↗ ↗
Albert Nessia Architecture Honors Thesis
↗
Exploring The Invisible Maze A Study of Gleeson Library and Geschke Center’s Wayfinding and Signage
↗
↗
Exploring The Invisible Maze A Study of Gleeson Library and Geschke Center’s Wayfinding and Signage
by: Albert Nessia
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the Honors in Architecture and Community Design in the Department of Art + Architecture in the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of San Francisco Approved by: Professor T.S., Dept. of Art + Architecture (Architecture) and Professor Noopur Agarwal, Dept. of Art + Architecture (Design) May 2020
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION
4
01 Components of the Built Environment
2 3
RESEARCH AND STUDY 35 Research Goals
04 A Hidden Component of Utility
36 Audit Methodology 39 Audit Results & Discussion Consistency
THE WORLD OF WAYFINDING
Sustainability
Placement & Clarity
07 What is Wayfinding
47 Interview Methodology
What Constitutes Wayfinding
49 Interview Results & Discussion
Cognitive Load, Orientation
On Navigating Facilities & Rooms
15 Library Wayfinding
On Navigating Stacks
An Extra Cognitive Baggage
Staff Usage & Knowledge of Jargon
Infrastructure and Organization
Signage Usage & Assessment
Library Anxiety
Preferred Wayfinding Strategies
GLEESON LIBRARY AND GESCHKE CENTER 21 A Historic Overview 25 Gleeson Today and its Implications
Signage Scheme
Renovations Over Time
Conflicting Goals
Digitization
5
59 Limitations
WAYFINDING SUGGESTIONS 62 Summary of Findings 63 Suggestions
Signage Placement
Maps & Placemaking
Information Literacy
75 Reflection
77 Bibliography & List of Figures
ABSTRACT
This thesis views the concept of wayfinding as a hidden
component of utility in multi-function buildings. In studying Gleeson Library and Geschke Center, it was discovered that its wayfinding and signage schemes face issues related to consistency, sustainability, and clarity. These stem from the rapidly-evolving nature of the building brought about by expanding collections, changing demands through digitization, and the process of allocating funds for improvements through micro renovations. An audit and series of interviews both indicate specific problem areas to focus on, which were used to suggest improvements on both a macro and micro scale.
Keywords: Gleeson Library, Libraries, Navigation, Signage, Wayfinding
↗
↗
1.0 A Busy Day at the London Underground.
1
INTRODUCTION
1
Components of the Built Environment
The built environment houses the various pursuits of daily
human life through buildings, public spaces, and the larger urban fabric. Through the immediate and tangible features of these places, the proliferation of thought-provoking dialogue is possible, all of which provide fresh perspectives for doing architecture and urban design. One of the most popular ways architects and adjacent fields have discussed the built environment is through Vitruvius’ three virtues of architecture: utility, firmness, and delight - virtues that have been translated and revived by academics and practicing architects throughout time.
The lines between these three categories become easily blurred
as they begin to inform one another. There are instances when ‘utility’ (or usefulness) is only legitimately achieved when the ‘firmness’ (structural integrity) of a building is first guaranteed. Similarly, there are times when the fulfillment of ‘delight’ requires the provision of ‘utility’ since the notion of delight would stem from the usability of a space. In circumstances like these, the categories become a unified discussion. Nevertheless, these categories of critique still face an imbalance separately, mainly because of how differently prioritized they are from one another. Some theorists such as Geoffrey Scott (1914) even suggest 2
Blurred Lines, or Commensurability?
that the three be separate critiques unless proven to be commensurable (pg. 9). Theories on the built environment’s ‘delight’ (more commonly used to connote ‘beauty’) are more readily found than the other two.
Utility
For one, beauty is immediate - theorists can critique what they first see in the built environment: form, style, and visual appeal. Also, the field Firmness
Delight
has tended to prioritize the discussion of such elements so that they can distinguish themselves from less art-focused contemporaries like
1.1 Vitruvian Principles of Architecture: A triad of categories for consideration.
construction, engineering, or real estate (Ghirardo, 1984, pg. 111).
This hyper fixation on stylistic choices has also led to what feels
like the evasion of “issues of substance” relating to the well-being of users (Ghirardo, 1984, pg.114). As a solution, critics suggest a push towards more dialogue on the ‘utility’ of architecture: who its users are, and whether the field provides for their needs. The scope of dialogue in the ‘utility’ of architecture includes the well-being of certain groups like the homeless, low-income groups, and people with special needs (i.e., accessibility), as well as the specific needs of facilities like healthcare institutions, public infrastructure, and housing. Tackling these utilitarian aspects together with the existing attention given to the physical components of architecture can result in more well-rounded and betterdesigned spaces.
While discussion on ‘utility’ expands, there remain facets
unexplored, forgotten, and even neglected. One such component has to do with the experience of the built environment. Professionals and critics within the field could carefully consider the ‘design’ of space and how useful it can be, but still fail to give enough attention to the experience of that design, even though it may be that the very experience of moving through a building, or the ‘procession’ (Goldberger, 3
2009, pg. 125) accounts just as heavily for the usefulness of space. Ths is perhaps due to the hidden and subconscious nature of the built environment’s experiential component, better known as navigation.
A Hidden Component of ‘Utility’
In designing the built environment, architects and planners might
create diagrams that divide the space into various areas and uses, like one shown in Figure 1.2. These diagrams may consider architectural circulation, where the flow of traffic within these spaces will go. However, further considerations for navigation might get pushed aside once concerns of aesthetics, structure, budget, provision of equipment, and other factors of utility take hold of a project. When compared to these other elements, navigation may seem secondary within the broader scope of the built environment, but its impacts can be best felt in certain circumstances. Places where its effects are palpable include those where people carry out their daily life routines. On a larger scale, this includes city centers, market districts, and business areas. Within indoor spaces, these are multi-function buildings, which include malls, airports, metro stations, universities, and libraries.
1.2 A circulation diagram for the Maxxi Museum of Modern Art in Rome, Italy.
In addition, the value of looking at navigation is evident as soon
as it gets overlooked or ignored entirely. The simple fact that users cannot find their way and reach their destinations is enough to diminish any single commodity a building may aim to provide. A user may plan to use a building, be presented with all its facilities, but ultimately come to use only one or two of these. Despite having only one or two activities in mind, a myriad of information may still bombard the user, causing confusion and a delayed experience. Such overwhelming and 4
inefficient navigation is enough to reduce any usefulness offered by the built environment. It is often the case, too, that visual aids will be used to help simplify and eliminate the existing complexity. Though it is not surprising to find that even these tools can instead add another layer of confusion especially if poorly executed.
Many of the navigational problems mentioned share something
in common: they all occur in places where multiple activities interact with each other existing simultaneously, where the “real fabric of human existence is woven together” (Gibson, 2009, pg. 13). It does, then, seem imperative to make visible such a hidden yet crucial aspect of the environment. Navigation can feel like the experience of being lost in a maze, except the maze is invisible and affects our existence. Thus, if included in the critique of architecture, this invisible maze may instead feel intuitive, eliminating complexities that potentially hinder user experience. This is the very role that the study of wayfinding aims to take.
↗ 1.3 Signs in the Matinkylä metro station in Espoo, Finland.
5
6
↗ ↗
2.0 Changi Airport in Singapore.
7
THE WORLD OF WAYFINDING
2
What is Wayfinding
The experience of navigation, whether good or bad, is associated
with the study of wayfinding. Since the concept itself is not immediately tangible, one can view it as a subconscious, almost second-nature procedure. The act of finding one’s way is not necessarily new to humans, having moved and migrated throughout known history, either positioning ourselves through a “system of coordinates” or simply having a process to reach a destination regardless of knowledge of the environment (Passini, 1980, pg. 18-19). In fact, wayfinding skills for humans develop at an early age, evolving gradually from an egocentric, person-based approach to an allocentric, world-based approach (Harniss et al, 2015, pg. 147).
As a formal term and field of study however, wayfinding is
fairly new. The term first saw its formal usage in the 1960s when urban planner Kevin Lynch used it in his book The Image of the City. Lynch discusses how a complex area can be “organized into a [...] pattern” (Lynch, 1960, pgs. 2-3), and since this pattern is how people will understand their environment, it then determines the legibility of a place. This legibility decides how users’ navigational strategies will 8
unfold as they “form a mental picture of [their] surroundings based on sensation and memory” (Gibson & David, 2009, pg. 14), and for him, it is these very strategies that conceptualize wayfinding.
↗ 2.1 Kevin Lynch’s ‘Pattern’ of Los Angeles from The Image of the City.
As a studied concept, wayfinding is intricate and requires
knowledge in human cognitive abilities, architecture, and visual communication. In fact, “a complete taxonomy of all the [underpinnings] that support successful wayfinding has yet to be developed.” (Harniss et al, 2015 pg. 148). However, existing literature does suggest a similar pattern: how wayfinding is a process that involves some form of methodology or a series of steps to be taken. This is in part due to Romedi Passini, whose writing is often referenced in the subject’s newer literature. Passini takes Lynch’s ideas of users forming an image in their minds to theorize that people employ different processes as they wayfind because the formation of a mental image of a user, which 9
begins at “a point of origin [towards] a destination” (Tatarka et al, 2006) requires “cognitive and decision-making abilities” (as cited in Luo, 2018).
Passini is referenced for the way he divides wayfinding into two
different styles. First, there is a linear approach, where a user finds tools in their environment as they move from one place to another. The search for these tools typically happens in decision points where users are more likely to stop to try and process where to go next. Then there is a spatial approach, which puts emphasis on the overall cognitive understanding of a user which will influence their decisions. (Passini, 1980).
Passini also lists down a framework of five different strategies,
which range from using existing schemata of past navigational experiences to generating solutions on-the-go as problems arise. As illustrated in Figure 2.2, other frameworks which apply to broader processes of information-seeking overlap with Passini’s (e.g., Kuhlthau’s information-seeking strategies) (as cited in Mandel, 2018, pg. 24) and others take Passini’s ideas to propose behavior-related frameworks (e.g., A habitual wayfinding model based on automatic goal-directed behaviors) (Luo, 2018, pg. 286). One framework, in particular, posits three types of wayfinding knowledge, as opposed to strategies: the use of landmarks (which don’t require an overall cognitive mapping of a place), route (which makes use of distance and cardinal directions), and survey (mental mapping) (Siegel and White, 1975).
The vast scope of wayfinding is further demonstrated in
frameworks far removed from Passini’s, like those focusing on predicting wayfinding problems through the environment rather than 10
PASSINI
KUHLTHAU
STRATEGIES
INFO-SEEKING PHASES
1. Break the problem into parts, keeping the larger task in mind
1. Initiation: brainstorming, preparation, relating prior experience
2. Focus on specific subtasks at a time
2. Selection: examining relevant information
3. Adapt to unforeseen problems using the tools around 4. Rely on previous experiences and existing schemata 5. Look around to collect information before starting task
3. Exploration: investiagion with a focus, revision of steps 4. Formulation: extending the focus, formulating a point of view 5. Collection: gathering information
STYLES • Linear: one place to another, signage use
↗
• Spatial: schemata, legibility, mapping
2.2 A chart comparing some of the more prominent frameworks used in wayfinding studies.
the strategies or knowledge people use to navigate themselves. Space Syntax, for example, is a “formal, quantitative characterization of the environment” using its aspects as independent variables when analyzing behavioral patterns (Li and Kippel, 2012, pg. 24). Methods for determining space syntax include “axial maps, visibility graphs analysis, [...] and interconnection density” (Li and Kippel, 2012, pg. 24). This ‘facility-centric’ (Schoonover and Kinsley, 2014, pg. 177) approach, similar to an allocentric one, provides quantifiable data that would complement a qualitative, ego-centric assessment of navigation within the built environment. Limitations of such framework lie in the reliance on two-dimensional spatial understanding. Much like what architecture critic Paul Goldberger says, knowledge of the built environment cannot be objectively attained through floor plans, as this reduces its threedimensional reality (Goldberger, 2009).
11
SIEGEL & WHITE
LI & KIPPEL
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
SPACE SYNTAX Quantifying the environment’s character
• Landmarks: signages, statues, placemaking units, front desks, murals • Route: distance, cardinal directions, steps to take • Survey: spatial mapping, but not necessarily via existing schemata
• Visibility: visual access of signs and features from a distance • Connectivity: piecing together smaller areas into a bigger picture • Layout Complexity: relationship of destinations and routes
What Constitutes Wayfinding
While the process of wayfinding itself can feel invisible, the
tools users interact within their environment are at least tangible. Most people would perhaps initially think of wayfinding to equate the usage of a map and signs, which get ubiquitously installed in multifunction buildings to alleviate convoluted layouts. These things are called signage, one of the many types of graphics “frequently used [...] to overcome planning and design [complexities]”, especially in buildings with ever-evolving layouts (Schmidt and Cribb, 2011, p.12). While they do in fact comprise wayfinding, they constitute only a portion of its complete scope. The act of wayfinding also consists of other elements like placemaking materials (which create “a distinctive image for a site”) and interpretive material which often falls under the category of nondirectional communication (i.e., storytelling) (Calori, 2007, pg. 4). 12
As an example, signages serve the function of communicating
mostly directional information (Figure 2.3), though they can also serve as placemaking material if designed consistently within a scheme, and vice versa (see Figures 2.4-2.5.). Similarly, interpretative material can serve as placemaking and directional material if information overlaps and can be incorporated into one visual material. These intersections also illustrate how all three fall under environmental graphic design, or EGD: they are a “systematic, informationally-cohesive, and a visually unified graphic communication system” for the environment (Calori, 2007, pg. 4). Cognitive Load, Orientation, and Why They Matter
As previously stated, the act of wayfinding is a navigational
process, one that involves cognitive abilities and strategies. These factors are however impacted by the legibility of a place’s pattern 2.3 - 2.5 Top: Directional signage at Goto Mall in Seoul, South Korea. Middle: directional signage for USF’s main campus near Lo Schiavo Center. Bottom: Environmental Graphic Design at the Children’s Museum of Denver, serving as both placemaking and identification signage. 13
(layout, form, complexity) - the more legible the built environment’s pattern is, the easier the process of wayfinding. This pattern can be considered as information that needs to be processed - that is, spatial information and its organization within a multi-function building. One can apply this concept to a building: the spatial components, the scope
of the program, and the facilities of the building, and how big or complex it is are all a part of the given ‘information’ - when we are offered all of it without prior context, or if there is no tool used for the organization of such information, it is much more difficult to process. If navigational tools were to be provided (e.g., as signage), this constitutes another layer of information, which may help alleviate a building’s poor legibility if executed properly.
However, people can only take in so much at a time, as “human
cognitive processing is heavily constrained by [our] limited working
Germane (Learning + Processing)
memory which can only process a limited number of information elements at a time” (Sweller et al, 2019, pg. 262). It is evident that wayfinding solutions tend to supplement existing information with more information. However, access to information alone does not guarantee a better experience in the built environment, and it does not mean much to users unless it is useful and accessible. It may instead lead to
Intrinsic (Info) Extraneous (Presentation)
a user’s cognitive load (Sweller and Levine 1982) being overwhelmed. This overburdening of a user’s cognitive process may not necessarily present itself intrinsically in the sense that the information processed
2.6 The different types of Cognitive Load.
is complex, but it still can occur extraneously and germanely: if information is presented in a confusing manner and requires the user to learn (Sweller et al, 2019, pg. 264). When this occurs, a person’s sense of ‘orientation’ may deteriorate. In order to prevent this, “[information] needs to be processed and organized” (Kling and Kruger, 2013, pg. 10).
At the heart of wayfinding experience, strategies, and tools, is
the concept of orientation. Defined as “an ordering concept of human consciousness which guides decision-making and action” (Kamper, 14
2003, pg. 18-15), the concept can either result in a positive or negative experience. As users of the built environment, we either orient or disorient ourselves with our navigation processes, through the tools we use, and depending on how information is given to us. When thinking of wayfinding, a user should not be overtaxed with cognitive load through the “unnecessary demands” that a large, disorganized amount of information can bring. We try to remain oriented and avoid being disoriented as to be successful in the simple act of existing. Kling writes, “our degree of orientation is a measure of the [...] self, our relationship with others, and of the state of society [...]”. It circles back to the utility of the built environment. A disorienting built environment brings a disoriented individual, and this affects not only the usefulness of a particular structure but also of said individual and their participation in, as Gibson and David call it, “the fabric of human existence”.
Instinctive behaviors should never be difficult. Looking at
wayfinding as a second-nature yet potentially tricky process should compel designers to consider it a component crucial enough for exploration. This study, in particular, investigates wayfinding through an academic setting: the library, an institution housing and circulating knowledge, can be especially difficult to navigate for a few reasons.
Library Wayfinding
As discussed so far, wayfinding constitutes many things and
continues to be studied by academics; wayfinding difficulties typically happen in places with a lot of information such as multi-function 15
buildings. Though these facilities generally face issues relating to their complexity, each building type will, in one way or another, possess unique factors contributing to their specific navigational experiences and processes. These particular factors are expected to come with a building’s individual space/program requirements. Wayfinding implications for library include additional aspects that make for its distinct process of orientation - the first of which is an escalated information overload. 1. An Extra Cognitive ‘Baggage’
A library can be viewed as having more ‘layers of information’
compared to other multi-function buildings. There is the expected layer of spatial or architectural information, paired with the additional information from assistive wayfinding tools like signages. Both need to be understood by users before they can even begin to access the real purpose a library has satisfying information and knowledge needs (Mandel, 2018, pg. 23). These needs act as an extra cognitive ‘baggage’ and get fulfilled through the catalog of books, magazines, and other media both physical and digital.
Libraries use a classification system to then categorize this
catalog, which depending on the size of the library, could be of the Dewey system (with ten categories) or the Library of Congress (with 26) (ALA, 2019). They are not meant for users of the library to know by heart, though it is another layer of information that needs to be kept in mind.
This added cognitive load suggests why library wayfinding 16
lS ica
patial In f
io n
EGD + Signage
mat or
Library Or ga teral + Vert a L
n + Termino lo
gy
tio za i n
COMMON IN MOST MULTI FUNCTION BUILDINGS
ADDITIONAL BAGGAGE
↗ 2.7 Visualization of added cognitive load that comes with library infrastructure.
needs to be specially addressed. Research tells of the repercussions: Project Information Literacy reports, “63% of the frustrations reported by students [...] involve not being able to find the right materials (as cited in Schoonover and Kinsley, 2014, pg. 176). In a facility where users acquire deep, investigative knowledge, the space itself must offer a straightforward wayfinding scheme, designed “so that users do not have to concentrate on navigation, but can orient and navigate intuitively” while satisfying their primary purpose (Mandel, 2018, pg. 25). The main entrance to The University of Florida’s library renders the text, “half the knowledge is to know where to find the knowledge” (Schoonover and Kinsley, 2014, pg. 176), but the process of finding that knowledge should come easy enough to give way for what is truly important. 2. Library Infrastructure and Organization
The infrastructure housing this ‘knowledge’ is another
contributing factor to a library’s unique wayfinding experience. The stacks, which are long rows of shelves housing the physical collection 2.8 Library Stacks on the basement lower level of Gleeson Library & Geschke Center. 17
of books and other print media, is often a defining point of a library’s layout. These stacks create added intricacies to what may already be
a complicated spatial arrangement, as the vestibules formed between each shelf become narrow corridors. Looking through stack shelves can make for an interesting optical illusion that affects how far a user can see from a specific location. Moving through these corridors when locating books or as a passage to another destination can easily be the cause of disorientation. Stack signage indicating organization often contributes to this as well, especially if users do not fully understand how to use a classification system’s structure, or if they do not know about it at all. 3. Library Anxiety
Related to a library’s unique knowledge-housing infrastructure
housing is the phenomenon of library anxiety, which is classified as “recurrent themes of fear, confusion, a sense of being [...] lost, and a feeling of helplessness and dread in [...] students’ approach of having to use the library…” (Carlile, 2007, pg. 130). The theory states that those who experience this phenomenon can feel overwhelmed by the sheer size of a library and not knowing where to locate items, partnered by a lack of confidence to conduct research or at least get help from either human-staffed or digital service points. It illustrates how library navigation is connected not only with the feelings of disorientation but also with skills relating to research.
Library anxiety is different from layout-induced disorientation
that is present in all other multi-function buildings. In other types of
2.9 A Reference Desk is an example of a service point. Shown is Gleeson’s reference, equipped with both digital and human-staff resources.
facilities such as the mall, an airport, or a hospital, it is uncommon for regular patrons (who do not already work there) to need to learn 18
additional skills and terminology to navigate themselves successfully. But with libraries, the simple act of using the facility requires some formal knowledge.
As a comparison, someone can use available wayfinding tools
and strategies like maps and signs to shop and use a mall’s amenities without necessarily learning how to ‘shop’, but a library user may not simply ‘just use’ the library and its signage without first knowing how research facilities work in at least some capacity. Doing research requires that library patrons at least know the existing structure of the stacks, both physical and digital. They also need to be familiar with the concept of librarianship, as in the actual assistance that librarians can provide them for their particular needs. Signage could be utilized to help educate patrons about such information, but if the words present in these signs (e.g., ‘reference’, ‘call number’, ‘circulation’) are unfamiliar and not explained correctly to users, they will be of no use. Though users of academic libraries will at one point learn how to do research during their time in college, a large number of users may still experience library anxiety (i.e., infrequent users, first-year students).
Ultimately, by extension, these feelings may be tied to users’
ideas and perceptions of librarians and their role in the facility. As suggested by Carlile, while library anxiety may stem from the different types of cognitive load, “the underlying reasons behind students’ [are] related to their self-perception [of not knowing] what is expected of them” because of the potential “unapproachability and non-availability of librarians” (2007, pg. 134). 19
↗ ↗
↗
↗
These factors are general to the overall setup of libraries.
Ultimately, each library will come with its own wayfinding problems that may be tied to its particular building’s history, layout, and changes throughout time. When studying wayfinding strategies, user experience, and signage effectiveness, existing research will focus on a particular library as their case study, therefore contributing to a collection of research on library wayfinding that holds the potential of determining generalizability. Although trends may line up among these different studies, each acts as a contributor to develop and stabilize existing or new frameworks. Signage and environmental graphic design are connected to wayfinding, though they can be considered studies independent on their own. This study uses Gleeson Library and Geschke Center, the University of San Francisco’s undergraduate library, as a main point of reference.
20
↗ ↗ 21
3.0 The old facade of Gleeson Library during the 1950s. What was then a parking is now occupied by the Geschke Center.
GLEESON LIBRARY & GESCHKE CENTER
3
Historic Overview
Gleeson Library stands as one of the university’s focal points in
its Hilltop campus, adjacent to St. Ignatius Church and the Lo Schiavo Center for Science and Innovation. Constructed in 1950, the library planned to house 2,000 students and around 300,000 volumes in three of the building’s five levels - each measuring about 20,000 square feet. The basement lower level would eventually be occupied in 1959 by the Sutro Library collection, after its relocation from its cramped quarters at the San Francisco Public Library (SF Foghorn Vol. 51 No. 21, 1959, pg. 1). Deemed a distinct collection by public sentiment, the lower level would undergo renovations, separating it from the rest of Gleeson Library via an exclusive entrance accessible on Golden Gate Avenue.
At the time, USF had about 50,000 books in its collection with
limited service demands, with patrons deeming the building too large to ever get filled by the library’s collection growth rate (“Build A Better Tomorrow Campaign”, 1996, pgs. 1-2). Though this large area made sense as the library was designed “with much foresight”, even using what was at the time a fairly new way of constructing libraries using a modular core-and-shell method allowing for the “flexibility necessary for adding and removing walls as [...facilities] were moved into or out
3.1 - 3.2 Two separate entrances. Top: Newspaper sketch of the Sutro Library entrance from Golden Gate Ave., still visible today. Bottom: Old Gleeson Library entrance, now superimposed by the Geschke Center. 22
↗ 3.3 Gleeson Library patrons using the desks tucked within the second level book stacks, taken around 1956. These desks now serve as computer workstations.
of the structure” (1996, pg. 2). This foresight would eventually prove accurate as the library’s collection amounted to nearly 600,000 by the 1990s, expanding by about 13,000 books a year (GLE Space Program, 1993, pg. 6). Reading spaces were converted to make way for more shelving, even though the library would have then served 5,500 more students than its expected capacity. These numbers had also accounted for the space occupied by the Sutro Library collection on the lower level, which evacuated and moved to San Francisco State University in 1983. However, “even with the addition of the Sutro space [for book stacks], the library was already overcrowded” (1996, pgs. 2-3). In addition, the library certainly served as a multi-function building, housing the Donohue Rare Book Room as well as external services such as the disabilities center and a few faculty offices (1996, pgs. 10-11). These facts combined made for solid grounds on the expansion of the library.
Designed by EHDD Architects, the Geschke Learning Center
addition in 1997 expanded the library to have nearly 36,000 square feet in additional space (About The Library, 2020), constructed directly south in front of the existing building. Geschke brought the library closer into 23
beacon at the geographic center of the campus” (1996, pg 3). Besides permitting the expansion of the library’s collection via the second, third, and fourth levels of the expansion, Geschke also improved circulation by
↗
campus grounds, replacing what was parking lot space to become “a
3.4 - 3.6 Construction photos of Geschke Center expansion in the 1990s. Upper right photograph shows the extension being built in front of the old building.
replacing the old stepped entrance for a wheelchair-accessible incline; the new Monihan Atrium featuring a zig-zag curtain wall also provided
↗
an iconic venue for campus events.
3.7 Gleeson Library and Geschke Center today, showcasing the Monihan Atrium’s zig-zag curtain wall facade.
24
Gleeson Today and its Implications
When experienced today, a patron of the library may not
immediately notice the symmetry it originally possessed. However, floor plans for Gleeson’s old building reveal a simple, symmetrical rectangle building with intuitive access to the library’s different facilities. A central rounded space served as a lobby with a help desk acting as a gateway to hallways in all cardinal directions leading users to the library’s different spaces. The library presented a fairly simple wayfinding process then: old photographs show minimal signage, only existing in places with some level of complexity (e.g., indicating genres in the book stacks). Indeed, this setup was flexible enough to be easily rearranged if necessary, and the Geschke addition did just this.
↗ 3.8 Old signage visible on top of old bookshelves in Gleeson, circa 1950s.
In fact, a reason why patrons now would not see any semblance
of the old building’s simplicity is that the expansion, asymmetrical in form, places itself right in front. No longer do patrons enter the centralized lobby space; instead, a bigger front desk welcomes visitors upfront. Going right of the entrance leads patrons to the Minhan Atrium, while going left introduces patrons to the rest of the library’s spatial 25
information, increasing their cognitive load, as shown in Figure 3.9. Luckily, “the library realized [the difficulty of] traversing the [building] during the Geschke renovation”, and “since architects were involved, [...] signage was involved naturally” (R. Souther, personal communication, February 2020). A streamlined signage scheme included with the expansion helps with the increased complexity of the space, installed in columns, walls, doors, and overhead.
Although the Geschke Center enabled Gleeson’s further growth
back then, it is only natural for the library to evolve further. Even after Geschke, the library continued to outgrow its current capacity and demand. The resulting changes are intertwined with each other,
3.9 -3.10 The old circular lobby before the Geschke expansion, a space now occupied by the Thacher Gallery.
↗
ultimately contributing to the navigational issues present today.
GESCHKE
OLD BUILDING
3.11 Entryway circulation before and after the Geschke expansion. Gray arrows signify the symmetrical route of the old lobby. White arrows signify the current routes from the front desk.
Front Desk Reference Atrium
26
1. Issues with the Signage Scheme
Of the more apparent issues today in Gleeson’s wayfinding
process is its existing signage scheme. Even before a thorough assessment of the library’s entire signage scheme, patrons may already notice its inconsistency, improper placement, and a lack of order. Any cohesion present in the current signage scheme can be attributed to the Geschke expansion in the 1990s, as it had also been responsible for designing a wayfinding system for the old building in addition to the Geschke extension. These signs are permanent, in the form of mounted acrylic plates or fabricated metal letters, like below:
↗ 3.12 - 3.13 The style of signage that came with the Geschke expansion.
Inconsistent with the library’s sign scheme are unique signs
employing a different style and font, which are instead consistent with the University of San Francisco’s overall branding. They are noticeably newer and typically come in the form of glass decals. There are also the library’s ad hoc signs: printer paper taped to the walls or inserted in temporary sign holders. These, too, are inconsistent with the library’s sign scheme from the 1990s, parading themselves in various fonts and colors, which may be due to having temporary information (event 27
signs, weekly schedules). They are often found next to permanent or more important signages, ignoring any sense of hierarchy and creating extraneous cognitive load. Furthermore, some of the maps/directories, particularly those installed in the stairwells, are outdated and provide inaccurate details of rooms and stack layout, while being located where
↗
patrons can easily see.
3.14 The Learning, Writing, & Speaking Centers has both glass decal and ad-hoc signs.
2. Renovations Over Time
The conditions present in Gleeson’s signage scheme do not come
as a surprise, not even to the library staff themselves. Although many factors are taken into account, the state of Gleeson’s signage scheme is evidently affected by the building’s constant layout changes. Head of Reference and Research Services Randy Souther, who has worked at Gleeson since 1991, has seen how the renovations to both the old building and Geschke Center have transformed the library’s wayfinding flow throughout the years.
“It is a ‘mish-mash’,” he says, “[o]ver time, things have changed
and been relocated, removed, or replaced...” (personal communication, 2020). Some of the ‘mish-mash’ include the slightly disorienting vertical layout of the library. Caused by the reintegration of the basement with 28
Study Desks
the rest of the library, the main stairwell does not lead patrons down to the lower level, prompting patrons to reroute and use either a set
Copiers
of stairs adjacent to the main staircase divided by a wall or take a Thacher Gallery
narrower steel stairwell by the copiers (See Figure 3.15).
Moreover, the change in service points has also affected
Gleeson’s navigational flow. The first level of the Geschke addition where 3.15 Basement lower level access from the old building’s stairwell. The white arrow represents the route to access the basement via a wide set of stairs, while the gray arrow represents the route to the narrow steel stairwell.
the reference desk is currently positioned used to occupy more space than it currently does, offering physical reference books and a more prominent service desk. Since getting shrunken down in the late 2000s, computers and single-use workstations have occupied the area, albeit serving as digital replacements for references.
Furthermore, the second level, which perhaps has undergone the
most renovations, went through the same shift when its service point and periodical collections on the Geschke side were cleared out for new group conversational study spaces. More recently in 2017, the old
↗ 3.16 - 3.17 In 2017, adaptive learning classrooms and study rooms on the second level replaced the book stacks previously designated for the area.
29
building’s second level was also cleared, replacing old book stacks with new tech-based, adaptive-learning classrooms and group study rooms.
Despite the modernity these changes bring, the area lacks any
system of signage, with the exception of signs indicating room numbers and the aforementioned impromptu paper signs taped to the wall. The basement lower level faces a similar condition: it has also been renovated partly with new rooms for the Learning, Writing & Speaking (LWS) Centers, which comes with a new yet incohesive signage scheme. Although the glass is adorned with sticker decals to indicate facilities, ad hoc signs are still present in seemingly arbitrary spots.
As services and facilities have moved in and out of the library,
the signages associated with them shift as well. Formally, the placement of signs is not determined arbitrarily. Rather, they are meant to be programmed by an exhaustive analysis of arrival, departure, and decision points; circulation pathways; and signing opportunities (Gibson, 2009, pgs. 57). A designer will typically conduct these mark-ups at the start of a signage scheme project, though with a circumstance such as Gleeson’s, updates to the signage (if intended) would be made in stages dependent on individual renovations.
Furthermore, even though EHDD were the architects of the
Geschke expansion and its signage scheme, a different set of designers and contractors carried out the renovations that followed: “[USF Facilities Management], for example, would come to Gleeson, budget, and propose sections of the library to renovate ad hoc...” (R. Souther, personal communication, 2020). Hence, the signage ends up outdated, looking different, or simply non-existent. 30
3. Learning Commons vs. Micro Renovations
The incremental nature of Gleeson Library’s changes is not by
happenstance. In fact, library staff refers to the changes in the facilities as micro renovations. Little by little, the library will decide which sections or aspects of the library to renovate based on the available budget. Souther reveals, “each micro renovation has seen a different process in design”, hence why sections of the library may look different from the others. For example, patrons may notice the similarities in the new updates to the second level and the basement as these were renovated at the same time.
Although the ultimate intent of micro renovations is to provide
a better library facility to students of the university, the consequences can end up creating negative effects for wayfinding. For one, micro renovations actually go against the broader and bigger visions the library has for its facilities. Gleeson Library’s Strategic Plan for 20202022 is a long-term framework that hopes to improve services through “rethink[ing] traditional library services”, “reenvision[ing] the use of technology”, and “cultivate[ing] an agile, innovative environment that attracts and retains diverse and skilled staff” among other things (About the Library: Strategic Plan, 2020). Determined elements of this framework include a learning commons and a redesign for “the delivery of reference and information services informed by local needs and evidence-based best practices”, together with an “integrated and dynamic [...] information literacy program…” (About the Library: Strategic Plan, 2020). Some of these goals address the specific implications of library wayfinding directly, especially library anxiety. On the other hand, 31
micro renovations have not necessarily addressed these particular issues, as the main focus has been to increase seating capacity. While the new adaptive learning classrooms bring improvements which, for instance, falls under the refresh plan’s goal for technologies (#5), micro renovations still go against the long-term framework because even though the improvements could belong as parts of Gleeson’s bigger refresh plan, the library does not consider them as contributions to it. This is more of an issue on formality and conflicting end goals, but since they are smaller and not considered a part of the long-term, a systemic wayfinding treatment will most likely not be within their scope, being that it is“not the first thing to come to mind” (R. Souther, personal communication, 2020). Pockets of improvements are created which, within the bigger picture, may prove to be inconsistent. 4. Digitization
To recap, wayfinding issues in Gleeson emerge from inconsistent
and/or dated signage schemes, many of which are caused by the building’s inability to keep up with incremental changes made throughout the space. These changes have been deemed ad hoc as to contradict longer-term goals, and the impromptu nature of said changes results in the oversight of assessing the need to remove, replace, or update signage. However ad hoc these micro renovations are, the basis for their implementation is ultimately based on patrons’ needs. Other than expanding collections, Gleeson’s renovations throughout the years have also been in part due to the constant demand for more study spaces. Typically, the demand is met by replacing spaces originally
3.18 - 3.19 Before and after Gleeson’s reference books were replaced with computers as part of digitization. 32
allocated for physical collections with desks, workstations, tables, and computers. This is what made the most recent collaborative study spaces on the second level of the old section possible, to begin with. To give way for more study spaces, the university decided in 2016 to relocate around 111,000 bound items (which include print resources and journal) to storage, only “delivered to the library upon request� (Greschler, 2017). Similarly, comparable measures had to be taken in order to provide group study tables in what used to be periodical books on the second level of the Geschke expansion and to install computer stations on the first leve where physical reference books had previously been situated.
Today, it is not unusual to think of study spaces as involving
technology, especially since library patrons nowadays go to sit with peers to collaborate, or by themselves, either using their personal laptops, library computers, or other devices like digital projectors. Although the constant need for study spaces could be attributed to Gleeson underestimating demands for seatings by proposing capacity targets well below standards in the past (i.e., during the Geschke expansion) (GLE Space Program, 10), there is also the possibility that it is because of the library’s increasing digital offerings, which have increased with the digitization of previously physical collections (periodicals, references). Patrons visit the library to utilize a space with online connectivity to access the very knowledge and research tools a library aims to provide, but now, this is all increasingly becoming available online. While the 1990s Geschke expansion recognized the impact of OPAC/CD-ROM technologies and saw the potential of 33
computers in improving communication and services, they did not correlate them with study spaces. It would seem that what was at the time an emerging important component to the library’s services would eventually become the main reason for its continuous change.
When asked about total digitization, though Gleeson Library
has no intentions of clearing out the stacks as they have done with periodicals, Souther admits that it does not mean it will not happen: “there are more ebooks physical books” (personal communication, 2020), and the advantages of digital collections cannot be overlooked. After, all, in the age of Google, the excitement over “reductions in traditional books in favor of digital alternatives” (Donovan, 2019, pg. 1) exists; “humanists in many fields can do rigorous-well-documented work without needing to consult a single, physical journal - or indeed, a book.” (Grafton, 2009, pg. 95). Thanks to the internet, the function of a library to ‘house’ knowledge has surpassed the limitations of being stationary to physical spaces. Inadvertently, this may cause a lack of attention to signage, since study spaces do not require as much information to process and learn as do stacks and other library services. It could also suggest existing cognitive loads and user anxiety that patrons experience: since people can go to the library without having to interact with anything
↗
↗
↗ ↗
other than the computers or their own laptops.
The implications mentioned shape Gleeson’s particular
wayfinding problems. Although these stem from the library’s unique circumstances, they may also be present in other facilities. 34
↗
↗ 4.0 Book stacks on the third level of Gleeson.
35
RESEARCH & STUDY
4
Research Goals
The main purpose of this study is to examine Gleeson Library
and Geschke Center’s overall wayfinding and signage scheme using two methods: a comprehensive audit and interviews assessing user strategies and experience. The interviews were partly based on the signage audit as I asked users how they use or are affected by the signs I found notably problematic. The methods used were based on existing case studies, modified to either fit Gleeson’s context or fill in the gaps needed for this particular study. Furthermore, the collected data were analyzed through key issues provided by existing literature in both wayfinding theories and signage design. The goal was to use these two methods to suggest solutions relevant to Gleeson’s particular issues, though consequently, this study would additionally serve as a contribution to the growing literature on library wayfinding if used comparatively with other case studies.
Audit Methodology
In order to obtain a thorough assessment of Gleeson’s signage
scheme, it was necessary to look beyond the immediately observable and conduct an audit of the signage. I created an inventory for existing 36
signs, circulating different levels of the library, taking photographs of every sign encountered in the basement as well as the first, second, and third levels. The fourth level was not included because accessible signs were limited to a few identification and regulatory signs and because the rest of the fourth level was a card reader restricted, staff-only faculty office.
After taking photographs, I further assessed each sign using a
chart created on a spreadsheet with categories based on a modified version of Lauren Mandel’s audit worksheet for academic libraries (2019). The modifications to the worksheet were done by combining
↗
existing categorizations as well as adding new ones that would benefit
4.1 A summary of the information on the signage worksheet collected for this study.
STATUS
Gleeson in particular. The worksheet used for the modified version of this audit are as follows:
COUNT NAME
CATEGORY
• Permanent • Temporary • Mixed
POSITION/TYPE
EVALUATION
Modified typification via Gibson, Pullman
via Mandel et. al, qtd. in Johnston
• Identification Sign • Directional Sign • Orientation Sign • Regulatory Sign • Information Sign
• Not Clear: too small, too much info • Wrong Location: sign not where it belongs • Obscured: visually blocked, unoptimal loc. • Ad Hoc: temporary and impromptu • Mismatch: font/style • Other or Good Practice
37
Because of the way the task was executed, the chart for this
study used a separate sheet for each floor rather than individually indicating the level in which every sign is located. A ‘Count’ section consolidated signs of the same type occurring in the same place and is reserved for obvious sets like flag-mounted call number identification. An additional ‘status’ box indicated whether the sign is permanent (as in installed professionally), or temporary (as in signs within a sign holder or mounted using tape but are not considered ad-hoc). This category could aid in the library’s potential next steps to determine which signs would be easy to replace or remove.
The sign categories are also instead based on David Gibson’s list
of sign types*, dividing them into the following: → Identification signs, or “visual markers that display the name and function of a place or space” → Directional signs, or arrow signs that lead users once they have reached a ‘decision point’ or a place they might stop during navigation → Orientation signs, which consist of tools (maps, list of places) that help users form an overview or cognitive schemata → Regulatory signs that establish rules and regulations → *An Information sign category was added for signs that provided information but did not belong to any of the other categories (e.g., schedules, instructions for using equipment and/or facility).
In addition, the ‘Issues’ section is replaced with ‘Evaluation’,
combining the ‘Notes’ section for further elaboration of issues and good 38
practices. The types of issues are also taken from Mandel’s worksheet, albeit with slight modifications.
Audit Results & Discussion
A thorough review of all signage revealed repeatedly-found
issues consisting of the following factors. These are generalized and do not include good practices that were observed. 1. Consistency
As previously mentioned, environmental graphics are
professionally created within a cohesive scheme for a few reasons. For one, they embody the work of specialized designers who follow a design process. As with architectural design, there are phases in this decision making, which involve the typical research found in architectural programming and analysis (context, circulation and decision points, codes, stakeholder preference) as well as those found in graphic-based design work (branding, theme) (Calori, 2007, pgs. 19-21). This systemized process stems from the insurgence of the field itself, as the formality of signage comes after a time of ‘reactionary’ and seemingly-afterthought processes. Discussed previously was the idea of information increase warranting for signage to be organized in a system they come in a package as a means to generate the idea of ‘legibility’.
Moreover, the systemized nature goes concurrently with the
added potential of signage to also provide the branding and placemaking aspects of environmental graphics. In using what Calori calls a ‘harmony strategy’ (2007), design details can be “coordinated among all the design 39
professionals [e.g., architects] involved in [a] project”, augmenting any existing spatial and visual characteristics in the building or on-site by incorporating them into signage.
Even before the audit, consistency issues within Gleeson’s signs
were already apparent through mismatched fonts and style. The original signs from the Geschke expansion utilized Futura for their typefaces and came in different kinds of hardware (see Figures 4.2-4.4). In contrast, the newer signs used Whitney for their typeface. The audit found that there was also a newer sign fashioned to look like it came from the Geschke era of signage: the new ITS Help Desk’s ceiling-mounted sign mimicked the design of wall-mounted installs, though this makes it clash with an existing overhead letter mount for the Reserves desk. Moreover, even signs belonging to the same scheme were sometimes still inconsistent because of varying hardware and size (compare the overhead sign below with Figure 4.4).
↗
4.2 - 4.4 From top to bottom: all three signs come from the same scheme designed with the Geschke expansion. The first two are wallmounted identification signs, while the third depicts a variant of the overhead signage painted on the wall.
4.5 Overhead identification sign for Reserves competing with newer overhead ceiling-mounted sign for the ITS Help Desk, which mimics the old style of signage. 40
Upon further assessment, certain types of signs also used
inconsistent hardware. Directional signs, in particular, came in different types even though they presented the same kind of information. Some were installed on more conventional wall-mounted sign holders while others were paper inserts on temporary post-mounted sign holders that took a literal shape of an arrow (see Figure 4.7). While the wall-mounted sign holders provide more cohesion to the overall signage scheme in Gleeson, they do not attract attention. Similarly, the temporary arrow sign holders may provide more clarity with its scale but they nonetheless present information in an unconventional manner, seeing as the paper inserts do not convey information in the same way. 4.6 - 4.7 Directional signage using actual arrows. Potentially effective in grabbing attention but lacks cohesion with current system and is ad-hoc.
Furthermore, there was also an inconsistency in how the arrow
symbols in these directional signs are used. Some utilized an arrow to mean straight towards a facility or area, however, in some of these signs, the up and down arrows were used to mean ‘upstairs’ and ‘downstairs’.
↗ 4.8 - 4.9 These directional signs, while visually uncohesive with one another, both use the up arrows consistenly to mean ‘straight-ahead’.
This repeatedly happened in sign holders mounted near (but
not entirely next to) stairwell entries (see Figure 4.10). Although this issue may seem minimal, it is not necessarily helpful in navigation. Such conflicting symbol usage can be attributed to a focus in the lateral 41
circulation of a building as opposed to a vertical one. Calor stresses the importance of the latter, as “many [...] sites [...] have multiple floor levels, and the vertical circulation pathways between these levels present key decision points for navigating the site overall” (Calori, 2007, pg. 77).
Such occurrences are to be expected, again due to Gleeson’s
nature of micro renovating parts of the building and not necessarily appraising the effects these have on the library’s wayfinding. Rather than blaming poor design choices, there is a high probability that these occur because of unpredictable planning. The ultimate consequence of sign inconsistency boils down to people’s cognitive perceptions when the confusion they experience in not knowing whether to rely on the accuracy of one style versus the other can defeat the very purpose of providing signage.
2. Sustainability
Sustainability in signage can equate to efficiency. Efficiency can
either mean that a sign is clear enough that it avoids redundancy, or that it is designed well enough to have longevity and be economically replaceable. To recap, the glass-enclosed maps/directories in the Geschke expansion’s stairwell have not been updated since it was built, thus providing outdated information. This audit revealed that the maps posted on columns, walls, and shelving ends that also indicate noise regulatory rules are actually updated, providing updated information (see Figures 4.12-4.13). These more up-to-date maps may help users, but since they still exist alongside the old glass-enclosed maps/
4.10 - 4.11 Top: Directional sign located nearby but not directly next to the stairwell use the up and down arrows to mean ‘downstairs’ or ‘upstairs’. Rather than a directional sign, a directory of all amenities within a floor level is typically used (bottom image). The example is from Kirklees College in England.
directories, they could create confusion. They do poorly in both efficiency 42
↗ 4.12 - 4.13 Left: outdated map and directory located on the stairwell walls. Right: the newer map and directories serving as both an orientation and regulatory sign (for noise levels). Plastered in random areas throughout.
and economic sustainability: the solution creates redundancy for the old maps, and since the newer maps are smaller, they require to be installed in more places.
Another form of superfluous signage was found in identification
signs for the stacks. Arranged in rows, these signs are installed on the ends of the shelves as either flag-mounts depicting call numbers or sign holders. The issue lies in some of the bigger sign holders which, in all capital letters, say the same words: ‘Book Stacks’ was plastered repeatedly throughout the shelves. This could be found on the second level as well as the third level with the Folios. Rather than identifying the location of these a few times in key decision point areas, they are instead duplicated in a redundant manner (Figure 4.14). Interestingly, these signs did not occur in all of the stacks, creating further confusion as to whether stacks were a part of the same collection.
43
↗
3. Placement & Clarity The most common problems found in Gleeson were the
placement and clarity of signage, which occurred in many ways.
Placement issues consisted of certain signs and their seemingly-
wrong locations that were unrelated to the circulation of the building
4.14 While flag-mounted signs for call numbers serve their purpose, the plastic sign holders mounted to the spine of the stack ends are unecessary and redudant, as the phrase ‘Book Stacks’ is plastered throughout.
and the user’s decision points. An example of this includes a directional sign for the front desk and Thacher Gallery installed in a corner that was not a part of the overall navigational route, shown below:
Staff Only
Study Desks
↗
? Thacher Gallery
?
Decision Point
Possible Routes
Sign Placement
Placement-Induced Detour
4.15 - 4.16 Top: an image of the seemingly out of place directional sign on the wall. Left: a visualization of the inconvenient rerouting a user has to make to use the sign on the wall.
44
Front Desk
Reference Desk
Entrance Computers
Atrium
Stairs
Commemorative Sign for Donors
Unreplaced Sign Location
↗ 4.17 - 4.18 Left: map indicating the location of for Reference identification signs. Right: existing commemorative sign for the reference desk.
There was also an identification sign for the reference desk that
appeared to be positioned awkwardly, though upon further inspection it was revealed to have been accompanied by a sign that was never replaced (Figures 4.17-4.18). It was also easy to miss because the word ‘Reference’ came with a string of words commemorating donors, which revealed its original purpose. Since the identification sign was never replaced, it is the only sign close enough to use for identification of the reference desk.
Furthermore, there were signs placed where furniture,
equipment, or patrons can easily block them (Figure 4.19 -4.20). Again, these seemed to belong within the issue of signage being randomly positioned without reference to decision points. It is important to note that most signs attributed to having placement issues are mounted to the walls and that there is a lack of ceiling-mounted signs such as those found in airports that commonly hold directional information. Still, placement issues were found in other places like the iPad reference stands. They are easier to move than mounted signs, given that an outlet exists nearby to power them. Most of these were inaccessible because they were placed in obscured corners or blocked in between chairs. If 4.19 - 4.20 Top: Digital reference stands are either obscured or blocked. Bottom: Regulatory/directional sign that could get obscured and block when the desks are in use. 45
not inaccessible, they were positioned in arbitrary spots (e.g., next to the printer) where they could be easily missed from not being visible within the route of the very items they help patrons locate.
Placement issues were also present in the stacks. The flag-
mounted signs bearing call numbers are installed high on top of the shelf ends, which could prove to be illegible by some people (see Figure 4.21). Since they are flag-mounted, they are not visible when looking from the perspective of shelf ends. This proves to be an issue when patrons enter the stacks area and have no semblance of whether to start on one end of the library or another.
In terms of signage clarity, some of the issues were directly
associated with placement. In most cases, however, the reason was due to the lack of hierarchical organization. Oftentimes, a sign will convey more than one piece of information or will exist alongside other signs. When this is the case, it is likely that the content, message, or
4.21 Flag-mounted signs for call numbers are high and not visible from the perspective of shelf ends.
information presented between these are not equal. Designers will typically arrange a group of information “based on relative importance� (Calori, 2007, pg. 75), meaning that if a sign is relevant for a longer period of time or provides something more crucial than other signage, it will be positioned so that it stands out. The audit revealed many signage clusters in Gleeson Library that did not have such a hierarchy. Within these groups, temporary signs would sit next to permanent ones. Sometimes, ad hoc signs presented long-term, crucial information (room identification) although looked as if they were short-term flyers for events (see Figures 4.22-4.23). In other instances, signage clusters seemed to have been posted randomly and in haste (Figures 4.24-4.25). A majority of these were letter size printer paper, making them difficult to see from afar. This does not exempt big-scale signage from clarity issues. The regulatory/instructional signs for the campus-wide printers, for instance, simply had too much information in them and can cause
4.22 - 4.23 Signage clusters showcasing ad hoc (permanent) signs that look like temporary flyers. 46
all three kinds of cognitive load (Figure 4.26). In addition, they were inconsistent with both Gleeson’s signage scheme and the University’s overall branding.
↗
↗
4.24 - 4.26 First and second photo: more signage clusters, with an arbitrary and lack of hierarchial placement of signs. Third photo: informational signage for the printers that can trigger cognitive load. It lacks organization and is not consistent with existing library signage.
↗ ↗
↗
An important thing to point about these signs is that the
highlighted issues are interconnected. The overarching theme is that they are almost always produced because there is no steady attention given to environmental graphics. The problems which I have pointed out pertained mostly to how the signs visually appear to patrons. The point of assessing these, however, is not for aesthetic reasons, but for the effect that Gleeson’s signage has on the overall wayfinding scheme of the library. The audit demonstrates the centrality of environmental graphics in the role of navigation.
Interview Methodology
The second part of this study consisted of user interviews
organized through Google Forms, thus the responses were automatically transcribed through the software’s database. The intent 47
was to obtain information from users’ experiences to confirm the issues observed form the audit, as well as the implicatinos from chapter three, asking questions concerning the following areas: → Navigational difficulties (and in which areas of the library) → Signage effectiveness → Familiarity with library terms and its impacts on navigation → Increasing digitization
Since I wanted to obtain personalized input from users,
paragraph boxes were provided for students to explain their specific experiences. In the interview, I also asked about wayfinding strategies to see if and which of the existing frameworks were used by patrons of the library. I focused on Passini’s wayfinding strategies and styles because of its overlap between other existing theories. This knowledge will aid in suggesting solutions specific to Gleeson’s context.
Moreover, there was a short visual assessment partially based
on the results of the signage audit. For example, I provided images of the signage clusters, different types of hardware installations, and maps/ directories to see how users perceive these in comparison to literaturebased conclusions from the audit. I framed the questions in a way that did not reveal any personal inferences for my thesis (e.g., whether using digital tools affects library skills).
I also customized the form to ensure that users would not
receive questions irrelevant to their previous responses (e.g., if a user answers ‘no’ to whether they use Gleeson’s existing maps/directories as a wayfinding tool, they were not asked to assess its current conditions). 48
5th Year
Interview Results & Discussion 2nd Year
There were a total of 24 participants in this survey, all of
which were current undergraduate students at the University of San 3rd Year 4th Year
Francisco. I had originally intended for the interviewees to consist of underclassmen in order to determine if Gleeson’s wayfinding scheme was user-friendly to infrequent users. However, since no freshmen were able to participate, a workaround was created by diversifying the frequency and level of experience regardless of year level. 12 (50%) of
Rarely No more than a handful of times per semester Regularly, not weekly
these students were third-year students, while 7 (29.2%) and 4 (16.7%) were fourth-year and second-year students, respectively.
Regulraly, weekly
There was an almost even breakdown of usage frequency, with
at least 10 (41%) of all students seldom using the library and 7 (29.2%) going to Gleeson only a few times every semester; another 7 (29.2%)
4.27 - 4.28 Demographics of interview. Top: breakdown of student’s year level. Bottom: breakdown student’s usage frequency
were weekly users of the library. 1. On Navigating Facilities & Rooms
Overall, a significant number of users (16, or 66.7%) found
some difficulty in their experience of navigating the library’s facilities regardless of year level or frequency of usage. This was demonstrated by the diversified statistics on those who did not experience difficulties: 5 of them were third-year students, 2 were second-year students, and 1 was a fourth-year student. There was a pattern in which facilities users defined as a problem area, with many reporting finding difficulties looking for the study rooms (as seen on Figure 4.31) and the innovation lab on the second level. 5 of the 16 responses* reported having to 49
* Only those who responded yes to the prior question were asked to elaborate on their difficulties.
while 3 mentioned having to ask staff or a peer for directions.
The same problem was expressed in the basement lower level,
with people finding it hard to find the Learning, Writing, and Speaking
↗
wander around the entire floor before they could find their destination,
4.29 - 4.31 Upper and Lower Left: some signage for the new classrooms on the second level. Right: the new second level where students find themselves wandering.
(LWS) Centers in particular. None of the respondents had mentioned anything regarding the LWS Centers being split into multiple rooms on the basement lower level, though this could contribute to difficulties alongside poor or absent signage. These experiences are congruent with the renovations for the second and basement lower level that occurred in 2017: both were contracted together and thus possess the same problems with signage.
2. On Navigating Stacks
When asked about looking for books, folios, and other physical
material from the physical stacks, 12 (50%) of the students answered
I do not
When navigating facilities...
I experience difficulties
I do not
When looking for items in the stacks...
‘yes’ to experiencing difficulties. Again, recurring issues were present, as students reported that the process of looking through the shelves is
I experience difficulties
made difficult by its organization, or rather, their lack of understanding for it. This issue was phrased in varying ways: one student admitted that “the way the books are stacked by categories using multiple coding notation is confusing…”, while others felt that “finding shelves with
4.32-33 Reponses to: Do you experience or have experienced difficulties looking for materials in the stacks and navigating facilities. 50
[...] specific call number[s] is difficult because [they did not] have the layout memorized” or simply “did not really know what to do”. Even when students had some idea of how to go about navigating through the stacks, either through prior experience or via available signage (like one shown in Figure 4.36), they still found them “heavily dispersed and [thus] not always clear where one section ends and another begins”.
3. Staff Usage & Knowledge of Library Jargon
I don’t ask staff
When asking about the usage of library staff, separate questions
were asked for the navigation of facilities and stacks because there are implications exclusive to the procedure of stack wayfinding. Most
When navigating facilities...
students approached staff for assistance. When asked whether they used the front desk to ask for help in finding a specific facility, 16 (72.7%)
I ask staff
of 21 users said ‘Yes’. 4 of those who did not ask staff admitted that they would only really ask “if [they] absolutely needed to”.
I ask, but unsure of desk
I ask the ref desk
I don’t ask staff
When looking for items in the stacks...
As for navigating the stacks, 11 students (64.7%) reported asking
staff for help, with only 2 of the 7 students saying ‘No’ also admitting not feeling comfortable asking. A majority of students who use the aid of library staff for stack navigation recounted good experiences, with 10 (90.9%) reporting a straightforward, easy, and/or pleasant
I ask the front desk
experience. This means that of those who encountered problems with staff, the issues were not directly caused by the feelings of intimidation
4.34 - 4.35 Top: responses to whether students ask for help navigating facilities. Bottom: responses to whether students ask for help navigating the stacks. 51
or inability to properly use a library, but rather by the way human resources are delegated within the library. The library’s service points are concentrated on the lower level, and one student even brought up the lack of service point on the second level which makes it a hassle
to have to go down to ask for in-person assistance. It is important to mention that the library does not have physical stacks on the first level even though it is the only place with direct access to a reference desk. Even though the reliance of library staff remains high regardless, it remains an issue for some students.
The high demand for staff assistance signals good practice by
library staff in Gleeson, as none of the sentiments by students suggested instances of unapproachability. In fact, library service by staff may even be one of the more effective wayfinding tools in Gleeson. However, the high demand for staff may also have to do with patron knowledge of library terminology. For example, a majority of students (54.5%) reported going to the front desk for finding stack material, and only 36.4% went to the appropriate place which is the reference desk. 10 students (or 58.8%) admitted to not knowing what a call number is, though students were more familiar with the term ‘reference’ to mean ‘service point’ or ‘help with finding books’. To confirm the reason for this high demand, it was important to compare staff usage with signage and map usage.
4.36 If students did want to understand the organization of the stacks, an information sign is posted on a column directly in front of the Reference Desk. It presents a lot of information and is not consistent with the library’s signage scheme; it also is only posted in one area, unlike the new maps and directories.
4. Map & Directory Usage
Despite the signage audit revealing issues with the maps and
directories, they were favorable to a little more than half of the students. 13 (59.1%) reported using a map or directory when they could not find their way around, where only 5 (38.5%) of them reported experiencing confusion when using the map. These student’s experiences may be linked to the outdated maps and directories in the stairwells, which are used less frequently than the new maps posted on walls and doors, 52
which in comparison was used by all thirteen students eligible to answer this question.
Students did however expressed changes they would like to
see in either the outdated or newer maps, such as the addition of a ‘you are here’ pin “that allows to see how far [they are] from [their] destination; students also felt that the maps are not “specific about the location of certain things” because of “the way things are labeled”, which was in reference to the unconventional notation used by both the stairwell and newer maps where they do not pinpoint where things are specifically. This forces patrons to simply find general areas and still “wander around until [they] find what exactly [they] were looking for”. Students also found the placement to be “all over the place”, which again is caused by their ad-hoc nature of not being informed by formal wayfinding circulation paths.
5. Signage Usage & Assessment
Signage usage was prevalent, albeit with issues. Many students
reported having to wander around to navigate that is inevitably caused by the library’s layout. However, the signage scheme also plays some part: even though an overwhelming majority of respondents (21, or 95.5%) used the library’s posted signs, a notable number (8, or 36.4%) of those students still found them confusing. Students’ reasons line up with the findings from the audit: they expressed that the signage was “not cohesive”, leading them to think “some are just posters” because of the way they are organized in their cluster. Even when the “more official signs engraved to the walls” (i.e., wall-mounted/flag-mounted) are 53
preferred, many complained about not being able to find the signs: 5 of the 8 students expressed felt that the signs were not in “easy-to-spot” or “the right” places, “not where [they] expect the signage to be”, or seem “random in order”. 2 students expressed that the signs were too small to be seen from afar.
Although none of the students necessarily mentioned the lack
of signage in certain areas, it could also be attributed to their poor experience with signage overall. When asked which types of signs they tend to use, a majority of users (18, or 81.8%) responded to using directional signs and identification signs (17, or 77.3%). From the signage audit, it is clear that these two types are specifically marred by issues. One of these has been poor placement, which is another way of saying that signs are absent in places where they need to be. As a user, it is difficult to determine whether a certain area must have signage, however, it is easy to deduce students ‘wandering around’ to mean that signage has not been there (either in the right places or at all) to prevent wandering and simply guide them to their destinations. This conclusion is less of a mere assumption once it is tied back to the findings from this study. As an example, we can look at the sentiments of students struggling to use the stacks because they were unsure of where sections began and ended, suggesting that the signage that have been effective do not include directional signs: had there been properly placed directional signage to guide students while navigating in addition to identification signs present in their destinations, this problem would not occur as much.
Determined to have placement and clarity issues from the audit,
4.37 One of the digital reference stands had a potentially effective placement, had it not been in between two benches. It may potentially confuse patrons who do not know its purpose due to a lack of identification. 54
Less Likely To Use
More Likely To Use
7
5
6
15
1
Sign 1
6
9
5
6
3
6
4
5
3
1
9
8
5
6
11
a plurality of students (7, or 41.2%) reported using the digital reference Sign 2
stands while 6 (35.3%) did not know entirely what they were. Their responses lined up with the findings from the audit: 3 of them suggested “better placement” and demanded “more of them around the library”, and 4 felt that they “need to be more visible”.
Sign 3
As for the signage assessment, I wanted to confirm whether the
audit observations would resonate with students. Most agreed with the inferences, though repsonses varied. Sign 1 was a reference to clarity and visual consistency issues from the audit. Students were split between using the sign, though a plurality (7, or 29.2%) felt they were unlikely to use it, citing issues pertaining to clarity and obsolescence.
Sign 4
Some said that it did not “pop out enough” or was not “the most visible from distances”. Some “have never seen the sign [despite] always checking out the shelf”. Some said that while the arrow is clear, they found it obvious that checking out the material would only take a few
Sign 5
↗ 4.38 - 4.43 Signs showed to students for assessment, along with the results. 55
steps since the front desk “is so close” and instructions were already described in words.
Sign 2 exemplified Gleeson’s signage clusters, and hierarchy/
ad-hoc issues. 15 students (62.5%) reported unlikely using such a
cluster. Students reviewed the set as “too cluttered” and “having too many things going on” with everything “difficult to notice” because they were off to the side; one reported feeling unmotivated to look through everything, only “glancing over them but [...] not taking the time to read them”. Many did not know what to focus on because while the posters had “strong graphics” they were not sure of their importance. One student noted that while there were various signs posted, the formal glass-enclosed sign had no information in it.
Students thought that a more effective signage cluster was
the one in the Learning, Writing, & Speaking (LWS) Centers (Sign 3) though it was not without its issues. Students found the signs to be easily identifiable, but again, bigger flyers “compete against each other” and draw users’ attention away from what is important. It is good to note that the flyers they were referencing are actually a part of the permanent sign scheme for the facility, though their flyer-like appearance is caused by the library having to resort to makeshift signs (again, because of unpredictable micro renovations).
Sign 4 and Sign 5 were both identification signs, one from the
Geschke expansion and the other belonging to the newer ones from previous years. The overhead sign received mixed feedback from students, with some appreciating its scale and the convenience of seeing it from afar and others feeling that they might easily miss it because the letters blend in too much with the wall or simply because they would not look up.
The students felt similarly about the newer glass decals, saying
that its scale and modern, sleek look were helpful but since the letters 56
are formed by negative cutouts of the gray sticker, it can be hard to read. However, two students did mention that by having a “different heading” (i.e., different style) from the rest of the old signage, it “actually helped” them in navigation. Overall, however, the reception for Signs 4 and 5 suggest that identification signs are particularly important in students’ wayfinding process.
6. Preferred Wayfinding Strategies
Finally, the students were asked whether they used the
particular strategies presented to them in the interview. Of Passini’s five different strategies for wayfinding, students most resonated with his third strategy of adapting to unforeseen problems, with 21 or 22 (95.5%) saying they “look around for solutions when running into a problem while navigating”.
The second strategy of narrowing into smaller subtasks came
second, with 15 (or 68.2%) students saying that they find themselves dividing navigation and focusing on one subtask at a time. The first strategy of breaking the process into steps but keeping the bigger task in mind came as third (with 14 or 63.6% of students), while the fourth (referring back to previous visits and schemata of libraries) and fifth (collect information before starting) strategies came last, resonating for 11 (50%) of the students.
This data suggests that Gleeson’s patrons particularly prefer
the third strategy, a linear method where they use available tools and landmarks to navigate their way. To acknowledge the intersections between other wayfinding frameworks, the preference over Passini’s 57
Yes
No
Strategy 1: Do you break the task into steps but keep the larger task in mind?
Unsure
14
Strategy 2: Do you divide your attention to subtasks, focusing on one task at a time?
15
Strategy 3: Do you look around for solutions and adapt to unforseen problems? Strategy 4: Do you rely on previous experiences and knowledge of libraries?
11
Strategy 5: Do you look aroud and collect information before you start navigating?
11
third strategy also means that of Siegel & White’s types of knowledge
↗
21
used to wayfind, Gleeson’s users prefer to use landmarks and routes,
4.44 Responses for which of Passini’s wayfinding strategies students use.
and more students approach library wayfinding using a linear approach versus a spatial approach where they have to create a mental map of the building. However, it is important to note that while this conclusion can be made, it does not only apply to the use of signage as Passini’s third strategy of looking around for ‘solutions’ could have been interpreted to include library staff. In addition, the preference for landmark usage does not always mean the usage of cardinal directions
I use (good experience) I use (poor experience) I do not use
and routes. Landmarks can aid in route navigation, but the two do not
13
2
7
always go hand in hand; none of the students also mentioned using a non-signage object to help them wayfinding. The preference over 13
landmarks and route also cannot dismiss that some students do use a
8
1
form of mental map when navigating, evidenced by those who found it difficult to use the stacks because they did not know its layout.
8
5
9
Furthermore, while data comparison (Figure 4.45) suggests
that signage usage is high, users experience the most issues with it. In addition, the audit had already revealed a poor signage scheme overall, which could suggest the high usage of signage does not apply to all
4.45 Comparison of staff, signage, and map usage and effectiveness based on the interview. 58
kinds; this is already evident with the lower percentage of users who use maps and directories.
It is also not fully conclusive just how much students tend to
use the four other strategies. For each strategy except for the third, at least 2 students were unsure whether they use the strategies or not. This could be because of the way they understood the phrasing of the question or simply because it is easier for users to know their wayfinding strategies in the moment as opposed to thinking about it long after, such as an interview situation like the one in this study.
Limitations
The basis of these research methods stem from my personal
experiences as a patron of Gleeson Library that is calibrated by this study’s signage audit. The experiences recorded in the conducted interviews are limited to users’ stored memories of using the library because the interviews were conducted through Google Forms, meaning that real time experiences were not recorded. This decision was driven by the shelter-in-place orders mandated during the Covid-19 pandemic, which required research methods to be modified.
Existing in-person ethnographic studies of wayfinding, which
typically include a think-aloud protocol partnered with various ways of recording observation (GoPro, written notes, etc.) (Hahn & Zitron, 2010; Mandel et. al, n/a; Kinsley and Schoonover), have all been able to obtain in-depth information pertaining to their preferred strategies and the differences in wayfinding methods depending on the task given to them. Such added perspective would benefit Gleeson for its own contexts 59
as well. Furthermore, as evidenced by the information gathered on user’s preferred wayfinding methods, a study that goes beyond written interviews will alleviate problems related to phrasing of questions. An in-person observation would help in the exactitude of users’ written responses as their actions would either confirm or conflict with their sentiments.
Despite limitations, the results of both the signage audit and
user interviews still reveal valuable information that could immediately benefit Gleeson Library in further assessing not only its wayfinding and signage shcemes, but also their brand through placemaking - a topic that goes well with their Refresh Plan. Despite the information gathered applying only to specific signages and problem areas, there are clear overlaps of issues and thus general points still serve as a reference for use by the library.
The information gathered from this study, along with the review
of existing literature, were substantial to be used for suggestions presented in the next chapter.
60
61
↗
↗
5.0 An image of how Gleeson’s wayfinding and signage scheme could look like.
WAYFINDING SUGGESTIONS
5
Summary of Findings
To summarize, Gleeson’s wayfinding issues can be defined by its
current signage scheme being inconsistent both in terms of style and placement, causing difficulties in patrons’ cognitive load and navigation. These problems are due to the building continuously evolving to this day. It has happened with the historic Geschke Center expansion during the 1990s, and now more recently with micro renovations. The Geschke expansion catered to the demand for more study spaces and shelves for a growing collection, though it also created a more complex spatial information. The micro renovations, too, provide for library patrons, having their best interests in mind by allocating more study space, though these very renovations are the main factor in Gleeson’s rapidly evolving layout. With facilities constantly changing, the signage scheme has been unable to keep up, resulting in either ad hoc solutions or downright neglect of the unified signage system, which is why we have Gleeson’s wayfinding conditions today.
The nature of Gleeson’s micro renovations are determined by
different groups that come to the library to assess which parts may benefit from a renovation. Through this process, improvements are fragmented, and consequently, so is the library’s signage scheme. As 62
this study has shown, the conditions of the signs in the building affect the user’s navigation around the library. This is a direct decrease in user experience quality, and a direct impact on the overall usability of the entire building. In order to be fully improved upon, the conditions of the library’s wayfinding scheme need to be reappraised by a professional team of environmental graphic designers who have the ability to design an overhauled system, especially to resolve signs requiring contracted installation (e.g., cast metal letterings and sign holders), as well as to ensure that signs are updated to be compliant with codes (i.e., those related to ADA accessibility). The phasing of such work follows standard processes used by architects, which typically involves planning (research, strategy, and strategies for which sign types to employ), design (schematics and construction drawings), and implementation (funding and installation) (Gibson, 2009, pgs. 34-35). The holistic approach that experts will be able to provide can resolve Gleeson’s wayfinding on a macro scale, though the following suggestions could still be used as the basis for that work, since this study was done in a way that ultimately tried to understand the needs of the end user.
Suggestions 1. Signage Placement
Firstly, alleviating the experiences of wandering around and not
knowing where facilities are requires a rework of directional signages. As mentioned in the previous chapter, an effective identification sign only gets users so far; if there is nothing effective that will lead them to that identification sign (i.e., directional signs), then the navigation 63
remains difficult. The audit found many of these directional signages to be located in arbitrary spots, so a complete reevaluation of the library’s circulation paths can help in determining where decision points are. These decision points will help in the placement of these directional signs. As an example, Figure 5.1 shows the pedestrian circulation for the entire second level, which was renovated with group study rooms in 2017. The diagram highlights intersections and proposes directional signage be installed there. This is merely a part of what would be an
that typically take place in professional EGD programming.
↗
exhaustive analysis of important points, paths, and sign opportunities
5.1 Partial circulation diagram for Gleeson’s second floor, highlighting decision points.
64
↗ 5.2 Render of an overhead, ceilingmounted directional sign similar to those found in airports. Each row and column of text use a modular slot for easy maintenance. Beige cards are used for the library collection, orange for noise level of each study room, gray for utilities, and purple for special use rooms.
↗ 5.3 Render of a flag-mount wall signage, also made to be modular. Detail of color coded glass decal provides for placemaking and identity. 65
Figures 5.2-5.5 Illustrate how directional signs based on the
previous diagram may be rendered by designers, each providing information in the context of where they are oriented within the space. Overhead ceiling-mount signs akin to airports would prove effective
↗
5.4 - 5.5 Left: above door, wallmounted directional signs. Right: wallmounted directory with redesigned noise regulation signage.
in wayfinding from a distance, though flag-mounted and wall-mounted signs would be easier to update. However, in considering Gleeson’s rapidly evolving layout, the directional signage suggestions are all designed in a modular fashion: custom slot signs allow for the easy replacement of signs and direction of arrow points.
2. Maps & Placemaking
The immediate suggestion for Gleeson’s maps/directories would
be to either replace or remove the outdated maps installed in stairwells. This would save users from using outdated tools and the confusion of 66
having multiple versions of the building’s map. In replacing the stairwell maps/directories, improvements can be made with how the information is presented. Figures 5.6-5.7 illustrates how a new map could look: Only the map of the level the user is on is shown, along with icons on the map and a legend indicating what they signify. Facilities on other levels are still shown, however they are simplified into a list; if a user would like to figure out where a facility is located on a particular level, they would have to navigate their way up there first and use the map available on that level. This streamlines the navigation process of users, preventing excessive information that could lead to more cognitive load. 5.6 Render of a flag-mount wall signage, also made to be modular.
Maps and directories are solid units typically “visible to many people simultaneously” (Gibson, 2009, pg. 52), and thus do not need to be scattered around like they currently are on Gleeson’s walls, columns, and shelf ends. Rather, directional signs mentioned previously would replace their function. It is practical to cap maps and directories to decision points - places where the Geschke expansion and old building connect, or in entry points that are major decision points for navigating the building not only verticaly but also as whole (Calori, 2007, pg.77).
Because the current updated maps/directories also serve as
regulatory signs for noise levels around the library, their regulatory aspect can instead serve as a placemaking tool. As the noise regulation signs are already posted around the library, the colors indicating which areas are silent, quiet, or for conversation will already be familiar to patrons. These colors could specify noise level rules in spaces more subtly, dominating through color and reminding users that seeing a color theme also dictates noise levels. Figures 5.8-5.11 are placemaking 67
suggestions inspired by Barbara Solomon’s supergraphics environmental designs that were purposefully large and took over entire walls as a branding and theme strategy. In these examples, text derived from existing signs were enlarged and used as decorative material, adding playfulness while serving an important utility to the space.
↗
Only map of current level is shown and emphasized
5.7 Detail of new directory design suggestion. Besides colors indicating noise levels, the map also uses purple to mean special use rooms, beige for mean stacks and library collection, green for entry/exit, gray for utilities.
Colors were taken from existing noise regulation codes imposed by the library, and being that they are scattered around the building, Gleeson’s columns are an easy way of applying this treatment. 68
↗ 5.8 - 5.9 Noise regulation color codes applied as placemaking and identity strategies for the library.
↗ 5.10 Redesigned supplementary signage indicating noise level regulations. Phrases used are inspired by current noise level signs. 69
A part of Gleeson’s refresh plan involves the creation of a literacy
↗
3. Information Literacy
5.11 More variation of wall and column treatments serving as placemaking and identity material.
program to better educate patrons on how the library works and to make the most of its features as a research facility. Though this involves the creation of programs unrelated to signage, environmental graphics could themselves be designed with educating patrons in mind. Signage do already serve as a method of introducing patrons to the additional cognitive baggage preesnt in library wayfinding, and the suggestions here attempt to execute that in the following ways:
The front desk could explicitly indicate the services it offers,
just as the reference desk would, for instance, have signage welcoming 70
users to use it for research or locating books; similarly, facilities may use their identification signs to also serve as information signs. Gleeson already does this with the Zine Library and the printers; the same technique can be applied to other areas as well.
In addition, as all 24 students expressed that they would benefit
from knowing how the library is structured, signs educating people on how features (like call numbers) work may help users navigate themselves better independently. Redesigning the stack’s call number
↗ 5.12 - 5.13 Newly designed information signs that teach patrons about library features and terminology. Low fidelity design made with hard laminated letter and tabloid size printer paper.
71
signage so that categories are shown can also entice students to simply explore the shelves based on the genre or topic of their choice. As an added visibility improvement, flag-mounted call number signs could be visible from the perspective of shelf ends before patrons even enter the disorienting corridors created by the rows of stacks (Figures 5.14-5.15).
↗
↗
↗
↗ ↗
5.14 - 5.16 Upper left: redesigned call number signs showing categories found on the shelf. Middle: new signs are visible from the view before entering stacks. Lower left: Front desk signage redesigned to show hierarchy between relevance of information.
Ultimately, to solve Gleeson’s problem with its ad hoc signs
and signage clusters, it is important that any future sign, whether it be designed professionally by environmental graphic designers or by library staff impromptu, be designed with some form of stylistic standard. These can apply to color, typeface, and even the design of signs. Various signage styles can be found in Gleeson currently, though 72
Space between signage types
↗ 5.17 - 5.19 More information signs that come from a cohesive system. Best practices are illustrated to prevent users’ cognitive load with signage clusters.
Flyers limited to two to prevent cognitive overload
73
branding. Newer glass decals and the library’s website already present this style, and if a professional team were to be brought in, it is most reasonable to continue to be consistent with the entire University. The
↗
moving forward, it may be most practical to adhere to the University’s
5.20 More information signs that come from a cohesive system. Best practices are illustrated to prevent users’ cognitive load with signage clusters.
system of signage above depicts how this consistency may look like. The standardization of signs will also help patrons identify information 74
immediately pertaining to library services from temporary flyers. This would be supplemented by best practices in the allowed placement and amount of signage in a given cluster. The consistency is achieved easily by using Whitney typeface and its various weights as the font, dividing the sign into a callout area with large text contrasted on a white background and an information area with color and smaller text. By using printer paper with hard laminate finish, the process of making them becomes achievable without the aid of professional designers. Templates and standards could be created for further use in the future, so that consistency remains for years to come.
A combination of both macro and micro changes can result in
visible changes in not only wayfinding, but also branding for the library. These suggestions do not change the fact that budget allocation for renovations may be out of the library’s hands. If budgets for micro renovations continue and are the only economically feasible way to improve the facilities, perhaps it would not be impossible to start one with a sole focus on the library’s signage and wayfinding schemes.
Reflection
This study was an inquiry on the conditions of wayfinding and
signages in Gleeson Library and Geschke center. We can gather that despite being housed in an ever-evolving building, not all of components realting to utility evolve at the same rate or quality. As the years go by, we will continue to see the library evolve to serve the ever-digitizing demands of its patrons, with innovative rooms for study and use of newer technology. They do not however dictate the library’s successful 75
fulfillment of all utility needs for its users. The inevitable invisibility of wayfinding has affected the usability of the library in many ways that are evidenced through this study, and addressing it would be for the benefit of both staff and patrons. A process that seems invisible ought to feel easy enough that it does not suddenly visibly disrupt. When library users know navigate through all the useful features the library has to offer, it only helps in ensuring that the daily activities that make up the fabric of human existence run as they should.
76
77
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1959). Huge collection has free lodging in USF’s library. San Francisco Foghorn, 1. About the Library: About the Library. (2020). Retrieved from https://guides.usfca.edu/about
Greschler, G. (2017). Gleeson Library Renovations Include New Learning Spaces, Technology Upgrades. Retrieved from http://sffoghorn.com/ gleeson-library-renovations-include-new-learningspaces-technology-upgrades/
About the Library: Strategic Plan, 2020-2022. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://guides.usfca.edu/about/ strategic-plan
Hahn, J., Zitron,L. (2011). How first-year students navigate the stacks. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(1) doi:10.5860/rusq.51n1.28
Building a Bold Tomorrow: The Charles M. & Nancy A. Geschke Learning Resource Center, The Campaign for the University of San Francisco. (1996). University of San Francisco.
Harniss, M., Brown, P. A., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). Cognitive technologies for wayfinding. In B. O’Neill & A. Gillespie (Eds.), Current issues in neuropsychology. Assistive technology for cognition: A handbook for clinicians and developers (p. 146–159). Psychology Press.
Calori, C. (2007). Signage and wayfinding design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Carlile, H. (2007). The implications of library anxiety for academic reference services: A review of literature doi: 10.1080/00048623.2007.10721282
Kamper, H. (2003). Orientation - Semantics of a Keyword. In Lutsch & Lahaye, Positions. Orientation in Society, Science and Media. Implications for the Design of Processes and Strategies, 174-180.
Donovan, J. M. (2020). Keep the books on the shelves: Library space as intrinsic facilitator of the reading experience doi: /10.1016/j. acalib.2019.102104
Kinsley, K. M., Schoonover, D., & Spitler, J. (2016). GoPro as an ethnographic tool: A wayfinding study in an academic library. Journal of Access Services, 13(1), 7-23. doi:10.1080/15367967.2016.1154465
Ghirardo, D. (1984). Architecture of Deceit. Perspecta, 21, 110–115. doi: 10.2307/1567084
Kling, B., & Krüger, T. (2013). Signage - spatial orientation : Interdisciplinary work at the gateway to design. München: Detail Business Information GmbH, The. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral. proquest.com/lib/usflibrary-ebooks/detail. action?docID=1383647
Gibson, D. (2009). The wayfinding handbook: information design for public places ; a manual for students, teachers, professionals, and clients. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. Goldberger, P. (2009). Architecture as space. In Why Architecture Matters (pp. 109-138). Yale University Press.
Li, Rui & Klippel, Alexander. (2012). Wayfinding in Libraries: Can Problems Be Predicted?. Journal of Map and Geography Libraries. 8. 21-38. doi: 10.1080/15420353.2011.622456.
Grafton, A. (2009). Apocalypse in the stacks? The research library in the age of Google. Daedalus, 138(1), 87–98. doi: 10.1162/daed.2009.138.1.87
LibGuides: Cataloging Tools and Resources: Classification. (n.d.). Retrieved from https:// libguides.ala.org/catalogingtools/classification 78
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Luo, J. (2018). Habitual wayfinding in academic libraries: Evidence from a liberal arts college. Library & Information Science Research, 40(3), 285295. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2018.09.011. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Scott, G. (1914). The architecture of humanism: a study in the history of taste. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Mandel, L. H., & LeMeur, K. A. (2018). User wayfinding strategies in public library facilities. Library & Information Science Research, 40(1), 3843. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2018.04.001.
Siegel, A. W. & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of largescale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.) Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 10; 9-55). New York: Academic Press.
Mandel, L. H. (2018). Understanding and describing users’ wayfinding behavior in public library facilities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50(1), 23–33. doi: 10.1177/0961000616635243
Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(5), 463–474. doi :10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.463
Mandel, L. H. (2019). Evaluating library signage: A systematic method for conducting a library signage inventory. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(1), 150–161. doi: /10.1177/0961000616681837
Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J.J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292.
Oyler, D.K. (1993). GLE Space Program: University Library (Gleeson Library) Agenda for establishing a space program. University of San Francisco. Passini, R. (1981). Wayfinding: A conceptual framework. doi: 10.1016/0304-4009(81)90018-8 Schmidt, J., & Cribb, G. (2011). Accommodating Shifting User Expectations. Paper presented at the WLIC, 77th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/ files/assets/library-buildings-and-equipment/ Conferences/Session%202a%20-%20Schmidt%20 -%20Accommodating%20Shifting%20User%20 Expectations.pdf Schoonover, D., & Kinsley, K. M. (2014). Stories from the stacks: Students lost in the labyrinth. 79
Journal of Access Services, 11(3), 175-188. doi: 10.1080/15367967.2014.914426
Tatarka, A, Larsen, D, Olson, T. (2006) Wayfinding in the library: Usability testing of physical spaces. In: Proceedings of the ARL library assessment conference: Building effective, sustainable, practical assessment (eds DeFranco, F, Hiller, S, Hinchcliffe, LJ.), Charlottesville, VA, USA, 25–27 September 2006, pp. 33–41. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
LIST OF FIGURES
•
• •
• •
• • • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
1.0 Dziubinska, A. (2014). London Underground atrium. https://unsplash.com/photos/ mVhd5QVlDWw 1.1 Nessia, A. (2020). 1.2 Maxxi Museum of Modern Art circulation case study. http://www.vasiliizhelezniakov.com/ museum.html 1.3 Honkasalo, J. Matinkyla metro station. Espoo, Finland. 2.0 Lu, H. (2014). Running Late for the Flight. Changi Airport, Singapore. https://unsplash.com/ photos/qNHbXkO3Xbc 2.1 Lynch, K. (1960). Los Angeles Pattern from Image of the City. 2.2 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart with information gathered from sources in bibliography. 2.3 (2020). Busy day in Goto Mall. South Korea. 2.4 Nessia, A. (2019). USF Wayfinding Graphics. San Francisco. 2.5 (2016). Children’s Museum of Denver. AIGA Colorado. https://colorado.aiga.org/2016/03/alocal-design-firm-helps-the-childrens-museum/ 2.6 Nessia, A. (2020). Graphic. 2.7 Nessia, A. (2020). Graphic. 2.8 Nessia, A. (2020). Basement lower level stacks. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 2.9 Nessia, A. (2020). Reference desk. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 3.0 Gleeson Library in the 1950s. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.1 (1959). Gleeson Library Sutro Entrance. San Francisco Foghorn. San Francisco. 3.2 (1950). Gleeson Library Front Entrance. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.3 (1950). Gleeson Library Reading Tables. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.4 (1996). Geschke Center construction photo. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.5 (1996). Geschke Center construction photo. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco.
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
• • • • • •
3.6 (1996). Geschke Center construction photo. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.7 Nessia, A. (2020). Gleeson Library Facade. San Francisco. 3.8 (1950). Inside Gleeson Library. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.9 (1950). Inside Gleeson Library. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.10 (1950). Inside Gleeson Library. Gleeson Library Archive. San Francisco. 3.11 Nessia, A. (2020). Floor Plan Graphic. 3.12 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 3.13 Nessia, A. (2020). Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 3.14 Nessia, A. (2020). Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 3.15 Nessia, A. (2020). Floor Plan Graphic. 3.16 Nessia, A. (2020). Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 3.17 Nessia, A. (2020). Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 3.18 D.,J. (2013). Reference Desks. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/ gleeson-library-san-francisco 3.19 Wells, J. (2018). Reference Computers. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. Gleeson Gleanings. https:// gleesongleanings.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/ gleesons-newest-technological-additions/#jpcarousel-14456 4.0 Robles, A. (2020). Gleeson Third Floor. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.1 Nessia, A. (2020). Graphic. 4.2 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.3 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.4 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.5 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson 80
LIST OF FIGURES
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 81
Library. San Francisco. 4.6 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.7 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.8 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.9 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.10 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.11 Kirklees College. England. 4.12 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.13 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.14 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.15 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.16 Nessia, A. (2020). Floor Plan Graphic. 4.17 Nessia, A. (2020). Floor Plan Graphic. 4.18 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.19 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.20 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.21 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.22 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.23 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.24 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.25 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.26 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco.
• • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
4.27 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 4.28 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 4.29 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.30 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.31 Wells, J. (2018). New Study Areas. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. Gleeson Gleanings. https:// gleesongleanings.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/ img_2126.jpg?w=818&h=&zoom=2 4.32 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 4.33 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 4.34 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 4.35 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 4.36 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.37 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.38 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.39 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.40 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.41 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.42 Robles, A. (2020). Signage Photograph. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 4.43 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 4.44 Nessia, A. (2020). Chart. 5.0 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.1 Nessia, A. (2020). Floor Plan Diagram. 5.2 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.3 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.4 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.5 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with
LIST OF FIGURES
• • •
•
• • • • • • • • • • •
signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.6 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.7 Nessia, A. (2020). Map design graphic. 5.8 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with placemaking mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.9 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with placemaking mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.10 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage design graphic. 5.11 Nessia, A. (2020). Placemaking graphic architecture montage. 5.12 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.13 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.14 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.15 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.16 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.17 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.18 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.19 Nessia, A. (2020). Edited photograph with signage mockup. Gleeson Library. San Francisco. 5.20 Nessia, A. (2020). Signage design graphics.
82
83