SMART WAYFINDING RESEARCH & RECOMMENDATIONS
Where does navigation break down?
the challenge
Evaluate and report on the efficacy of wayfinding elements in Boston Logan Airport's Terminal C.
the outcome
Global best practices report on airport wayfinding technologies. WiFi survey, intercept, and computer vision analysis of primary experience areas. Journey maps by passenger type.
TYPE:
Ethnographic Research
CLIENT:
Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) & Boston Logan Airport
KEYWORDS:
Research, Data Analysis,Wayfinding Strategy
Similar projects:
Inclusive Passenger Experience Audit
Terminal C Passenger Experience Study
Wayfinding is a behavior problem, not a signage problem
Most airports treat navigation failures as a design deficit — more signs, better placement, clearer graphics. The assumption is that passengers would navigate correctly if only the information were clearer. The evidence from Logan's Terminal C suggested otherwise: passengers were ignoring signs that were legible and well-placed. The issue wasn't what the signs said. It was whether passengers were in a state to process them at all.
Three pain points. Three targeted studies
Working with Massport across three distinct experience areas — the bussing experience, the C/E terminal connection, and checkpoint navigation — INVIVIA conducted parallel data collection before any design direction was set. WiFi surveys captured route choice and bus usage patterns. Intercept surveys and direct observation mapped passenger behavior and information-seeking at each location. Computer vision analysis tracked footfall direction, elevator and escalator usage, and badge-office corridor flow. Best practices from peer airports globally established a benchmark for what technology-enabled wayfinding can actually deliver.
Passengers follow spatial logic and social cues — not signs.
Design directions grounded in how navigation actually happens
Across all three areas (bussing, connection, checkpoint), the data converged on the same pattern: when passengers are uncertain, they read the geometry of the space and watch what other people do. Signs become relevant only after spatial and social cues have already failed. Smart wayfinding, to work, has to intervene at that earlier layer — before passengers are lost, not after.
Our research produced targeted recommendations for each area: a full interaction design and UX framework for an integrated bussing wayfinding system; journey maps by passenger type for the C/E connection and checkpoint; and a technology assessment establishing which wayfinding interventions have precedent at comparable airports and which remain experimental.
Our Approach and Expertise