On 04/06/2013 12:55, Clank wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 11:40:14 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
Just naming lines after numbers or letters would be easier for all
concerned,
but you usually only get that if an entire system is planned from the start.
It's also extremely boring, which is why I'd oppose it.
Less confusing though.
I *completely* disagree. Names are much easier to memorise and form
associations with than apparently random letter/number combinations.
If you'll forgive the reductio ad absurdum (which I know you won't,) by
your theory we should drop station names and just give them reference
numbers...
I've seen that done on maps of networks which use non-Roman alphabets
for the native names, or on new lines where the station name hasn't yet
been finalised (they've not decided whether station A5 is "Bloggs
Square" or "MegaBank Inc station".
I found the Moscow metro harder to navigate than expected, as while I
can manage a bit of Cyrillic it was hard if there are places with
similar names, or upper/lower case issues.
Some places apparently use colours or shapes to help illiterate people.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK