3 ms·

I feel like that warning symbol isn't great. When you first look at it, you try to draw meaningful connections between the three items: radiation<->skull, skull

by jml7c5 6y ago

I feel like that warning symbol isn't great. When you first look at it, you try to draw meaningful connections between the three items: radiation<->skull, skull<->person-running, radiation<->person-running, but what was intended was (radiation->skull)->leave immediately. A sign split in two, with (radiation->skull) on one half and a person running on the other might be clearer. If anyone is wondering, I prefer blue paint on bike sheds.

duskwuff 6y ago
Perfect clarity is difficult, but the IAEA (which designed that graphic) did their homework. The symbol was tested with 1,650 people from a wide variety of countries. I haven't been able to find details on their results, but I can't imagine they would have settled on this design if there were straightforward improvements to be made. (With regard to your particular ideas, any graphical division between sections in the graphic could be misunderstood as a protective barrier against the danger represented by the skull. Wrong message entirely!) And it's certain to be an improvement on the standard radioactivity symbol. In a global context, recognition of that symbol is poor -- it's frequently understood as a propeller or a flower.
weareallcowards 6y ago
This is a difficult problem. The US department of energy did a study on it awhile ago, but sadly the page was scrubbed a few years ago. Fortunately, it was archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20170910060455/http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%20message%20to%2012,000%20a_d.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20170910060455/http://www.wipp.e... Some interesting excerpts: >We decided against simple "Keep Out" messages with scary faces. Museums and private collections abound with such guardian figures removed from burial sites. These earlier warning messages did not work because the intruder knew that the burial goods were valuable. >Note our use of irregular geometries and denial of craftsmanship. None of our designs uses any of the regular or "ideal" geometric forms, and only crude craftsmanship is sought, except for the precision of engraved messages. Why? the geometry of ideal forms, like squares and cubes, circles and spheres, triangles and pyramids is a fundamental human invention, a seeking of perfection in an imperfect world. Historically, people have used these ideal forms in places that embody their aspirations and ideals. In our designs, there is much irregularity both of forms and in their locations and directions, yet done by people with obvious knowledge of pure geometry. This shows as understanding of the ideal, but at the same time a deliberate shunning of it...suggesting we do not value this place, that it is not one that embodies our ideals. >In short, to ensure the probability of success, the WIPP marker undertaking will have to be one of the greatest public works ventures in history. >...it is largely a self-correcting process if anyone intrudes without appropriate precautions, and it seems unlikely that intrusion on such buried waste would lead to large-scale disasters. An analysis of the likely number of deaths over 10,000 years due to inadvertent intrusion should be conducted. This cost should be weighted against that of the marker system.
- sneak 6y ago
  That study was for signage and messaging that could last for ten thousand years and work across cultures, i.e. a drastically different problem. This thread is about industrial safety signage set in, and for, our current time and culture. DROP AND RUN works, to some extent.

by jml7c5 6y ago

duskwuff 6y ago

Perfect clarity is difficult, but the IAEA (which designed that graphic) did their homework. The symbol was tested with 1,650 people from a wide variety of countries. I haven't been able to find details on their results, but I can't imagine they would have settled on this design if there were straightforward improvements to be made. (With regard to your particular ideas, any graphical division between sections in the graphic could be misunderstood as a protective barrier against the danger represented by the skull. Wrong message entirely!) And it's certain to be an improvement on the standard radioactivity symbol. In a global context, recognition of that symbol is poor -- it's frequently understood as a propeller or a flower.

weareallcowards 6y ago

This is a difficult problem. The US department of energy did a study on it awhile ago, but sadly the page was scrubbed a few years ago. Fortunately, it was archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20170910060455/http://www.wipp.energy.gov/picsprog/articles/wipp%20exhibit%20message%20to%2012,000%20a_d.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20170910060455/http://www.wipp.e... Some interesting excerpts: >We decided against simple "Keep Out" messages with scary faces. Museums and private collections abound with such guardian figures removed from burial sites. These earlier warning messages did not work because the intruder knew that the burial goods were valuable. >Note our use of irregular geometries and denial of craftsmanship. None of our designs uses any of the regular or "ideal" geometric forms, and only crude craftsmanship is sought, except for the precision of engraved messages. Why? the geometry of ideal forms, like squares and cubes, circles and spheres, triangles and pyramids is a fundamental human invention, a seeking of perfection in an imperfect world. Historically, people have used these ideal forms in places that embody their aspirations and ideals. In our designs, there is much irregularity both of forms and in their locations and directions, yet done by people with obvious knowledge of pure geometry. This shows as understanding of the ideal, but at the same time a deliberate shunning of it...suggesting we do not value this place, that it is not one that embodies our ideals. >In short, to ensure the probability of success, the WIPP marker undertaking will have to be one of the greatest public works ventures in history. >...it is largely a self-correcting process if anyone intrudes without appropriate precautions, and it seems unlikely that intrusion on such buried waste would lead to large-scale disasters. An analysis of the likely number of deaths over 10,000 years due to inadvertent intrusion should be conducted. This cost should be weighted against that of the marker system.

sneak 6y ago
That study was for signage and messaging that could last for ten thousand years and work across cultures, i.e. a drastically different problem. This thread is about industrial safety signage set in, and for, our current time and culture. DROP AND RUN works, to some extent.