

“Warning” signs at historical sites tell visitors to relax and enjoy themselves - vog
http://twentytwowords.com/2013/05/30/warning-signs-at-historical-sites-tell-visitors-to-relax-and-enjoy-themselves/

======
hawkharris
Signs say something interesting about the herd mentality in people.

For example, psychologist Robert Cialdini did an experiment a few years ago to
get people to be more respectful of public parks. He found that negative
messages actually made people more likely to take items from the park (which
they weren't supposed to do). [1]

Interestingly, the most effective way to change people's behavior was to
leverage peer pressure, making them feel like everyone around them was already
performing the desired action. E.g. "98% of hikers don't remove rocks; please
don't be the 2%"

I'm not saying these two cases are identical, but to me what makes the U.K.
signs so effective is that they suggest, in a subtle way, "Hey, you should
have a good time because everyone else is enjoying themselves."

[1] [http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/21/riding-the-herd-
menta...](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/21/riding-the-herd-mentality-a-
new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/)

~~~
corresation
Each week my municipality sends out an email the night before garbage
collection stating which items are to be picked up the next day (e.g. blue
box, garbage, bulk items, garden bags).

Historically it was a friendly, we're-all-in-this-together sort of email
sharing information about what helps the recycling process go most smoothly,
maximizes taxpayer return, etc. Recently they had a change of responsible
parties, and now the new emails are full of stark, accusatory statements of
absolutes and rules -- the classic underlined/bold/italic "DO NOT" type list
of exclusions.

It is absolutely remarkable the effect this has. Suddenly we're not all in
this together, but it's factions working against each other. I and my fellow
taxpayers are now suddenly trouble in someone's life.

I've always been against hostile communications where they aren't necessary,
but this has absolutely opened my eyes to how much of an impact this sort of
adversarial approach can have. It's purely an anecdotal datapoint, but it
really struck me.

~~~
calinet6
People are really ridiculously similar to dogs and other animals; the response
to negative reinforcement or negative punishment is at worst uniformly
negative, or at best inconsistent and unpredictable. Positive reinforcement
results in a positive behavioral change without negative side-effects. Truly
the best way to change behavior, yet people still believe that negativity is
necessary, especially in the corporate and beaurocratic world. Mind-bogglingly
uninformed, to put it lightly.

*edit: sorry for the comparison to dogs (I have some background in animal training); but I hope at least the connection of corporate policy to empirical behavioral science and psychology isn't the cause of the downvoting... anyway if you're interested, a great book is "Don't Shoot the Dog" by Karen Pryor. And on the business side, W. Edwards Deming's seminal work "Out of the Crisis." Essentially both show a proven way of dealing with any living thing that's based on positive behavior and proven statistical methods and science rather than outdated and misguided beliefs about punishment and motivation that are now known to be less effective in the long term. Simple psychology, statistics, and science.

~~~
benkillin
Just to get pedantic, positive reinforcement means you are adding something to
the environment with the goal of affecting behavior. Negative reinforcement
means something has been removed from the environment to affect behavior. Not
the same thing as reward and punishment. A negatively worded message is still
technically positive reinforcement.

I'm not sure if you can consider a sign reinforcement though, because it is
usually presented before the desired or undesired behavior occurs....

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement>

~~~
calinet6
Yep, I'm fully aware of the behavioral theory behind it and the four
quadrants. To the layman it's easier to talk about Reinforcement versus
Punishment alone, since the two main branches share most of the common
effects, and of which (at least in animal training) Positive Reinforcement
with cues (clicker) appears to be the most effective. I realize I might have
mixed them up above, sorry about that.

I actually think about positive wording versus negative wording to be a prime
example of punishment versus reinforcement; with negative wording the
interpretation (mine anyway, without much analysis) is a pre-emptive
punishment directed directly at me for an undesired behavior that is an
option, whereas a positively worded sign is pre-emptive positive reinforcement
for good behavior that I might consider. I get rewarded/positively reinforced
for good thought versus punished for bad thoughts, and it turns out the
punishment (and side-effects thereof) applies whether or not I actually had
the thoughts or not (citation needed, etc.). Really interesting to think
about.

------
Sambdala
Even explicitly knowing I was looking at signs telling me to "relax and enjoy
myself," I found myself interpreting the sign as the warning/restriction
counterpart message until my second or third (even more careful) reading.

It's a lot like the phenomenon where if you include and and twice in a row,
you'll likely not realize the typo.

~~~
klibertp
"I found myself interpreting the sign as the warning/restriction counterpart
message"

Couldn't you just _read_ the whole sign properly on the first try? Why did you
glance over the rest of it? I think that's your fault - and our society these
days - and _not_ the fault of the signs, which were cute and funny.

~~~
darkchasma
You think the problem with society is our pattern recognition, and exclusion
behaviour? A result of being inundated with perpetual signage which is
irrelevant, or inane?

Since this is a result of society, why are you getting all blamey?

------
dave1010uk
Original source: [http://theclickdesign.com/projects/national-trust-natures-
pl...](http://theclickdesign.com/projects/national-trust-natures-playground/)

~~~
curiousdannii
Seeing the signs in context is much better than the designs by themselves.

~~~
vog
The latter pictures (scroll right) also show the signs in context.

~~~
curiousdannii
:/ Why does it scroll sideways?

------
muxxa
The 'Reserved' sign is the only one I'd object to. It's likely to be read from
afar, and never approached close enough to get the joke. Even then, it would
be easy to reason that 'fun and games' was an in-joke from whichever party
made the reservation.

~~~
amirmc
True but only if it's the first sign you come across. If I'd read any of the
other signs beforehand I'd have laughed and made a special effort to inspect
the 'reserved' sign.

------
jumblesale
This is a really cool idea. I like how it plays on the idea of NT properties
being boring fusty places where you go for rubbish school trips. I don't know
if it's a function of age but I'm actually quite excited about visiting a
National Trust property on the weekend if the weather stays nice. I encourage
others to do the same and support a really worthwhile charity.

------
lnanek2
Funny, but I don't want bright signs all over the place. If I go to see some
place, I want to see the place, not some smart aleck's stupid bright signs all
over.

~~~
lukevdp
Why hate on light hearted fun? You sound a bit like a guy in his eighties
yelling at kids to stop playing on the grass.

~~~
sejje
I think it's somewhere in-between. He's not really hating on the fun, he's
hating that it has to invade a scenic place with unnatural signs.

I can't blame him--I like to see things as-intended. No trash in the woods, no
modern equipment at historical sites, etc.

------
arethuza
On the subject of historical sites... We did a tour of an ancient monument on
Orkney last week only to discover that thugs had broken in and scrawled
graffiti over the inside of a 5,000 year old building:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeshowe>

:-)

------
shurcooL
I don't know why, but reading those signs made me feel all warm and fuzzy. :)

------
sanoli
The problem for me is I would think it was a spoof by some (forgive the
apparently hated word) hipster designer. I'd think something like "this was
made to 'subvert' the whatever, but we're actually supposed to stay off the
grass".

------
jiggy2011
As soon as I saw the large "KEEP GRASS" text I would have immediately
interpreted it as "keep off the grass", I wouldn't have read the two smaller
words in between.

Same with "KEEP MOBILE PHONE".

~~~
MrDOS
I don't see the mobile phone one as being such a problem, as it's green, which
indicates permissiveness.

~~~
jiggy2011
True, but it's rare to see a sign saying you can use your phone. Almost always
it's telling you not too.

------
salmonellaeater
_STRICTLY speaking you should stay on the path, however, we also encourage a
spot of exploring too! Have a wonderful day._

The grammar nerd in me is grinding his teeth.

~~~
minimax
What part of the sentence do you think is ungrammatical?

~~~
sltkr
1\. It's a run-on sentence. There should be a period, or at least semicolon,
before “however”. Using a proper conjunction like “but” is possible too, but
then the comma following it needs to go.

2\. Putting both “also” and “too” in the second clause is redundant.

~~~
minimax
I agree with #1, but I don't think the also/too redundancy is ungrammatical.
It's superfluous but syntactically valid.

~~~
vog
That's true, but it also has a grammar error: There should be a comma ","
before "too".

------
wavefunction
It was all good until I got to the one about keeping your mobile on for
Twitter.

Take a break from the dull monotony of 140 characters, please!

------
Naga
I think this is a fantastic idea. Historical sites, and history in general,
are the collective property of everyone, held in trust by the historical
community, be it historians in universities or tour guides at museums. We
preserve history to keep it alive for subsequent generations, so everyone
experience where we came from and who we are. What's the point of preserving
history if it is going to be locked up in a stuffy old archive? Public
engagement in history is such an important part of keeping history alive,
since if no one cares about it, why should it be preserved?

~~~
timthorn
It should be noted that the National Trust is also concerned with the natural
environment as well as historic sites. For example, their Enterprise/Project
Neptune campaign is focussed on securing the British coastline.

What's nice about the NT is that they're not an in-you-face political campaign
group, they just go about conservation on a daily basis.

------
adnam
Paternalism goes full-circle

------
RyanMcGreal
Last time I was in Paris, I noticed new signs on the lawns of the Luxembourg
Gardens advising people that they are now permitted to walk on the grass. They
were not nearly as playful as these signs.

------
adlpz
This is a terrible idea. There is this whole thing called _familiarity_ , and
most people will interpret this signs negatively because they won't stop to
read the small text.

I hope this doesn't spread.

~~~
inopinatus
In the UK, the kind of people who visit National Trust properties are the kind
of people who carefully read all the signage and actually listen to the tour
guide.

This idea is delightful.

~~~
adlpz
Maybe, I don't know what is the target of this thing, but most definitely it
wouldn't work on a general touristic place, for example.

This is a work of art, at most. Not an example of real world usability.

~~~
CanSpice
"...most definitely it wouldn't work on a general touristic place"? That's a
pretty strong statement to use with no proof.

The sites that the National Trust maintains are "general touristic places".
It's the UK's largest membership organization, with a membership of 3.7
million people in 2010. It owns over 200 historic houses. It owns more than
630,000 acres, nearly 1.5% of the entire land mass of England, Wales, and
Northern Ireland, and owns or protects roughly 20% of the coastline.

One of its properties -- just one, and remember that it owns over 200 houses
and 630,000 acres of land -- had nearly 440,000 visitors in its 2009-10 fiscal
year.

National Trust properties are most definitely "general touristic places" at
which these signs are working.

------
LanceH
Unauthorized personnel only.

------
sixothree
I live in a tourist destination city and see people taking pictures from
boring spots. I've considered placing or lobbying to place small signs or
markings for spots that make extraordinary photo opportunities.

------
mseebach
If you need to tell people to relax and have fun ("Mandatory fun day"), it's
an indication that you have a more fundamental problem. It's probably better
to address that instead of making playful signs.

~~~
mistercow
I think you're missing the point. This is not about "mandatory fun", it's
about recognizing the runaway restrictiveness of public parks and historical
sites that has resulted in people expecting that common activities will be
prohibited. It's poking fun at the uptight reputation that such places have,
and attempting to reverse the trend by loosening those irrational
restrictions.

~~~
jdmichal
Exactly. If I went to a place such as the one with the "Keep on the grass"
sign, and didn't see any signs, I would actually pretty much assume that
anyway. Because it's just so common that I expect it to be the default stance
at such locations.

------
raldi
Not very friendly to visitors who have a less-than-firm grasp of English.

~~~
marshray
Arguably no signs with words are.

~~~
raldi
I disagree; a "RESERVED for a private party" sign is effective even if you
only understand the first word, and it's certainly not misleading.

Whereas a "RESERVED for fun and games" sign can easily confuse someone who
understands the first word (perhaps they've seen it on other English signs
before) but not "fun" nor "games", and they'll be misled into thinking they're
not allowed to go into that area.

~~~
marshray
So if you were in a foreign land and knowing only a few words I saw a sign
that said:

    
    
           CMWOHGHSJE!
             mvw pxx
         MVORUW the DUCKS
    

What would you think?

------
RivieraKid
The graphics design is lovely. Has anyone an idea what typeface is it?

~~~
timthorn
It's in line with the National Trust's (<http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/>)
corporate identity, and the font is custom for the Trust

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6416447/National-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6416447/National-
Trust-rebranded-by-Olympics-firm.html)

------
drivers99
It's a cute idea but I would hope they'd remove the signs once they get the
point across, because it's visual clutter. It'd be better to have no signs at
all, eventually.

------
Sealy
That is so refreshing.

------
yoster
Great signs! This is a better way to invoke the "feel good" attitude for
visitors. When people see signs that say no loitering, no littering, and the
like, it actually does put the idea in the back of that persons head. No one
actually likes to be told what to do and that is why these signs get ignored.

------
thoughtcriminal
Looks 'shopped.

~~~
epo
You should give up on 'thought' and try and steal better cliches.

~~~
thoughtcriminal
"I always have a quotation for everything - it saves original thinking."
Dorothy L. Sayers

