Iconic Purple Directional Signs Being Replaced

[ImperfectPixie]

You forgot about the new projection show “inspired” by the signs…and the frozen/little mermaid songs that will play during it

DEAR GOD.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I’m gonna assume the assumption here is at least partly that nobody looks at signs under age 75 because they are gps dependent

Purple means Disney. Green is Irlo Bronson. Blue means you’re on your way to Jacksonville.

Keeps it simple for us old folk. That way we only have to concentrate on exit numbers and cutting across three lanes of traffic.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Purple means Disney. Green is Irlo Bronson. Blue means you’re on your way to Jacksonville.

Keeps it simple for us old folk. That way we only have to concentrate on exit numbers and cutting across three lanes of traffic.

You forgot going 53 in a 70 zone

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

You forgot going 53 in a 70 zone

Or 7

 

[JAB]

The sky is never dark blue?

Not that dark. At least not during the daytime, and at night, it will be lit.

Just because the sky is blue doesn't mean that blue can't be contrasting. In fact, colors can be the exact same hue, and still be sufficiently contrasting if the brightness values differ enough. I've done a lot of work involving visual contrast and accessibility, and colors that contrast in hue but are the same perceptual brightness are actually a worse choice than colors that are the same hue but differ drastically in brightness because for someone with color blindness, the combination of contrasting brightness - even if they're the same hue - is infinitely more readable than than combining contrasting hues of the same brightness.

You tried to support your opinion on the visibility of the new signs by mockingly referencing the arguments in support of the GotG building not being noticeable and implying that if that argument can be true, then so should yours simply because both colors are blue and the sky is blue. Even if we put aside the vastly different shades of blue for a moment, that argument still doesn't make the point you think it did. Since your statement was intended to be ironic and you clearly feel that the GotG building is still noticeable against the sky (it is, but that's beside the point), the premise of the argument changes, and you were really validating the argument that the blue road signs would also be noticeable against the sky.

I'm no fan of the Guardians building either, and honestly, I couldn't care less about the road signs, but you made a poor argument.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Not that dark. At least not during the daytime, and at night, it will be lit.

Just because the sky is blue doesn't mean that blue can't be contrasting. In fact, colors can be the exact same hue, and still be sufficiently contrasting if the brightness values differ enough. I've done a lot of work involving visual contrast and accessibility, and colors that contrast in hue but are the same perceptual brightness are actually a worse choice than colors that are the same hue but differ drastically in brightness because for someone with color blindness, the combination of contrasting brightness - even if they're the same hue - is infinitely more readable than than combining contrasting hues of the same brightness.

You tried to support your opinion on the visibility of the new signs by mockingly referencing the arguments in support of the GotG building not being noticeable and implying that if that argument can be true, then so should yours simply because both colors are blue and the sky is blue. Even if we put aside the vastly different shades of blue for a moment, that argument still doesn't make the point you think it did. Since your statement was intended to be ironic and you clearly feel that the GotG building is still noticeable against the sky (it is, but that's beside the point), the premise of the argument changes, and you were really validating the argument that the blue road signs would also be noticeable against the sky.

I'm no fan of the Guardians building either, and honestly, I couldn't care less about the road signs, but you made a poor argument.

Certain color combinations will appear to vibrate, as well...something that should be taught in any graphic design class, but is sometimes overlooked.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Who didn't like the purple? I believe this guy filed a lawsuit.

 

[Tom Morrow]

To folks saying the old signs were tacky - you get that this is Disney World, right? Just about the tackiest major vacation destination in the country, if not the world? It’s an amusement park featuring talking animals, space wizards, and superheroes. If you want refined, contemporary, and trendy, you’re making a bad choice.

Sorry but no. Nah. Walt Disney World is NOT tacky. Tacky is a giant wizard on 192 above a gift shop selling alligator heads. Tacky is Six Flags painting a coaster red and blue and putting a Superman logo at the front and calling it "Superman" themed despite that it's over asphalt. Tacky is Old Town, Fun Spot, and Magical Midway.

A fully beautifully sculpted and landscaped theme park with top tier theming and level of immersion is not even in the same category. Walt Disney World has always been an upscale and tasteful destination sprinkled with bite-sized bits of tacky fun. Only more recently has the tacky element become more prominent but even now it's still a very far way from being "tacky".

 

[TrojanUSC]

I have a question : or two

How long WERE the signs the purple color? What were they before? (If there was a different color)

Since 89/90. The idea originally came from Michael Eisner who felt Disney property should have its own unique identity, as they rapidly expanded the offerings on property. Here's an article of how they came to be from there:

https://www.rd.com/article/disney-purple-traffic-signs/

The prior signs were brown and white, which is common in tourist areas.

S

 

[999th Happy Haunt]

Those old colors will always live on in my memory after literally growing up with them. The excitement of seeing purple signs on the way to one of the parks might never beat for me, but to address everyone complaining, why? They’re really just roadsigns, and they’re still going to be unique to WDW.

If Disney debuted those old signs today, would people have the same reaction?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Sorry but no. Nah. Walt Disney World is NOT tacky. Tacky is a giant wizard on 192 above a gift shop selling alligator heads. Tacky is Six Flags painting a coaster red and blue and putting a Superman logo at the front and calling it "Superman" themed. Tacky is Old Town, Fun Spot, and Magical Midway.

A fully beautifully sculpted and landscaped theme park with top tier theming and level of immersion is not even in the same category. Walt Disney World has always been an upscale and tasteful destination sprinkled with bite-sized bits of tacky fun. Only more recently has the tacky element become more prominent but even now it's still a very far way from being "tacky".

Maybe “tacky” isn’t the right world. But maybe “whimsy” is??

it’s an artificial reality meant to evoke a feeling that you’re not on the ground…per se.


it’s just a sign…but let’s not go down this delusional world that it’s supposed to be “five star”…right?

 

[NelsonRD]

I like the new signs, they are a welcome refresh, with a modern, and a nice clean look. They match the new entrance, and bring the first impressions of Disney out of the 90’s. They look easier to read, and I look forward to seeing it in person.

 

[NelsonRD]

I dislike these new signs, it didn’t need to be changed, and one of the things that reminds us we are on Disney property was the unique purple and red signs. Changing something that didn’t need to be changed. I miss the old signs already, and another reason to skip our next trip.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Maybe “tacky” isn’t the right world. But maybe “whimsy” is??

it’s an artificial reality meant to evoke a feeling that you’re not on the ground…per se.


it’s just a sign…but let’s not go down this delusional world that it’s supposed to be “five star”…right?

I mean... some of the WDW hotels have a nicer atmosphere than 5 star hotels, they just lack some of the amenities that classify 5 star hotels as such.


(note: my experience with being in 5 star hotels is limited sooo)

 

[James Alucobond]

I like the new signs, they are a welcome refresh, with a modern, and a nice clean look. They match the new entrance, and bring the first impressions of Disney out of the 90’s. They look easier to read, and I look forward to seeing it in person.

Pixie duster!

 

[James Alucobond]

I dislike these new signs, it didn’t need to be changed, and one of the things that reminds us we are on Disney property was the unique purple and red signs. Changing something that didn’t need to be changed. I miss the old signs already, and another reason to skip our next trip.

Grump!

 

[correcaminos]

Since 89/90. The idea originally came from Michael Eisner who felt Disney property should have its own unique identity, as they rapidly expanded the offerings on property. Here's an article of how they came to be from there:

https://www.rd.com/article/disney-purple-traffic-signs/

The prior signs were brown and white, which is common in tourist areas.

View attachment 616988

Seeing pics of these makes me realize how much I missed those signs. I'm likely the lone dissenter after reading today but I didn't love them. They were harder for me to read with the colors and I really didn't like the contrast for the sections. The blue is more toned down but not as IN YOUR FACE 90s feeling to me I suppose.

Again I go in just over a month. I'll make my decision when seeing them in person. But I guess for signs understated is better?

 

[UNCgolf]

I mean... some of the WDW hotels have a nicer atmosphere than 5 star hotels, they just lack some of the amenities that classify 5 star hotels as such.


(note: my experience with being in 5 star hotels is limited sooo)

I don't think I'd classify any of the current Disney hotels as having an atmosphere similar to a true 5 star hotel except possibly the Animal Kingdom Lodge. I think the Grand Floridian would have also fallen into that category before all the recent changes, but doing things like removing the orchestra from the lobby definitely downgrades it.

But realistically even those aren't at the level of something like the Four Seasons.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I mean... some of the WDW hotels have a nicer atmosphere than 5 star hotels, they just lack some of the amenities that classify 5 star hotels as such.


(note: my experience with being in 5 star hotels is limited sooo)

They were themed to look like playgrounds of the rich - particularly GF and yacht club. They never had close to the amenity needed.

they don’t really go for that look much anymore…so it’s kinda moot

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't think I'd classify any of the current Disney hotels as having an atmosphere similar to a true 5 star hotel except possibly the Animal Kingdom Lodge. I think the Grand Floridian would have also fallen into that category before all the recent changes, but doing things like removing the orchestra from the lobby definitely downgrades it.

But realistically even those aren't at the level of something like the Four Seasons.

The reason the Four seasons is there is because Disney (quietly) has never made any attempt at doing what’s expected.

frankly…and this is harsh…they continue to charge rubes that kinda rate on “deluxes”

it is what it is