Wayshowing and Community Identity Part Three

This is the final instalment in a series discussing the role of wayfinding in fostering community identity and involvement. Have a read of parts one and two first.


My project, Found, attempts to bridge the divide between wayfinding systems and cultural networks. That is to say, it attempts to view wayfinding systems as a form of community identity, where that identity is created by the interactions of people in various social groups and within a particular geographic area. The idea is that people would contribute their own recommendations for social and cultural activities within a given area, which would then be applied in a system around the project’s target site. Such a system would bypass some of the previously mentioned issues with contemporary wayfinding solutions—it is democratic, private and provides relevant information at the site where it is needed. It is also a direct expression of the community’s identity. There are, of course, problems with this approach. Firstly, wayfinding and sign systems exist for those who cannot find their way, and so a socially focused system would be of little use to, say, someone in desperate need of health care. A socially based, or crowd-sourced, system such as this would not be traditional wayfinding—it is a supplementary layer that sits on top of the already installed systems that exist within the metropolitan environment. In attempting to create such a system, and particularly within the limited amount of time available in an honours degree, there are a number of restrictions that must be placed upon the project.

One of these considerations was the geographical area that was to be used for the system, for which two main sites were considered. The site had to be relatively well populated to ensure a broad range of cultural pursuits, but small enough that it was going to be relatively easy to examine. For this reason, several sites on Melbourne’s inner city fringe were rejected—while suburbs such as St. Kilda, Richmond and Brunswick are cultural centres in their own right, there was concern that these environments are not used often enough for a truly broad data set to be built. Thus, the inner city, from Collins Street to Little Bourke Street across and then from Spring Street to Spencer Street, was chosen as the prospective site for the wayfinding system. There is no reason that such a system, if successful, could not be expanded to include Melbourne’s other suburbs, and the system should be designed in such a way as to take this expansion into account. Allowing anyone to update the information provided removes concerns that such a system would privledge those who dwell in the inner city, which is why an adaptable system that does not rely on expensive installations or kiosks is necessary. The downfall of such a system would be that people often don't understand the best way to navigate built, complex environments—while it may be nice to think that the broader population should become deeply involved in the wayshowing systems of their city, there is little chance of that happening.

At this stage, the system seeks to find a fine balance between control of information design, which has been a speciality of wayshowing, and an 'open source' style system that allows anyone to contribute to the information displayed. The solution—again, this is only a proposal—would involve taking recommendations for locations from the general public and designing those in a site specific manner. This could involve an up-dateable directory of information, small directional signs, postcards to be carried by users. Ultimately, a key part of the system will be the method of collecting data from the public, for which a simple website is a perfect solution. The directory could display the top ten recommended destinations for Summer 2010, Spring 2011, etc. Such a system allows me to find that balance between open source and control, while also granting the ability to have it be updated regularly. Additionally, there is a link here between the way the system works, with regular, community led updates, and the way communal identity shifts and changes over time. The question remains as to whether the posters, stickers and postcards should be left in their environments or removed at the end of the period—a case can be made for leaving evidence of the community's preferences over time, but there is a danger of simply increasing the visual clutter already present within the inner city.

As it currently stands, wayshowing is an expression of communal identity only in the fact that it appears within the community. Its static nature, and focus on providing pure information, means that there is little interaction between users and the wayfinding solution—it is a form of dictation and proclamation. While there have been a number of different approaches to providing users with an intimate experience, reflective of both their surroundings and their cultural activities, there has, as yet, been no solution that accurately reflects all aspects of these. If we add to this the minimalist aesthetic that flows through much of information design, there is little room left for individual cultural expression. And yet, there is potential for a wayfinding system to remove perceived barriers to entry for cultural pursuits and, in so doing, create a more closely knit communal identity. To do so, however, it must move beyond traditional wayfinding methods and embrace community interaction, and actively involve those who traditionally sit outside of wayfinding and information design.
Related Posts with Thumbnails