News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

slickpete83 said:
hahaha... makes sense ,i dont see any T's at the Go stations
Click to expand...

They're coming, slowly but surely as stations are renovated/wayfinding updated.

1688961672294.png


1688961697287.png


Old Elm GO - https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.9909...pvnJUTLMYokE_i6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
 
max said:
Why it's the T of course, symbol of Fordism! Someone at Metrolinx is a fan of Brave New World.
Click to expand...
a "wayfinding expert" they hired from Vancover told thenm they neded it to "regonlaize" tyansit. I think Metrlinx thinks this is going to be the GTHA's version of the roundel from london is for Trnsportfor London, excert nobaody actulyy knows outside of metrolinx and some random pole on the intternett, the genel public has no clue what it means.
 
asey20 said:
The signs background should be Green for GO. I don't know why they are choosing to live in black and white. It should be the transit agencies primary colour at the very least.
Click to expand...
I actually wouldn't mind it so much if it included each agency's primary colour, e.g. red for TTC, orange for Mississauga
 
I am never going to defend metrolinx's aesthetic choices, but black-and-white is the optimal choice for legibility, it maximizes contrast for legibility at a distance and for the visually impaired. Obviously, more goes into it than that (typeface selection, letter- and line-spacing, size of type) but it's not inherently bad. (Relatedly, relying solely on colour choice to convey information is not ideal, as anyone who is colour-blind will miss those cues. By all means include colour but we should also have text or graphics that also convey the information.)
 
adHominem said:
I am never going to defend metrolinx's aesthetic choices, but black-and-white is the optimal choice for legibility, it maximizes contrast for legibility at a distance and for the visually impaired. Obviously, more goes into it than that (typeface selection, letter- and line-spacing, size of type) but it's not inherently bad. (Relatedly, relying solely on colour choice to convey information is not ideal, as anyone who is colour-blind will miss those cues. By all means include colour but we should also have text or graphics that also convey the information.)
Click to expand...
The question is even if we agree that from a legibility standpoint Metrolinx is making the most optimal choices, how much more optimal is it than the aeshetic choices. This is a point I bring up all the time about Metrolinx' insistence on using Clearview ADA, maybe on a technical level it could be considered more legible than the traditional TTC Font (although I raise serious questions about that claim), but is it significantly more legible, or are we pulling hairstrings over a tiny percentage point?

This is before we get into the discussion on exactly which metrics these fonts or style decisions do they exceed in to count as "optimal choice for legibility". In the case of Clearview ADA, it always felt more to me as it was designed to be optimal for reading text up close, like off a page, not for reading text off a sign a few blocks down the street - however someone branded it as the universal most legible font and now agencies are just playing along.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top