Over the next few days, I'll be going through various metro stations, both old and new, to look at the updated signage as it appears in real life. As I've already gone to plenty of stations to take an in-depth look at the improvements, I'll share a few key observations that I've made so far.
1: Consistency and "Brand Image"
The most recurring problem I have so far isn't the signage itself, but the way it is being deployed. STM's paltry budget forces the signage to be implemented excruciatingly slowly: if you watched the video or read a bit of the link above, you'll see that STM specifies that 17 stations will have the new signage, by 2020.
I can first-handedly attest to the evidence of STM's budgetary restrictions - leaks in many stations create some of the ugliest walls you'll ever see in a subway station (I recommend staying away from Guy-Concordia if possible). But this just seems like an issue of prioritization at this point - if, with the budget STM has, only 17 stations can have their signage upgraded in four years, wouldn't it be smarter to spend that money in a quite frankly much more pressing domain?
That said, the counterargument to this is logical as well - the stations selected for renewal are ones that are or will be undergoing major work anyways, and as many of the new signage features have new infrastructure requirements, such as slightly taller panels, it makes sense that their layout would change as part of the refurbishment process.
On an individual basis, almost all of the improvements STM proposes to its signage are a step forward. The font is clearer and more modern, color coding is more consistent, station exits are finally organized in some fashion, etc. But that's not enough: signage works as a system, not on a per-case basis. McDonald's is successful because you know what to look for literally everywhere you go. If you see a big, ugly, cartoonish M somewhere, you know you can get a cheap burger extremely quickly. Apple is successful for the same reason. As is the London tube. Oh wait! That's also why the Montreal metro works from the outside - every station has the same logo and signage outside of it.
I'd almost argue that it's the consistency and repetition of the same design language, not necessarily the design itself, that's most important. Which illustrates the problem with this rebranding: if you enter the metro at newly-branded Square-Victoria-OACI to go to the also newly-branded Atwater, the necessary information is organized completely differently at each station involved. Here's a rough step-by-step breakdown of what I mean by this:
At Square-Vic, you'll enter through a letter-coded entrance, and the signs pointing to the metro will be in black. However, upon transferring at Lionel-Groulx, the black sign to the metro you looked for at Square-Vic is now taking you towards an exit or nearby attraction, not the metro you're trying to transfer to. The signs to the metro are now in the color of the metro line itself. Then, when you get off at Atwater, you look for a black sign to point you towards an exit, as it was at Lionel-Groulx, only to learn that those are once again showing you back down to the metro. Then, you realize that the exits at Atwater are conveniently letter-coded as well! And just as you thought you were returning to the comfort of the same signage system at Square-Vic, you'll learn that the Atwater exits are organized in a completely different manner, and that two key ones are entirely omitted from letter-coding. Oops.
This is an awful experience! Imagine if, on a road trip, the exit, junction, and nearby attractions signs changed their entire color, logo, font, and styling scheme three exits in a row. This is why having 17 stations roughly branded one way and the rest branded a different way simply doesn't work. The metro works as a cohesive system, its signage should too.
2: A lack of clarity, or just a lack of anything?
Second, I'd argue that a lot of the current signage problems in the metro aren't inherent to the design, rather, they stem from a more general lack of information. Upon exiting the platform at Bonaventure station, a red exit sign guides you to the main plaza of the station, where nothing but two extremely small, confusing, and information-clogged displays stand at ground-level. Herein lies the first issue - to go anywhere, you already have a one in two chance of walking in the wrong direction. No information about the exits is available anywhere along the way out of the station, until you've made a decision on which way to go. Here's a photo illustration of that flow.
As you exit the metro doors. This is fine. There is a clearly visible, red sign showing you the way off of the platform.
However, after going up the stairs to exit the platform, a pretty important problem arises.
In the far left of the above photo, you'll notice the only pieces of signage visible in this situation. That general direction is one of the two initial ways you can exit the square. There are two options here: one, block the flow of passengers by standing in the middle of the square, and then squint to barely be able to read the signs that are far away in each direction. Of course, the second option is just walking down one direction and using classic trial and error. In a station as infuriatingly complex and poorly marked as Bonaventure, that could have fifteen-minute repercussions.
Of course, there's a third option I didn't mention - you could stand at the tiny information panel in the square, parse it for two minutes, and hope you're going in the right direction shortly thereafter. That's if you find the information panel in the first place - I certainly didn't upon exiting the station. It's not marked at all, and only a few people can read it at a time. That's not signage. You might as well just talk to the STM employee at the station at this point, which most people will opt for anyways.
The issue at hand here isn't one of fonts, logos or legibility: it's just a lack of signage, period. If STM can hang massive light fixtures from the ceiling here, they could probably hang some signage as well. Or, they could utilize the method found on the platform of this same station, and use the light fixtures themselves as signage. Both would be better than nothing.
3: It's in the details
In the hopes of ending on a more positive note, I'll briefly point out some of the less-evident details of the new signage system that are excellent.
One of my absolute favorites is the letter-coding of exits. The subtle detail within this that I love is the color coding of the classic exit sign and the letters that denote each separate exit. Here's what I mean.
Notice how the red used for A and B is the exact same red used for the exit sign. This is fantastic! It creates a visual and mental link which tell you exactly what the A and B mean. I'd argue that the Sortie sign here is almost redundant - because the red is a system-wide indicator of an exit, the visual connection is already made.
Another detail: the simplification of the background colors used for signage. Black = metro, Red = exit, White = anything else. Not only is it simple, universally applicable, and clear, it's also intuitive. Color is used as an accent, not as a constant, which makes everything much more readable. Deciphering text on an orange or green background is difficult, and I'd argue that the orange background is a less intuitive reminder of which metro line the sign is pointing to than the simple colored dot currently used in the new signage.
And the last thing that I think is massive: the new metro map follows the same styling of the new signage, just as the old set did. What do I mean by this? Compare the above sign to the image below.
You'll notice that apart from the capital letters, the styling of "Montmorency" in the sign above and the "Montmorency" on the new metro map (just above) are the exact same. This is crucial. The point of the signage in the station is to tell you the destination attainable from that platform. Associating it to the map creates a visual and mental link in the mind of the user, making Montmorency a logical and quickly understandable cue, whereas if the two were styled differently, this connection would not happen, and you'd feel lost. In this case, a simple "Inbound" or "Outbound" would need to be used.
I actually think they did a slightly better job of this in the previous signage system, though - let's compare the Montmorency sign at Bonaventure to the old map.
Notice how the "Montmorency" in both images here are almost carbon copies. Same exact font, styling, background, and even the capital M's are slightly bigger in both. Whatever the case, I'm happy they kept the link between the two in the new design.
These are little details, but don't underestimate their importance.
More signage geekiness should come soon.