Sign saturation is a common problem in busy public spaces. You find yourself simply swarmed by signs not knowing where to look. This is particularly evident if numerous entities want their sign to stand out from others. The beholder can become easily lost in the battle of the signs.

The positioning of signs poses another problem. Where is the best place for a sign to be easily noticed and the information quickly taken in? Signs are often placed too high up - we must bend our heads at an angle that does not come naturally, or we simply miss them all together. It is, in fact, much more natural for humans to look straight ahead and down rather than up - our ancestors hunted on the ground and looked for ground predators far more than sky predators. That said, the Eurostar at St.Pancras in London has useful, detailed signs carefully stuck on the ground indicating carriage numbers and directions, but most passengers (myself included) search for hanging signs instead! Both our innate and learned habits play a part in our receptiveness to signs.

Some signs we encounter are simply unclear. I recently spent quite some time with friends discussing the signification of a particular road sign - featuring a symbol of a caravan with a triangle below, seemingly above a stream of water. Ultimately icons are an effective way of providing information, if they are clear! Perhaps the mysterious caravan sign is easily interpreted by caravan users, in this case it is not necessary that it be understood universally.

If signs are for multiple audiences it is important that the sign be understood by all target groups. The road sign above, from bi-lingual Wales, was evidently checked only by an English speaker. The Welsh reads: "I am not in the office at the moment. Send any work to be translated."

Colours can make signs stand out or can group or prioritize certain signs over others. The key here is that the signification of particular colours is clear. In Geneva airport, the division of signs into yellow (for all flight related information- security, gates etc.) and white (for everything else - shops, food halls etc.) is unexplained and often misunderstood. Similarly, colours may signify one thing to some people and another to others. Take road signs - in France blue is for the motorway, and green for other roads. In neighbouring Switzerland it is the opposite.

For the sign-reader to find their way easily they can only hope that their needs were at the heart of the planning stage. Signage needs thorough thinking through, a strategic approach and certainly an understanding of different aspects of perception analysis that affect where we look (and why), how we react to a sign and it’s surroundings and how we interpret the total of what we perceive.

In a public place it is useful for signs to be coherent and to work as a system. If there is a priority path (i.e, from the check-in to the gate) this should be clearly differentiated so people don’t get lost in a maze of other information.

On a business note, to communicate in an environment of information overload, a message needs to be visible. There are many perceptual factors to consider to really stand out from the crowd.

On a personal note, unclear signs are now a source of interest and often amusement. Unless of course, I'm lost and in a rush!

There is no doubt about it, with social networks news travels faster than ever before. Twitter brings a new meaning to the saying “a little birdie told me...” and world news channels have turned to the online community to bring an interactive element to their coverage and reach out for first hand accounts. CNNlive used facebook connect as a discussion platform during the Obama inauguration and BBC world service “World Have Your Say” has an active facebook account. Are individuals taking advantage of these online communities to encourage social change too?

The answer is yes. Amongst my facebook “friends” I have seen many a plea and link to donate to the Haiti earthquake appeals. And, during the Obama presidential campaign social networks were full of it. I was impressed by the outpouring of heated discussion (often from people I know to be normally disinterested in politics) when right-wing extremist Nick Griffin, of the British National Party, controversially appeared on political debate show ‘Question Time’ in October 2009.

One power of the immediately vast online community is to regroup people who share a common view. Members can unite for or against a cause in a way that will spread far faster than an old-fashioned petition. But can these groups really lead to action? One such group, created by your average British couple, became the UK’s most trafficked and historic facebook group when it campaigned for users to unite to prevent the winner of talent show X-factor from reaching number one in the singles charts at Christmas. The talent show giant has had a ‘pop monopoly’ hold on the all-important christmas top-spot for the past four years. Admittedly this ‘success’ does not really demonstrate social change but it does show the power of such a community when people unite.

On a much more serious note social networks have had a huge role in bringing people together to share information. In the wake of the Haiti earthquake, facebook has been one of the key communication tools connecting people worldwide. Within 24 hours the group “Earthquake Haiti” had 209,000 members and it has been used not only to promote the aid effort - with links to online donations - but quite simply as a practical tool for information sharing. This group contains emergency contact numbers, latest updates and information about missing people. This really shows the online community functioning with purpose.

But does this effective and functional use get lost amongst the insignificant and mundane. Does claiming your affiliation to a cause, using a chain status update to ‘raise awareness’ or showing the power of ‘the people’ to go against the expected, amount to the same thing as publicizing the fact that you are a fan of “flipping the pillow over to get the cold side”*? Does it do an important cause justice to be publicized alongside a group entitled “If 20,000 people join, I will legally change my name to biscuit”*?

I still believe social networks really can be used for good, especially for raising awareness and as a call to action. Maybe what is necessary is an online community dedicated entirely to “causing change.”

But would it reach the masses? Those who wouldn’t proactively search for an such an information source...? Sadly, the answer here is probably no. But, maybe if such a thing were to exist we could spread the news on twitter. Or perhaps start a facebook group.

*(genuine page/group on facebook)

As I worked this past month on the 20th anniversary celebration of the Basel Convention - a global environmental agreement on waste - I found myself questioning sustainability in a materialistic world. The convention deals with hazardous wastes, such as chemicals, and more recently the increasing issue of e-waste as everyone clamors for the newest generation of gadget. Many experts emphasised the need for sustainable development projects. Admittedly my own pondering starts with perhaps a more superficial issue but one that is, nonetheless, grounds for much wastage: fashion.

One person showing us that fashion can be sustainable is Sheena Matheiken of the Uniform Project. She has pledged to wear the same dress (of which she has 7 copies!) every day for a year, but each day creating a new and unique outfit. At the same time as a project in sustainable fashion, UP is raising money for Akanksha’s School Project to fund uniforms and other educational expenses for children in the slums in India.

I have to admit it has become a daily fix for me to see what twist Sheena has come up with to keep her ‘uniform’ looking like she has walked straight out of the pages of a magazine, but more than this it has helped me calm my unhealthy and wasteful shopping bug! I have always been one for a hand-me-down, a rediscovered accessory from my mum’s old jewelry box, a charity shop find but I was also known to head to a shop for a cheap and cheerful ‘pick-me-up’ that I might wear a handful of times before I got bored or it fell apart. Not only do cheap clothes leave me wondering by whom, where and how my new purchase was produced for such a low price, this habit is also incredibly wasteful. This is similar to the fashion waste of some ‘label junkies’ who just have to have the newest version of a certain item of clothing, the hottest pair of trainers, the hippest mark. What happens to the old ones they have collected over the months or years?

The Uniform Project has made me resolve to try harder to stick to the more sustainable lifecycle of fashion. Being ‘up to date’ needn’t necessarily mean having the latest item but more that subtle tweak here, an eye-catching accessory there… and what better way than re-using and recycling. I find myself putting two things together that I never would have thought of before, and with an increased urge to visit thrift stores and charity shops. For years now I have taken great pleasure in trawling through my friends’ wardrobe clear-outs, and likewise my nearest and dearest are my first of port of call when I spring clean my wardrobe - then it’s the charity shop. What better than to imagine someone else benefitting from something I once loved, but don’t use anymore? Granted, I still have more clothes than you can shake a stick at, but I like to think I am aware of the responsibility to be sustainable in a materialistic society.

I think that this attitude can be applied to other aspects of waste in our day-to-day life. Do you really need that new gadget? And if you do what are you going to do with the old one? I urge you to recycle it, pass it on to a less gadget-driven friend or relative, or indeed, make like Sheena and accessorize it!

In the UK the government provides all healthcare services, and those who work in the NHS are classed as government employees. Overall this nationalised system is something most Brits are proud of: the idea of ‘universal coverage’ paid for directly by the government from general tax revenue. However, no-one disputes the problems within the system - particularly the issue of waiting lists and delays in receiving treatment. Although highly centralised, the British system is not strict and citizens are allowed to choose private healthcare over the NHS. It is here that my issue lies. Although only some 10% choose to “go private” in the UK this number is growing. I feel this already creates a 2-tier system reflecting the injustice of the insured vs. uninsured in the US.

I can’t accept the benefits of the UK’s private healthcare system. Like a ‘fast-track’ queue for a ride at a theme park, I feel that the addition of the privilege for some only contributes to delay and inefficiency for all the rest. I see the private system draining the resources of the public system, with Doctors choosing to work privately for better pay and conditions. I can understand that with wealth comes a desire to spend more money on healthcare but I can’t help but judge it as the selfish choice if it is at the disadvantage of others. I believe that if we are to have a nationalised system this privilege should ultimately be limited to the option to pay for supplementary services that are not covered by the national system. It is then down to the government to reform the system for the benefit of everyone, not for the rich-poor divide to grow in access to, and quality of healthcare. Perhaps with a more strict system, and its own healthcare reform, the UK could one day be a model of a good NHS! (indeed Michael Moore uses it as a good example in his movie SiCKO)

France does not have an NHS but the French system assures healthcare for everyone. A basic level of healthcare insurance is provided by the government, after that employers are obliged to provide healthcare insurance and the government provides insurance for the unemployed. Patients pay up front for healthcare and are then reimbursed by insurance. However, practitioners are entitled to charge above the price that will be reimbursed. Obviously there is an element of competition between different physicians in France and some variety in the quality of healthcare, but physicians receive a limited wage and the government regulates the number of medical students each year. Overall the French healthcare system seems to avoid the stark divide of a 2-tier system that is so apparent in the US and UK systems. Maybe I have done well to come and live here! That is not to say France has the perfect system: it is often criticised for its expenditure and everyone tells me the paperwork is a nightmare.

There is no ideal healthcare system out there right now but there are definite lessons to be learnt from the strengths and weaknesses of systems throughout the world. If anyone can take the information and use it to go someway to combating the injustices in some of our systems I hope that Obama can.

Coming from the west of Scotland, I have grown up hearing about nationalism and sectarianism in Ireland and Scotland. But these words and the sentiments they throw up can be seen everywhere. In Scotland, if you fly a British flag, you are seen as anti-Irish, anti-Catholic, and pro-BNP. If you fly an Irish flag, you are looked upon as anti-Protestant, and pro-IRA. In the USA, however, flying the Stars and Stripes is done with pride. I travelled through 21 different states and was astounded by the prevalence of flags flying anywhere and everywhere.

This weekend I saw a(nother) silent protest for the rights of the 'sans papiers'. The immigrants who have no paper saying that they have a right to be here. To take refuge here. Whether it be from violence, from famine, to follow a dream of being better off. Also this weekend in China, scores of people were killed as a result of violence between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese settlers as they become more and more numerous in the province of Xinjiang.

These situations are all very different; one is about conditioning, one about a minority migrating to try to find a better life for themselves, and one a question of a province breaking away and becoming independent. But at the same time, they are very similar. They call into question patriotism, nationalism, and living with our fellow man.

Obviously, our views on patriotism and nationalism and inclusion are influenced greatly by the circumstances we grow up in. Usually, it's by what parents teach their children, or peer groups influencing youthful minds. But recently, I think a lot comes from people, and governments especially, trying in fact to be too inclusive, so much so that they end up being exclusive in the other direction. There are parts of the UK where the government gives preferential treatment to immigrants. Fortunately, the kind of violence shown to the indigenous Chinese people by their Uighur cohabitants is not as prominent, but locals that protest about the preferential treatment the immigrants are shown are labelled as racist. Politicians are becoming afraid to stop acting in such a way because they are afraid of being branded as racist themselves.

With the sans-papiers and the immigrants in the UK, it is a question of being integrated into the society. It is all very well for the locals to be open to helping others in need, and to try to make them feel welcome, giving everyone the same basic rights, but is this what the immigrants want? There are so many cases of people demanding equal rights, but then refusing to respect the laws and standards of the countries they move to.

But to claim that one way of life or one set of standards is superior to another is to pay disservice to the notion of diversity. We cannot truly accept immigrants and respect their ways of life if we feel inherently better than they are, purely because we happened to be born in such and such a place and they weren't so lucky. It is one thing to take pride in your country and what you believe in. It is another altogether to think that yours is the only way, showing disrespect to those who are different.

What am I trying to say here? That immigrants are given too much already, and that we should no longer accept them? Not at all. In fact, on the contrary. I am all for migration. In a very crude evaluation, my economic instincts make me inclined to cry 'The more the better! Labour is a resource, bring them in by the dozen!' However, history has shown us that people don't like this, and it makes them nationalistic. This has led to whole nations and peoples being annihilated. Vibrant cultures wiped out. Diverse thinkers exterminated. Religious hate fueled. Where will it lead? A homogenised world? With the strongest most populous culture the winner?

The solution is not evident, how can we ensure people can live where they want, how they want, and together? Is it possible? I find it a sad thought that we can put a man on the moon and clone living creatures, but when it comes to playing nicely together, so many of us still put me and my nation in front of us and our planet.

Have you heard about Alfie? and his girlfriend Chantelle? and their new-born baby, Maisie? Well you probably have...except its not really the miracle of birth that stands out in this story, but instead the phenomenon of the British tabloid press. 

So why such a hoo-hah?...we know its possible...people around the world have for centuries been making babies and taking on greater responsibilities at ages younger than that at which a Brit is deemed old enough to consent to having sex. So, yes, Alfie looks like an older brother rather than a father to his daughter and yes it is shocking but its not a scientific discovery that at 13 years old some boys have hit puberty and some of these boys look remarkably young. And yes some teenagers want to have sex...we know this already.

And don’t let yourselves be fooled that this story made so many waves just to question the effectiveness of the millions of pounds that the government spends to fund sex education programs in schools. Because just one child being born to teenage parents isn’t enough infer anything about the British sex education programme, unless you have the analytical skills of a baby.

No...the real reason I think this story gained the momentum and interest it did is much more shameful. The UK after all seems to be a nation of readers of a whole myriad of gossip magazines...you could read a new gossip glossy every day of the week as there appears to be a bottomless pit of celebrities having a fat day/wearing bad shoes/showing their underwear for the press to exploit. And these slip-ups make us mere mortals feel just a little bit better about our own cellulite, break-ups or funny shaped noses. 

However, fashion choices are just fashion choices...they’re not really going to move the world (I’m sure Coco Channel is now turning in her grave). But baby Maisie isn’t a pair of shoes...she’s one day going to be old enough to realise her birth was covered by the press. And the main reason I see for her headlines is part of the trend within the british media to try and boost morale by bullying: making people feel good by comparing them to others.
So you might think you’re a bad dad cos your child has started smoking or isn’t the A* pupil you’d hoped for? But no!!! atleast you didn’t have a kid when you were 13 did you? So give yourself a pat on the back and go get yourself a cool beer to celebrate your successes.  So, your finances may be a mess? But no, alteast you didn’t ‘do an Alfie’ and respond to the question ‘What are you going to do financially?’ by asking ‘What’s financially?’. 

And to highlight how insensitive the extent of coverage has been then after a DNA test it turns out that Alfie isn’t actually Maisie’s father. And please please no Mr Iain Duncan Smith do not use this story as evidence that British society is broken and people are losing their moral compass: Infidelity isn’t anything new (didn’t Clinton prove that already?) and neither is underage sex.

So, Chantelle may have been more sexually promiscuous than Alfie thought, and of course thats not nice to Alfie’s feelings. But hey, smile! whatever mistakes you’ve made recently it can’t be as bad or outrageous as this can it?... But when Maisie grows up to realise that people made themselves feel better at her expense what sort of message will she get from the publicity surrounding her birth? That bullying is allowed? in both national and international media? And then if so, its probably allowed in her neighbourhood as well isn’t it? And it is for this reason that I think the media needs to practice what it preaches about anti-bullying messages and to get down from its disillusioned moral high-ground and use a little bit of sensitivity in its coverage rather than just continue to feed the insatiable appetite of most punters for hurtful gossip.

May 1st in France is the fête du travail, or labour day for Americans, and May 8th is Victory in Europe day.

Labour day is an excellent opportunity to think about our right to work. Our desire to contribute to society. A big contribution, or a small contribution. A contribution nonetheless. The will to help our fellow man, improve our lot and aid society. It is also a day to remember that workers should be respected and not abused. This is especially pertinent given today’s current economic climate, with companies struggling to stay afloat (see in the car industry and the well-publicised upheaval of the banking sector). While those at the helm are taking measures to save their companies so growth can recommence once the storm has subsided, it is important to make sure that the measures taken are not heavily at the expense of those with small savings and investments, and those with minimum wage jobs. These are the people that need supporting during an economic crisis. So on labour day – think about the labourers, the elbow grease of our economy!

64 years on, Victory in Europe Day is only celebrated as a public holiday in France. This is the day the last battle in western Europe was fought. Peace in Europe day. I think it’s fitting that we celebrate May 9th as Europe Day, in commemoration of the Schuman Declaration. For this long weekend some friends I took a trip up to Strasbourg. The primary purpose of the trip was to sample some tarte flambée, Alsace beer, and get out somewhere a bit more lively. Strasbourg also happens to be the home of the European Parliament, and a very pretty place indeed. Being so close to the German border we took the opportunity to visit Deutschland. To my surprise it is incredibly easy. There are no borders. No guards. No passport control. You just take a pedestrian bridge and you’re in another country. The only indication you have that you are somewhere different is that you step into a very clean, precisely organised suburb where all the street names are written in another language, and where the locals are clued in to the fact that everything is that little bit cheaper than in France. Although I only speak around 5 words of German, communication was easy through a mix of French and English. Also, for someone who comes from the UK, where you need your passport to go anywhere, passing from France, through Switzerland, and then later into Germany without once being asked to show a passport made a real impression on me. This weekend for me definitely showed European unity and togetherness, an apposite way to celebrate Peace in Europe.

So really, these bank holidays seem to me to be about celebrating those around us. Our coworkers, and our European neighbours. I certainly enjoyed an apéro in the sun with both parties.

Première contribution au blog mondo. Premier exercice de confidence engagée. Le terrain est vaste. La balle est en jeu…

Ces quelques lignes que l'on espère contagieuses, le moment de volontariat passé dans le froid pour une cause qui nous échaude ne changeront pas le monde. Pas davantage que la signature apposée en vitesse sur la pétition de ce militant d'une cause juste, que les 10 euros versés chaque mois à cette organisation à laquelle on délègue notre indignation, ou que ce bulletin de vote déposé dans l'urne…

Rien de tout ça ne changera le monde. Mais depuis toujours les petits ruisseaux font les grandes rivières, et le courant actuel peut faire très vite d'une rivière un fleuve. C'est notre chance vu le nombre de motifs à préoccupation. Soyons chacun les enzymes d'un changement à plus grande échelle, dans nos actions quotidiennes et nos conversations anodines. À terme nous mobiliserons les foules.

Il y a quelques mois, un animateur-baby boomer bien connu des téléspectateurs français publiait sa biographie en confessant " On n'a pas changé le monde mais on s'est bien amusé ". L'un ne doit pas forcément se faire aux dépens de l'autre. Changeons le monde ET amusons-nous. Balle au centre…