Activity: Analyzing Accessibility in Print Marketing by Learn with NoveList

Hint

Learn_with_NoveList — 2023-11-29 23:14:39 UTC

Hint 1 : Is the font size appropriate? (Remember: Ideal would be around 16-to-18-point.)

Hint 2 : Are the signs positioned at a height suitable for all, including wheelchair users? (Remember: Lower placement helps wheelchair accessibility.)

Hint

Learn_with_NoveList — 2023-11-29 23:15:48 UTC

Hint: Does the sign material seem glossy or matte? Is there any glare, especially from overhead lights? (Remember: Glare can hinder readability.)

Learn_with_NoveList — 2023-11-29 23:16:23 UTC

After listing your observations in the previous questions, think about how an inaccessible signage design might impact library patrons. Share your thoughts below.

signs

2025-05-29 06:04:18 UTC

There is clear signage on the top of the shelves, would prefer not to have the Fic abbreviation but this may fit what it says in the catalogue. As a separate point, if the bottom shelf is not being used, it perhaps should be removed, plus some face out display of titles may aid discoverability.

useful signs

2025-05-29 06:06:14 UTC

It is a tension enough signs so people can wayfind and not so many that they are ignored. It is probably a case of less is more, but some libraries go the ultra minimalist route so you have to walk through the whole library to find the right section. Clear, and simple signage is to be preferred.

Font Size and sign height

2025-07-23 00:23:35 UTC

the font size for the main signs is good but they are too high up

the font size for the secondary signs is too small

Font size and sign height

2025-07-23 00:25:53 UTC

main signs font size are good, they are paced a bit high.

Secondary signs are at a better height and font looks right

Reflection

2025-07-23 00:27:50 UTC

signage seems a little shiny perhaps getting glare from the light which is made worse by the material on the sign holders and the shelf ends.

I would be inclined to change FIC to read Fiction for clarity

Doing Well

2025-08-25 14:28:30 UTC

1) They are using a large font size for easy interpretation of characters and content

2) It is a simplistic design with several areas of white space to make the content more visually acute and easier to parse

3) The signs on the left have directional arrows that additionally contextualize the content of the sign by providing visual cues without it being too visually cluttered

Needs adjustment

lsawamoto — 2025-08-25 14:36:46 UTC

1) The use of abbreviations is difficult to interpret. Using fiction instead of FIC in the sign content is more easily understandable and avoids difficulties in understanding from the patron perspective as related to library jargon

2) The signs are inconsistent in design. The ones on the left have arrows and do not include a header, and they are written with traditional print features (left to right). The signs on the right are not written traditionally and are one word per line and do include a header. More consistent designs could support patrons with increased understanding of the signage.

3) The large signs are enclosed in a clear glossy sign holder that could impede patron interpretation of the signs due to the glare. Also speaking to inconsistency, maybe foam like signs (similar to the ones attached to the shelf) would be more applicable to sign interpretation as well as a cohesive promotional style.

Impact

lsawamoto — 2025-08-25 14:47:52 UTC

I feel that signage and promotions rooted in inaccessible design will deter the patrons that cannot utilize them (or have difficulties otherwise) and effectively limit their willingness or capability to engage further with the library and its materials. It could inhibit them from locating or interacting with materials they need or desire which could, on a larger scale, impact their perception of the library and cause them to not visit the library altogether. There are several negative connotations and outcomes surrounding inaccessible signage.

signs are too high

2025-10-02 19:41:18 UTC

signage

2025-10-02 19:41:51 UTC

glare

2025-10-15 19:28:51 UTC

Font size is good. Signs could be lower though.

2025-10-15 19:29:59 UTC

Glare on the upper signs.

It looks like there is no matted material on the brochure.

2026-03-21 16:34:45 UTC

The matting could be improved so it is less glossy as described by the patrons.

2026-03-21 16:35:29 UTC