Why do you feel so negatively toward this particular one?
Yeah this seems like a big improvement to me, the addition of a feedback form IRL is a nice idea too.
All in all this seems the best example of a thoughtful, civic minded, and considerate approach to an unsolicited redesign. Something that may not have been possible at all if attempted from within a bureaucracy.
I don't know what you mean exactly, I am actually very positive about this attempt and even more positive about the way she presented it in public. Hence calling here the "queen" of uninvited redesigns.
Or .. wasn't this comment directed at me?
I assume the parent comment was suggesting that the title was sarcastic - but I could be wrong!
The way it was written definitely has more of a sarcastic tone to it, I have a hard time reading it in a non-sarcastic way actually heh.
Oh no, there was no sarcasm at all!
English isn't my first language but I assumed uninvited had the same meaning / connotation as unsolicited. Guess I was wrong, so I repeat: no sarcasm intended.
No worries heh. "Queen" often comes with some negative connotations as well when referencing someone that isn't really a queen (drama queen, etc). So "queen of uninvited redesigns" sounded doubly bad haha.
Lol. I could've said "King" but the designer was a woman, so...
"Uninvited" has a negative connotation
As stated above, I probably should have used "unsolicited". No negativity intended :)
Can't stand all this negativity. Takes guts to attempt a redesign and then post it publicly for critique. And the attempt isn't half as bad as people pretend it is.
Seriously, the redesign is actually much clearer. Kudos.
It's a step in the right direction, but it's gonna need a lot more work. It's missing a lot of info that's present on the version it's compared to...
Which hopefully starts a conversation at city hall—why is parking so complicated in these areas?
Check her blog, she has gotten pretty far in terms of refining the original idea.
The best thing is they went after it - read the blog about it: http://toparkornottopark.com/
Why are some people so negative towards others trying to do good and make things better?
Instead why not comment on how it can be improved? How it could work. How the root problem could be addressed.
Designers should be leaders in how things might work, and if we think its solving the wrong problem, should respond with what the right one might be.
I think this is great actually. We have seen some amazing redesigns in the past with a lot of in-depth analysis of the choices. This is an awesome example of taking an everyday problem and trying to fix it while opening up your process.
- Hard to read at night
- Impossible to change without making an entirely new sign
- Making it 2-dimensional makes it easier to read statically, but hard to read when driving and harder to scan from afar. Each sign has it's own style--the MUNI-meter parking sign is more of a guideline than the other, more stern deep red ones.
Overall, I think the human factors and economics of this new sign don't outweigh the potential visual benefits.
Ditto, the people who supported this sign on the comment section the designer added where obviously pedestrians (since I don't think anyone would get out of their cars to read it).
Sure, but that doesn't mean those pedestrians never drive.
Fair point. This design is completely fine for when you're done parking, methinks.
Uh, are you implying once people park they remain in their vehicles forever? Heh.
No, I'm implying that you are in your car when looking for a spot. What happens after you parked is irrelevant until next time you want to park.
Not when it comes to writing on the sign...
Ah I see what you mean now. What I was trying to say is that of course for anyone walking on the street that sign makes sense (because it does), but whether it's a good idea from the distance when you're driving that's still debatable. Not sure if it makes sense.
Got it. Hopefully something they can solve with size though, I mean, the space the four previous signs took up could be taken up just the same by one single large one with the new more readable layout.
How is it hard to read at night?
Modular signage is exactly what leads to the real problem of the original, confusing, sign collage.
I would guess that scanning a predictable bar chart, with high contrast variations in small multiples would be considerably easier to do whilst moving. Much easier than reading three seperate tables with their own combinations of prose, numbers and icons.
- I should clarify, since I was curt before. Any text on the sign needs to be substantially bolder (and reflective) in order to ensure that this can be read when it comes into the view of a headlight at 2AM. As it currently stands, the font weights are very thin for a sign like this. You also have to be able to process the scale for both axes.
- I'd argue the converse, actually. For example, in Chicago we have a particular green sign for pay-to-park zones, while we use red, more assertive signs to advise against parking in permited zones. While the signs are confusing in conjunction with one another, imagine how often they are going to be presented together. From a great distance, I can tell whether a spot is permited or not, and then I can examine the fine print when I get up close. That is the true utility of these signs. Simultaneously, there's an economic factor. Combining them together means that every waypoint on a street needs a uniquely designed/printed sign, and any changes to that area will require an entirely new piece.
- My key argument is scannability. Having the signs atop one another--albeit with alignment disparity between them, allows the driver to follow them in sequence from top to bottom. Does the first one apply? -> Does the second one apply? -> Does the last one apply? -> alright, I can park there. I see your argument towards being able to scan a bar chart, but it also assumes that the passerbys will be adept at positioning their focus at the correct point in the chart--in both dimensions. That requires that the scales on both axes are clear, distinct, and easily scannable, which is a greater challenge than requiring that the passerbys are literate and can go from top to bottom. Having visually disjoint signs that are just successive messages reduces the number of axes by which the viewer has to anchor themselves.
Her improved version of the OP attempt is actually very good: http://toparkornottopark.com
Yeah looks like a lot of the concerns have been addressed
updated one can be found at this page http://toparkornottopark.com/about
My ideal implementation would be to clearly know from inside my car whether I can park right that moment (either with a digital sign that can be easily reprogrammed, lights, etc.)
After that you can post all the schedules and stuff that can be read once I'm out of my vehicle.
The required maintenance and potential for failure of digital signs make them, I inagine, impractical on the scale required.
Who is ever going to pay a ticket if the sign could have been malfunctioning at the time?
I was envisioning a more developed strategy than just relying on those digital signs completely. I would combine what I'm proposing with the schedule linked on this post, for example.
Looks way better. Just not sure why her email is so complicated...
It's probably to do with her trying to filter out replies to do with this design, but not using a different email address. Gmail lets you 'modify' your current Gmail address using plus ("+") signs and any combination of words or numbers after your email address so you can have more control over filters.
See more details here: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/2-hidden-ways-to-get-more-from-your.html
It's not the exact same information. The redesign translates "school days" to M-F, which will be wrong during the summer.
School holidays aren't like that in Australia, they are spread out over the course of the year. (Edit: Huh, I thought this was an Australian project for some reason. I'm obviously mad.)
Also the original sign has no mention of seasonal changes anyway.
I think this is an improvement overall, but maybe more importantly it looks like it's starting a broader conversation.
This might help streamline one aspect of the always byzantine bureaucracy of street signage.
2 comments: - If people are worried about production costs, this kind of thing can easily be printed on hard-wearing non/reflective vinyl and adhered (over and over).
- If the time/numbers on the left were larger or highlighted, seeing this from one's car wouldn't be that big an issue. Is it green? Park.
Exactly. Maybe it will allow lawmakers and city planners to examine why parking is so complicated in some areas...
A red section that says PARK is really ambiguous. Needs to say "NO PARKING"
I believe the arrows on the original signs are meaningful but that info isn't carried over.
WTF is up with the middle sign in the original image?? No parking — OR LITTERING — 8-830 AM? What a cloisterfsck.
lol no standing…
This would be a nightmare to read at night while inside your vehicle.
This sign and all parking signs should just read "NO PARKING ANYTIME" that would solve this design problems and many others in our cities...
I'm not sure if this is a real project or a class project. If it's for school or fun then kudos to the designer.
My feedback: This is a slight improvement but it's missing one critical thing: Where are the parking spots that the hours/days represent? Is it to the left or right of the sign? At least the other signs have arrow indicators. Will there be one of these for every single parking spot? I doubt that expense would go over well.
Are the location of the spots not dictated by what side of the road the signs are on? I can't think of many scenarios where this would not be the case.
No it's not usually the entire side of the road. Generally it's a section.
See in the image where it says "8:30am - 7pm except sunday <--" that is indicating any spaces to the left of that sign are unavailable during the mentioned times.