Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 113
Terminal 113
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
OCR for page 114
114 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside
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.
Exhibit 6-1. Survey of terms for "area
to pick up luggage."
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.
OCR for page 115
Terminal 115
Exhibit 6.2. Survey of terms used for mass
and individual transit.
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%
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.
OCR for page 116
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.
OCR for page 117
Terminal 117
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)
Figure 6.16. Curbside entrance identification--ATL.
OCR for page 118
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.
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
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.
OCR for page 119
Terminal 119
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
Figure 6.20. Example of domestic message over
global message at Tokyo Narita Airport.
OCR for page 120
120 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside
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.
OCR for page 121
Terminal 121
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
Figure 6.21. Gate 1D pylon at DFW used a touch point to connect symbols with multiple foreign languages.
OCR for page 122
122 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside
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.
Figure 6.22. A stand-alone flag-mounted restroom
symbol.
OCR for page 123
Terminal 123
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
Figure 6.23. Example of information overload with
a combination of format, number of signs, and
amount of information.
OCR for page 138
138 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside
Figure 6.36. Letter spacing examples (aka kerning).
x
X = Letter Cap. Height
10% Increased Kerning Shown
Figure 6.37. Word spacing example.
Figure 6.38. Line spacing examples.
Figure 6.39. Spacing example of relationship between an arrow, symbol, and
message.
OCR for page 139
Terminal 139
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.
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.
OCR for page 140
140 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside
Source: Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with Vision Problems by Paul Nini (01.23.06).
Figure 6.41a--Age 20 6.41b--Age 60 6.41c--Age 75
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.
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 = 60100% Source: Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with
Vision Problems by Paul Nini (01.23.06).
of height; Stroke
width = 1020% of Figure 6.43. Frutiger Bold still functions relatively
height. well under low-vision conditions.
OCR for page 141
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.
Source: Typography and the Aging Eye: Typeface Legibility for Older Viewers with
Vision Problems by Paul Nini (01.23.06).
Figure 6.44. APHont Regular created by the American
Printing House for the Blind (APH).
OCR for page 142
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.
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
Figure 6.45. The Montreal designed to complement the style and proportions of the
Expo arrow style. recommended aviation symbols.
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).
OCR for page 143
Terminal 143
Source: National Park Service and Pennsylvania Transportation Institute.
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.
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.
OCR for page 144
144 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside
Figure 6.48. Pulling 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.
Figure 6.49. Pushing the message.
OCR for page 145
Terminal 145
Source: Boston Logan International Airport "Signage Standards and Guidelines Volume 1 - Terminals," July 2005.
Figure 6.50. Example of arrow applications that illustrates the best
practices for typical sign location conditions.
Source: The Port Authority of NY & NJ Signing and Wayfinding Airport Standards Manual.
Figure 6.51. In certain circumstances, an arrow pointing down, indicating `straight
ahead,' can be used when there is an upwards vertical circulation nearby.
OCR for page 146
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.
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
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.
OCR for page 147
Terminal 147
Exhibit 6.4. Survey of airports about their use of
colors on terminal signs.
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
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.
OCR for page 148
148 Wayfinding and Signing Guidelines for Airport Terminals and Landside
Figure 6.54. Three primary color system currently
used by several major airports.
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.
