Main Menu
 |
 |
|
Description Architectural wayfinding design addresses the built components of wayfinding design, including space planning, articulation of form-giving features and building identity, circulation systems, and environmental communication. Importance Architectural wayfinding design is important to inclusive design because it facilitates user access, increases satisfaction, and reduces stigma and isolation of users with disabilities. It reduces the confusion of visitors and mistakes by employees, saving time and money and preventing accidents. It also reduces stress, boosting health and productivity (Evans and McCoy, 1998). “The ability to find one’s way into, through, and out of a building is clearly a prerequisite for the satisfaction of higher goals,” observed Jerry Weisman in 1981. Most designers believe that wayfinding is not a high priority issue relative to other design concerns, or view it as a problem that will interfere with good design. It is often considered simply a signage issue (Carpman and Grant, 2002: 434). Given the impact of wayfinding and other inclusive design areas on human psychology and behavior and occupant satisfaction, health, and long-term performance, inattention to wayfinding reduces the inclusiveness of buildings for everyone. Weisman argues that “’legibility’ of an environment – the extent to which it facilitates the process of way-finding” has significant behavioral consequences, citing its effects on the adaptation of elderly residents to group housing as an example (Weisman: 189, 204). As Evans and McCoy argue, “purposive actions require legible interiors. Coherence enables users to make reasonable deductions about the identity, meaning and location of objects and spaces inside of buildings” (1998: 87; for other significant behavioral consequences see Wayfinding Design Process, and Building Form and Architectural Features?). Kevin Lynch first discussed the impact of “the apparent clarity or ‘legibility’ of the cityscape” on urban quality of life in The Image of the City in 1960, and similar effects have been documented for interior spaces (Evans and McCoy, 1998). Lynch defined legibility as “the ease with which [the] parts can be recognized and . . . organized into a coherent pattern.” Because legibility and clarity facilitate movement within the built environment, Lynch claims they are integral to personal growth and “furnish the raw material for the symbols and collective memories of group communication.” Legible surroundings promote “emotional satisfaction, the framework for communication and conceptual organization, [and bring] new depths to everyday experience (Lynch: 2-4). Components Legibility of the built environment is served by clear articulation and coherent grouping of interior and exterior spaces, legible circulation systems design, and integrating communication systems (Arthur and Passini, 1992). These tthree objectives can be divided into the following components: Architectural Wayfinding Components
Evidence Architectural wayfinding focusses on wayfinding in built forms and urban settings, because outdoor wayfinding strategies in natural settings are different (Golledge, 1999). In outdoor built environments, properties of spatial layout are more important than program in determining patterns of movement, while inside buildings, movement “can be understood primarily in terms of specific purposefulness rather than spatial regularity” (Peponis and Wineman, 2002: 280). “One of the most common assumptions about space,” say Hillier and Hanson, “is that human spatial organization is the working out of common behavioral principles through a hierarchy of different levels,” that “similar social or psychological forces shape space, differing only in involving larger numbers of people and larger physical aggregates” (1988: 143-144). When an individual walks into a building, they argue, s/he crosses something with a profound consequence for analysis and understanding of space: the boundary. Outside spaces are experienced as a continuous field, while interiors are “a series of discrete events, expressly and explicitly disconnected” from the greater world outside (Hillier and Hanson, 1988: 144). Public spaces are shared, while private spaces entail a continuous narrowing of reference group from many, to few, to the individual. While some state that wayfinding on exteriors and interiors is comparable (see, for example, Arthur and Passini), Hillier and Hanson believe “there is no homogeneous continuum of spatial principles from the very large to the very small” (1988: 144). “By virtue of this fact of disconnection, the set of spaces interior to boundaries creates a different kind of system,” related not by spatial continuity but by programmatic or structural similarities. Users experience “interiors . . . as conceptual rather than as spatial entities,” and so their cultural and idiosyncratic expectations are engaged (Hillier and Hanson, 1988: 144). User experience is controlled by two main types of interior layouts, which Peponis and Wineman (2002) associate with “strong program” and “weak program” buildings (Building Form and Architectural Features?). Hillier and Hanson distinguish these types by the level of social solidarity of the organization occupying the building and its relationship with outside social space. The organization of spaces affects the cohesiveness of the occupants, and “the stronger and more complex the structure, and the more exactly it is adhered to, the stronger will be the solidarity” (1988: 145; see also Space Syntax). Different types of buildings will have specific way finding issues. Special design challenges are confronted in transportation terminals, hospitals and medical facilities, museums and other cultural facilities, and recreational parks (see wayfinding articles on various building types). Spatial planning, and articulation of built elements with and circulation systems design are commonly the responsibility of architects, site designers, their engineering team members, interior designers, and building owners and administrators, but the design team should always include designers of environmental information systems and, especially in more complex settings, wayfinding design experts. Most architects and designers do not receive in-depth training on wayfinding and it is not often considered for comment or award in design publications. Design teams are often not property informed of government codes and sign-related regulations and requirements, don’t understand how wayfinding ease can promote facility use and customer satisfaction, underestimate the need for wayfinding expertise and internal wayfinding leadership, and overlook the detailed, long-term vision that wayfinding requires (Carpman and Grant, 2002: 435-6). Examples of common wayfinding obstacles created by poor design of exterior spaces include major buildings or building entrances not clearly identified, and lack of clear access from parking facilities or mass transportation. Common interior wayfinding obstacles include the failure to make spaces within a facility look unique, connecting corridors at acute or obtuse angles, and failure to provide sufficient lighting at intersections, entrances to major destinations, and landmarks (Carpman and Grant, 2002: 434). There are many other features that lead to poor wayfinding performance, including ambiguous circulation patterns, repetitive architectural features, contradictory articulation of interior and exterior spaces, numerous entrances undistinguished from one another (Arthur and Passini, 1992: p. 17). Informed spatial planning defines buildings that work and the success or failure of future building users (Evans and McCoy). Fortunately, environments that support successful wayfinding behavior can also be spatially interesting, sophisticated, and complex. In fact, “the challenge of wayfinding design is to create interesting settings that allow for gratifying spatial experiences and that are safe, accessible, and wayfinding-efficient, despite any complexity they may have,” (Arthur and Passini, 1992: 37, 43). With interest in evidence-based design growing across the building professions, more designers may accept this challenge. Related Guidelines Despite its demonstrated importance to building use and operational efficiency, there are no standards on wayfinding and wayfinding design as such. However, U.S. Life Safety Codes and accessibility standards affect the design of wayfinding elements specified in the table above. Standards related to information wayfinding? can also be found in those sources. Local building codes and zoning ordinances may include additional standards for such elements as pathways, circulation systems, exits and entrances not covered in national standard books. Some general guidelines include the following: 1. Wayfinding is as much an architectural issue as a graphic issue. Architects and designers need to take responsibility for inclusive approaches to wayfinding and remain apprised of psychological and health-related impacts of building design. If they are not ready to do that, a wayfinding expert should be engaged at early stages of the design. 2. Whether addressed through architecture or information, the design of wayfinding systems should include: (1) identifying and marking spaces; (2) grouping spaces; (3) linking and organizing spaces; and (4) communicating this information to the user. 3. Wayfinding design guidelines and best practices vary by building type, size, and layout; urban, suburban or rural location; frequency of use; and user requirements, preferences, and characteristics. 4. Every building that has undergone substantial functional revisions or additions should have a user audit / post occupancy evaluation. Post occupancy evaluation should be conducted in every building at least once every five years. 5. Provide as many wayfinding cues in the environment or the architecture as possible, rather than through signage. Landmarks that help visitor orientation and direction-giving can be fundamental for this purpose (VanderKlipp, 2006). 6. Designers must remember that spatial learning and thinking are not the same as visual learning and thinking. In addition to spatial perception, cognitive mapping involves use of other sensory inputs, integration of inputs over time, movement, input from other knowledge and value systems, and frameworks for spatial learning gained early in life (Downs and Stea, 1973: 61). 7. Designers should also remember that small models of designed environments may produce unanticipated perceptual effects when built at full scale due to factors in the environment such as smog that are not represnted, and non-visual effects of the full-scale building. Wayfinding elements may be too small or considered insignificant in scale models. In context, at full scale, they may create unintended effects (Downs and Stea, 1973: 61). Research Needs Extensive innovations in architectural wayfinding design and the results of scientific research by architectural and behavioral experts over the past 20 years have not been aggregated in a single, up-to-date publication. Such a publication could not only educate designers, but elevate the status of wayfinding and other aspects of behavioral impact of the built environment as a design topic. References Arthur, Paul and Romedi Passini, 1992, Wayfinding: People, Signs, and Architecture, Ontario: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. Reissued as a collector’s edition in 2002 by Focus Strategic Communications, Inc. Downs, Roger and David Stea, eds., 1977, Maps in Minds, New York: Harper and Row. Evans, G. and M. McCoy, 1998, “When Buildings Don’t Work: The Role of Architecture in Human Health,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, v. 18: 85-94. Golledge, R.G., ed., 1999, Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes, Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Univerity Press. Hillier, B. and J. Hanson, 1988, The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, Kevin, 1960, The Image of the City, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Peponis, J., and J. Wineman, 2002, “Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior,” pp. 271-291 in Bechtel, R. and A. Churchman, eds., 2002, Handbook of Environmental Psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Weisman, J., 1981, “Evaluating Architectural Legibility: Way-finding and the Built Environment,” Environment and Behavior, v. 13(2): 189-204 Links See table above for links to specific aspects of architectural wayfinding design. See also: Information Wayfinding Design? Authors Susan S. Hunter, Ph.D. Editorial Board Review Status
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.25
3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved." |