizes the importance of using pre-aligned “you are here” maps so that forward is up and the map is aligned with the airport layout. Figure 6.13. More than 90 of these you-are-here map displays are located throughout O’Hare International Airport.

for information using touch screen panels. While there is no established best practice, the fol- lowing is a list of 5 considerations airports should address when considering integration of inter- active wayfinding into their overall directional wayfinding schema. Map-driven vs. intent-driven organization of wayfinding content. One of the biggest opportunities in the market is to orient the content towards the viewers’ specific needs—for instance, presenting all Points of Interest (POI) available in an airport, concourse, property such as emergency, medical, and administration vs. POI for specific passenger needs such as Quick Serve Restaurants (QSR) and other Retail concessionaires. It may be a better use of resources to reserve Interactive Wayfinding for more heavily searched POI such as concessionaires. The efficiency of a singular user experience vs. a multi-user experience. Airport patrons have become accustomed to interactive experiences delivered via kiosk, be it check-in or rental car, while they have traditionally digested directional and wayfinding information in a much less inti- mate manner through static signs and large, printed public display maps. Questions to answer: If a large format screen is programmed to provide wayfinding information, will people use it? Does its size leave people feeling exposed, knowing that others may “eavesdrop” as to what they are looking for? Is wayfinding more aptly handled in the manner of current interactives, via kiosk? Is so, how do you encourage the general public to interact with them? Management of interactive wayfinding systems. Printed wayfinding signs have traditionally proven to be costly and have very limited life cycles. And while digital signage and Interactive Wayfinding are significant steps in alleviating some of those costs, Administrators should real- ize and appropriate resources for continued management of these systems. Manufacturers, resellers, or agencies that provide design and content management services should be favored when weighing these considerations. Systems that also offer the simplicity and flexibility of being managed by Airport Staff should also be given weighted consideration. Using an interactive wayfinding system as a value-add or revenue generating mechanism. Investment in interactive wayfinding is not an inconsequential expenditure. How do Airport Administrators maximize that investment and shorten the ROI realization term? Diligent inter- active wayfinding systems will allow for value added options like wireless coupons or ad driven content. Administrators can also take advantage of interaction metrics that are reported back by the digital signage system. These metrics can be used to improve user interface design, spot search trends (for use in facility planning, i.e., where to place more amenities), and to discover hidden user behavior patterns. Buying vs. leasing an interactive wayfinding system. Today, more progressive agencies and manufacturers realize the Moore’s law-type effect associated with technology and hardware: what’s cutting edge this year, may be obsolete two years after implementation. So how do air- ports protect themselves from this effect? More and more end-users are electing to lease equip- ment for terms of 3–5 years, depending on use. The market will begin to see more facilities elect for lease options that allow them to return equipment at the end of limited terms in exchange for updated equipment. The service model will continue to trend towards a Software as a Ser- vice (SaaS) model that has been popularized within other business markets. For additional infor- mation, reference Sections 7.2.25 and 7.2.26. 6.4.2 Directional Directional signs are of great importance in the facility due to the fact that they are the main information source that enables passengers and visitors to choose the proper route to a specific destination point. This process involves selecting the correct path to a destination point and determining at which point a change of direction is required. Proper directional signing is nec- 112 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside

essary since the quick movement of visitors, employees, and passengers is essential for maximum utilization and efficiency of the facility. Directional signs at transition points are especially important for passengers to make the correct decision. These transition points include both horizontal and vertical movements. Horizontal tran- sition points where passengers are moving from one area of the airport to another typically create challenges that require careful planning to avoid any misdirection or gaps. Transitioning from the terminal area to a congested and confusing ground transportation area is one such example. Vertical transition points can be even more difficult for passengers, because the use of stairs, escalators, and elevators can physically require the passenger to turn themselves around. The result can be a passenger that needs to be re-oriented as they transition to a different level. The re-orientation can be accomplished with something as simple as an elevator directory or as complex as an airport directory to help the passenger know where they are in relation to their destination. 6.4.3 Identification Identification messages mark terminals, gates, ticketing, and baggage claim locations, as well as, provide tenants’ leasing space within the airport with proper public exposure to their areas and other spaces governed by the airport. Directional and identification signs go hand-in-hand. Like a period at the end of a sentence, every direction must have a confirmation, so passengers know they have reached their destination. The identification sign is the metaphorical wayfinding period. 6.4.4 Regulatory Regulatory/safety messages relate to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements and recommendations as well as other federal, state, and city regulations. In general, these messages provide passengers with travel advice, warnings and legal restrictions. See Chapter 8 for a list of federally required signs. 6.5 Sign Design Elements 6.5.1 Terminology The goal to provide consistent terminology goes beyond a single airport. In order to improve the passenger wayfinding experience on a national and even global level it is important to estab- lish consistent terminology from one airport to another. Note: A key companion to terminology is the consistent application of the symbols as well. The combination of terminology and symbology form the backbone of an airport wayfinding system. A message and its accompanying symbol create a symbiotic relationship and should always be perceived as belonging together. In other words the two elements are mutually bene- ficial. Virtually every research document and every survey confirms this basic philosophy. Another key concept when developing terminology for informational, regulatory and secu- rity checkpoint messages is to focus on maintaining a positive voice. What does this mean? Many regulatory and security checkpoint signs convey messages with a negative voice. Look for oppor- tunities to craft language that removes the negative connotations without sacrificing the intent of the message being communicated. The survey research among airports and design professionals indicates the term Concourse is being replaced with Gate. The logic behind this trend is that Concourse is an architectural term and Terminal 113

not the final destination. The Gate is a departing passenger’s ultimate destination. In application, this approach simplifies the sign layout by reducing the amount of messaging. While the way- finding philosophy may be sound, the architectural layout of an airport has a huge impact on the messaging and needs to be part of an overall conscientious evaluation before making a change like this. 6.5.1.1 Message Hierarchy People are able to deal with only a limited amount of information at any one time. Prioritiz- ing of information is critical to avoid psychological overloading, which results in confusion, stress, and frustration. In airport terminals, where movement to specific gates or exit points is most important to passengers, primary directional information should be the most salient. Often, however, this is not the case and secondary types of information like services and conces- sions are placed on the level with the primary directional messages. This approach slows passengers down and confuses them. Separating primary versus second- ary information is essential. This can be accomplished by establishing a uniform hierarchy of messaging throughout the airport to provide clear, consistent presentation of information to passengers. Sign messages can be categorized into three basic lists: • Primary, • Secondary, and • Tertiary. Clear and concise information presented by primary and secondary signing systems ensures efficient passenger circulation. Primary information shall be the largest and most visible message on each sign. Recommended terminology for primary information shall include directions to: • Terminal(s), • Ticketing/Check-In, • Baggage Claim, • Gates, and • Ground Transportation. This list can also include Concourses however the current practice among airports and design professionals indicates the use of Concourse is being replaced with Gate. The airport surveys also gathered data on the terms for “area to pick up luggage” (Exhibit 6.1) and terms used to direct passengers to the general area for mass and individual transit (Exhibit 6.2). Secondary information supplements or reinforces information already conveyed by the pri- mary messages listed above. It usually indicates the services and support functions of the facility. 114 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Term Number of Airports % Baggage Claim 21 68% Bag Claim 5 16% Arrivals 0 0% Arriving Flights 1 3% Other* 3 10% No response 1 3% Total 31 100% *“Other” responses included the term Luggage Claim that was used in one airport terminal and Baggage Claim in another terminal. An interesting way to solve this debate is to consider that all baggage is not luggage; but all luggage is considered baggage. Therefore, the most descriptive term is Baggage Claim. Exhibit 6-1. Survey of terms for “area to pick up luggage.”

Recommended terminology for secondary information should include directions to: • Restrooms, • Parking, • Concessions, • Telephones, and • Elevators. Tertiary information supplements both the primary and secondary messages and is usually intended to inform visitors of regulations and warnings. Tertiary signs must be coordinated with Primary and Secondary signs and interior design elements. All of the regulatory/safety signs are generally considered to be tertiary. Recommended terminology for tertiary information is to include: • All “No Smoking” messages, • FAA required warnings and information, and • Other messages required by code. It is important to understand that the same message may fall under a different category depending on its use. For example, a visitor on the roadway approaching the terminal may find the term Parking as the primary message. However, the same Parking term may also be found by a visitor in the terminal and considered a secondary destination. In general, emphasis shall be placed on the reduction of signs and sign content where possible. Additionally, the sign system shall move from the general to the more specific, as a user traverses the terminal. The previous lists can be effectively used to establish a standard message hierarchy. Every air- port has a different set of variables that will impact the results and this can sometimes make this seemingly simple task of establishing a clear hierarchy very complex. The case study from DFW is a good example of how to develop a message hierarchy to meet specific needs. Airport surveys indicated the majority of airports are using Arrivals and Departures for signing on the roadway. What is not known is how many of these airports have a single-level curbside vs. a split-level curbside and how that may impact their choice of messaging. Most airports with a split- level curbside use Arrivals and Departures, and conversely airports with a single-level curbside tend to use Baggage Claim and Ticketing Check-In so their single-level curbside aligns better with the services inside the terminal. There is also a related issue regarding the terminology being used inside the airport that should be considered. For instance, at a multi-level terminal, an arriving passenger may communicate to someone picking them up to look for the sign for Baggage Claim. Instead, the person driving the roadway sees the message Arrivals. The two messages do not match. To ensure consistent com- munication having each entrance to the terminal clearly identified from both the inside and out- side to serve as a consistent point of reference will help facilitate passenger pick-up. Figures 6.14 through 6.16 illustrate one method of establishing a consistent point of reference to help facilitate passenger pick-up. Terminal 115 Term Number of Airports % Ground Transportation 25 81% Ground Transport 0 0% Taxi, Bus & Shuttles 0 0% Other 2 6% No response 4 13% Total 31 100% Exhibit 6.2. Survey of terms used for mass and individual transit.

116 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Developing a Message Hierarchy An airport can develop a messaging hierarchy specifically based on their needs. The following outline is a three-step process developed to help DFW airport determine what would work best at their facility. Step One: Group destinations in order of passenger information that is most criti- cal to least critical based on stress factors and time: High Stress (Time-Sensitive) Medium to Low Stress Lowest Stress • All Gates • Skybridge to . . . • Exit • Terminals/Ticketing • Restrooms • Parking • Skylink (connecting • Bag Claim • Concessions passengers) • Ground Transportation • Walk to . . ./Elevator to . . . • Airport Information (maps) • Restrooms (for arriving passengers) Step Two: Group destinations by passenger type and then by degree of urgency. Arriving—Connecting Arriving—O & D Departing—O & D • Gate • Restrooms • Ticketing • Skylink • Bag Claim • Security Checkpoint • Skybridge • Ground Transportation • Gate • Restrooms • Exit • Restrooms • Concessions • Parking • Concessions Step Three: Consistent implementation of the messaging hierarchy criteria. Figure 6.14. Exterior entrance identification—ATL.

Terminal 117 Figure 6.16. Curbside entrance identification—ATL. Figure 6.15. Interior entrance identification—ATL. 6.5.1.2 Bilingual and Multilingual Messaging While English is recognized and used worldwide, there is still a need to make a foreign pas- senger welcome because our airports serve as gateways to the United States. There are also other variables that factor into how and where non-English messaging should be used and what is an acceptable LOS. Airports need a balance between the domestic and the global in informative and symbolic signing. Examining the leading airports in non-English speaking countries reveals three patterns: • A totally global pattern ignoring the domestic, • A pattern treating equally the global and the domestic, and • A pattern of giving preference to the domestic with the global being subordinate. An example, and maybe the only existing case, for the totally international option is Amster- dam’s Schiphol Airport which carries signs in English only with black letters on a yellow back- ground. Examples of the second, balanced option between the domestic and the global are Toronto, which displays English and French side-by-side with equally sized letters (Figure 6.17)

118 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.17. Signs at Toronto Pearson International Airport display English and French side-by-side with equally sized letters. Figure 6.18. Signs at Hong Kong International Air- port are blue with white letters, with German and Chinese, respectively, on top and English underneath, all languages with equally sized letters. and Hong Kong, which portrays blue signs with white letters, with German and Chinese, respec- tively, on top and English underneath, all languages with equally sized letters (Figure 6.18). Examples of the third option, leaning more to the domestic, are Paris’ Charles de Gaulle and Tokyo’s Narita. In Figure 6.19, signs are in gray with French on top using yellow, and thus strik- ing, letters and with English underneath using white letters. Thus, the initial visual perception is French. In Narita Airport (Figure 6.20), signs are in grey and lettering is in white with the Japanese text on top in slightly larger letters than the English texts underneath. When bilingual or multilingual messaging is used, translations should be different from, but not subordinate to, the English messages. The same lettering style can be used for both, but then

Terminal 119 Figure 6.20. Example of domestic message over global message at Tokyo Narita Airport. Figure 6.19. Example of domestic message over global message at Paris Charles de Gaulle. they can be presented in different colors, text weights, and copy height, and positioned in a man- ner that clearly separates them from the English. Various graphic elements can assist in the clar- ity and legibility of the sign messages. Both approaches are used in international airports. The key to the answer is consistency, and what is realistically achievable. The constraints include three major dimensions within the phys- ical airport terminal environment: • Architecture, • Floor plan layout, and • Signing. The physical size of a sign panel can be dictated by architectural space constraints, (e.g., ceil- ing height), which in turn limits the amount of information that can realistically be placed on the sign panel. The constraints associated with trying to incorporate multiple languages on a sign can be very challenging. Different messages (words) in different languages can vary greatly in line length, which impacts the sign layout because each language does not always fit line for line from sign to sign. As part of the survey process airports were asked how they used languages other than English in terminal wayfinding signs. Thirty-nine percent of the airports surveyed had languages other

than English on some form of their terminal wayfinding signs. The primary use of non-English languages is in the International Arrivals area which is logical and promotes a higher passenger LOS. Multiple airports use DMS technology to support multi-lingual needs in the international area and avoid many of the problems associated with multiple languages on static signs. Additional variables influence the use of other languages in areas beyond the International Arrival area such as: • A high percentage of non-English speaking travelers • Airlines • Major business corporations The combination of the research and surveys helped serve as an outline for best practices by pro- viding appropriate alternative non-English wayfinding tools for non-English speaking passengers: • Consistent application of accepted international symbols adjacent to English only messaging. • Bi-lingual or multi-lingual airport guides that use accepted international symbols. • Bi-lingual or multi-lingual airport directories that use accepted international symbols. • Airport information attendants with bi-lingual or multi-lingual skills. Summary Adopting an English-only policy certainly simplifies the wayfinding system and is appropri- ate in most applications. However, it may not always meet the needs in every situation, (e.g. international arrival areas). Each airport should evaluate their individual needs and develop best practices for addressing bi-lingual and multi-lingual needs that work successfully in a given set of constraints for their airport. 6.5.2 Symbology This section addresses the proper use of symbols in airport wayfinding systems. Note: it is not the purpose of this guide to develop a new family of aviation symbol standards, or to recommend changes to the existing currently accepted standards. Rather, this section gives a brief historical overview of symbol development, talks about the ways in which symbols should and should not be used, and provides a visual inventory of the most widely accepted symbol stan- dards in current use. Symbols are the oldest form of visual communication. Long before written languages appeared, pictographs or symbols were used by humans to represent objects and activities and to tell stories. As civilizations grew and societies and commerce became more organized, sym- bols played an important role in communicating information to non-literate populations, and to travelers who did not speak the local language. Non-standardized symbols were the norm until the twentieth century, when the advent of modern motorized transportation created an exponential increase in international travel. As sym- bols became more prevalent in airports and other transit facilities, there was increased interest in developing a worldwide standard for symbols that could serve as a tool for communication—a common visual language. The goal has always been to facilitate the traveler’s understanding and utilization of the facility. The consistent pairing of text and related symbols can provide a powerful communication tool for travelers. Once symbols are learned they become a visual “shorthand,” as well as a means of com- munication for those who do not understand the local language. This shorthand offers an added benefit of shortening the time required for a traveler to perceive and process the information. 120 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside

It is true that some symbols are more universally understood than others. An airplane is rec- ognized by any traveler, whereas the symbols representing Chapel, Currency, Meeting Area, or Rental Car may be less concrete and/or subject to differing interpretations based on the viewer’s culture and background. Even in such cases, recognition and comprehension will increase with usage, as viewers learn to associate symbols with what they represent. Furthermore, when properly deployed, symbols are an efficient means of communicating key destinations and services to non-English-speaking travelers. This learning process can be helped through the display of multilingual messages linked with symbols at key selected locations such as arrival gates and directories (Figure 6.21). 6.5.2.1 Symbol Family Since 1962 there have been multiple efforts to develop a single standard for a family of picto- graphic symbols to identify activities and services for the traveling public. To the extent that a current standard exists, the symbol family developed by the American Institute of Graphic Arts for the U.S. DOT is the most commonly recognized. However, as any traveler can attest, multiple variations have been introduced as these symbols have been adopted for use by airports around the world. Currently, these symbols and their variations are in use in over 90% of international airports in the United States. In this section you will find an overview of the most commonly used sym- bols as depicted in the current 2001 Guideline, which incorporates the AIGA/DOT standards with Terminal 121 Figure 6.21. Gate 1D pylon at DFW used a touch point to connect symbols with multiple foreign languages.

some updates and additions. Note: in certain instances where potential issues and/or conflicts related to specific symbols or messages have been identified, a recommended change in terminol- ogy or use of a recommended alternate symbol has been noted in the overview. Recommended changes in terminology are noted in the captions below each symbol; recommended alternate or new symbols are shown immediately following the existing (2001) symbol and identified as the recommended replacement or addition. 6.5.2.2 Symbol Application and Usage When using symbols, it is important to keep the following basic principles in mind: A clear and consistent pairing of symbol and associated message reinforces the symbol’s effec- tiveness. Once this association has been firmly established, some of the more common symbols can function as stand-alone communicators (the “shorthand” referenced above). This may be useful for limited-space display of key destinations (e.g., flag-mounted Restroom symbol as seen in Fig- ure 6.22), but should be limited to the most commonly understood symbols and key destinations. Consistency in placement and visual presentation of symbols creates the greatest level of recognition and shortens the time required to process the message. Variations in symbol size, placement on signs, and background colors should be kept to a minimum within an individual facility. Note: in rare instances there may be existing cultural, environmental, or architectural conditions that dictate a need for customization of symbols (colors, use of field, etc.) in order to maximize the effectiveness of the system. In such cases the goal should be to maintain the stan- dard to the highest degree possible while remaining sensitive to any special conditions. In addition, it is useful to conduct a periodic symbol “inventory” to ensure that symbol selec- tion and usage is consistent throughout all of the airport’s visual communication platforms— signage, print, and online applications. This cross-platform consistency is an important part of reinforcing the symbol language and making it recognizable for travelers. Symbol readability is a function of many combined factors, including size, viewing angle and distance, color, background contrast, and the type, direction and intensity of lighting. Field test- ing using full-scale mockups is by far the most reliable way to confirm the effectiveness of any symbol application, for both readability and comprehension. 122 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.22. A stand-alone flag-mounted restroom symbol.

Human factors, including visual acuity, age, understanding of language, distraction, and stress can also impact the effectiveness and comprehension of symbols and related messages—another reason for field-testing with selected, representative user groups to confirm that symbols are seen, recognized, and understood. In any wayfinding system, it is important to guard against overloading the environment with information, either by putting too many messages on an individual sign, or by using too many signs, or both (Figure 6.23). This requires the prioritizing of messages so that the destinations and services most important to travelers (e.g., arrivals, departures, ticketing, baggage claim, transportation, concourse/gate, and restrooms) are always prominently displayed. It is worth noting that there are some standard sym- bols that may be used to represent a collection of individual destinations or services (e.g., Ground Transportation = Taxi + Hotel Shuttle + Train + Rental Car etc). To avoid over-messaging in this example, Ground Transportation can serve as a single designation on signage until the traveler nears the baggage area, at which point Ground Transportation can be “unpacked” into its various components. Occasionally designers have attempted to address the issue of collective destinations by linking a single term with a group of symbols, often at reduced size. This tends to compromise symbol legibility and is not recommended practice (Figures 6.24 and 6.25). 6.5.2.3 Symbol Size Figure 6.26 shows the result of a test of the symbol for Ticket Purchase, to determine the min- imum size at which the symbol was legible at different viewing distances. For the purpose of this test, legibility was defined as the accurate visual perception of the symbol and the ability to dis- tinguish it from other symbols. Note: some symbols are by nature more legible than others. For example, in the viewing test, symbols for Taxi and Elevator were also tested; the Taxi symbol was legible at a distance approx- imately 10% greater than the Ticket Purchase symbol, while the Elevator symbol was only legi- ble at distances approximately 30% less. When sizing symbols, the determination should be based on the legibility of the least legible (commonly used) symbols in the system. Symbols that appear together should always be of a uniform size. Symbol sizes should never be varied in an Terminal 123 Figure 6.23. Example of information overload with a combination of format, number of signs, and amount of information.

124 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.25. A good example of symbols grouped to convey a common message. Figure 6.24. Bad examples of grouping symbols with a single message. attempt to visually “balance” or “equalize” them—this will lessen the overall legibility of the mes- sage being presented. It is also important to consider the relationship between symbol size and the letter size of asso- ciated text. A rule of thumb for legible letter size for pedestrians is one inch of letter height for every 40 feet of viewing distance (a 3-inch tall letter is legible at 120 feet). As with symbols, how- ever, legibility of text is affected by many other factors (typestyle, placement, lighting, visual acu-

ity of the viewer etc), reinforcing the need for field testing just as with symbols (see Section 6.5.3). Relative placement of the symbol and text is also important. The goal is to achieve equal legibil- ity between words and symbols when paired, in order to reinforce the connection and improve comprehension. Another factor affecting readability of symbols, text, and graphics is their placement relative to the viewer. Viewing angle refers to the degree of offset from the normal viewing plane. A good rule of thumb is to keep all signage and graphics within a 10-degree angle of the viewer’s natural line of sight as measured from the maximum readable viewing distance. When this angle is exceeded the symbol/ text legibility is reduced and may need to be compensated through increased size or lighting. 6.5.2.4 Color, Field, and Contrast Although the most common current standards typically show a dark symbol on a white back- ground contained within a square field with rounded corners, there are many variations currently in use (Figure 6.27). Some systems reverse the colors to display a white symbol on a dark field. Some display the symbol without a field (sometimes done to maximize the size). Some employ colors that relate to an existing airport color scheme. Regardless of the individual colors used, care must be taken to ensure that there is adequate contrast between the symbol and the background upon which it appears for good legibility. When specifying symbols, the best practice is to follow the current standards as closely as possi- ble. It is especially important to maintain consistency of presentation (i.e., color, size, use of field) for symbols within an individual airport or airport system. 6.5.2.5 Use of Grid Visual consistency within a system is an important factor in helping viewers to “learn” the system. The placement of elements such as symbols, arrows, and text relative to each other is a key part of this consistency. A grid should be developed to define the position of symbols and other elements and to establish the correct amount of separation between elements (Figure 6.28a and 6.28b). Terminal 125 Figure 6.26. The result of a test of the symbol for “Ticket Purchase.” Figure 6.27. Examples of the same symbol used in various configurations.

6.5.2.6 Lighting It would be difficult to overstate the importance of proper lighting for legibility of signage and graphics, including symbols. Fixture and bulb type, placement, and intensity are all factors that can significantly enhance or detract from a sign’s legibility. Some general guidelines follow; however, it is always advisable to work with a qualified lighting designer to ensure that proper lighting is achieved. Source type selection should take into account the sign construction and placement. Whether the light source is external or internal to the sign may dictate how big it can be and how much heat generation is acceptable. If the light source is external, care must be taken to ensure that light is evenly distributed on the viewing surface, with no hot spots or glare. Avoid placing external fixtures in such a way that light is reflected directly into the viewer’s eye; this can severely degrade readability. For internal light sources, the intensity of the light output should be calibrated to provide even illumination with no hot spots. Overly intense illumination can also produce an undesirable effect known as “halation,” in which illuminated graphics and characters tend to blur or merge together, becoming less distinct. 126 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.28b. Photo illustrating the example grid from Figure 6.28a. Figure 6.28a. Example grid used to establish visual consistency for placement of arrows, symbols and messages.

6.5.2.7 Field Testing As noted, there are many factors and variables that affect symbol readability and comprehen- sion. It is always recommended that signage elements, including symbols, be field tested prior to full implementation of the program. The most reliable way to test a symbol or symbol/text group for legibility is to produce a full- size mock-up of the sign and place it in the actual scheduled location. If the actual location is unavailable (e.g., not yet constructed), the alternative is to duplicate the actual viewing condi- tion as closely as possible. When testing for legibility, it is important to engage a representative cross section of user groups (age, nationality, etc) to ensure that the symbol is recognized by the largest number of people. It is also important to remember that the viewer’s state of mind can also affect the receipt and processing of information. A viewer who is stressed, distracted, or in a hurry (all common occurrences in an airport environment) will not process at a “normal” rate. To max- imize the accuracy of any field test, it should be conducted under “real life” conditions when- ever possible. Testing for symbol comprehension—to determine whether people correctly understand what a symbol represents—can be done in more controlled environments, utilizing focus groups or surveys. This is typically undertaken only in situations where no commonly accepted single sym- bol standard exists, and there is a need to choose among possible alternatives or develop a new symbol. Terminal 127 Rental Car Although the current standard symbol for Rental Car has been in use for over thirty years, evidence suggests that it is not universally understood. As part of a 2003 Wayfinding Study prepared for Pearson International Airport by Human Factors North, test subjects were shown the current symbol along with several alternatives (Figure 6.29). The table shows the percentage of subjects who preferred each of the four symbols tested. As this study showed, there may be alternatives worth con- sidering for some current standards. It is also interesting to note that, for both the current standard symbol and the most preferred symbol, the percentage of subjects who correctly identified each symbol’s meaning was only around 40%. Figure 6.29. Symbols tested as part of the Rental Car case study. 20% 37% 29% 14%

128 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside A system for the systematic evaluation of symbols was developed in 1996 for the Technical Committee on Human Factors of the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI). Known as the Multiple Index Approach (MIA), this sys- tem focuses more on symbol recognition and comprehension than on simple leg- ibility factors (detailed discussion of the MIA can be found in Section 6.5.2.9). Symbols are evaluated based on a set of indices (hit rate, false alarm rate, missing values, subjective certainty, subjective suitability, pictogram preference, picto- gram set preference), with the first three being the most significant. The Multiple Index Approach is one available tool to help evaluate a symbol’s effec- tiveness. Given that symbol design is a creative process, and that symbols are always subject to interpretation on the part of the viewer, no guideline can guarantee the “perfect” symbol—hence the recommendation for testing. Multiple Index Evaluation of Pictograms Prior to carrying out a multiple index evaluation of pictogram design, participants need to receive an introduction to the questionnaire so that they understand the purpose of the study. Participants should be shown images of pictograms within the context in which they are intended to be used (i.e. context photograph illus- trating how pictogram will be used). To carry out a multiple index evaluation of pictogram design, three tests are required. These are shown below: Test 1: Test of Pictogram Associativeness. The pictogram in question is placed within a set of pictograms. Participants are given the name and associated function of the pictogram in question. Participants are then asked the following three questions: 1. Choose the appropriate pictogram for the function in question. 2. How certain is the association between the associated function and the pic- togram (i.e., on a 5-point scale from “VERY UNCERTAIN” to “VERY CERTAIN”)? 3. How suitable a representation is the pictogram to the intended function (i.e., on a 5-point scale from “VERY POORLY” to “VERY WELL”)? Test 2: Test of Pictogram Preference. A short description of the intended function of the pictogram is given at the top of the page and below that several pictogram design options for that function are shown. Participants are asked, “which picto- gram do you think best represents <insert associated function>?” Test 3: Test of Pictogram Set Preference. Entire sets of pictograms are presented in groups. Participants are asked, “which set of pictograms do you prefer?” Measures: • Hit Rate: Main parameter of performance. It is the score of the proportion of cor- rect associations between the pictogram and associated function (Test 1). • False Alarm Rate: Refers to the percent of time a pictogram is associated with the wrong function (Test 1). • Missing Values: Refers to the percent of time a participant did not answer a ques- tion because they did not know the answer (Test 1). • Subjective Certainty: Refers to how certain the participants feel in their association between pictogram and function (Test 1).

6.5.2.8 Current Standards Figure 6.30 contains the current aviation symbol standards with some updates and additions. Symbols are listed alphabetically by their most common referent name. Some of the symbols shown here seem to be almost universally accepted; others are less so, with more observed variations in current usage. When potential issues and conflicts related to specific symbols were identified, input from the ACRP panel and industry peer review was gathered prior to making the final symbol selection. These may relate to symbols denoting services whose meaning has evolved, symbols which may be perceived as subject to a negative interpretation, or symbols for new services. 6.5.2.9 Multiple Index Approach The Multiple Index Approach (MIA) for the evaluation of pictograms was developed by the Technical Committee on Human Factors of the European Telecommunications Standards Insti- tute (ETSI). It focuses on both correct associations and errors and takes into account aesthetic as well as performance parameters42. The following are seven MIA indices: • The hit rate • The false alarm rate • Missing values • Subjective certainty • Subjective suitability • Pictogram preference • Pictogram set preference. In most cases, performance data (hit rate, false alarm rate and missing values) will be the prime criteria. The design of pictograms is a creative process. Currently, no design guidelines are available that guarantee that perfect pictograms will emerge from the design process—hence the need for empirical testing. The MIA is a tool for the empirical evaluation of alternative pictogram designs that provides a basis for pictogram selection at an acceptable level of comprehension. The seven indices collected through the MIA enable the evaluator to analyze the results in terms of the parameters that are important for the application at hand, be the emphasis on associativeness or on subjective and aesthetic aspects. Terminal 129 • Subjective Suitability: Refers to the subjective impression as to how well the pictogram represents the associated function (Test 1). • Pictogram Preference: Refers to which pictogram is preferred on an aesthetic basis (Test 2). • Pictogram Set Preference: Refers to which pictogram set is preferred on an aes- thetic basis (Test 3). Analysis: A decision about the relative importance of each of the measures should be made before drawing conclusions from the results. Hit Rate, False Alarm Rate, and Miss- ing Values are prime selection criteria.

130 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.30. Current aviation symbol standards.

Terminal 131 Figure 6.30. (Continued). (continued on next page)

132 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.30. (Continued).

Terminal 133 Figure 6.30. (Continued). (continued on next page)

134 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.30. (Continued).

Terminal 135 Figure 6.31. Examples illustrating aspects required for a legible typeface. Figure 6.32. Examples illustrating preferred characteristics for legible typefaces. 6.5.3 Typography The goal of typography is clarity. Clarity is a combination of font selection, letter spacing, word spacing, sign layout, and contrast. 6.5.3.1 Selection Criteria While the argument continues about whether sans serifs are easier to read than serif fonts, sans serif fonts have been proven to be slightly more legible than their serifed cousins because their letter shapes are simpler. The following are four aspects of a legible typeface: • Large open counters, • Ample lowercase x-heights, • Character shapes that are obvious and easy to recognize, and • Fonts that are restrained. Fonts suitable for airports are not excessively light or bold, weight changes within character strokes are subtle, and if serifs are used they do not call attention to themselves. Counters, the white space within letters such as ‘o,’ ‘e,’ ‘c,’ etc., help to define a character (Figure 6.31). Typographers believe that large counters are an aid to character recognition. A byproduct of open counters is usually a large lowercase x-height. As long as the x-height is not excessively large, this can also improve legibility in a typeface. Because the majority of the let- ters we read are lowercase, larger letter proportions usually result in a more legible typeface (Figure 6.32). Character width was a significant factor in legibility, with condensed sans serif performing relatively poorly and therefore not recommended. The use of multiple methodologies and qualitative research revealed clear preferences among airport users for signs with sans serif fonts43.

136 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Typeface Comparison Published guidelines give ranges of anywhere from 1 inch of letter height for 25 feet of viewing distance up to one inch of letter height for each 50 feet of view- ing distance. There are multiple guidelines and research on this subject to help sup- port almost any claim within reason. For interior sign application, stating a single standard is helpful if used as a guide, but not as an absolute. One key considera- tion is the visual acuity of the aging population. The Snellen visual acuity chart shows how letter height is affected. The minimum requirement to obtain a valid driver’s license in the United States is 20/40 vision. Legibility research indicates char- acter width was the most significant factor in legibility, with condensed sans serif performing relatively poorly. British Airports Authority Ltd. (BAA) funded research to compare typefaces for air- port signs (Figure 6.33) using the following methodologies: • Legibility testing, in which the recognition speed resulting from words displayed in each font was measured. • Qualitative research, in which individuals were asked to judge the connotations and genre associations of the fonts, and express preferences for use in airport signing. • An expert survey, in which a panel of recognized experts were asked to comment on the fonts and on other aspects of BAA’s sign standards. The average recognition speed in seconds for each font was tested (Figure 6.34). The shorter the line, the more legible the typeface. Frutiger Bold was the most leg- ible of the fonts tested. Figure 6.34. Effect of typeface on word recognition time. Figure 6.33. Conditions tested. Source: Comparing Typefaces for Airport Signs (Robert Waller 2007).

Terminal 137 Other legibility research conducted at Penn State University has provided testing that attempted to empirically determine large format distance legibility for the growing number of fonts currently available to non-transportation sign manufac- turers. This study is the first to address the need to establish letter legibility for a large set of existing fonts. This study and subsequent studies have led to adding Clearview to the family of typefaces that demonstrate superior legibility for application in airports. Font Airports Percentage Helvetica 13 42% Frutiger 10 32% Clearview 2 6% Other 4 13% No response 2 6% Total 31 100% Exhibit 6.3. Survey of fonts used for interior signs. Figure 6.35. Fonts. Frutiger 55 Roman Helvetica 55 Roman Clearview Based on current practice, the airport surveys (Exhibit 6.3) highlighted three fonts being used for interior signs. Each font shares similar characteristics: open counters, large x-heights, and consistent stroke-width ratios that all support the legibility (Figure 6.35). 6.5.3.2 Spacing Spacing is a critical component of legibility. The following are the four parts to spacing: • Letter spacing, a.k.a. kerning • Word spacing within a message • Line spacing between messages • Relational spacing within a sign grid Figures 6.36 through 6.40 demonstrate these four components of spacing. Basic line spacing between words of a related message is 50% of the cap height of the letter. Basic line spacing between unrelated messages is 100% of the cap height of the letter. X equals the cap height of the letter.

138 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.37. Word spacing example. Figure 6.38. Line spacing examples. X = Letter Cap. Height x 10% Increased Kerning Shown Figure 6.39. Spacing example of relationship between an arrow, symbol, and message. Figure 6.36. Letter spacing examples (aka kerning).

Terminal 139 Aging Population The population is rapidly aging and becoming a larger share of the marketplace44. Thirteen percent of the population is currently over 65 years old. In 30 years that group will double to 66 million people. People change as they age. Sensory, cogni- tive and motor abilities decline. The built environment is not typically created with the needs of the aging population in mind. The choice of typeface in signing systems, for example, impacts the older viewer who is experiencing vision problems typical to that age group. It is important to understand that certain typefaces are more suit- able to the aging eye. Loss of light Human vision declines with advancing age. Although there are neural losses, the major decline is due to changes in the eye’s optics. The pupil shrinks, allowing less light to enter the eye. The pupil’s response to dim light also decreases with age and becomes virtually nil by age 80. The elderly have especially significant vision problems in low-light environments. Figure 6.41 show how much aging changes the relative transmission of light through the optic media for viewers of ages 20, 60, and 75. Loss of focus The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sets down body-width to height and stroke-width to height ratios for the use of appropriate typefaces in signing systems (Figure 6.42). These standards insure that more uniform typefaces are used, and that overly thick or thin stroke-widths, and overly condensed or expanded styles are not used. While these standards are an excellent starting point, it may be necessary to consider additional factors in regards to typeface selection for the aging eye. Figure 6.40. Relational spacing within a sign grid with multiple messages, symbols and arrow. Note: When designing the sign grid take into account the longest line length of any given message. In the example above “Ground Transportation” is used to calculate the longest line length.

140 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Potential typeface solutions The following examples show typefaces that meet the ADA requirements for use in signing systems. Each is shown as it would be seen by a viewer with no vision problem compared with an example of how it would be seen by a viewer experi- encing a loss of light and focus. Frutiger Bold: As this face was originally created for use in an airport, it is fitting that it functions well under low vision conditions. The fairly wide proportion, open counterforms and slightly longer ascenders and descenders all seem to improve readability (Figure 6.43). Other typefaces evaluated of note: Futura Heavy: The simple, circular forms (such as in the single story “a” and single stroke “u”) seem to hold up well under low vision conditions, as do the long ascenders and descenders. The short crossbar of the “t” does fall away, however. Helvetica Bold: The larger x-height and wide proportions help readability under low vision conditions. The shorter ascenders and descenders do not hold up as well. Figure 6.41a—Age 20 6.41b—Age 60 6.41c—Age 75 Source: Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with Vision Problems by Paul Nini (01.23.06). Figure 6.42. Body width = 60–100% of height; Stroke width = 10–20% of height. Source: Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with Vision Problems by Paul Nini (01.23.06). Figure 6.43. Frutiger Bold still functions relatively well under low-vision conditions. Source: Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with Vision Problems by Paul Nini (01.23.06).

Terminal 141 Univers 65: The slightly smaller x-height results in counterforms that close a bit more than the previous example. The wider “r” and “t” hold up well, however. An analysis of the previous examples shows that the following visual properties could be considered beneficial for typefaces that might be viewed by older viewers: • Consistent stroke widths, • Open counterforms, • Pronounced ascenders and descenders, • Wider horizontal proportions, • More distinct forms for each character (such as tails on the lowercase letters “t” and “j”), and • Extended horizontal strokes for certain letterforms (such as the arm of the lower- case letter “r” or the crossbar of the lowercase letter “t”). The American Printing House for the Blind (APH) has developed a typeface known as APHont, which was specifically designed to be used by readers with vision prob- lems (Figure 6.44). It incorporates the following: • Consistent stroke widths, • An under-slung “j” and “q,” • Open counterforms, and • Larger punctuation marks. While APHont may not be an aesthetically pleasing typeface, it does point to the opportunity for further development of typefaces that accommodate the aging eye. Even though many typefaces meet the requirements of the ADA, they may not all function well with the aging eye. In general, sans serif faces appear to be the most readable, due to their larger x-heights and consistent stroke widths. Figure 6.44. APHont Regular created by the American Printing House for the Blind (APH). Source: Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with Vision Problems by Paul Nini (01.23.06).

142 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Signing designers should test typeface choices prior to specification and final sign fabrication. Blurred and darkened effects can be easily created in an image edit- ing program such as Adobe Photoshop, so digital models can be examined. As well, materials such as smoked or frosted Plexiglas can be placed in front of three- dimensional prototypes or installed signs to simulate the effects of the aging eye. We know that for signing to function well it must display useful information, be placed at an accessible point in the space and at a proper viewing height, and be adequately illuminated. Text must be the proper size for readability from desired distances and must contrast clearly against the background. The demands of the aging eye, however, require typefaces that function well under low vision condi- tions. Both type designers and signing designers need to be aware of the issues sur- rounding common vision problems of the aging population so that the needs of this group might be better addressed in the future. Arrow Legibility One study was performed to evaluate a set of arrows and select the most legible for use on National Park Service (NPS) guide signs45. The relative legibility of twelve candidate guide sign arrows was evaluated in an outdoor field study, in the day- time and at night, using older and younger observers (Figure 6.46). Forty-eight sub- jects participated in the daytime and thirty-two subjects viewed the arrows at night. The younger subjects were able to correctly identify arrow orientation at sig- nificantly longer distances than their older counterparts, and the daytime perform- ance was significantly better than the nighttime. There were statistically significant differences in legibility distance among the various arrow shapes (Figure 6.47). The results show that it is possible to manipulate the legibility distance of guide sign arrows by changing their design characteristics. The arrow ultimately recom- mended for use on NPS guide signs, Color Detour 1, performed 18 percent better than the Federal Highway Administration “Standard Arrow” (M6-3). 6.5.4 Arrows Arrows are powerful tools. If handled properly, they can serve and protect the correct path of travel. If not, arrows can cause havoc. There are three key factors to consider: • Arrow design; which determines how legible the arrow reads. • Arrow scale and placement in relation to the symbols, the message, or both. • Sign placement in relation to the actual decision point The Montreal Expo arrow in Figure 6.45 is noted to be designed to complement the style and proportions of the recommended aviation symbols. Figure 6.45. The Montreal Expo arrow style.

Terminal 143 Figure 6.46. Arrow shapes used in the NPS arrow study. Source: National Park Service and Pennsylvania Transportation Institute. Figure 6.47. Mean legibility distances for guide sign arrowstyles. Source: National Park Service and Pennsylvania Transportation Institute. While this arrow does provide excellent legibility there are other arrow options. Based on research studies as well as the choice of typeface, there are other arrow designs that can be considered. 6.5.4.1 Arrow Scale and Placement There is a lot of discussion and debate on arrows that point right and whether it is best to push or pull the message. Standard practice for arrows pointing right on roadway guide signs is to pull the message with the arrow being right justified (Figure 6.48). Research of current best practices also places the right arrows to the right of the message (Figure 6.49). There is also the design issue of proportions and scale as it relates to the arrow, symbol and message. Figure 6.50 illustrates a recommended best practice of an arrow scaled from two times the cap height up to two and a half times the cap height.

144 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.48. Pulling the message. Figure 6.49. Pushing the message. 6.5.4.2 Up and Down Arrows Even though either an Up or Down arrow can be construed to indicate a forward movement it is important to understand when to use each arrow and then to apply them consistently (Figure 6.51). The vast majority of forward movements should use an Up arrow. However, there are exceptions where the use of a down arrow is needed. The vertical circulation in airport terminal design can vary greatly so a comprehensive evaluation is necessary in order to identify the types of decisions points associated with each vertical transition. It is not practical to illustrate every condition, but the fol- lowing illustrations will help to understand when using a down arrow is acceptable. 6.5.4.3 Angled Arrows Arrows placed on an angle have the potential to create more confusion for passengers than any other arrow for multiple reasons. Depending on the passenger’s point of view it may not always be clear exactly what the angled arrow is pointing to.

Terminal 145 Source: Boston Logan International Airport “Signage Standards and Guidelines Volume 1 - Terminals,” July 2005. Figure 6.51. In certain circumstances, an arrow pointing down, indicating ‘straight ahead,’ can be used when there is an upwards vertical circulation nearby. Source: The Port Authority of NY & NJ Signing and Wayfinding Airport Standards Manual. Figure 6.50. Example of arrow applications that illustrates the best practices for typical sign location conditions.

6.5.4.4 Arrows with Regard to Sign Placement The placement of a directional sign is critical to an arrow that indicates a change of direction; e.g. left or right. To avoid any potential confusion the directional needs to be located on axis with the decision point. Consider other design options that will enable the use of a ninety degree arrow. Emphasize sign placement to eliminate any confusion of arrow application. Avoid combining two decisions into one sign by using a 45 degree angled arrow for a passenger to continue straight and then turn further ahead (Figure 6.52). The preferred solution is to use two signs. Figure 6.53 illustrates a good example of this principle in airports at the vestibules where pas- sengers exit from the baggage claim area to the curbside ground transportation area. Figure 6.52 and 6.53 demonstrate an easy trap to fall into: trying to use an existing sign to indi- cate a decision point past the sign. This sign may be an existing condition and relocating it may cost more money. The prospect of adding a second sign may be even more expensive. However, the indirect cost of not signing a route correctly is confused or lost passengers. Direct costs can be attributed to passengers who have a positive wayfinding experience will be confident in tak- ing time to shop; while passenger that are lost and confused will worry about missing their flight more than shopping. This philosophy goes directly back to Step One that is outlined in develop- ing a wayfinding strategy and the concept of positive guidance. 6.5.5 Color It has been noted that approximately 12 percent of the population is colorblind and cannot dis- tinguish between mixed shades of yellow, orange, red and brown or black, blue and green. The 146 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Source: The Port Authority of NY & NJ Signing and Wayfinding Airport Standards Manual. Figure 6.52. When a directional sign is not placed properly, angled arrows have the potential to create confusion for passengers. Improving the sign placement can eliminate the need to use angled arrows. Source: The Port Authority of NY & NJ Signing and Wayfinding Airport Standards Manual. Figure 6.53. Two signs with an up and right arrow are preferred to one sign with an angled arrow.

survey data collected shows only 23 percent of airports use color as part of their wayfinding sys- tem. The majority of airports surveyed use a single primary color. Airports were asked about their use of colors on terminal signs. Exhibit 6.4 shows the results of this survey. The survey data from the majority of design professionals indicates that color can be used effectively in wayfinding as a secondary support element. Color difference used alone as the pri- mary wayfinding element is not necessarily effective. Color combinations should be chosen care- fully with light reflectance values in mind and certain color combinations should be avoided. Considerations for airports using a single primary color: • Reserve the single sign color application for wayfinding only to provide focus and clarity to the wayfinding components by not having to compete with surrounding visual elements. Considerations for airports using color coding as a wayfinding device: • Color coding can be used as a design element to support wayfinding but not as the primary wayfinding device. Applications from airports that indicated use of a color coding system: • Yellow is for flying activities (ticketing, gates, etc), green is landing (parking, ground trans- portation, etc), black is for services (restrooms, elevators, etc). • Limited use of color to designate arrivals and departures. • Each terminal has its own specific color. • A yellow border is used to highlight the alpha terminal identifiers icons. Amsterdam’s Schiphol International Airport, Newark, Port Columbus and JFK, utilize three sign background colors to differentiate between three primary airport function groupings: • Yellow—flight services, • Green—leaving the airport, and • Black—auxiliary services. While this particular color coding system does not contain any explanation to passengers of logic behind the color coding, proponents of this approach claim passengers find the informa- tion they need more quickly and efficiently (Figure 6.54). Other factors to consider—Color conspicuity can be explained as, “How well does a color stand out from its surroundings?” Lighter colors tend to advance towards you and darker colors tend to recede into the background. The eye also reads some colors quicker than others. The combination of this information has functional value in the design of a sign system (Figure 6.55). Color contrast also plays a primary role in sign design. An article on Effective Color Contrast63 published by Lighthouse International looks at the three perceptual attributes of color—hue, lightness and saturation. The color wheel in Figure 6.56 shows why contrasting hues from adja- cent parts of the hue circle should be avoided. Terminal 147 Single primary background color 20 65% Color coding used to identify destinations 7 23% Other* 3 10% No response 1 3% Total 31 100% *“Other” included: a. Black background, white text, vertical color stripe - color coded for each terminal b. Color code for: Departures Exhibit 6.4. Survey of airports about their use of colors on terminal signs.

148 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Source: The Sign Users Guide, Copyright 1988, by James Claus and Karen E. Claus and Sign of the Times Publishing Company. Figure 6.55. The percentage of area a colored sign has to exceed a white sign to be equally conspicuous is shown here. Source: Copyright 2005 - Lighthouse International. Figure 6.56. Examples of which contrast- ing hues from adjacent parts of the hue circle should be avoided. Figure 6.54. Three primary color system currently used by several major airports.

Figure 6.57 illustrates the most legible color combinations. These illustrations can be used as a guide of color conspicuity and contrast. Airports and designers can leverage this knowledge to achieve superior legibility results. 6.6 Sign Locations, Data Bases, Illumination, Materials, and Safety 6.6.1 Sign Locations There have been several preceding sections that have touched on the importance of directional sign locations. This section will provide additional information starting with the basics. Good features of directional signs include the following: • Consistency of highly visible suspended signs viewable from a great distance; • Signs located in the center of the flow and not to the side; and • Signs perpendicular, rather than parallel, to the flow. Terminal 149 Figure 6.57. Best color combinations used in lettering of outdoor advertising displays ranked in order of legibility of letters from a distance.

6.6.1.1 Sign Frequency Philosophically the fewer signs the better because it helps simplify the wayfinding, reduce visual clutter, and it also helps reduce the cost of the sign system. However, a complex architectural space may require additional signs to compensate for the lack in a building’s intuitive wayfinding design. Reasons for adding signs to account for other users include the following: • In the concourse, not just those walking down it • Coming out of restrooms • Coming out of a concession area • And especially those arriving on a flight that need confirmation of which way to go The goal is to be as consistent as possible and still use the same frequency because it is expected, especially for long corridors that may pass through visually busy graphic environments, then fur- ther down are not so busy. If there are no key decision points along a given route, research results indicate signs should be added to reassure the passenger they are still on the correct path. Con- sider placing these reassurance signs every 150 to 250 feet39. Mounting height. The airport architecture ultimately dictates the mounting height of the over- head directional signs so it is important to survey the varying conditions in order to determine a consistent mounting height for these sign types as well as identify exceptions such as low ceilings. The minimum height per ADA standards for overhead signs is 6′-8″ (Figure 6.58). However, this mounting height should only be used because of very low ceiling conditions. The survey of current airport practices indicates a recommended minimum height of 8′-0″. In large open architectural spaces with high ceilings, this height may extend up to 10′-0″ to the bottom of the sign. Regardless of the conditions, the primary consideration for mounting height of overhead signs is consistency. During the planning phase, take inventory of the existing conditions (or reference the reflected ceiling plans for new construction) to document the ceiling heights. Compare this information to establish a consistent sign mounting height as well as identify any exceptions that need to be accounted for. The process of determining a consistent sign mounting height should also establish dedicated zones for wayfinding information versus advertising, artwork, etc. 150 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Source: The Port Authority of NY & NJ Signing and Wayfinding Airport Standards Manual. Figure 6.58. The minimum height per ADA standards for overhead signs is 6’–8”, which should only be used because of very low ceiling conditions.

6.6.1.2 Information Zones—Other Graphic Elements and the Avoidance of Sign Clutter The goal to eliminate visual clutter in an airport can be achieved with a concerted effort to organize messages into fewer and more purposeful sign placement. Researchers note the chal- lenges of key wayfinding elements having to compete with other visual stimuli on several levels. Other than basic statements noting the need to establish visual access with clear sight lines, there is little documented research regarding sign placement in airport terminals. The information for this section draws from documented best practices and case studies. The following narrative and illustrations are representative. The first challenge is simply competing for space. Art and advertising are the more common sources competing for the same valuable space. The non-airline revenue generated by advertis- ing can make this competition for space even more adversarial. The other challenge is the visual onslaught that competes with the wayfinding for the passen- ger’s attention. By establishing vertical and horizontal spaces that are clear of competing elements an airport can control the foreground and background by creating wayfinding information zones. The result is a more positive passenger wayfinding experience. Figures 6.59 and 6.60 show how this concept works by applying the wayfinding information zone inside the building envelope. 6.6.1.3 Wall-Mounted Signs While wall-mounted signs are subject to ADA guidelines, it is important to recognize the human factors that apply to the viewing angles. The mounting heights of the 95th and 5th percentile of men and women (95m, 5m, 95w, 5w) with respect to vertical sign location are demonstrated in Figure 6.61. The mounting heights shown (=10° from line of sight) represent the area that can be viewed without eye movement. The position of signing at 5-feet, 7-inches is within this mounting height for approximately 95% of the population. The signs that fall into this category are: restroom identification plaques, room (number) identification signs, elevator warning signs, door-mounted “do not enter” signs, and other regulatory and code required signs. Terminal 151 Source: Mineta San Jose International Airport. Figure 6.59. Typical example from SJC of the X axis wayfinding information zone.

The mounting heights of a seated person and users in wheelchairs, with respect to the 10° viewing angle from the line of sight are demonstrated in Figure 6.62. Smaller identification, information and regulatory signs should be wall or door-mounted at an elevation between 5 and 6 feet. These show viewing ranges (10° from line of sight) that represent the area that can be viewed without eye movement. This data is accurate for approximately 95% of the population. All signs must conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 6.6.2 Information Databases Creating an information database to manage an airport’s wayfinding system is important to help perpetuate the value of the investment. A typical data base consists of the following three parts: • Sign location plans—show where each sign is located either on site plan or architectural floor plan • Message schedule—lists the message for each sign along with the signtype • Signtype illustrations and or photos—indicates sign construction details and information 152 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Source: Mineta San Jose International Airport. Figure 6.60. Typical view inside SJC. Figure 6.61. The mounting heights of the 95th and 5th percentile of men and women with respect to vertical sign location.

Creating an information database can require a substantial amount of time and effort. Whether an airport chooses to create their own database or work through an outside consultant, the first step is to understand how the airport uses data base information. Therefore, to make sure the air- port’s resources are well utilized an airport must determine the following: • What is the mission? Define what the data base will help accomplish. For example: – Changes—Know which signs are impacted by an airline change. The list can include signs on the roadway, curbside and terminal – Maintenance—Know which signs require regularly scheduled maintenance or inspection so work orders can be easily generated and tracked. • Who will have access? This can be anyone from airport operations to airport planning. • Who will be responsible for keeping the database up to date? Without a designated ‘gate- keeper’ the data base will quickly become obsolete and the resources spent creating the data base will be lost. • How does the airport track other systems and locate them either outside on the roadway or inside the terminal? • How will the sign information be tracked for common-use space versus tenant spaces? Other key considerations: • Incorporate graphic standards as part of the data base for easy reference for staff that has access. • Develop the logic for the sign numbering system with a beginning and an end. In other words the sign location numbers continue from sheet to sheet to provide a unique sign number for each location. • Consider adding a prefix or suffix to the sign location number to help indicate where the sign is on the airport. • Include a logic for how new signs are added to the sign location plan and the message sched- ule. One method is to use the number of the closest sign and add a suffix. This symbiotic method of organizing the sign locations in a relative sequence will help later on when trying to locate the new sign number on a plan. • Consider how the data base software can be tailored to address maintenance issues in a pro- active versus a reactive manner. This can include ticklers/reminders for scheduled mainte- nance or inspections that can help prolong the effective life cycle. It can also list specifications for lamping and ballast for servicing illuminated signs. Terminal 153 Figure 6.62. The mounting heights of a seated person and users in wheelchairs, with respect to the 10 viewing angle from the line of sight.

• A data base can include either an illustration or a photo of each sign with dimensions, mate- rials, colors, etc. • A data base should include a key word search function to help facilitate message changes. • Include a key plan on every sign location plan drawing A data base for the airport’s sign system can be generated in either one of two ways. An exist- ing airport facility will require a physical inventory. A database for new construction can be gen- erated from the contractor’s as built drawings. Both methods are valid means to create a sign system data base. The last point to consider is the most important and is worth repeating: how will the data base be maintained? It is a living, breathing document and an airport must make a realistic evalua- tion on what kind of commitment and resources can be made to keeping this data base up to date. Set a minimum standard for updating the data base regularly; a good target is annually. A cost effective method is using interns to inventory and update the data base. Another method is to implement an on-call service contract to update the data base. 6.6.3 Illumination A study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers emphasizes the key role that new lighting technologies—specifically LED technology—play in promoting energy efficiency and helping reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. “Technology and innovation in the area of lighting has quickly become a vital aspect of the broader movement toward increased energy efficiency and responsible use of global resources,” said Granger Morgan, professor and head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy (EEP), and a member of the National Academy of Science. Another important note is that unlike the fluorescent tubes they replace, solid-state lighting is mercury-free. Lighting plays a vital role in the effectiveness of an airport’s wayfinding system, but under- standing the options and determining what lighting solution will work best in a given airport is a challenge that requires a certain level of expertise. The process on how to evaluate an airport’s needs and select the proper lighting for a given airport space begins with the basic decision of illuminated versus ambient light. There is little debate that internally illuminated directional and informational signs provide a higher level of visibility. This is supported by research that indicates passengers perceive a higher LOS at airports with internally illuminated signs. However, the literature did not provide any measured research with quantitative proof that passengers actually experienced an increase in wayfinding performance. Therefore, an airport must decide if the added expense of installing and maintaining an illu- minated sign system is justified as being a superior wayfinding system compared to a sign sys- tem that is not internally illuminated. Cost comparisons for illuminated signs include two factors—initial installation costs and the ongoing long-term cost. Depending on the actual sign design, an internally illuminated sign can cost 50% to 100% more than a comparable non-illuminated sign. In addition to the added cost of the light source, ballast, and transformers, the initial installation must also factor into the cost of the electrical service to each sign in order to understand the true total of the initial installation cost. The three basic types of illuminated signs are: • Internal illumination of the entire sign face (Figure 6.63a). • Internal illumination of the text only with an opaque sign background (Figure 6.63b). • External illumination that washes the sign face (Figure 6.64). 154 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside

Choosing either method of internal illumination will require special attention be given to the design of the sign face to facilitate future message changes. Other factors to consider when evaluating what type of lighting to use: • The overall ambient light levels maintained inside the airport (daytime and nighttime). • The maintenance and cost issues of making message changes to the sign face and how those costs are budgeted. Many airports successfully use the ambient lighting inside the airport to provide the necessary visibility for the wayfinding signs, which is an acceptable alternative (Figure 6.65). The benefits of using ambient light are: • Lower front end cost to implement, • Lower cost to maintain, and • Typically easier and less expensive to make inevitable messaging changes. Regardless of what illumination method is used, the illumination levels on the sign surface shall be uniform over the sign surface. It is also important to consider the location of signs so they are located such that the illumination level on the surface of the sign is not significantly exceeded by the ambient light or visible bright lighting source behind or in front of the sign. Terminal 155 Figure 6.63a. Internal illumination of the entire face. Figure 6.63b. Internal illumination of text only. Figure 6.64. Avoid glare that creates hotspots when using external illumination that washes the sign face.

156 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.65. Examples of signs using ambient lighting. LED Lighting The following case study was developed in 2009 by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports as part of their internal evaluation process of comparing the costs of fluorescent versus LED internal illumination46. The process outlined in this case study is a good example for an airport to follow. 1. Set goals of LED sign lighting project for Salt Lake City International Airport a. Reduce operating costs by: i. Reducing energy consumption. ii. Reducing maintenance cost by reducing frequency of scheduled mainte- nance and also reducing damage to sign fixtures due to same reduction in maintenance frequency. iii. Eliminating toxic chemicals found in existing lighting thus saving money on expensive waste disposal. b. Improve sign visibility and legibility by: i. Using more even illumination with less hot spotting and more well defined text due to less light bleeding caused by existing light source 2. Product selection process a. Testing i. Construction of typical lighted sign boxes to be used in bench testing several different brands of LED lighting. ii. By installing each type of LED lighting in our test boxes instant side-by- side visual comparisons of light color were obtained. Using a common light meter the light output was measured for evenness of illumination. iii. Side-by-side comparisons also assessed ease of installation and material costs iv. Over a 6-month timeframe, periodic measurements were taken of light output to assess possible light loss, degradation of color, or other un- desirable anomalies. Power consumption was also measured.

Terminal 157 b. Challenges i. Because of the fast paced evolution of the LED industry, there had been little testing at this time to come up with uniform standards for the LED lighting industry. This resulted in a lot of homework to evaluate the LED manufacturers. ii. Writing exacting specifications for the procurement process was also dif- ficult because of the lack of uniform measurements and testing in the industry, thus a lengthy bench testing became invaluable. iii. Illuminating double-faced signs without hot spots was difficult. The fur- ther you can place the face of the sign from the light source, the more even the illumination. The research at this time did not find LED lighting fixtures that had 360 degree illumination (similar to fluorescent tube). This resulted in mounting the LED fixtures on the top and bottom of the sign boxes and relying on reflected light to fill into the center. On boxes taller than 20″ the center of the signs were unacceptably darker. c. Comparison analysis/metrics between existing and new LEDs i. Initial implementation costs: for 72 signs with existing fluorescent/$18,504. LED/$52,000 for 72 signs minus $12,000 for the local electrical utility rebates= total LED installation costs of $40,000. ii. Power savings of $36,292 during the LEDs 50,000 hour life span versus existing fluorescent. iii. Maintenance cost savings of $27,360 (estimated) over the 50,000 hour (warrantied) life span of LED lamps versus existing fluorescent. Fluorescent hazardous material recycling savings: $1,599 over the 50,000-hour life span of the LEDs. iv. Quality of light/Photometric: the LED lamps run 5,000 Kelvin. As of this writ- ing, the LED lamps have had less than 2% loss of lumen output. 3. Summary a. Findings: The findings are not considered conclusive as the new signs are only 1.5 years into the proposed 5.5 year life span of the LED lamps, however the 5,000 kelvin in the LEDs provide noticeably improved readability on our illu- minated signs (better text definition/less light bleedover, easier to read at dis- tance) than the existing 3,000 to 4,000 kelvin fluorescent. There is also a much smother illumination with far less hot spotting. b. Recommendations: Highly recommend finding a supplier/manufacturer with an experienced R&D staff close to your facility (if possible) that would be will- ing to help design the correct system for your application. Off the shelf prod- ucts can be difficult to make work in many retrofit applications. c. Lessons learned: Continued research for future LED lighting projects using double faced signs taller than 20″, has developed (with the help of the local lighting supplier) an LED lamp with the same 360 degree illumination of the fluorescent tube, that will be used on the next lighting retrofit project. d. Ongoing methods for documenting metrics: Continue to take lumen read- ings on predetermined signs at the exact same face locations of the current LED signs to check for light degradation. After eighteen months into the war- ranty period there has been approximately 2 to 5% light loss with no visible color shift.

6.6.4 Materials The world has developed a conscience and sustainable design through the use of renewable and environmentally friendly materials, and this has become the new standard for the design industry. During the design phase, the materials and products being considered for the project: metals, woods, plastics, paints, adhesives are reviewed to see if they fit into a sustainable design philosophy. There is not one standard for evaluating the sustainable characteristics of all building materials. There are some tools that can be used, however, when selecting materials, at least in part, due to their sustainable characteristics. They include: • National Institute of Standards and Technology Building for Economic and Environmental Sus- tainability (BEES). BEES measures the environmental performance of building products by using the environmental life-cycle assessment approach specified in ISO 14000 standards • American Institute of Architects’s (AIA) Environmental Resource Guide. This guide presents detailed life-cycle information about a number of building products. • LEED Material Credits. The material credit requirements in the LEED Green Building Rating System address some of the key criteria for product selection. The following is a checklist for determining if a material is “green.” Is the material: • Low embodied energy, • Recyclable, • Renewable, • Locally or regionally produced, • Energy efficient, • Low environmental impact, • Durable, • Minimizes waste, • Positive social impact, and • Affordable. Sign maintenance is addressed in Section 6.7, but it is worth noting here that combinations of the materials selected directly impact the time, effort, and cost associated with making changes that are inevitable. Therefore, review the process and expense involved to make message changes to either current or proposed materials. Evaluating a material, or comparing two materials to determine if the product(s) is a sound environmental product depends on the evaluation of a material’s life cycle, often called the cradle-to-cradle analysis of a material. This process typically addresses the environmental impacts of the following: • Resource acquisition. This includes addressing the environmental impacts of extracting the resources necessary to manufacture the product. • Manufacturing. This includes evaluating the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process. • Transporting. This includes considering the impacts of transporting the material to the man- ufacturing or assembly location, as well as transporting the material to the site. • Installation. This includes considering the impact the installation of the product will have on the installer as well as any building occupants. • Impact to Building Occupants. This includes evaluating what impact the product will have on occupants during its use. • Performance. This includes considering how durable the product is, as well as what kind of maintenance requirements the product has. • End of use options. This includes considering if the product can be disassembled, recycled, or reused. 158 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside

6.6.5 Mounting Mounting of signs can be synonymous with sign location in that they both relate to placement: vertical, horizontal, as well as in a plan view. The primary difference of mounting is the method used to physically install the sign. There are three primary categories: • Overhead: Signs that are either suspended from the ceiling, mounted flush with the ceiling, or are located on an architectural soffit or wall. • Freestanding: Signs that have their bases mounted directly to the floor surface using a mechan- ical fastening system. • Wall: Signs that are mounted with the back of the sign to the wall using either an adhesive or mechanical fastening system. It is very rare that one mounting method will meet all installation conditions in a given airport. Therefore, in order to present the wayfinding information in as consistent manner as possible it is important to consider the variations in the architectural conditions when planning an airport’s sign system. If the directional signs are illuminated, the mounting method must also consider the need to provide electrical service and make the necessary allowances. See Appendix D for detailed illus- trations with recommended clearances for these various sign types. 6.6.6 Safety Passenger safety is always a priority. Many of the safety issues are already addressed by code requirements, so it is not the purpose of this guideline to review each safety related condition and applicable codes. Airports should use available resources to research the codes associated with safety issues based on the AHJ (Authorities Having Jurisdiction). The airport surveys provided the following responses when asked about safety-related sign and wayfinding issues at the terminal: • Escalator signing is always an issue—tendency is to add more signs. • Signs for emergency exits, defibrillators, and fire extinguishers. • Crossing traffic lanes to access taxi and bus pickup areas. In addition to these comments the United States uses the “EXIT” to identify emergency egress. Our surveys and research show that a large portion of the world uses the green field with a walking man with an arrow (Figure 6.66). Where the difference can become an issue is an International Arrivals area. Interviews with CBP personnel discussed the recurring issue with foreign passengers mistaking the emergency exits for the airport exit. They report that this is a daily problem that needs to be considered during the design process. 6.7 Sign Maintenance Wayfinding inside an airport terminal typically does not suffer from substantial degradation of sign surfaces over time like signs in an exterior application that are exposed to the environ- ment. What is important to maintain is the integrity of an airport’s wayfinding system so that it keeps pace with changes in the airport. One of the myths of wayfinding is that once a new sign system is implemented the work is done. This is a false assumption. Airports are dynamic environments that are constantly changing. In order to perpetuate the integrity of the wayfinding program a systematic maintenance program must be implemented as an integral part of standard airport operations. A strategic maintenance program is the key to perpetuating a well-planned wayfinding program. Standard procedures should be in place to address the impact of changes to airport operations, Terminal 159

including clear update policies and scheduled maintenance reviews (quarterly, semi-annually, and annually). Clearly defined procedures will help address issues such as: • Addition of a new airline, • Airline relocation, • Adding signs, • Deleting signs, • Temporary signs, and • Directories, both electronic and static. Developing a quality Sign Standards Manual will be one of the best tools in managing consistent planning, design, installation, application, and maintenance of the sign system. As a minimum, the following represents a suggested sign maintenance procedure: • Monthly visual inspections: check for burned out bulbs/lights, scratched sign cabinets, sign face damage, graffiti, structural damage, and non-standard signing due to signing updates. • Quarterly sign cleaning: cleaning of exterior surfaces and support structures. Twice a year the interior of sign boxes/cabinets should be examined for build-up of dirt, dust, and other debris. • Replacement parts such as extra bulbs, hardware, and mechanical fasteners should be on hand to provide quick fixes until complete repairs can be made if needed. • Replacement and recycling/disposal procedures: determine how damaged or obsolete signs will be removed and where the unusable items will be discarded. Sign maintenance manual: a maintenance manual should be prepared for in-house information but can also be distributed to sign vendors to be aware of the airport’s expectations for new signs. 6.8 Accessibility Accessibility issues in an airport setting extend beyond the terminal, but are consolidated in this section for an easy single point of reference. The information contained in this section is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines and the Air Carrier Access Act. 160 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.66. A large portion of the world uses the green field with a walking man with an arrow to denote “Emergency Exit.”

6.8.1 Accessible Signing—Wayfinding for the Blind and Visually Impaired Wayfinding for the blind and visually impaired is a crucial area in the design of airport facilities. This section will review both the accessibility codes that must be followed in devel- oping a wayfinding program in an airport facility but also the technologies and other inno- vations that are being integrated into airport facilities. Finally this section will provide a road map for designers and managers looking to integrate accessible wayfinding into their facility plans. This section is meant to be utilized by designers and managers in three stages including: • Managing Codes and Code Compliance • Developing specific strategies for sign legibility for both the blind and visually impaired based on accessibility codes and best practices. • Utilizing methodologies and new technologies to meet the needs of disabled travelers through- out the entire airport experience 6.8.1.1 Accessibility Analysis for Pedestrian Airport Wayfinding Figure 6.67 has been developed to help analyze the wayfinding experience from an accessi- bility perspective of getting to the gate as well as getting from the gate to ground transportation. The first column lists each step in the wayfinding experience. Column two lists the ADA requirement associated with each step of the experience. Column three addresses the legibility requirement. Column four lists any additional considerations associated with each step in the wayfinding experience. 6.8.1.2 Managing Codes and Code Compliance A number of different codes and guidelines determine how accessible wayfinding programs are to be developed. The two most prevalent are: The ADA and International Building Code: Passed in 1991 and was updated, and the new regulations were published in the Federal Register on September 15, 2010. These final rules took effect on March 15, 2011. The Americans with Disabilities Act provides a range of design issues that states must enforce in their building code. States also have the right to create their own accessible building codes, and most states have adopted more advanced accessibility codes developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Most international airports around the world utilize the accessibility section of the International Building Code (IBC) which parallels the ANSI. Specific legislation has also been developed to serve the needs of blind and visually impaired travelers including the Air Travelers Access Act. This legislation is not as prescrip- tive as building codes, allowing for a range of new innovations and methodologies to be applied. The first priority of designers and managers is to manage compliance of accessibility codes. This is made more complex by the way accessibility guidelines are legislated. States have the right to develop their own guidelines based on minimum standards from the Justice Department. For example, in California, signs follow a code that requires sign heights to be 60″ from the floor to the center of the sign, which deviates from the new ANSI and International Building Code. The US Access Board and SEGD both offer up to date information on state by state building codes and current international guidelines. The guidelines are based on the 2008 ANSI, IBC and the ADA code that was approved in 2010. Twenty-six states representing 2⁄3 of the U.S. population are utilizing codes following these guidelines. It is important though that airports review the codes relevant to their state or locality. Terminal 161

162 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.67. This matrix helps analyze the wayfinding experience from an accessibility perspective of getting to the gate as well as getting from the gate to ground transportation.

Terminal 163 From the Gate Figure 6.67. (Continued).

6.8.1.3 Types of Visual Impairments To develop effective wayfinding standards, it is first important to understand the different needs of the blind and visually impaired. The sign standards for these two groups often conflict with each other in the wayfinding environment. These issues include: The needs of the blind. The blind navigate their environment utilizing their sense of touch either through their hands, feet, extension device like a cane, dog, or navigation device. The blind need wayfinding elements to be in close range to their body, tactile, and in consistent locations. This effort to provide consistency of location and information is both the common theme in accessibility codes and design innovations for the blind like rails and tactile floor surfaces. The needs of the visually impaired. The visually impaired make up a very large percentage of the population and cover a variety of impairments from color blindness to eye degradation from aging. The visually impaired utilize their eyes to navigate their environment, but need the assis- tance of larger and clearer visual elements that contrast with the surrounding environment. The needs of the blind and the visually impaired often conflict in building codes and often require different systems in airport environments. The needs of the mobility impaired. Mobility impairment covers a range of impairments including difficulty of movement and paralysis. Access for the mobility impaired includes hav- ing dynamic and interactive wayfinding elements in close visual proximity which often conflicts with the need for more visible signs. 6.8.1.4 Strategies for the Blind The ADA and by extension the ANSI and IBC has extensive and specific guidance for the blind. Keep in mind that this is just guidance based on the state, national, and international codes being utilized in most places. It is important to reference the code based on the specific airport juris- diction. These are the key issues that must be considered. What signs are covered. For the blind, only permanent identification signs must utilize Braille and tactile copy. In an airport environment this includes all restroom and terminal signs on con- courses as well as permanent office and meeting room space. Specific airline information and retail spaces are not considered permanent space. Directional signs are not included. Font selection and letter height. All tactile letters must be a minimum of 5⁄8″ high and a maxi- mum of 2″ high. 1⁄2″ letter heights can be used if separate larger visual type is also included. Letter type. All raised letters must be sans serif and must have a maximum stroke width of 1⁄5 of the height of the letter using the height of the letter I for reference. Font and Braille location. All tactile letters and Braille must be a minimum of 3⁄8″ away from any raised surface. See Figure 6.68 for approved fonts for the ADA. 164 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.68. Approved fonts for the ADA.

Terminal 165 Figure 6.69. Sign height diagram. Figure 6.70. Sign location diagram. Single Door (Without Closer, With Hold Open Device) Double Door One Active Leaf Double Door Two Active Leafs Single or Double Door with Adjacent Wall 18” Clear Floor Space Beyond the Arc of the Door Centered on Sign Text Single Push Door (With Closer, Without Hold Open Device) CL Font and Braille height: Tactile letters must be no higher than 60″ from the floor to the top of the raised letters. Braille must be below and no lower than 48″ from the bottom of the Braille to the floor. Refer to Figure 6.69 for more details. Sign location. All signs must be located a specific distance away from single and double doors. Refer to Figure 6.70 for specific locations. Overhead signs and signs perpendicular to wall surfaces. All overhead signs and signs perpen- dicular to wall surfaces must be at least 70″ off the floor surface and preferably a minimum of 84″. 6.8.1.5 Strategies for the Visually Impaired Developing wayfinding programs for the visually impaired is a combination of specific code requirements as well as best practices for legibility in the environment. The ADA and accessibil- ity codes cover the following issues.

Specific signs types covered under the ADA, ANSI, and IBC. All directional and identification signs are covered including overhead signs and wall mounted directory signs. Dynamic signs and schedules must also be covered under these guidelines. Maps are not covered in accessibility codes but may be required in local fire codes. Color contrast. All letters and arrows must contrast with the background. A 70% light reflectance value (LRV) is recommended but not required. All signs must also have a matte non- glossy finish. Symbols. All identification symbols must be in a minimum 6-inch field even though they do not need to be a minimum of 6-inches in height. This is a requirement on identification signs and a recommendation on wayfinding signs. There is still an open discussion in different states about allowing smaller letter heights if large symbols are used in wayfinding signs. Chicago’s O’Hare air- port by Carol Naughton and Associates, Figure 6.71, has led these trends with large symbols/small text on some of their major wayfinding signs. Text height. Text can be serif and any stroke width, but must be a minimum of 5⁄8 inches in height. Text height also increases based on the height off the floor and the distance viewing. This is important distance information particularly for dynamic scheduling signs (Figures 6.72 and 6.73). These signs must be no more than 6 feet away from the viewer to keep the 5⁄8 inches in letter height requirement. All overhead signs generally must have text at least 2 inches in height and often far larger text heights are required. 6.8.1.6 Best Practices for the Visually Impaired In addition to building codes, a number of best practices have been utilized in airport facilities for visually impaired that have been advised by a number of designers. These best practices include the use of highly-legible san serif fonts. Even though building codes do not require these fonts on wayfinding signs most airports utilize highly legible san serif fonts. The most prevalent of these fonts include Helvetica, Clearview, Futura, and Frutiger. These fonts were designed to meet the needs of an aging population by mitigating halation or the diminish- ment of visual clarity over time. These fonts have thin lines that have been successfully tested to be visible over great distances. Clutter reduction. A key to legibility in an airport environment is the reduction of clutter in key areas. This is especially important at airport facilities with low ceilings. Design firms advise that 166 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.71. Example of large symbols used with smaller text.

Terminal 167 Figure 6.72. ADAAG legibility chart. Figure 6.73. In the Minneapolis International Airport Sign System by Apple Design, multiple changes in ceiling height require different font heights to be used.

extensive visual models and prototypes should be developed to ensure a minimum of clutter in the facility, as well as rigorous guidelines to keep visual clutter to a minimum. Clear guidelines are key to preventing the proliferation of visual clutter in airport environments, and airport sign managers should require that every new interior sign be reviewed based on guidelines governing clutter. Medium size airports like T.F. Green Airport in Providence (Figure 6.74) are notable for their efforts to manage clutter by creating layered viewing corridors for retail, wayfinding, gate and sup- port information. The use of landmarks. Visual cues and landmarks are important elements for directing airport users to specific locations and also cutting through the visual clutter. Toronto Pearson Airport (Fig- ure 6.75) uses landmarks extensively to break though the visual clutter of the complex spaces in the facility. Multiple languages. When multiple languages are used on a sign, it is important that the same standards of legibility are used for all languages. It is also important that multiple languages are dif- ferentiated on a sign like at Ottawa McDaniel Airport designed by Gottshalk and Ash (Figure 6.76). Typography strategy. Sign codes are specific about type height for various viewing distances for wayfinding signs but are unclear about how to measure viewing distances themselves. A basic strategy that has evolved is about basing legibility distance on two levels of wayfinding decision. 168 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.74. T.F. Green Airport. Figure 6.75. Toronto Pearson International Airport.

Key destination information. Top destinations including Gates, Transportation and Baggage Claim often need priority at key decision points and in airports with long concourses often require font heights of 6 feet or more. Key decision points. In an airport environment key decision points should be read from at least 120 feet away. Under the accessibility codes this would require font heights to be a minimum of 4 feet. Assurance signs. These signs occur along pathways and are meant to assure the traveler that they are moving in the right direction. These signs need to be read from 90 feet or less giving them a minimum font height of 3 feet. At Newark Liberty International (Figure 6.77) a strategy for font sizes was based on destination hierarchy and key decision points, allowing for more legible signs throughout the airport. 6.8.1.7 The Mobility Impaired Codes oriented for wayfinding for the mobility impaired focus on the same issues that address the blind including the height of signs off the ground and the size of sign information. Most issues related to the mobility impaired are addressed in the Air Carrier Access Act which governs the support services of the airport facility as much as specific wayfinding legibility issues. Terminal 169 Figure 6.76. Ottawa McDaniel Airport.

6.8.1.8 ADA Symbols Symbols are among the most crucial aspects of developing airport wayfinding program. The ADA, ANSI and IBC cover the size and application of symbols as well as the use of specific acces- sibility symbols. Roger Whitehouse, working for the SEGD (Figure 6.78) developed this group of accessibility symbols that are mandated for use. Among the most important areas of guidance is the use of the international symbol of acces- sibility which is required to identify all accessible locations in a facility including restrooms and areas of refuge. Because the signs codes allow more than one symbol inside a 6-inch field, most identification signs in airports pair a smaller accessibility symbol with a larger identification sym- bol (Figure 6.79). 6.8.1.9 Dual Signs In an effort to resolve the sign standards between the blind and the visually impaired, the ADA, ANSI, and IBC allow for the use of dual signs or separate sign information for the blind and the visually impaired. The visual information can be any size and use a variety of fonts while tactile signs can be smaller with low color contrast. This is particularly important on airport signs because of the need for identification elements to be more legible from larger distances. Airports generally use two approaches when developing dual signs. Perpendicular and wall mounted signs. An overhead perpendicular sign can be coupled with a wall mounted tactile sign. Combined wall mounted sign. A large wall mounted sign containing both visual and tactile information. 170 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.77. Newark Liberty International. Figure 6.78. Accessibility symbols.

Dual signs are needed particularly at restroom facilities at all airports regardless of size, but also for other support services, like gate information and telephone identification (Figure 6.80). 6.8.1.10 Deaf Users These users require special assistance to find facilities that service the deaf. Wayfinding for assistive listening devices and volume control telephones are usually handled by universal ADA symbols developed by Roger Whitehouse for SEGD. 6.8.1.11 The ADA and Dynamic Messages Technically the ADA does not cover temporary or variable messages yet, but the trend is mov- ing in the direction of utilizing the same regulations for visual dynamic media that applied to signs with permanent content. Key issues for dynamic media include the following: • Accessibility: Having passenger arrival and departure information within close visual proxim- ity to travelers, either through scrolling signs, or larger font sizes. • Contrast: All dynamic messages are recommended to have a contrast of at least 70%. At Hong Kong International Airport (Figure 6.81) redundant combinations of dynamic mes- sage signs are placed low to the ground for the mobility impaired and overhead with larger font sizes for the visually impaired. 6.8.1.12 New Approaches for Accessible Environments Research for wayfinding for the visually impaired in transit and other facilities has been exten- sive. For the visually impaired and blind, the Lighthouse for the Blind in New York has commis- sioned dozens of studies on best practices for wayfinding, identification, and map signs (Figure 6.82 provides one example of a map with raised pathways). The most well known was a study developed based on a wayfinding system for the blind developed by Roger Whitehouse for the Lighthouse itself 47. This study profiled a number of approaches to blind navigation including audible signs, maps, and trails. Terminal 171 Figure 6.79. Symbol sign.

172 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Figure 6.80. Dual signs at Minneapolis International Airport. Figure 6.81. Hong Kong International Airport. Figure 6.82. Tactile map with raised pathways, directions, and destinations developed by Eyecatch Signs.

Currently auditory technology is being frequently employed in transportation facilities for the disabled including train and bus stations. In addition to the Lighthouse for the Blind, testing has been utilized for auditory devices in facilities by the U.S. Access Board and National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Auditory technologies include push buttons, infrared transmitters, and cell phone based technologies. The newest system, tested at the Sloan Ketter- ing Institute for the Visually Impaired by James Coughlan, Roberto Manduchi, and Huiying Shen uses bar codes that can be read by cell phones. The most commonly used system in airports is the ClickAndGo Wayfinding Maps and Human Network Labs software. This software is avail- able on cell phones and PDA’s and can be used by the blind through Braille converters. Airports can send map routes through specialized websites to be used with this system. Cell phones are also being used to deliver greater in-flight information to the blind through software created by companies like human network labs. Finally research has been developed for complete systems that use maps, rails, floor markings, and auditory information in a transportation environment like the integrated system developed by Coco Raynes at Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris (see Figure 6.83). These trails connect ter- minal facilities inside of airports. Institutes that study architectural and integrated solutions include Universal Design at North Carolina State University (http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud) and the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access (IDEA). These institutes study the interplay of architectural and accessible environments. 6.8.1.13 Air Carrier Access Act—Overview and Recommendations Airports specifically have been given recent guidance on disabilities issues with the recently enacted Air Carrier Access Act. This act specifically puts the responsibility on the airport and the airline to provide assistance and access for the disabled from curbside to airplane. The best way Terminal 173 Figure 6.83. Charles De Gaulle Airport. Source: Coco Raynes Associates, Inc.

174 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Wayfinding for the Visually Impaired Traveler San Jose International Airport is a fast growing national and international airport in the San Francisco Bay Corridor. Located in a state with among the most stringent accessibility enforcement criteria, the airport has developed a number of practices to ensure compliance with all state and federal codes as well as incorporating inno- vations into new additions and renovations to the airport environment. San Jose has been successful in the development and management of accessibility guidelines, by taking internal responsibility for many of the decisions governing accessible envi- ronments. The approach that the airport has developed includes: Development of a Compliance Strategy California’s Title 24 differs markedly for national accessibility codes and the airport must respond to these differences through clear guidelines when working with the variety of outside design firms and contractors involved in projects. One important approach is to include Title 24 standards in the RFP process as well as in-house sign development procedures. In particular the airport closely monitors these specific areas as part of their compliance strategy: Sign Heights: Title 24 specifies that all signs must be positioned 60” from the center of the sign to the floor. This matches the current federal ADA guideline, but not cur- rent ANSI guidelines as well as state codes from a number of other states. The airport closely watches that this standard is met when working with multiple designers and fabricators developing sign programs in the facility. Specific Symbols and Braille: California uses specific symbols for restroom signs and Braille that are unique to the state. The airport ensures that it has guidelines and pro- cedures in place to ensure the use of these elements when new signs are being added and existing signs are changed. Enforcement: California has a specific permitting approach for developing new sign systems in facilities. The airport has developed specific procedures in concert with designers and fabricators to ensure that the permitting process is being followed. Legibility Strategy Unique to most airports, San Jose develops legibility guidelines in-house to allow for more control over the management of ongoing sign programs. These legibility guide- lines include standard governing destination hierarchy and font heights throughout the airport facility as well as guidelines governing the placement of signs to reduce clutter and standards for color contrast and lighting. By developing these rules in- house the requirements can change with the growth of the airport and the addition of new wayfinding, identification and retail signs. The most important elements of the airport’s legibility strategy include: Font Height Strategy: Accessibility codes are ambiguous about determining the spe- cific font height to use at the airport. San Jose has created standards that govern spe- cific font heights based on location in the airport. Key decision points require signs with larger fonts of 5 or more inches in height while signs that provide assurance along corridors have smaller font heights of 3 to 5 inches.

Terminal 175 Clutter Management: During the design development process the airport closely monitors the density of signs along key viewing corridors utilizing modeling soft- ware from the designer. Whenever new signs are put in place as part of ongoing sign management the airport includes criteria for placement that minimizes size clutter. Managing the Wayfinding Experience To meet the needs of the newly enacted Air Carriers Access Act, San Jose has devel- oped an experiential analysis approach based on interviews with the blind and visu- ally disabled as well as supporting views from consultants and advocates for the disabled. The prepared report charts the wayfinding experience for the disabled throughout the airport, providing recommendations at specific decision points. In developing their experiential analysis the airport began with a profile of the dis- abled traveler. This specific profile included the following information: • There are no expectations when traveling, i.e., no system specifically for blind or visually impaired to help them navigate through the airport. • Process for handling reservations: – Informed the airline that he was traveling with a guide dog. – Airline has to block a seat to make room for the dog. – Prefers to take direct flights—do not want to change planes • The travel experience – Uses the Outreach service (on-call service through the local transportation agency) to get to his airline curb, then had family there to help him through the rest of the way. – In two other trips, either a friend or a driver took him to the departure curb and led him to the door and the airline desk. • Preparations for traveling with a guide dog. – He does not water or feed his dog before the trip – Dog cannot help in a crowded environment • Other preparations for travel – Typically does not go to the website. – Usually calls the airline for information. So if there are physical changes, com- municate that to the airlines. After developing this profile the traveler was interviewed about issues specific to their wayfinding experience. Results include: • The use of the handicapped drop-off curb – Would not use it. Reserve it for the individual in a wheelchair. – Likely rare to be blind and in a wheelchair and expect independence. – Would not want to be dropped off in a central location. Just wants the direct door into the ticketing hall where his airline is. • The use of tactile elements – There are too many points of entry for tactile strips. – Tactile strips could have a benefit if taxi driver stops right in front of the strip, and it is known as a clear path into the terminal. – Tactile strip, over time, may get worn down due to constant passing of baggage on rollers.

for airports to respond to the Act is to map the experience of the disabled traveler from external transportation to the gate. These include the following areas: • Parking—While the Air Carriers Act makes no provisions for assistance from parking, many airports require parking in short-term areas instead of curbside drop-off. In these situations it is important to provide clear easily marked safe areas where the traveler can wait for assistance. • Transit—Taxi drivers and transit attendants can be trained to assist the blind in finding their way into airline terminals. In addition transit/airport junction points can become the most forward information centers with trained staff available. This approach has been used success- fully in large international airports with transit hubs like Chicago O’Hare airport and Boston Logan International Airport. • Curbside Assistance—Karl Vidt, former member of the Airports ADA Advisory Committee has commented that assistance must begin at curbside. Even the best wayfinding systems for the blind at the arrivals and departures areas of the airport can be stymied by the large lines and crowds at a number of the airlines. This requires baggage handlers and other curbside per- sonnel to take responsibility when seeing a disabled person trying to enter the terminal. In addition some airports hire security guards and greeters that can also offer assistance. In addition there are tactile technologies that can assist the blind from curbside to check-in. One of the leading technologies utilized to direct the blind from curbside to check-ins are detectable warning systems including floor dots, domes, pavers and trails. These approaches are common in Europe and are starting to be seen near rail transportation and in airports (see Figure 6.84). From check-in to the gate: The Open Doors Organization (http://www.opendoorsnfp.org) has profiled a number of different training options the organization offers to assist the blind in airport facilities. Best Practices for these human centered approaches are also available through 176 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside • The traveler expectation from the curb – Walk straight ahead from curb, through door to the counter – Ask for assistance. No matter how independent the blind traveler is always conditioned to ask for assistance as soon as possible. • Navigation through airport and security line – Understands that airports are a fluid space. Has to ask for assistance. – It is understood that the airline will walk the traveler all the way to the gate from the ticket counter. – If using a security line, it is possible to follow the stanchions/crowd barrier tape. • Arriving at other airport and return trip – Airline will escort through baggage claim. Per the Air Carrier Access Act, the airline has to assist the traveler all the way through to the point of departing the airport such as taking him to a taxi or shuttle. – Upon return to SJC, he will ask the airline to take him to the Outreach pickup curb – He calls ahead and makes pickup reservation. – There is a benefit of having the Outreach pickup curb include a sign with tactile (raised) text and Braille to confirm this destination. After concluding the profile and interview process, additional consultants were con- sulted about best practices for the blind and how to best comply with the provisions of the Air Carrier Access Act. Once these additional elements were in place the airport developed a set of specific recommendations to comply with the provisions of the act and meet the specific needs of the profiled travelers.

Canadian Transportation Agency’s new Code of Practice and Guide for Passenger Terminal Accessibility (www.cta.gc.ca). These training areas chart the wayfinding experience from road- way to terminal and include the following: • Ticketing Assistance—Ticketing is the most crucial junction point for the blind. This is the point where the airline can offer assistance all the way to the gate. Training of ticket takers is the most important aspect of the Air Carrier Access Act, since it is the first entry point where the airline takes responsibility for the traveler. • Security—Most security lines are already set up to handle the blind through multiple layers of security assistance and clear stanchion based lines. • Attendants—Because of the Air Carrier Access Act airlines must have a person on call that can take a visitor from curbside, through security, and all the way to the gate. This requires pre-trip preparation on the part of the disabled visitor, but also a plan devised by the airport to connect the disabled traveler with the attendant including a call-in number and designated meeting spot. 6.8.1.14 Airport Challenges Airports are among the most difficult wayfinding environments for the blind and visually impaired with multiple layers of complexity. Airport sign managers and design firms advise that airports utilize the following approaches to ensure that the environment can remain at a high standard of accessibility: • Develop an accessibility plan and audit: During the wayfinding design and development process it is important to have a separate audit that just focuses on accessibility issues. • Have clear ongoing accessibility guidelines: After a project is complete these guidelines will serve as both instruction and training for airport employees and guidance for system mainte- nance and replacement. • Develop an in-house expertise: Large airports should have one person responsible for manag- ing accessibility issues while small and medium size airports should have specific departmental responsibilities for accessibility. Terminal 177 Figure 6.84. Tactile technologies, such as floor dots, can assist the blind from curbside to check-in.

• Develop a resources list: This list of designers, code officials, organizations, and internal stake- holders can provide guidance on key issues and conflicts. 6.8.1.15 Accessibility Audit On an airport wayfinding project, it is important to develop an audit of elements that must be followed to make the facility accessible. The audit consists of two parts: Strategy and Doc- umentation: Strategy All accessibility strategies should consist of the following parts: Managing Compliance • International, national and state codes. • Utilize the International Building Code for projects outside the United States. This will cor- respond with the current ADA. • List the top ADA national standards being followed at the state level regarding font, placement, and color. • List ADA issues specific to the state that may diverge from national standards. • List the provisions in the Air Carriers Access Act. Managing Legibility • Develop a legibility plan consisting of the following elements: • Font height based on distance in the facility. • Color contrast and lighting contrast requirements. • An approach to sign clutter. • Symbol height based on distance and number of symbols being used. • An approach for multiple languages. Managing the Experience • Develop a narrative of the wayfinding experience. • Write an accessibility narrative starting at the curb, and progressing to the gate, describing the specific issues and recommendations for each area in the wayfinding process. • Develop a series of recommendations based on the needs of the blind, visually impaired and mobility impaired. Specifying Methodologies and Technologies • Materials specifications. • Name the specific modular system (if one is used) and accessibility issues associated with that system. • Specify materials, the material approach, vendors/manufacturers (if necessary), and paint or additional materials being applied. • Include specific accessibility technologies and methodologies. • Directories and maps. • Human assistance. • Talking signs. • Tactile floor surface. Documentation All accessibility documents for tactile signs for the blind should consist of the following parts: • Sign placement. • Distance of the sign from doors and entrances. 178 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside

• Height of perpendicular wall signs and overhead signs from the floor. • Sign dimensions. • Separation of fonts from Braille. • Separation of font and Braille from the edge of the sign. • Distance of the top and bottom of the font from floor. • Fonts. • Style. • Height. • Kerning. • Specify Braille and distance of the Braille from the floor. • Sign substrate and base material. • Ensure all screws are flush if close to raised type. • Show edging or rounding of materials. • Show material and substrate thickness. • Paint specification. • Specify foreground and background color of materials. • Specify matte finishing. Figure 6.85 is a sample of required documentations for accessible tactile signs. Terminal 179 Figure 6.85. A sample of required documentations for accessible tactile signs developed by ASI.

Next: Chapter 7 - Technology »
Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 52: Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside is designed to provide airports with the tools necessary to help passengers find their way in and around the airport.

The guidelines focus on four areas of the airport: (1) roadways—both on-airport, and off-airport access roads; (2) parking; (3) curbside and ground transportation; and (4) terminal.

In addition, the guidelines discuss developing a wayfinding strategy; the use of technology and visual displays; and color, fonts, and sizes.

View the Impact on Practice for this report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!