 |
A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it. By Mark Hurst. |
| About Mark Hurst | Mark's Gel Conference | New York Times Story on This Is Broken | Newsletter: Subscribe | RSS Feed |
Search this site:
Categories:
- Advertising
- Current Affairs
- Customer Service
- Fixed
- Food and Drink
- Just for Fun
- Misc
- Not broken
- Place
- Product Design
- Signs
- Travel
- Web/Tech
Previous: Usability News signup | Main | Next: Scramble pads
November 10, 2004 12:01 AM
Broken: No pedestrian sign
John Butkus writes:
In the town of Malta, New York, we are not permitted to use this sidewalk if we are walking. Perhaps is OK to drive.
Is it just bad image compression or does it appear that traffic is spelled "trafic" with an extra "f" scrunched in after the fact?
John - you should be fine. It is only females on the sign.
Or men with purses and dresses. not that there is anything wrong with that
Maybe they mean that this is not a public sidewalk. Does the sidewalk lead into the yard of the grey house seen in the background?
Maybe they meant you are not supposed to step OFF the sidewalk and walk on the grass... kinda like a "keep off the grass" sign, just put at a bad angle so it is running with the sidewalk?
To build on Jason's comment: It looks to me like maybe it passes through a private development and you're not meant to walk through there as a shortcut.
Yeah, seriously, has it gotten so bad around here that people are submitting fakes?
"This Is Broken" Is Broken
ok..... it said pedestrian traffic, then someone PAINTED the "NO" and the little crossed-off-ness on it. note the drips of paint
hmmm... on second thought/closer looking-ness... not really drips, more like it looks when you paint something without a stencil
I think Mink is right. It looks like a simple vandalized sign. The photographer was bound to know, however -- it's too obvious.
The "No" isn't neat or the same font size as the other writing and the circle with line isn't perfectly circular. Either vandalism or just poor photography.
Wow, obviously, someone either Photoshoped it, or changed it physically. It doesn't really matter though. Whatever. Eat tacos. They are good for the liver.
It's real, the reason it looks all botchy is because it hasn't been resized properly.
Check out this: http://broken.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/nopedestriantraffic01_1.jpg
Hmm... that does look a bit more convincing. As for the change in boldness, sometimes signs made by a particular development are designed differently, especially when they don't need it to be seen by traffic. So...
At the very least, it's clearly not a case of vandalism -- why would there be so much space for someone to write "NO" in the first place?
Could it be the owner of the sign made the alterations, it looks like a private residence. could just be hard to find a no walking sign
Come on, that's not Photoshop, it looks too good. I'm not saying it looks great, but too good for PS.
edit: It doesn't have a PS signature anyway.
this post has been edited by bob at 15:47cst on Jan 1 2005
If the 'NO' was added afterwards, either by vandalism or digital tampering, then why did the sign makers leave such a large space at the top of the sign?
Comments on this entry are closed
Previous: Usability News signup | Main | Next: Scramble pads
Strange. What are you SUPPOSED to use it for?
Posted by: PlantPerson at November 10, 2004 06:26 AM