4 ms·
Would've thought it'd be better (and cheaper) to implement this: http://priceonomics.com/a-designers-war-on-misleading-parking-signs/ http://priceonomics.com/a
by barbs 11y ago
Would've thought it'd be better (and cheaper) to implement this:
http://priceonomics.com/a-designers-war-on-misleading-parking-signs/ http://priceonomics.com/a-designers-war-on-misleading-parkin...
- pbreit 11y agoNeither solution seems much better than what we mostly have already.
- jasonlotito 11y agoYeah, in either case, I'm still confused. The e-ink one shows examples that are confusing. The one linked to here in the comments shows a designers attempt at packing all that information in. The reality is, I want to know one thing: How long can I park here. Maybe the length of time is 0 (No parking). You show: No Parking. Maybe it's for the next 4 hours: Parking 4 Hours Remaining. Or maybe you put the time when it ends: Parking until 6 AM. Maybe it's only for people with tag 13-A: Parking 13-A Only. Either you can park someplace, or you can't. You can have the complete rules if people want to plan ahead, but they shouldn't be what people need to read while driving around trying to find a parking spot.
- masklinn 11y agoA variant of that is being trialed in LA: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-confusing-parking-signs-20150403-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-confusing-parkin...