Icons vs. Words

[algorerhythms]

Here's an article written from the perspective of a British driver driving in the United States on the topic of whether it is better for road signs to show pictures describing the particular danger ahead, or words describing the same dangers. He prefers words rather than pictures. What do you think?

[mapman]

I definitely see the writer's point that, in some cases, words can better convey the immediacy of the issue (e.g. the "Wrong Way Go Back" sign cited in the article).  For some picture signs, it is not always obvious what is trying to be conveyed, at least not without a separate explanation of the meaning behind the picture.

For me, the best signs are ones that most clearly and quickly convey the issue, regardless of format.  In some cases, they may be word signs.  In others, they may be picture signs. 

[iwishiwascanadian]

I agree, but I think that in some cases, icons should overtake words, for things such as size issues, wordiness and airports (considering that amount of visitors who might not have English as a first language.)

[Scott5114]

It really depends on the context. Common situations should be easily representable by a standard symbol. If you have to make up a new symbol for it, chances are the situation is unique enough that it would be better to explain it in words (rather than puzzle everyone with a symbol they are unfamiliar with).

[roadfro]

Scott is right on in regards to standard symbols for common symbols.

The 2009 MUTCD update introduced many new symbols (the most new symbols ever, if I'm not mistaken) for common situations. Even with all the new symbols introduced, there were a couple proposed symbols that were not adopted due to the symbols not being as easily understood as the word messages ("do not pass" was one such sign).

[Bickendan]

Here's an article written from the perspective of a British driver driving in the United States on the topic of whether it is better for road signs to show pictures describing the particular danger ahead, or words describing the same dangers. He prefers words rather than pictures. What do you think?

I think he was being rather cheeky myself.

[Tom]

I'm for using words, too, partially because I remember a time when that's the way it was.  I can see using different shaped arrows to warn of types of curves (BTW, there were signs that had arrows and the word "CURVE" on the signs in the 1930's to the 1960's), and I've noticed in a few places where signs on biking/walking trails are using words instead of icons.

[Duke87]

It makes sense for Europe to tend more toward symbols, because there you have several different languages to worry about within a fairly small area. For instance, within one day you could easily drive from France to Germany to the Netherlands. How many people from any one of those countries speak all three of those languages? Not too many, I'd imagine.

Meanwhile, in North America, we don't really have this problem. Spanish in Mexico, English in the US and most of Canada, French in Quebec... and that's it. There are far fewer drivers on the roads here that don't speak the language, so we aren't so concerned with them. There is also something to be said for the fact that English is currently the lingua franca of the world, and so plenty of people who are from countries where it isn't spoken nonetheless have some degree of familiarity with it.

And, as has been pointed, some messages are conveyed far more clearly with words than with symbols. In such cases, symbol+English text is a nice way to have the best of both worlds, though this can become cumbersome for road signs.

[english si]

I think he was being rather cheeky myself.

Being someone who gets humour (with a 'u') - much of this was tongue in cheek, while conveying some though-out points hidden in there. Typical Top Gear presenter!

It really depends on the context. Common situations should be easily representable by a standard symbol. If you have to make up a new symbol for it, chances are the situation is unique enough that it would be better to explain it in words (rather than puzzle everyone with a symbol they are unfamiliar with).

Yes, though there's a few common ones where the European symbol isn't intuitive - no parking and no stopping aren't inherently obvious, and need to be learnt. Ireland does no parking well a big P with a line through it - also used in Indonesia (along with a S with a line through it for no stopping, despite the words not, IIRC, beginning with those letters).

The only problem I have with European symbol signage is the lack of red lines through most prohibitions - a red circle isn't enough, even if the red line is behind the symbol. Of course implementing this now will bring confusion "Is this sign a prohibition or a mandatory thing? There's no red line through it, but the sign isn't white on blue..."

Of course, Symbols are not good if you don't obey the colour procedures and you have a lot of pedantic roadgeeks.

WRT the article, we have a symbol warning about possible ice - it's a snowflake in a warning triangle, normally with a plate underneath saying Ice.

In Europe the problem is often more the place names (given that place names are the preferred way of navigating) might be different in different language areas (thinking Belgium mostly) - Anvers (French) for Antwerpen (in Flanders), Aix le Chappelle (French) for Aachen (in Germany), Rijsel (Dutch/Flemish) for Lille (in France). In Flanders, the places are signed in Flemish (which is basically Dutch), in Wallonia, they are signed in French. Brussels (or Bruxelles, or Brussel) is bilingual. There's not a huge amount of bilingually signed areas in Western Europe, IIRC, and most of them are fairly useless as everyone speak one language, and the other is just political - Wales and Ireland being the main two, though Scotland has patches. Some areas are Welsh/Gaelic dominant, and others are English dominant, but signs have both on them. The one word in Welsh that most English people know is "Araf", which means slow.

[golden eagle]

That just got me to thinking if the letter H for hospital should be replaced with another symbol.

[Duke87]

There's always the red plus sign.

[WillWeaverRVA]

There's always the red plus sign.

Problem is, inexperienced drivers may take that to mean there is an intersection ahead (as the warning sign for a 4-way intersection is a black cross on the standard warning diamond). Drivers can be and are really, really stupid sometimes.

[Bickendan]

You have to be really, really dense to confuse the Red Cross for an intersection. I mean, come on.

[Zmapper]

Excuse me if I am wrong, but isn't the red cross copyrighted by the aptly named Red Cross?

[Scott5114]

Simple geometric shapes are uncopyrightable because they lack the originality needed for a copyright to be held.

[Zmapper]

Then what about Target's logo? It is just two concentric red circles; not that original. But Target still has a copyright on that symbol.

[Scott5114]

No, they don't. They have a trademark on it.

[Michael in Philly]

That's not just a random columnist; that's James May of Top Gear.

[english si]

H makes more sense in the UK - in Scotland, Wales and NI it would get defaced (with a red hand in Unionist areas of NI, scribbled out everywhere else). This is due to it being the cross of St George, the flag of England.

The Red Cross are humanitarian aid, not just healthcare (though that's a big part), anyway, so isn't really "hospitals". I definitely don't jump to hospitals.

Also, red isn't a good colour if there's a similar symbol in black - colour blind people wouldn't find it easy to tell the difference, especially at night.

Isn't the (sort of) universal symbol for heathcare the snake on a pole anyway? WHO use it on top of a UN flag. Then again, you'd probably have some problems (likewise with a red cross, given it has to be red crescent in Muslim countries) with the first amendment from the sue-happy section of the non-religious. Ten commandments outside courts - no. A biblical story from the book of Numbers giving the symbol on road signs for hospitals, we can't have that either!

[Brandon]

H makes more sense in the UK - in Scotland, Wales and NI it would get defaced (with a red hand in Unionist areas of NI, scribbled out everywhere else). This is due to it being the cross of St George, the flag of England.

The Red Cross are humanitarian aid, not just healthcare (though that's a big part), anyway, so isn't really "hospitals". I definitely don't jump to hospitals.

Also, red isn't a good colour if there's a similar symbol in black - colour blind people wouldn't find it easy to tell the difference, especially at night.

Isn't the (sort of) universal symbol for heathcare the snake on a pole anyway? WHO use it on top of a UN flag. Then again, you'd probably have some problems (likewise with a red cross, given it has to be red crescent in Muslim countries) with the first amendment from the sue-happy section of the non-religious. Ten commandments outside courts - no. A biblical story from the book of Numbers giving the symbol on road signs for hospitals, we can't have that either!

I agree.  "H" works just fine in English speaking countries as well as a fair number of others (hospital tends to be in many European languages in only a few forms).  "P" for parking is more of an issue than "H" for hospital.  In English, "P" is fine, but in Spanish, it's "E" for estacionar.

[jjakucyk]

The Red Cross is very nasty about the protection of their trademark on the symbol.  It's been a problem for some other organizations, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they had a fit over a standardized road sign using the red cross to indicate something else.

My personal opinion is that in the US we could do better symbols.  Parking signs are particularly bad, as are most of the weather-related and construction signs.  Still, it seems like a lot of the low-hanging fruit has been picked as far as what can be easily converted to symbols, but that doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing further.  I tend to think that an easily recognized symbol with text is the best solution.  You only need to read the sign once, so the text doesn't have to be as big as it might otherwise be, and the symbol carries the message from then on.  Text signs always have to be read to know what they're about, and an ambiguous symbol with no text can take longer to interpret than it would take to read a little extra text within or underneath it.  Of course, big text with a good symbol is ideal.  I think "Do Not Enter" is perfect.  It uses an internationally recognized symbol but includes fairly large text that's integrated within it. 

[J N Winkler]

The Spanish approach is to use a hospital icon which consists of the red cross floating above a stylized graphic of a hospital bed.  This gets the message across without "H" or objectionable appropriation of the Red Cross symbol.

[Scott5114]

Isn't the (sort of) universal symbol for heathcare the snake on a pole anyway? WHO use it on top of a UN flag. Then again, you'd probably have some problems (likewise with a red cross, given it has to be red crescent in Muslim countries) with the first amendment from the sue-happy section of the non-religious. Ten commandments outside courts - no. A biblical story from the book of Numbers giving the symbol on road signs for hospitals, we can't have that either!

The caduceus is already present on a standard MUTCD sign, D9-13, for Emergency Medical Services. I doubt it would seriously be a problem; most people don't link it to religion in any way, even if that is where the symbolism was sourced from.

[agentsteel53]

a lot of well-known symbols can be linked to religion.  The common sign for a museum is a Parthenon-like Greek building with columns: namely a Greek temple.  And we all know the telephone icon is a manifestation of Vishnu.