I’m learning that in this day and age—when it comes to term definitions—Webster’s no longer has the last word. In fact, when it comes to really useful terms such as “signage” I was quite surprised to find that it’s almost impossible to find a really good definition.

My well-worn hard-bound office-copy of Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1983) offers no definition for the word whatsoever. Miriam Websters online defines it as “signs or a system of signs used to show information about something (such as a business or a road)”

But dictionary definitions—succinct though they are—fail to present the scope of signage as I understand it.

I turned to my trusty Encyclopedia Britannica, but the word “signage” was not listed; However, it had a 715-word entry which describes a sign (in marketing and advertising) as a “device placed on or before a premises to identify its occupant and the nature of the business done there or, placed at a distance, to advertise a business or its products.” The entry goes on to describe how ancient Egyptians and Romans used signs. Better, but not was I was hoping for.

Wikipedia online offered the most satisfying definition: “Signage is any kind of visual graphics created to display information to a particular audience.” The 1,700-word Wiki entry goes on to specify 39 different types of signage, signage history, discusses various sign technologies and offers 33 images as examples.

And, as we all know, Wikipedia entries are open and can be edited, amended and disputed by readers. This idea would have made Webster turn in his grave, and, admittedly, still makes me cringe a little. (The Signage entry on Wikipedia included a note: “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.”)

But Wikipedia works. A recent peer-reviewed study by the scientific journal Nature compared scientific entries on Wikipedia to those in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Wiki held its own very well. The study found that the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. In pairs of articles reviewed, a total of eight serious errors were detected—four from each encyclopedia. Reviewers also found many factual errors and omissions: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica.

Which all goes to show you: sometimes a new-fangled approach is worth considering.
And of course, some new-fangled approach to signage is always popping up. During my tenure as a writer/editor in this industry, I saw how the hand-painted sign guys were confronted with cut vinyl. Then the cut vinyl shops were confronted by the emergence of four-color inkjet printing. And now the inkjet print sign shops are faced with the rise of electronic digital signage (EDS).

None of this is easy to take. But don’t believe for a minute that the process of change ends with electronic digital signage. The other day I was skimming through an online trade magazine that serves the EDS market and was forced to smile when I saw this defensive-sounding story headline: “Why Mobile Devices Won’t Replace Interactive Signage.”

So take heart if you are feeling confronted by the rapid changes within our venerable industry. Remember: change is constant, and everyone feels the heat at some point.

Okay, back to work.