General Psychology: January 29, 2012

I might be judging these websites on looks but I found they were unorganized and difficult to navigate. I left that they didn't provide enough information and just left me confused and frustrated. Yes, the last link is by New York magazine, which I'm a huge fan of and will eat at any place they write up, but I feel it's different when it comes to doctors. What make these these psychologist/ doctors the best? Just how much money did they cough up to get on this "top 100 list?"...???

Websites! (The Blog Post)

Reliable! Yes!

http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html
This particular website contains info about the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the most trusted psychological reference book out there. Though it is not technically an online version of the DSM-IV, it does direct users to revisions and other resources that may be helpful.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/
The home website of NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Mostly the science behind drug addiction and its effects on the body and mind.

http://www.psych.org/
The American Psychiatric Association website. It differs from the APA website in that it focuses on psychiatric practices, such as prescriptions and medication.

http://www.a4pt.org/ps.playtherapy.cfm
The Association For Play Therapy, a resource for play therapists and those interested in the benefits of play therapy, which is defined by the website as "the systematic use of a theoretical model to establish an interpersonal process wherein trained play therapists use the therapeutic powers of play to help clients prevent or resolve psychosocial difficulties and achieve optimal growth and development."

http://www.arttherapyblog.com/
An easy-to-navigate, oft-updated blog about art therapy. It links to various resources and articles, as well as a lengthy and helpful description of art therapy as a practice.

Unreliable! Oh no!

http://www.scientology.org/
Do I really need to say anything?

http://exodusinternational.org/
One of many "ex-gay" ministries that believe homosexuality is an illness that can be cured.

http://www.parapsych.org/
Though I won't entirely discount parapsychology, I can't say I think it's the best reference for other matters of the mind.

http://www.cynicalbastards.com/cynic/psych.html
The first sentence on this website is "psychology is a total waste of time." Seriously. Shut up.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=psychology&page=2
Whoah. These aren't correct at ALL.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Websites

Good websites:

http://www.apa.org/

http://www.psychology.org/

http://www.nmha.org/

http://www.mhaofnyc.org/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/

http://www.health-psych.org/

Bad websites:

http://www.cgjungpage.org/

http://bobtheprophet.com/category/psychology/

http://www.psychetruth.net/

http://www.gerardkeegan.co.uk/glossary/gloss_h.htm

Psychology Websites

GOOD WEBSITES:
http://www.pchtreatment.com/personality-disorder-treatment-center.php

http://contextualpsychology.org/

http://www.abpp.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3358

http://degreedirectory.org/articles/What_is_Behavioral_Psychology.html

http://www.psych-web.com/

BAD WEBSITES:
http://www.chastitysf.com/

http://www.energy-body-work.com/

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Faith_healing

http://www.richard.peterson.net/ashtanga_yoga.htm

http://www.ahpweb.org/

These good websites are funded by organizations and have information directly from psychologists, who have obtained higher education degrees. The better websites have information from more than one psychologists to garner different perspectives. The bad websites incorporate pseudoscience and explain healing outside of the context of psychology. The bad websites were significantly less informative than the list of good websites that I listed. The good websites contained links to different types of psychology, such as behavioral, cognitive, counseling, etc. I was impressed by how informative the good websites were collectively. They communicated the general principles of psychology while also getting down to the specific details.

Psychology Websites (Good Ones and Not So Good Ones)

5 Good Ones:
Social Psychology Network
http://www.socialpsychology.org/
Ameoba Web
http://psychology.vanguard.edu/amoebaweb/
Mental Health America
http://www.nmha.org/
National Institute of Mental Health
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml
Mental Health. Net
http://www.mentalhelp.net/

Good web sties are generally held from organizations, or educational institutes.
These websites are either on of them. Their information are legit and the websites are well organized and designed. These websites navigate you to professional helps. Some websites let you ask questions and they will answer them. These websites are serving the public rather than a doctor or company advertising or selling his products.

5 Not So Good Ones:
All About Psychology
http://www.all-about-psychology.com/types-of-psychology.html
Psych Web
http://www.psychwww.com/
Kent's Site
http://kspope.com/sexiss/index.php
The Happiness Institute
http://www.thehappinessinstitute.com/default.aspx
The Science of Psychology
http://www.psychnet-uk.com/x_new_site/general_psychology_sites/general_psychology_sites.html

These not so good websites are not organized, and they take a lot of information from other websites. Some are just simply commercial websites that pretend to talk about psychology.

Signs!

This "Don't Honk" sign can be well effected especially for people that honk a lot. The use of red frame is a sign of warning and stopping. As you can see, the color of the frames are inverted showing a sense of consequence after honking. This sign is very clear about what it wants you to do - it wants you to "NOT" honk. Generally, people who follow the law and care about the society (or how the society judges them) will simply follow this sign. The sign does not need any extra graphics or words to show what it wants you to do. I guess the down side of this sign is when you "DON'T" see it!

This recycling sign, is on the poll in the same position as the "Don't Honk" sign. On the other hand, I find this sign less effective because the words were small and the color is boring. The position of the sign makes it hard to be noticed when people are walking down the street. I noticed that a lot of recycling signs that attract my attentions are the ones with color. Ex. "Green" is the color of "Helping the earth!", "Red" is the color of "STOP IT!". It isn't a particular bad designed sign, it just didn't trigger me to do more recycling than I am already doing.

Websites about Psychology

5 BEST

http://changingminds.org/

Maintained by a man with a long background in counseling, psychology, marketing, sales, education, management and consulting. Specializing in persuasion he has degrees in psychology, management, education, marketing.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/

Based at the University of California, Berkeley. The website hosts hundred of articles, videos, and podcasts from leading researchers in the field.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/index.shtml

A section branching off from BBC, informative and relatively easy to browse through.

http://www.nmha.org/

Run by a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the public and promoting mental well-being. Provides not only information on the subject as well as contact numbers to various services around the country.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/

Run by a nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of psychology and its representation around the world.

5 WORST

http://www.howlifeworks.com/Default.aspx

How Life Works is a general interest website containing articles that vary from business, careers, finance, etc. Even the website itself recommends readers to research any products discussed on the website.

http://psychology.about.com/

When applying to be a writer for this website it asks for writers to be experts in the field however when you bring up the application all that it asks for is your contact information, a writing sample and a list of qualifications relevant to the subject at hand and perhaps places where the applicant has been published before. It does not ask for a full resume or references.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/default.htm

A website dedicated to providing brief information of certain terms in psychology from Stedman's Medical Dictionary but with little else to show for it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/psychology/

A website dedicated to reprinting articles and encyclopedia entries rather than providing their own the layout of the website is pure chaos using three columns to separate both articles, a nav bar and advertisements.

http://depressiond.org/

The maintainer of the website has no degree nor have they done any research in the field. The site is entirely made up of her opinions on mental illnesses.

good/bad websites

Good

www.psychologytoday.com

Psychology today is a good website, because it offers a vast amount of information. There are many different topics to read about including personality problems, family life, personal growth, and mental health just to name a few. It not only offers general information about therese topics, it also provides articles from psychologists. Another good thing about this site, is that it is interactive and you can take multiple quizzes.

www.apa.org

Like Psychology Today, APA offers a great amount of information. It is a very reliable source because they are a professional organization that represents psychology. They also have more than 154,000 members. It is very easy to navigate their website if you have any questions. It's also very useful that they have news articles, which allows anyone to be updated on recent psychology information.

www.psychology.org

Though Psychology.org only has seven topics on their main page (career, people and history, environment behavior, organizations, resources, theories, and underlying reductionistic machinery), it is a good site because it leads people to other helpful psychology sites.

spring.org.uk

This provides very interesting psychology articles. They don't just have articles about new research and such, but interesting topics such as “Why People’s Names Are So Hard to Remember” and “Unusual Thinking Styles Increase Creativity”

www.psychcentral.com

This is a good website, because it not only offers articles, quizzes, and information. It also has a variety of videos you can watch on psychology which is always nice if you get tired of reading endless articles.

Bad

www.psycheducation.org

This is a bad website because it promoting people to self diagnose instead of seeking professional help. It is true that when we are curious about a condition one may have their first instinct is to look up information on the web, but one can only research so much before asking a professional. They also have a section called “can you trust this information?” which is something a credible site shouldn’t have to include.

www.crazymeds.us/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Meds/UsefulLinksTemplate?setview=big&setfontsize=110#.TyclQmBc9sM

This site contains information on psychiatric medication. This is useful information to have, but the content seems unreliable.

www.evoyage.com

This site contains very little information on general psychology and is mostly consisted of the essays by the creator of the site. The site doesn’t have very interesting topics, and the information is all very dry. At the bottom of the site there is also a link to donate money to the creators of the site, which seems a little untrustworthy.

www.drdriving.org

This site is about the psychology of road rage. It contains statistics, articles, and facts about road rage. It is an interesting topic, but the site is very had to navigate and if you have specific questions, you're not sure where to search.

www.ncfliving.org/index_psych_disorders.php

Instead of giving solid facts, the most of the information is in hypothetical situations.

Wonderful and Weird Websites for Psych.

5 RELIABLE SOURCES FOR PSYCH. INFORMATION:

1 http://www.psychologicalscience.org/

2 http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/index.html

OR http://pbs.jhu.edu/ (University Based Programs and Publishing)

3 http://www.bps.org.uk/ (Also see the Journal the BPS publishes)

4 http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/

5 http://www.ejop.org/

6 http://www.apa.org/monitor/ (A magazine published and approved by the APA)

5 THAT JUST SUCK AT PSYCHOLOGY:

1 http://mysticpsychology.com/

2 http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/

3 http://www.psychology.com/professionaladvice/

4 http://www.thescienceforum.com/behavior-psychology/

5 http://drphil.com/advice_main/

Psychology Websites

5 Best:

http://www.learner.org/discoveringpsychology/index.html

This site is copyrighted by WGBH Educational Foundation and has many different sections that cover various aspects of psychology.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/

This is a site designed by a man who has a degree in psychology and lectures at a university. His website has a variety of useful and accessible information for the average person.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos056.htm

This site gives information about psychologists. It defines the term and what they do and gives a real in-depth look to what a psychologist is and what they do. It is a government website so the information can be trusted.

http://psychcentral.com/

This is a website that has been referenced to in many different magazines and newspapers and has even been recognized as one of the 50 best websites of 2008 by time.com. It has quizzes and information about psychology and ways to do more research and to get help.

http://www.alleydog.com/

This website is a search engine that can quickly get you a simple definition of a psychology term that you are looking for and can be quite useful.

5 Worst:

http://psychology.info

The design of this website in general is lacking and looks as if it is untrustworthy. The information provided is lacking and does not do much to further enhance one's knowledge and understanding of psychology.

http://www.nvo.com/scullari

While the owner of this website may be a licensed psychologist, the website has been designed poorly and is hard to navigate. The site is mainly made up of links that take you to a variety of other websites and fails to provide any substantial information.

http://www.lifepositive.com/mind/psychology/psychology.asp

This website gives very little information on psychology and the descriptions for the few things it does talk about are so short and useless to any greater understanding.

http://www.psychologycampus.com

While this website defines different types of psychology, there is no information on who this information is being provided by and whether or not the site is from a trusted a reputable source.

http://www.paulcooijmans.com/psychology/

This is another example of a poorly designed website that looks anything but official and the information provided is by a single person who, while they have information listed about who they are, does not seem to have any degree in psychology at all.

critical and scientific thinking in psychology_kee y. chung

TOP 5 BAD PSYCHOLOGY WEBSITES
<a href="http://listverse.com/2008/09/07/top-10-unethical-psychological-experiments/"></a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology"></a>
<a href="http://www.scoop.it/t/personnel-psychology/p/564213981/the-10-worst-mistakes-of-first-time-job-hunters"></a>
<a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/therapy-in-mind/200910/dr-phil-style-therapy-cognitive-behavioral-therapy"></a>
<a href="http://www.noahbrier.com/archives/2012/01/bad-psychology/"></a>

TOP 5 BEST PSYCHOLOGY WEBSITES
<a href="http://www.allpsychologyschools.com/psychology-degree/all-degrees/all-careers/new-york/brooklyn"></a>
<a href="http://kspope.com/"></a>
<a href="http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml"></a>
<a href="http://www.apa.org/"></a>
<a href="http://www.adaa.org/"></a>

The list of website shown above, I think they give off incorrect information. The articles and information that were on the websites contains a lot of the violations of the “Critical and Scientific Thinking”. In psychology, many issues can be broad so that many opinions, arguments and suggestions rise to the topic. Also there is a point where it can be so broad people start making assumptions. In an argument over a issued topic, one can be so strong in their own opinion and perspective view, can be emotional and be stubborn about the problem. One might not even give off a simple evidence and just assume or that just because they said so, or heard from somebody else.
The other list of websites, I believe that they are giving off good information regarding psychology. From viewing the articles and what not, I came to a conclusion that there have been studies, graphs, diagrams, articles, and etc supporting the overlooked experiment or tests. On these websites, the problems that it faces are specifically towards one issue and do not bring doubts or questions regarding the issues. Also these website have been unbiased, have information that is helpful, and true stories from the actual patrons of the institution; it gives definitive conclusions that are not questionable as well. Another is that these websites have been approved by many colleges and hospitals that are influential in the society. But most importantly the website was giving information from a unbiased points of views.

Kee (Khloe) Y. Chung

Signs! (The Blog Post)

First the bad news:

Though not technically a sign, this tiny and ridiculous graphic of Ronald McDonald is used in an attempt to persuade fast food patrons to be responsible and discriminating in their disposal of meal-related refuse. However, judging by the considerable amount of filthy, soggy McDonalds sacks mashed beneath train tracks and strewn along the shoulders of highways nationwide, I would wager that this ploy is not very effective at all. While the message is fairly clear (Ronald McDonald, the clowny corporate mascot, clearly thinks it's fun as hell to toss cups into appropriate waste receptacles), there are some glaring errors in the placement and overall execution of the image.

Though it may not be immediately apparent in this photograph, this particular incarnation of "Brandclown Discards Garbage" is slightly under an inch tall/wide. It is also on the side of the bag, up toward the top- most definitely in the section that gets wrinkled/folded/crumpled when "closing" the bag. On other McDonalds paper products (such as cups and ice cream cone wrappers), the image is even smaller, sometimes to the point of being nighwhat unidentifiable. Obviously, the small scale is a major contributing factor in the ineffectiveness of this graphic.

When such a piddly symbol is placed so inconspicuously among large, vibrant expanses of red and yellow, it hardly grabs a viewer's attention. The image is, well, wimpy. There's no slogan, no catchy tagline, nothing but the red ink picture of ol' Ronald. Thusly, the graphic focuses more heavily on brand than the original intent- a fact also evidenced by that ominous circled "r" hovering next to the left foot. It seems more like a half-hearted and unenthused suggestion rather than a Granted, no namby-pamby clown drawing on a grease-soaked fast food sack is going to firguratively force the viewing public to chuck their drink cups into wire wastebins, but it lacks the dire sense of urgency present in signs with the primary concerns of psychological persuasion toward environmentally conscious acts. After all, the environment is important (or so I've heard); it is the home of every personshape, animalshape, and plantshape, whether they like it or not. One would think McDonalds would apply something a bit more earnest and heartfelt, maybe even a little pithy (some cheesey graphic of the earth or a leaf or a bird or something). Nope. We have Enviro-Clown.

Now, the good news... or what passes for it anyway.

Though not strictly environment-related (unless you consider the strewn bodies of pedestrians to be an environmental concern) this sign does exactly what it sets out to do. Located along a residential sideroad in Somerville, New Jersey, this sign warns drivers to maintain a slow speed so as to avoid accidents. The sign is bright and reflective, situated conspicously beneath a streetlight and not obscured by any bushes or other signs. There are speed limit signs (25 mph) placed sporadically up and down the street, supplementing this sign's effect with a concrete and explicit number for drivers to adhere to.

This particular sign is largely text, but the text is clear and concise (once you get over the broken rhyme, that is) in its aim. The most effective aspect of this sign, however, is the mention of the neighborhood's youth as an example. While the sign may indeed protect pedestrians of all ages, as well as the odd squirrel and escaped farm animal, it focuses on the safety of children- people we are almost universally compelled to protect. This sign's implied consequences are unspeakably ugly and resonate with us in an almost primal way (I hope). There is a similar sign two streets over that reads "Drive 25, Keep Kids Alive." That one may be even more effective, as it uses the word "alive," the opposite of which is clearly "dead," so the aforementioned implied consequences are stated even more directly. Note, however, that such a sign was difficult to photograph due to its placement. Sorry about that.

Signs for the Environment

The two signs I chose were found on the street that I live on. These are both something we see every day but I am sure we begin to pay no notice after awhile. The top image is a recycling bin and I chose it because it is using a symbol. It has no words but it communicates the message simply by using a symbol on the can to let us know what it is for. The symbol for recycling is powerful because it is something that has become universal, almost everyone knows what it means. The bin might be more effective if it had some words on it, just in case someone was not familiar with the symbol. It also might be more effective if there were some words explaining why to recycle. But personally I think using a bold simple symbol alone works just fine.

The second image is an image of a garbage can on my street. It says very simply "Keep New York City Clean" and on the sides of the image it has a symbol that is against littering. I feel as if the simple message is effective. It is very positive that the city has had these placed on all of the garbage cans as a constant reminder to throw away your trash in the correct place. I feel as if the sign on the can could be more effective if the fine for littering was listed, because it would really steer people away from littering. Sometimes people need an extra push to do what is right, and the idea of losing money would be that push. But overall I think the message does its job.

Lyndsey Matoushek

Signs on Environment

In both of these signs, there is attempt at creating a better living environment in the dorms. In my opinions the second sign is much more effective than the first. The first sign tries to get people to smoke outside because it is New York state law while using a meme to make it more eye-catching and perhaps relatable. While it may be eye catching, by turning it into a meme it seems to lose the seriousness of the message. The second sign is a bright pink color which stands out among other white signs. The large bolded and all capitalized words of the message "Cad is bad" grab your attention and get you to read the sign which gives an explanation of what cad is and what the consequences of it are. The consequence being a fine. I believe this sign to be more effective because of the clearly stated consequence. Unlike the first sign that just said it was against New York state law and failed to say what exactly would happen if you were to be caught, the second sign states clearly that there will be a fine, and no one wants to lose their money.

Susan D. Clayton talks in her article Conservation Psychology that “some people will be more vulnerable to threats, while others will be better able to cope.” This relates to these signs because they take place in a college dorm. Everyone is paying a substantial amount of money to attend the college. While others are better off and do not have as many financial worries, there are those who every penny counts. The threat of having to pay money will affect those people more than the ones who are financially better off.

Signs to Modify Behavior

Susan D. Clayton writes that "Identities affect our responses to issues: topics that are seen as self-relevant attract more attention and arouse more emotion. We also respond differently when we share an identity with those who are affected, rather than defining them as outsiders" (from "Conservation Psychology: Using Psychological Tools to Address Environmental Challenges").

For my first post, I chose two signs found on the Pratt campus and dorms that try to change the behavior of the student, one by plea, another by bribe (of sorts).

To the left are signs found by the elevators on my floor. The messages, too similar to separate, are simple and direct. No flowery language, no cool graphics to distract, just "You Need Sleep/Food." Many students can relate to need for these things throughout the school year, forgoing both in order to have more time to work on projects and papers. But the websites featured at the bottom offer students helpful ways in which to better eat and rest so that their work will be better as well.

To the right is a sign found by the cafeteria on campus. Thought the volunteer programs offered may be worthwhile, Community Board offers pizza and coffee as incentives to come the meetings. Many organizations or clubs use food or beverages, even small gifts, to garner attendance.* And while some students who do go for the freebies actually become interested in the cause or activity, most just go, listen, and walk away with their coffee. This doesn't exactly change their attitudes about community service.

Although Clayton's observation that people will join in a cause or change their behavior in order to 'fit in' with their peers is a good motivator, I've found that, with these signs at least, people may think about themselves first and what benefits them. The 'You Need Sleep/Food' signs speak to the exhausted student who will try anything to get more rest, while the Community Board sign speaks to the broke student who will do anything for a free coffee. Only the first has the potential to change whereas the other is consistent in his/her behavior.

*Note: I am not debasing Community Board's efforts to get more people involved. I am simply pointing out that most students are only interested in the free coffee, but there are those who are genuinely interested in reaching out and serving the community.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Conservation Signs

Picture one, good

picture two, bad

I find picture one to be a really compelling reason to turn off the lights after you leave a room. It personifies a light switch in order to cause you too sympathize with it. It also uses an experience that most people (adult people) have experienced in their lives, and it does so in a humorous way. Humor can be a great way to get people to be more receptive to and idea or have them thinking about it longer.

The second image (sorry for the small size). Is ineffective for a couple reasons, the first being that the words take a backseat to the photo, which looks like some guy wasting water on an egg (clearly a stock photo). The second reason it doesn't work is that the image and text are fighting, fighting for our attention and focus, one is trying to convey a powerful message while the other is trying to distract us from it, the two done work together in harmony.

The success of an image is to connect with a viewer on a deeper level, to get the viewer to really think about the message, and relate it too their life. Only one of these images can truly do that. Without that connection the message soon just falls away and we are not left with any real added meaning to our lives.

wash your hands_sign

The “Wash Your Hands” are easily seen in public restrooms, especially a restroom that belongs inside a store that is related to food or that requires an extra sanitation. The next two images of the sign that says comparable messages not only shares similarities but also level of difference in which one is of a better communicating sign.

The first image is a green sign with a profile view of a hand and a faucet with liquid substance coming out of it; however to the audience it may not be obvious that it is a sign that says to wash your hand after using the bathroom, in fact this can be located anywhere else and mean something else. In order to improve this sign, it can be more detailed with wordings and descriptions that make it significant enough and eye-catching.

The second image is of consecutive images of how to properly wash your hands. This sign is more effective in ways that the sign has wordings and also the order of the procedure numbered right next to the related image so that it can be easily followed. The descriptions of the texts next to the images are detailed where it even tells how long to lather, scrub, and to rinse; it also mentions at the end of the diagram, to not forget to wash the followings: between your fingers, under your nail, the tops of your hands. This amount of detail is helpful for the user to fully understand the message that the sign is giving.

Kee (Khloe)Y. Chung

Environmentally Sensitive Area

Here are two signs communicating the same message: that the reader is approaching an environmentally sensitive area. I have come across both while entering forest preserves.

The first sign is effective, as it says just what it means to. But on a blue highway sign amongst all the others on the road it could be easily overlooked or forgotten. Perhaps the driver is looking for the exit, minding his speed, as well as trying to drive. He may not even read the blue sign, which many drivers know are usually reserved for rest areas and food or gas. The highway is not a place for supplementary information. I know that the sign contains an important fact- but a quick glance at it will not leave the reader feeling terribly responsible for his actions while in the area.

The second sign is clever and amongst the terrain it attempts to protect. It is much more effective as it directly addresses the reader. This alone tends to grab attentions better but it also uses a clever play on words. It contains the same message but is much more memorable. It also makes very clear that the area must not be disturbed. Your presence must be very minimal while visiting.

Neither sign mentions any sort of environmental consequence. This is an additional piece of information that can make people listen. I know the highway sign has little room for it, but within the state park the second sign could have some sort of information pertaining to the wild plants and animals. This is often not enough though. For instance a personal financial consequence could be instated: if they are caught littering or disturbing the area then they will be forced to pay a fine.

Appropriate Environmental Signs

Both signs are located at my job. The first sign is placed in the employee's bathroom and the other in our shuttle bus.

The employee bathroom is a one person toilet and more often than not fellow co-workers have left the lights on either by mistake or for the next person to shut off. Having the message in both Spanish and English (considering most of our employees speak one or the other) is an effort to persuade everyone to be conscious of saving electricity. The sign comes of as a reflection of sorts instead of a demand which is usually the case with the other sign.

The second sign is targeted toward the clients that use the shuttle bus whom often leave stains or garbage in the van. Although it's to ensure that items can be recycled and taken to appropriate containers. Despite the attempt at politeness, the use of "please" and "thank you" doesn't stop the sign from coming off as demanding due to the capitalization of the entire message. Not to mention the obvious misspelling of the sign which gives an entirely different message to the client.

Personally when I first encountered the first sign I was a little curious as to why it was placed there given the fact that I always made sure the lights were turned off whenever I left the bathroom. I was surprised to find many of my co-workers left the lights on in the bathroom. As for the second sign, I found it amusing and quickly had it replaced with a different sign that was not only correct but also lacked the capitalization that the one above had.

Signs About Recycling

Here I have taken a picture of a rather ineffective sign aiming to promote recycling. The sign says "New York City, Curbside Recycling Street" then in much smaller text "Help Reduce New York's Waste Please Recycle" with a picture of a trash can with a tape measure wrapped around it. One of the main problems of this sign is that it was placed at about 12 feet above the ground where a person walking by would easily miss it. The image of the trash can used seems to be measuring its weight, it is aimed to be a symbol of reducing trash/waste, but as a viewer I care very little about how fit a trash can is. There is nothing about this sign that offers reward for recycling or punishment for not recycling. It rather meekly asks the viewer to recycle.

Below this sign I have designed my own sign about recycling which would be much more affective. I have made the 'Our' in "This Is Our City" red, in order to instill a sense of responsibility and community in the viewer, like a sort of rallying of the troops. Bellow it is a picture of a family at the park. This picture represents a reward of recycling; a healthy earth for you and your children to enjoy. And underneath in green text it says "Lets Keep It Clean Together" which addresses not only recycling but littering also, and a sense of community, the green representing earth. And finally in red text it is stated exactly the action asked of the viewer "Reduce Waste PLEASE RECYCLE" so that there is no confusion is the exact behavior the sign is trying alter. The sign should be placed at eye level so that pedestrians are readily confronted with it.

Environmental Signs

For this blog I chose two signs that attempt to address the problem of protecting small green spaces from dog waste. The first sign relies on symbols while the other relies on text and
placement. It is my opinion that the one using text is more effective.

The first sign shows a silhouette of a squatting dog with the international symbol for “no” over it. The messageis to not let your dog poop on the grass. I can’t help smiling when I see this.
Let’s face it, poop is funny. The message is clear but the consequences for ignoring the sign is not. It’s placement on the clean brick exterior of the building instead of “dog level” also weakens the message. Perhaps if it was staked in the ground a pet owner might be moved into obeying the sign. In fact I see people letting their dogs relieve themselves in this very spot quite often.

The second sign uses text, some color, and placement to convince dog owners to not allow their pets to urinate on/near street trees. In my view the choice of language printed on the sign is
what makes it effective. “DOG URINE KILLS BABY TREES” is subtlety highlighted in yellow. Any sentence with the words “kill baby” in it is sure to immediately grab attention. If the sign said “dog urine hurts saplings” the impact would not be the same. The placement of this sign is also important as it is strung between three baby trees, which seem to be struggling for life. The consequence of not obeying the message is right there for all to see.