Our Thinking
Design that connects us
Our ThinkingThe fallacy of “invisible” wayfinding
It is quite common, in certain environments, for us, as wayfinding designers to be asked to deliver “intuitive wayfinding” or for the signage to be “sympathetic to the architecture” or align with the brand guidelines. These are almost always another way of saying we don’t want many signs, and those we do have, we want them to be kind of invisible, so as not to ruin the place.
Now this doesn’t happen very often in functional environments like airports; and perhaps in simpler spaces like offices or hotels, it doesn’t matter so much. But for everything in between, it can be a problem.
This usually comes down to a fundamental misconception of what wayfinding is and its importance to customer experience. Good wayfinding, particularly when applied to signage, should not primarily be focused on graphic design in terms of form; it should start with information or communication design, which is functional. To work, and deliver that great user journey and experience, it has to give the right information, at the right time and in a form that is visible and legible. Less signage rather than more is a good thing to avoid overload, but trying to remove it (and rely on ‘intuitive wayfinding’) or make it invisible will fail.
As we have frequently found when looking at existing wayfinding systems, the “invisible” but perhaps elegant signage almost always results in customers complaining about a lack of signage, a lack of information and getting lost. The signage was often there, but it was never seen.
This is both physiological and behavioural. The physiology relates to the ability of the human eye to distinguish between the typography on the sign and the background. If the type is too small or the contrast is too low, it won’t be seen. This is a really important issue in designing inclusive wayfinding systems. The behavioural is about whether the customer was attentive and tuned in at the moment. If the signage is present in a moment when the visitor is going to be distracted by the stress of a crowd or focused on another decision, then they are unlikely to take in the signage provided.
I’m not advocating for losing the quality of graphic design. We all want beautiful solutions that enhance the environment. But we need more spaces that better strike the balance between elegance and usability.
So, the question is, when this does go wrong, is this the fault of the client for setting a bad brief, or is it the fault of the designer for not challenging the brief and educating the client (or even refusing to do it)?
Written by:
David Watts
Managing Director
David is our Managing Director with over 20 years of practice as a Human Factors and design consultant. He has delivered projects across sectors including rail, O&G, airports, utilities and the emergency services. He has worked with clients such as Network Rail, Siemens, easyJet, WSP, National Express, TfL and HS2.
