Run from this Symbol…RUN!
by Andrew Crow
The International Atomic Energy Agency released a new warning symbol that is meant to supplement the existing trefoil radiation logo.
The reason behind the IAEA’s decision to develop a new logo is based on an identified need for informing people who are dangerously close to a radiation source. This could be people who are working on machines that have radioactive material within, or people who stumble upon a container of a potential lethal does of radiation.
I’ll admit I was skeptical about the need for an additional emblem. Who doesn’t know the trefoil design and become afraid of the potential of a dangerous situation? However, according to Carolyn MacKenzie of the IAEA, there is a difference between getting close to radiation and that of becoming exposed to a source that will kill you.
So, reasons for it’s justification aside, let’s get to the real issue of the symbol….the design sucks.
First, let’s hear about the research they did regarding the design:
The new symbol is aimed at alerting anyone, anywhere to the potential dangers of being close to a large source of ionizing radiation, the result of a five-year project conducted in 11 countries around the world. The symbol was tested with different population groups — mixed ages, varying educational backgrounds, male and female — to ensure that its message of “danger — stay away” was crystal clear and understood by all.
Carolyn states that the color red was identified as a “danger” color, much more formidable than the yellow trefoil palette. Okay, I’ll give her that. She then goes on to say that the trefoil reminded the test group of a propeller and that might not convey the correct message.
So why, then, use that same propeller in the new symbol?
What they are trying to do is indicate that something (radiation) is coming at you that can cause death and therefore you should run away. No doubt this is an important and difficult message to convey.
The people who developed the new symbol are described as “human factor experts, graphic artists, and radiation protection experts.” It was tested by “the Gallup Institute on a total of 1,650 individuals.”
I think they got exactly what they tried to get — a symbol that was designed by committee.
This has got to be one of the worst attempts at symbolic design ever. There are literally five things conveyed in this symbol — a radioactive source, radiation, death, a person, and movement. So many points to communicate in what is obviously a very critical amount of time. It’s simply overdesigned and trying to do too much in the small space available.
Imagine if the AIGA redesigned it’s basic logo for taxi. Instead of a silhouette of a cab, we’d have a running pictogram of a person getting into the cab, driving to it’s destination and then paying for the services. Or, if the Stop sign now included a picture of a car in motion, a car breaking and stopping and then a potential car crash if the driver does not head the warning.
There is elegance in simplicity. There is svelteness in the obvious. In trying to be a safety symbol that conveys everything to everyone, they’ve created a symbol of confusion, over-thought and complexity.
Sources:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/radiationsymbol.html
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Multimedia/Videos/NewRadiationSymbol/index.html
http://www.orau.org/ptp/articlesstories/radwarnsymbstory.htm
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 19th, 2007 at 2:55 am and is filed under graphic design.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This post is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I was going to comment on this symbol as well, but gave up on the idea. However, it shocks me how this symbol is supposed to convey “danger - stay away”. To me, it reads “if you’re working on an excavation site and happen to find a skull illuminated by what seems to be a trefoil-shaped lamp, leave the room”. I did a symbol of my own to try and solve this problem:
Proposed symbol for english-speaking countries.
Now, all kidding aside, the complexity of this new symbol won’t really help whoever encounters it. I mean, it’s red, it shows the typical exit marks and the trefoil - I’ll only be dumb if I stay around. But I think I’d run quicker because of the bad design rather than the possible radiation danger.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:24 am
So, are you saying this new sign doesn’t accomplish it’s goal of universally informing people of potential dangers - or that the design just sucks?
One is relative, one, not so much.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Insightful post… your taxi example hit the nail on the head.
The first thing your post made me think of was “If you set yourself on fire, please don’t run…” - http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/funnies.html (original thread is down now… sad: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46223)
February 19th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I don’t want to tell you how to run your blog, but I’d prefer that AP’s writers didn’t stoop to the “it sucks/it rocks” level of design criticism.
“So, reasons for it’s justification aside, let’s get to the real issue the symbol….the design sucks.”
So you think that your five minutes of consideration is worth more than their five years of work, and testing, and experience in designing these things? It’s great that you can know that without ever even leaving your desk! Why bother actually checking with people to see whether they can understand the sign when you can just genius your way to an answer?
Yes there is “elegance in simplicity.” But not every damn thing has to appeal to a white, male, 30-year old, San Francisco-living designer. Simplicity is not a cross-culturally valued trait. Visual narratives, even ones like this that look clumsy to you, can in fact be useful design approaches.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Wow, that’s a beauty!
I reckon they should have stuck with the trefoil device but just added the words underneath “RUN OR DIE”.
Example of another complicated sign
February 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
NPR ran a fantastic piece a few months ago discussing the design of the warning features at the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage Area. The DOE has a rundown of the final design, including a rendring of scary pointy things to scare away future generations.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Thats a tough one - I agree its a busy symbol, but its challenging to come up with something else. The message has to indicate ‘Leave as quickly as you can’, ‘This is radiation so if you start to feel sick, you may have radiation poisoning, you might want to let your doctors know’. Taxi symbols are easy because they can be seen and are common, but how do you depict abstract and invisible concepts like ‘radiation’ and ‘death’ and ‘act urgently’, all in one image. What would be a better option?
February 19th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I’m honestly not saying I can come up with better (because…then I’d have to try). But my point was that the iconography used is complicated and takes too long to decipher.
According to their study, the test subjects did seem to recognize what it meant. If I saw it, I’d know that I was in danger and had to leave. But, I’d also know that from the accompanying trefoil emblem. So, the design doesn’t fail, per se. But there are plenty of examples in this world where things work despite themselves.
I just think that with 5 years of work done in 11 countries, they could have come up with something more simplistic that conveyed the appropriate amount of danger. Maybe that was the problem. Did they over think the symbol by putting so much time and resources on it? Was this truly a design-by-committee related problem?
So the question is, could they have done a better job? I most certainly think they could have. I’d also go so far as to say they should have. For as Leith was saying, there are easy to recognize symbols (like the taxi) and then there are those that are important enough to keep us from dying,
February 19th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Oops, Bill:
I didn’t see your post as it was stuck waiting for moderation.
The point I think you’re making is that my localized viewpoint may keep me from seeing how other cultures may react to this symbol. And, how I missed that there are other considerations that went into choosing the iconography outside of the pure aesthetics. And, that possibly I did not spend enough time researching the motivations behind the symbol before forming an opinion.
Respectfully, I disagree.
The value of the symbol stands. The importance of researching the social implications of design is unquestionable. Further, I’d never advocate design simply for design sake.
My point was, and still is, that for all their efforts, I believe they could have done better.
Lastly, to your point about saying things “suck” or “rock”. Honestly, you might be right. I think we could all stand to upgrade our vocabulary. Though, culturally, in San Francisco, it’s accepted.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:36 am
The design may have been rubber stamped by a(n) (evil) comittee, but it’s serving a greater need and, more that likely, will help prevent 11 year olds in third world nations from exposure to deadly levels of radiation.
Is would seen, at least from my perspective AP would embrace this new design, because it accomplishes it’s goal, according to the (evil) committee.
While ‘design for designs sake’ may not be in the AP employee handbook, perhaps ‘criticism for criticism’s sake’ is?
February 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Let me preface this comment by saying that I wouldn’t have posted about this new icon and I am not entirely sure I agree with Andy about the suckiness of the symbol. Still, I wouldn’t say that his post is “criticism for criticism’s sake.” Andy is offering something constructive by asking whether the process that led to this design was really the best one or the one that produced the best results. That goes a good step beyond simply saying it rocks or sucks. And criticism of the symbol doesn’t mean criticism of what it may accomplish in terms of saving lives. There are all sorts of organizations that I think accomplish a lot of good but could stand to improve on their approach: the UN, the Red Cross, or even the Catholic Church.
The only way we become better designers is by questioning what we do and how we do it. That includes being open to other people questioning what we do and how we do it. That is in the AP employee handbook, at least implicitly.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
[...] Visto en Adaptive path [...]
February 21st, 2007 at 1:09 am
The multi-icon approach in the new danger sign is strikingly like this indecipherable gem. If you’re not in the Bay Area (earthquake retrofit capital of the world) near an underpass (apparently bridge and underpass are the same thing) you’d have no idea what this means. And the symbol at the bottom…what’s that doing there?
The point is that three concepts are much harder to communicate than one and designing a danger sign that needs to be deciphered to be understood is a huge risk. Does a danger sign need to tell the whole story?
For example, this one and this one pretty much scare the pants off of me. I’d leave, and fast.