There is a version of this argument that sounds hyperbolic. A sign, however flawed, at least tries to help, surely something is better than nothing.

In practice, the opposite is often true, a sign that is wrong, ambiguous, or misleading does not simply fail to assist. It actively redirects people, introduces doubt at the moments that matter most and erodes confidence in the environment itself. A missing sign leaves a gap; a bad sign fills that gap with misinformation and this is why good wayfinding signage design matters.

The errors that keep appearing

Wayfinding is a discipline with well-established principles and yet schemes continue to be commissioned, installed, and publicly celebrated that violate them in straightforward ways.

Information hierarchy is one of the most common casualties, a directional panel that lists eight destinations with equal visual weight asks the user to do the work that the designer should have done. Not every destination is equally important at every decision point, prioritisation is not an aesthetic choice, it is a functional one.

Arrow placement is another persistent issue. An arrow that points toward a corner or ambiguously suggests a direction that sends someone back the way they came, is a failure of basic wayfinding logic. The arrow is the single most critical piece of information on a directional sign; its placement and angle cannot be approximate.

Contrast and legibility are foundational, a sign that reads clearly in a design mock-up but becomes unreadable in low light, at an angle, or against a cluttered background has not been designed for real conditions. It has been designed for a presentation.

Nomenclature consistency is often an afterthought. When the same destination appears under different names across a scheme, users cannot be confident they are following the right route. This is particularly damaging in large or complex environments, where trust in the system accumulates or collapses sign by sign.

The identity problem

Beyond information design, there is a broader issue, signage that is designed and specified in isolation from the identity of the place it serves.

Physical wayfinding is not separate from placemaking, the materials, forms, and finishes of a sign system communicate something about where you are and who values this place. A scheme that could belong to any site, in any city, in any sector, is a missed opportunity at best. In environments where place identity matters, where civic pride, brand consistency, or visitor experience are genuine priorities, generic wayfinding is a quiet failure.

This matters because wayfinding is often procured rather than designed. Frameworks, preferred supplier lists, and value engineering processes can all produce technically compliant signage that is spatially and contextually wrong. The result is schemes that pass a sign-off but do not pass the test of use.

What’s the cost?

Poor wayfinding has real consequences, delayed journeys, missed connections, increased demand on staff, and a diminished experience of place. These costs are rarely attributed back to the signage, because the link is rarely made explicit, but the link exists.

The investment in a wayfinding scheme is rarely trivial, the brief deserves the same rigour as any other design commission. The principles are not complicated and their absence is not forgivable.