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.

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.

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?

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.

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,

I reckon they should have stuck with the trefoil device but just added the words underneath “RUN OR DIE”.

Example of another complicated sign

“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.