Great Western Coffee Shop

Journey by Journey => London to Swindon and Bristol => Topic started by: grahame on August 12, 2017, 22:10:45



Title: Making new signage visible
Post by: grahame on August 12, 2017, 22:10:45
If you want a new sign to be seen ... you put it prominently in front of the existing signage ....

Coming down the steps to the platform in Chippenham:
(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cpm_signs_2.jpg)

Hiding the unimportant old signage like the platform numbers:
(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cpm_signs_1.jpg)

Thank goodness for A4 printers and laminators - an excellent local solution:
(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cpm_signs_3.jpg)

Problem shouldn't have needed to be sorted in the first place if the new signage had been properly designed!


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Worcester_Passenger on August 13, 2017, 00:33:11
Here are the East Midlands platforms at St Pancras on the first day of the Eurostar services back in 2007. The rebuilding of the station cost £800 million.

Notice (1) the architect-desgned platform numbers that are integrated with the barriers and (alas) have people standing in front of them, and (2) the cheapy-printed and laminated numbers which have been attached to the overhead lighting.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 13, 2017, 10:02:43
If you want a new sign to be seen ... you put it prominently in front of the existing signage ....

Coming down the steps to the platform in Chippenham:
(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cpm_signs_2.jpg)

That's not the typeface we are used to seeing on stations, is it? BR signs were in Rail Alphabet, and Network Rail use Brunel - which is very similar. So is this part of the (now not so) new GWR branding?

Well, actually it is. At the tiime, the design consultants Pentagram said (https://www.pentagram.com/work/great-western-railway-1/story):
Quote
The typeface, Glypha, has been chosen for its legibility, ideal for delivering the often complex information required in the transport industry.

The new branding has now been applied across several elements of the network, from rolling stock and ticket offices, to uniforms, timetables, a new-look website (created by ORM) and mobile app. The identity will be implemented across the whole fleet of GWR trains and stations.

So I reckon that is Glypha Black. But chosen for its legibility? I beg to differ; I think it is cramped and hard to read, even slowly.

The original Rail Alphabet was adapted from their Transport typeface by Calvert and Kinneir. Transport was for motorway signs, and explicitly designed to be read in a fraction of a second. Rail Alphabet was intended to be a little friendlier - less stark - but still very clear. Brunel was introduced by Railtrack, and kept by NR, as a still cuddlier variant on the same sans serif base. In 2009 it was proposed as a network-wide standard, but not mandated by DfT, though SWT (and others) have adopted it.

Which is where it becomes a bit odd, as station signs are very much long-term items; you would not want to change them all at a franchise change. So, since the GWR branding was in part an unbranding - taking First's name off so a new franchisee could own the branding - why are GWR/First making such a dramatic "look at me I'm different" statement here? And, come to that, why in Chippenham?


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: grahame on August 13, 2017, 10:34:38
So I reckon that is Glypha Black. But chosen for its legibility? I beg to differ; I think it is cramped and hard to read, even slowly.

Don't know "why Chippenham".  Probably timing / at the point the bridge that used to take the public footpath across the station was being replaced with one with steps down to the platform and lifts on two out of the three staircases.

Here is some text in Glypha 75 ... not sure what the "75" means.    I too did a double take hen I first saw it, but I've now got used to it.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/glypha_stations.jpg)

Frankly, I think it looks old fashioned - but then the new GWR look's supposed to restore the glory of GWR from the old days, and elements of that will be the historic look, won't they?


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 13, 2017, 10:53:27

Here is some text in Glypha 75 ... not sure what the "75" means.    I too did a double take hen I first saw it, but I've now got used to it.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/glypha_stations.jpg)

Frankly, I think it looks old fashioned - but then the new GWR look's supposed to restore the glory of GWR from the old days, and elements of that will be the historic look, won't they?

I think the '75' indicates weight, and in this case means the same as "black" - i.e. bolder than bold. But I'm not a typographer; mind you I don't think Pentagram are either.

It dates from the 70s, and I think it looks dated in that sense: the one you'd expect a design consultant to use. But it doesn't look "heritage" enough to match GWR in the sense you mean, not to me anyway. And I don't think First ever wanted to create more than a superficial hint by using the GWR name and perhaps a more heritage-like colour scheme (though anything would have met that requirement compared with Dynamic Lines).

I do recognise it (in lighter weights) from the printed timetables etc., but if you look closely at one you'll see they use it there only for headings and titles. Body text is in a plainer sans serif face, as are the timetables and notes symbols. In other words, everything where reading the details matters doesn't use Glypha.

Maybe, being design consultants, Pentagram reason that signs are done in big letters so are a kind of heading or title? Which ignores the fact that they are big so that people with poor eyesight can read them from far off!


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 13, 2017, 13:17:26
I've definitely seen that typeface in other GWR contexts though I can't think exactly where right now. Possibly only timetables though I did think I'd seen it on stations too (and I haven't been to Chippenham recently). I rather like it though I agree it's less instantly legible than the previous sans serif font.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: bobm on August 13, 2017, 16:04:41
It is at quite a few in the West Country, Tiverton Parkway springs to mind as well as the new signage at Newton Abbot in connection with the recently installed gateline.  I think Chippenham was among the first however.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: grahame on August 13, 2017, 16:45:22
.... the new signage at Newton Abbot ....

Yeah - that's interesting; Chippenham has mixed signage of multiple era and in multiple fonts now - hardly the complete "culture transformation" that's on Diane Burke's public LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/diane-burke-9a8a123/).



Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: SandTEngineer on August 14, 2017, 08:04:58
Why not just stick to the 'Rail Alphabet'.  One of the best designs ever, and I have never had any trouble reading it over 50 odd years.... ;)


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: CyclingSid on August 14, 2017, 09:01:33
For those unsure about the meaning of Glypha 75, a demonstration of the differences can be found at:
https://www.fonts.com/font/linotype/glypha
I think the use of numbers to indicate weight and style started with Univers. It is now fairly commonly used, as being more necessary with digital fonts compared with the smaller range that used to be available in metal fonts.
Some typographers still believe that serif fonts (such as Glypha 75) are less readable for signage than san-serif fonts (such as Transport). But there again a design consultancy (not necessarily typographers) have to have something visible for the probably not inconsiderable sum of money they will have charged.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: JayMac on August 14, 2017, 09:30:01
And that's the rub. A waste of money.

Railway Alphabet, or its natural successor NR Brunel, do the job just fine. But, like a dog territorially pissing, TOCs just have to mark themselves out. Until the next one comes along...

I suppose we'll see First/MTR change all the excellent NR Brunel signage across South Western land too. Signage that is only around 7 years old.

 ::)


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Timmer on August 14, 2017, 09:35:06
And that's the rub. A waste of money.

Railway Alphabet, or its natural successor NR Brunel, do the job just fine. But, like a dog territorially pissing, TOCs just have to mark themselves out. Until the next one comes along...

I suppose we'll see First/MTR change all the excellent NR Brunel signage across South Western land too. Signage that is only around 7 years old.

 ::)
Maybe the management of GWR know something we don't that they will when the next franchise when it's up for tender  ;) I'll get my coat. On a serious note, would it not make sense for the new franchisee to keep the GWR name and look going forward or is that just not the done thing?


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 14, 2017, 10:01:06
Maybe the management of GWR know something we don't that they will when the next franchise when it's up for tender  ;) I'll get my coat. On a serious note, would it not make sense for the new franchisee to keep the GWR name and look going forward or is that just not the done thing?

The branding was explicitly an unbranding as far the the First name was concerned - to enable the restyling intended to accompany the upgrade programme to be done during this short "franchise". The timing was a bit out, though, and the delay to the volts on the line has made that worse. 

As we have discussed before, that unbranding is linked to the franchise provision saying that brand and company names need to be removed before handover or else the new franchisee can claim the cost of that off the old one. The terms of that are a bit wider, though, as it says:
Quote
Branding

2.2 Subject to any applicable obligations or restrictions on the Franchisee (including the terms of the Rolling Stock Leases), the Franchisee may apply registered or unregistered trademarks (including company names, livery and other distinctive get-up) to any assets owned or used by it in the operation and provision of the Franchise Services.

(a) Subject to paragraphs 2.2(c) and 2.2(g), the Franchisee may:
   [   grant a license to use the branding   ]

(c) Subject to paragraph 2.2(g), to the extent that:
  (i) the Franchisee does not provide a relevant undertaking or licence in accordance with paragraph 2.2(a);
  (ii) the Secretary of State considers the relevant Marks to be so distinctive or otherwise such that a Successor Operator could not reasonably be asked to use the relevant assets to which the Marks are applied; or

So there is a risk that applying any "distinctive get-up" that the successor can't use would lead to a bill to replace it. In this instance the case might be that the lettering is unfit for purpose and only used in GWR stations, and the SoS has to be convinced of that - which I can't see the current one  being.

But it's a thought. Certainly a "distinctive get-up" is what Pentagram were aiming to provide.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: CyclingSid on August 14, 2017, 15:19:13
From comments on other threads, I can imagine some passengers (if they had a voice) might prefer the money spent on deep cleaning or train maintenance.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: IndustryInsider on August 14, 2017, 15:39:56
From comments on other threads, I can imagine some passengers (if they had a voice) might prefer the money spent on deep cleaning or train maintenance.

It's a sign of the times...  ;)


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on August 14, 2017, 17:17:49
Slab serifs like Glypha have been in vogue for a couple of years. Archer and Belizio are fairly similar (a little less angular) and crop up very often. Personally I prefer it to NR Brunel, which seems to be a fairly uninspired Frutiger knockoff to me, but Rail Alphabet is a classic and I'm sad to see it go.

That said, 75 seems over-bold for signage use, and I'm really not convinced by the spacing on that Chippenham example - would have been better to right-align the text against the arrow, and then put the icons on the left-hand edge of the sign. The reversed-out icons are also less clear than black-on-white would have been.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 14, 2017, 18:16:20
I think the Siobhan Sharpes of this world need to understand the difference between signage (which needs to convey information clearly, quickly and concisely) and branding (which is all about aspirations and emotions). Britain did world-leading research in the fifties and sixties which led to the superb road sign standards we take for granted today, and to the typefaces used by BR, its successors, and LT. What these standards have in common is that they use mixed case letters and sans serif fonts, both of which have been proven to improve legibility.

Out of interest, I wonder what feedback GWR got when they had these signs evaluated for vision-impaired accessibility. Or, and perhaps more to the point, I wonder if they had them assessed at all?



Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 14, 2017, 19:24:59
In 2009 there was a report "Better Rail Stations" (to Lord Adonis) about improving stations. That recommended as one of its minimum standards:
Quote
Station Signage
To ensure network consistency and reduced franchise costs, all signage should be in standard ‘Brunel’ script with white letters on a dark blue background. Thereafter, name signs should not be changed when train company ownership changes.

We all know that the incoming government in 2010 did not favour dictating standard in this way as much as the previous one, but is there any current government policy in this area? Surprisingly, yes: "Design standards for accessible railway stations: a code of practice by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-railway-stations-design-standards)" (2015). Here, under "K3. Signs - font" this has:

Quote
e. Research into legibility has led to the design of a number of typefaces that are used by the transport industry. Clear typefaces include Helvetica, Arial, Rail Alphabet, Brunel, New
Johnston and Airport.

f. Over-stylised designs and ornate typefaces can be very difficult to read and should be avoided.

This and other guidance is derived from sources such as the Sign Design Guide (2000) and BS8300:9.2.3.1. It also lists mandated standards, and while there is no national standard in this area there is PRM TSI:4.1.2.11.1&2:
Quote
1. The minimum height of letters shall be calculated according to the following formula: Reading distance in mm divided by 250 = font size (e.g. 10 000 mm / 250 = 40 mm).

2. Sans-serif fonts, in mixed case, shall be used for all written information (i.e. not in capital letters only).

3. Compressed descenders and ascenders shall not be used.

4. Descenders shall be clearly recognisable and have a minimum size ratio of 20 per cent to the
upper-case characters.

Correction: The quotes above were from the previous guide, withdrawn in 2015. However, apart from the few words now struck out everything is still there, though with different numbering. Items 2, 3, and 4 are no longer cited as in the PRM TSI, because they are not in the latest version - but they now appear as guidance.



Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: paul7575 on August 14, 2017, 20:12:41
The GW always has to be different. 

As if they'd ever use some random typeface such as er...  "Brunel"    ;D

Paul



Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: didcotdean on August 14, 2017, 20:18:35
Glypha is sold as a condensed typeface that is good for legibility - for magazines and advertising. Not signage that I can see.

As already said above by Richard 75 seems too black for signage; it over emphasises the slab-serifs. 65 would have been sufficient.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 14, 2017, 20:45:25
I don't think we should assume competence on the part of the people who decided on using Glypha for signage, as opposed to branding.

By far the worst example of this kind of thing I know of is Moto services: Can you see anything wrong in this photo?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Forton_services_-_geograph.org.uk_-_783111.jpg)

Moto chose to apply their branding to their direction signage - so all signs are round with blue circles. In one fell swoop of arrogance and stupidity they cast aside decades of good practice and replaced it with a forest of incomprehensible nonsense. I'm sure there are people who can instantly work out that a bus facing right in a blue circle two signs to the right of a left arrow in a blue circle means 'buses keep left', but I'm guessing most people would have to think about it!


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: John R on August 14, 2017, 20:48:22
I would agree with that. The signage in their service stations doesn't have the same intuitive feel that you immediately expect, and therefore takes a bit longer to assimilate.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: trainer on August 14, 2017, 23:19:47
I complained to Moto staff years ago when I got lost on one of their service stations and couldn't get out!  The signage had just been put up and I received sympathy from the person I spoke to who told me that more than one person had had the same issue.  They have changed nothing since.

On the sighting of signs, Yatton station has an electronic PIS display which is obscured from most passengers on the Up Platform because of (from memory) a beam holding up the roof.  (I'll try to remember to check the obstruction when I go next.)


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: JayMac on August 15, 2017, 01:22:54
As a recently qualified motorist I have to say that it's not just Moto who have woeful signage. All motorway service stations I've visited seem to have signage designed to confuse. Of particular concern is the first direction signage you encounter off the slip road. You're slowing from motorway speed so clear concise signage is needed.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Timmer on August 15, 2017, 05:50:57
As a recently qualified motorist I have to say that it's not just Moto who have woeful signage. All motorway service stations I've visited seem to have signage designed to confuse. Of particular concern is the first direction signage you encounter off the slip road. You're slowing from motorway speed so clear concise signage is needed.
Glad it's not just me who thinks signage at some service stations for entry and exits is woeful.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: grahame on August 15, 2017, 06:09:46
As a recently qualified motorist I have to say that it's not just Moto who have woeful signage.
Glad it's not just me who thinks signage at some service stations for entry and exits is woeful.

You're talking traffic signage?   I've had problems around some service areas too.   And at times, internal signage tends to be far more aimed at helping you find opportunities to spend your money than to find that loo you stopped for in the first place which - with notable exceptions - are accessed by passing far more sales outlets than necessary!

When I'm giving a training course in a new room, I always take a careful look at the placement of delegate chairs / tables, their distance, angle and lighting to the projection screen, and whether anything's in the way.  And I make sure I don't foul  anyone's view during teaching / lecture / demo sessions, and select fonts that are large enough to be visible from the furthest seats.  Surely service area and railway station designers go through a similar exercise, but in much more detail considering how much longer their solutions will last.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Timmer on August 15, 2017, 07:46:51
You're talking traffic signage?   I've had problems around some service areas too.   And at times, internal signage tends to be far more aimed at helping you find opportunities to spend your money than to find that loo you stopped for in the first place which - with notable exceptions - are accessed by passing far more sales outlets than necessary!
I am. And yes plenty of advertising ways to spend your money whilst you are there and you sure can at a British service station where prices are quite frankly ridiculously expensive, same at airports. Captive market. Thing is people will pay the prices charged so they will continue to charge what they do. I'm waiting for the 'they have higher overheads' comment. Yes they do but not be as much as the mark up you see compared to supermarkets and town centre eating establishments.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: CyclingSid on August 15, 2017, 08:49:59
Before we got side-tracked into inflammatory subjects like motorway service stations and similar "rip offs", there were indications that there had once been an attempt at common standards across the system.
Going off-piste in another direction, another niggle of mine (minor in the overall scheme of things) are door operating buttons on trains. Should there not be a standard layout so that Open is always top (or whatever, but consistent). I find myself pressing a Close button when I am already mentally off the train, but failing to do it physically, because all the other buttons on the journey in that position have been Open.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 15, 2017, 09:42:45
Before we got side-tracked into inflammatory subjects like motorway service stations...

I'm not sure it was that much of a side-track, within the context of GWR applying a 'branded' typeface to direction signage.

As far as Moto is concerned - and their signage is uniquely woeful - it is worth noting that the DfT's guidelines of April 2008 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1679/response/3572/attach/3/DfT%20circ%200108%20web.pdf) state that:

Quote

In design terms, roadside facilities schemes should... ...ensure that all traffic signing (including road markings) for drivers using the site complies with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
(TSRGD)


For reference, here is the relevant TSRGD (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made)

Moto's signage doesn't come within a country mile of this: Maybe they got lost following their own signs.

All this is relevant to the subject because what is good for MSA's should be good for railway stations.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 15, 2017, 11:37:44
As far as Moto is concerned - and their signage is uniquely woeful - it is worth noting that the DfT's guidelines of April 2008 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1679/response/3572/attach/3/DfT%20circ%200108%20web.pdf) state that:

That DfT policy (circular 01/2008) was replaced by a new one (02/2013) which is shorter but still contains:
Quote
SIGNING
B25. All signing of roadside facilities and signing arrangements within sites must comply with the current Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and any other guidance as may be issued from time to time by the Department for Transport or the Highways Agency. Approval must be sought from the Highways Agency’s signs specialist for the use of all non prescribed signs. Advice and working drawings may be obtained from traffic.signs@dft.gsi.gov

Both document set out "policy" as advice to planning authorities, to be applied to applications. What isn't clear to me is how this policy might be enforced retrospectively. Is it planning enforcement, by the local PA, like demolishing your secret house extension? Does that only work for conditions in the decision notice of approval, or is the policy in the circular an implied term of any approval? And which version applies - depending on when the offending signs were put up?

In the case of station signage, that was a code of practice containing guidance. The relevant web page says:
Quote
This code will help train operators and anybody else carrying out rail infrastructure improvements to design more accessible trains and stations. It has been published to ensure that any infrastructure work at stations makes railway travel easier for disabled passengers.

So how does that work? How does publishing that code "ensure" anything - that would require something approaching enforcement, wouldn't it? It may not be in a franchise contract, but a bit of naming and shaming wouldn't go amiss.



Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 15, 2017, 12:08:08
What isn't clear to me is how this policy might be enforced retrospectively.

Maybe Moto have 'grandfather rights'. The brand came into being in 2001; were any explicit standards in place at that time?

Quote
This code will help train operators and anybody else carrying out rail infrastructure improvements to design more accessible trains and stations. It has been published to ensure that any infrastructure work at stations makes railway travel easier for disabled passengers.

...specifically, vision-impaired passengers in this context. Which leads me back to wondering if GWR actually thought to have the signage assessed, or consider the RNIB's guidelines (https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/29-march-2007/rnib-publishes-guidelines-for-accessible-design/) which, among other things, specifically advise against using light text or symbols against a dark background.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 15, 2017, 12:45:13
I suppose it's debatable whether those icons are white on a black square or the black square is part of the icon itself. Personally I think they'd probably be more legible in black on white with perhaps a narrow black outline round the (assumed) square of 'icon space'.

As to the visually impaired, I do know one man, sufficiently impaired to be registered blind since birth, who finds it easier to make out white on black. Not that one individual is good reason to go against RNIB advice.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 15, 2017, 12:48:22
Going off-piste in another direction, another niggle of mine (minor in the overall scheme of things) are door operating buttons on trains. Should there not be a standard layout so that Open is always top (or whatever, but consistent). I find myself pressing a Close button when I am already mentally off the train, but failing to do it physically, because all the other buttons on the journey in that position have been Open.
I hadn't given thought to the position but I do find the Open and Close symbols insufficiently distinct. There isn't enough doorness in them.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 15, 2017, 13:51:42
Going off-piste in another direction, another niggle of mine (minor in the overall scheme of things) are door operating buttons on trains. Should there not be a standard layout so that Open is always top (or whatever, but consistent). I find myself pressing a Close button when I am already mentally off the train, but failing to do it physically, because all the other buttons on the journey in that position have been Open.
I hadn't given thought to the position but I do find the Open and Close symbols insufficiently distinct. There isn't enough doorness in them.

It's clear from context whether you want to open or shut the door, so you only need one button labelled 'Door'.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 15, 2017, 15:41:25
If you look in the current GWR franchise (dated 22 March 2015), page 174, under SCHEDULE 4 Persons with Disabilities and Disability Discrimination/2. Physical Alterations and Accessibility of Stations is:
Quote
2.7 (a) establish and manage the Minor Works’ Budget to fund the carrying out of Minor Works. For the purposes of this paragraph 2.7, Minor Works means small scale physical alterations or additions to improve accessibility of Stations to Disabled Persons, not involving substantial works of construction or reconstruction. The Minor Works:
...
(iv) must comply with the standards provided for in the Code of Practice, unless otherwise agreed with the prior consent of the Secretary of State;

And, among the definitions of terms, there are:
Quote
Code of Practice” means the code of practice for protecting the interests of users of railway passenger services or station services who have disabilities, as prepared, revised from time to time and published by the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 71B of the Act;

Act” means the Railways Act 1993 and any regulations or orders made thereunder;

Now, the code of practice referred to above (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18572.msg218623#msg218623) says in its introduction:
Quote
The version of the document published on the Department for Transport’s (DfT) website will be considered the official version for the purposes of the Railways Act 1993. Train and station operators, and anybody else who carries out work on Great Britain’s railway network, should ensure that they are familiar with this version and should check the website on a regular basis for updates.

Mind you, the inside cover text includes:
Quote
Although this report was commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the DfT. The information or guidance in this document (including third party information, products and services) is provided by DfT on an ‘as is’ basis, without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind whether express or implied.

The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.

Hmm ... so HMG do not endorse it, but have made it an implied term of franchise contracts (and are presumably required by that act to do so). Sow how keen to you imagine they are going to be to enforce that contract term?


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: plymothian on August 16, 2017, 10:13:11
I mentioned, when he was passing, to the station manager at Newton Abbot that the signs appear smaller and harder to read.  He said 'they're compliant and lovely'.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Timmer on August 16, 2017, 10:22:16
I mentioned, when he was passing, to the station manager at Newton Abbot that the signs appear smaller and harder to read.  He said 'they're compliant and lovely'.
Well he would say that wouldn't he. He's trained and programmed to say things like that.  :)


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 16, 2017, 18:13:48
Going off-piste in another direction, another niggle of mine (minor in the overall scheme of things) are door operating buttons on trains. Should there not be a standard layout so that Open is always top (or whatever, but consistent). I find myself pressing a Close button when I am already mentally off the train, but failing to do it physically, because all the other buttons on the journey in that position have been Open.
I hadn't given thought to the position but I do find the Open and Close symbols insufficiently distinct. There isn't enough doorness in them.

I'm sure I read about some trains having their door control buttons changed to the "standard" layout during a makeover, but I can't remember what class nor find the item again.

But thinking about the symbols, rather than the positions, I've always found it surprisingly difficult to pick which does which, as evidenced by needing to stop and think. Obviously it's not intuitive, at least for me. The same symbols (more or less) are used on lifts, with a longer history, and induce the same hesitation.

Looking about on line, I found other similar comments, and one guy saying that after much searching he could find no trace of any good engineering design, or research to support it, ever being done. Product designers had just copied each other, adding their own ideas. There was also a lot of borrowing symbols both ways with VCR designers, though the relationship between tape motion and lift doors isn't obvious. I can't find any design standard either, whether labelled as "accessibility" or not.

Two people had though about it, and come up with the same idea as I did, though with less explanation. This was my reasoning:

Arrows usually indicate direction or motion, but for motion they are almost entirely conventional; if you'd never seen one you wouldn't guess what it meant. Presumably two arrows, with or without a single line between them, are meant to suggest moving doors. But if I want the doors to open or close, I'm not really interested in them in motion - I'm thinking more about the end state; the doors open or closed. And those two arrows pointing inwards (especially with no line between) look more "open" than the outwards ones. In other words, there is visibly more of a gap in the middle.

So I suggest making the arrows smaller, and putting two vertical lines at the outside (with arrows pushing them) and a wide gap in the middle, or two lines close together in the middle with little arrows pushing them shut. @i'm not sure if that conveys "doorness", but I think it has more "shutness" or "openness".


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 16, 2017, 18:24:30
I think that's a pretty good consideration of what it is that makes the door open/close signs unintuitive.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 16, 2017, 18:47:43
But you don't need two buttons!

If the door is open, then the only valid operation is to close them. If they are closed, the only valid operation is to open them. It they are opening or closing, then hitting the button again must mean you want them to stop opening or closing. Controls Logic 101.

So one button, with a pictogram of a door. Ajar, if you like.



Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 16, 2017, 18:54:03
But you don't need two buttons!

If the door is open, then the only valid operation is to close them. If they are closed, the only valid operation is to open them. It they are opening or closing, then hitting the button again must mean you want them to stop opening or closing. Controls Logic 101.

So one button, with a pictogram of a door. Ajar, if you like.

I was thinking more about lifts, and commonality (though it's open to question whether lift door buttons really do anything at all).

But, apart from marginal cases where the door thinks it's doing something different from what you see, you would need to test that to see if a single button is intuitive. Is "move the door to wherever it isn't" easy eough to understand, compared to "... to open" or "... to closed"? Maybe, maybe not; good design depends on finding that out first.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: JayMac on August 16, 2017, 19:09:15
Maybe it's just what people expect. And therefore that is what is designed in. A button to open and a button to close. A single button may confuse. Does it open the door or close it? I imagine many people won't even consider that a single button can do both.

Manufacturers would certainly fit a single button on cost grounds if there weren't some other reason.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 16, 2017, 19:23:33
You could say that carriage external doors don't need a close button at all, since they all nowadays close automatically. So the only function of the button could be to open the door. Many internal doors are also self-closing. You'd still need some sort of lock button (or physical mechanism?) on toilet doors.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: JayMac on August 16, 2017, 19:24:15

I'm sure I read about some trains having their door control buttons changed to the "standard" layout during a makeover, but I can't remember what class nor find the item again.

Class 150s had their original small square buttons replaced with larger round, more tactile buttons, including braille, to comply with RVAR.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 16, 2017, 19:28:11
Well... there's a button on the door of my car. As long as the key's in my pocket, pushing the button either locks it or unlocks it dependent on it's current state. Then I get in and - lo! - there's a button on the dash which closes the power relays if the car is switched off, or opens them if it's switched on. I think this sort of logic is common to most modern cars, but I will admit that I am only assuming that somewhere in a multi-billion pound development project they found a budget to check that people found that sort of logic intuitive.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: stuving on August 16, 2017, 19:38:27

I'm sure I read about some trains having their door control buttons changed to the "standard" layout during a makeover, but I can't remember what class nor find the item again.

Class 150s had their original small square buttons replaced with larger round, more tactile buttons, including braille, to comply with RVAR.

I was thinking of something quite recent, such as the 458s - but no, though they too had the buttons made bigger to meet RVAR when new. But I can't find anything about button diameter in RVAR 2000 itself. Maybe it arose by reference to another standard, or it was really the requirements for embossed symbols and operation by the palm that meant change was needed.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on August 16, 2017, 21:27:20
For a while, Central Trains' 170s had a sticker applied to the 'close' button to say "For staff use only". This was not at all to do with concerns about passengers closing doors, but rather because the button was sited a few mm too high to be accessible according to regulations...


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: chrisr_75 on August 17, 2017, 09:30:37
Well... there's a button on the door of my car. As long as the key's in my pocket, pushing the button either locks it or unlocks it dependent on it's current state. Then I get in and - lo! - there's a button on the dash which closes the power relays if the car is switched off, or opens them if it's switched on. I think this sort of logic is common to most modern cars, but I will admit that I am only assuming that somewhere in a multi-billion pound development project they found a budget to check that people found that sort of logic intuitive.

Every single car key fob I've seen in recent years (at least those offering remote central locking) has both a lock and unlock button and frequently another button to release the boot lid or perform some other function. Internally usually a rocker switch in my experience - one way to lock, t'other to unlock. I've yet to spot any braille on a car door controls...

I do agree that train doors only really need an 'open' button - it is what London Underground supply, even though many people still haven't realised they are rarely, if ever, in use.

On the subject of door buttons, I do find the inter carriage door open buttons in the new 387's very odd - they appear to be in a different position and of a different size in each coach...  ???


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 17, 2017, 10:28:28

Every single car key fob I've seen in recent years (at least those offering remote central locking) has both a lock and unlock button and frequently another button to release the boot lid or perform some other function. Internally usually a rocker switch in my experience - one way to lock, t'other to unlock. I've yet to spot any braille on a car door controls...


Interestingly, my fob has the buttons you describe - is that because from a few metres away it is less clear whether the door is locked or unlocked?

In some US states, drive-thru ATMs have braille keypads...


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: JayMac on August 17, 2017, 11:50:59
In some US states, drive-thru ATMs have braille keypads...

Sight impaired passenger sat behind the driver.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: chrisr_75 on August 17, 2017, 12:04:00
In some US states, drive-thru ATMs have braille keypads...

Sight impaired passenger sat behind the driver.

More likely just a standard design of ATM keypad...one size fits all?


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: JayMac on August 17, 2017, 12:17:59
The American Bankers Association opposed the need to install Braille keypads in drive-thru ATMs, saying a blind passenger could just ask the driver to use the ATM. It was rightly pointed out to them that this would disadvantage the sight impaired, compromising their personal details.

Therefore Federal disability legislation applies to drive-thru ATMs.

https://www.livescience.com/33171-why-is-there-braille-on-drive-thru-atm-machines-.html


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Red Squirrel on August 17, 2017, 13:00:31
The American Bankers Association opposed the need to install Braille keypads in drive-thru ATMs, saying a blind passenger could just ask the driver to use the ATM. It was rightly pointed out to them that this would disadvantage the sight impaired, compromising their personal details.

Therefore Federal disability legislation applies to drive-thru ATMs.

https://www.livescience.com/33171-why-is-there-braille-on-drive-thru-atm-machines-.html

Good point, well made. I had assumed that it was just a standard ADA-compliant keyboard, but of course it makes sense not to disadvantage a vision-impaired rear-seat passenger.

As far as I can tell, these ATMs all rely on the customer being on the driver's side of the car though - you can't choose sides as you might with a fossil fuel pump.


Title: Re: Making new signage visible
Post by: Bmblbzzz on August 18, 2017, 11:30:04
Getting back to the new typeface for a minute – it's being used in all the most important places!

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4360/35811586674_68589d02e8_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WyxK4y)



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net