Robot Monkeys

The ETC Group is running a competition for a “nanohazard” sign. They’ve announced their 16 finalists. (see all entries)

Now the ETC Group is basically fear mongering about nanotech, but warning signs fascinate me. I even own a book of warning signs.

From a design perspective, the ETC Group’s finalists are horrible. Dimitris Deligannis’s uses the wrong skull, and nanotechnology only marginally has anything to do with atoms, especially since the Bohr atom symbol has been used for years to mean “atomic power/radiation” Confusion!

Sharmin Farjana’s also looks like an atom, or perhaps Saturn.

Chris Paul and Guilermo Espinosa Hernadez both use the -9 exponent which requires you to know what exactly that means. Good warning signs are obvious, like “man engulfed in flames.”

Mike Abbott’s looks so much like the standard warning/attention symbol, it’s doubtful anyone would notice that it’s not actually just a normal warning symbol.

Hernandez, Ansari, and Farjana’s all use the latin N, which I believe is considered bad form, because you try to avoid any language/culturally specific symbols in international signs.

Shirely Gibson’s is two clever by half.

Mary Schrider’s is way to impractical to print, and what’s up with all the embedded question marks. Kypros Kyprianou’s is also impractical, but refreshingly better than Schrider’s craptastic entry. Shiabel’s is also too busy, but less so in comparison.

Nick Sterjov’s shouldn’t have made the cut, since it’s crappy version of Nigel Keam’s buckyball. (Why two buckyballs?)

Austin’s looks too much like a road.

Kudos to Maani for creating an image that says “small.” Creely’s on the hand says, “implosion.”

Kudos(?) to Foreman for creating a distinct symbol for nanotech that is absolutely meaningless ala the radiation and biohazard symbols.

I’d say Foreman’s edges out Maani’s because the symbol is bolder and easier to see at a distance than Maani’s.

My suggestion: International Safety Man melting into a puddle of grey goo.