The Corruption of Convention

Published on 12th November, 2007 by Stephen Lewis

Conventions are what makes design possible. We have a collective sub-conscious that a designer can utilise when producing a new design. Helvetica means one thing, Mrs. Eaves something else entirely.

Without this societal shorthand we’d be incapable of rapidly assessing our environment, and quickly filtering out that which does not meet our personal requirements or worldview.

Examples of ignoring convention in favour of “creativity” abound in interface design, and have been commented on extensively elsewhere. Yesterday, though, I encountered a piece of graphic design that doesn’t just ignore well-established conventions; it deliberately reinvents a long-established and instantly recognisable icon, apparently for the sheer hell of it.

The Offending Icon

The icon in question is used by the gambling web site 888.com (figure 1) to indicate that the web site is not for use by anybody under the age of eighteen.

It consists of the number eighteen, sitting on white circle, within a red border, cut-through by a red diagonal line.

The Established Convention

You may have seen this convention before. In the “no unauthorised access” sign, for example (figure 2). Or the “no smoking” sign (figure 3). Or even in the “no ghosts” (figure 4) and “no terrorists” (figure 5) signs.

It’s a simple convention. You take whatever you don’t want, shove it inside a circle, and cross it out with a diagonal line. So, in total contrast to the obvious intent, the 888.com icon clearly means “No 18 year olds.”

The Pre-Existing Solution

Even worse than that, there’s already a very well-know “No under 18s”, which has been around for decades – the icon used by the BBFC to denote a film suitable only for persons of eighteen years and over (figure 6).

It’s easy enough to decypher what is meant by the 888.com icon, but such deduction is possible in spite of our collective knowledge, not because of it. It’s the context (an advertisement for gambling, an “adult” activity) that helps us out, not the icon itself.

This is bad for two reasons:

1. The designer has forced us to do some unnecessary cognitive work. It’s a tiny amount, to be sure, but if every designer followed this lead, we’d soon start to struggle.
2. The designer has undermined a well-established convention. And once again, if this happens frequently enough, we’ll soon find ourselves robbed of the cognitive shortcuts that enable us to cope with the modern world.