최근 세계 국제공항의 정보그래픽의 동향과 사인시스템에 대한 디자인의 현황과 특징을 명확히 분석하여, 디자인교육과 현장 디자이너에게 기초자료의 제공과 공유가 본 연구의 목적이다. 따라서 5년 동안 조사 자료의 검증을 통해 분석대상을 유출한 결과, 각 국가별 디자인 특징과 특색이 강한 19곳의 국제공항을 선정하였다, 특히, 유니버설디자인(UD)의 관점에서 유도안내 사인시스템의 분석대상을 타이프페이스, 컬러, 픽토그램, 심벌, 숫자/기호로 정보그래픽의 구성요소를 한정하여 분석을 시도하였다. 그 결과, 각국 국제공항의 타이프페이스의 특징은 아시아권 공항에서는 고딕체와 산세리프체, 미국, 유럽권에서는 산세리프체를 적용하였다. 특히, 미국의 뉴아크국제공항과 네덜란드의 스키폴공항, 스위스의 제네바공항은 색상코드시스템을 개발하여, 공항 안에서 읽기 정보의 간판의 수를 줄일 수 있는 장점을 활용하였다.

마케팅 커뮤니케이션의 진화에 따라 IMC는 마케팅의 키워드가 되었고, 대안매체와 BTL은 마케터의 중요 관심사항이 되었다. 이러한 것은 브랜드 구축의 중요 툴이 되고 있다. 브랜드 노출의 다양한 상황에서 브랜드 노출을 어떻게 할 것인가를 연구하는 것은 마케터나 디자이너에게 매우 중요하다. 사인시스템은 도시경관에서 브랜드노출로 기업의 마케팅 입장과 도시이미지 구축의 측면에서 모두 중요하다. 기업이 사인시스템을 통한 브랜드이미지 구축의 전략적 선택이 이루어짐과 동시에 도시경관 측면에서는 어떻게 상충점을 극복하여 도시브랜드 구축을 이루어 가는지 실 사례를 통해 해법을 조사하였다.

According to the development of computer, many people recently record their statements with computer. Therefore new issue about the admissibility of the statements recorded in computer file floats on the legal horizon. From the viewpoint of the anglo-american hearsay rule, this issue could be easily cleared by the rule and exception. In principle, hearsay rule say that out of court statements be inadmissible for the evidence of the truthfulness of the contents of the statements and call this out of court statements hearsay. Hearsay rule focuses on the statements, not the method by which this statements are recorded or transferred. As the result, the out of court statements recorded in computer file are hearsay when they are given as evidence for the truthfulness of the contents of the statements But hearsay rule know many exceptions which make the out of court statements admissible. At first, hearsay statements by the defendant are admissible as a exception of hearsay rule. Secondly, hearsay statements by the third party are admissible when there is necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. There are many categories and general exceptions which represent this necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. On the other hand, there is another point for the admissibility of the evidence. It is the authentication. Authentication can be given by many methods, as example, by testimony of the declarant, by the testimony of the third party who knows the evidence or other objective materials. From this point of view, we can consider § 313① and § 315 possible clauses for the admissibility of private statements in computer file. At first, § 313① require the authentication be made by the declarant's oral testimony. The Court says that this testimony is the one in which the declarant admit the statements to be made by himself. According to the explanation, the admissibility is decided only by the declarant's subjective admission. This result is unreasonable because the issue of admissibility should be decided by the objective facts. Therefore the testimony of the declarant in § 313① should be construed as all the statements in court and the authentication be decided by all the statements of the declarant in court objectively considered with other facts and materials. And § 315. 3. provides general clause of guarantee of trustworthiness as exception of hearsay rule. This guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in the Court' decision, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded in computer file should have been admitted.

According to the development of computer, many people recently record their statements with computer. Therefore new issue about the admissibility of the statements recorded in computer file floats on the legal horizon. From the viewpoint of the anglo-american hearsay rule, this issue could be easily cleared by the rule and exception. In principle, hearsay rule say that out of court statements be inadmissible for the evidence of the truthfulness of the contents of the statements and call this out of court statements hearsay. Hearsay rule focuses on the statements, not the method by which this statements are recorded or transferred. As the result, the out of court statements recorded in computer file are hearsay when they are given as evidence for the truthfulness of the contents of the statements But hearsay rule know many exceptions which make the out of court statements admissible. At first, hearsay statements by the defendant are admissible as a exception of hearsay rule. Secondly, hearsay statements by the third party are admissible when there is necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. There are many categories and general exceptions which represent this necessity and guarantee of trustworthiness. On the other hand, there is another point for the admissibility of the evidence. It is the authentication. Authentication can be given by many methods, as example, by testimony of the declarant, by the testimony of the third party who knows the evidence or other objective materials. From this point of view, we can consider § 313① and § 315 possible clauses for the admissibility of private statements in computer file. At first, § 313① require the authentication be made by the declarant's oral testimony. The Court says that this testimony is the one in which the declarant admit the statements to be made by himself. According to the explanation, the admissibility is decided only by the declarant's subjective admission. This result is unreasonable because the issue of admissibility should be decided by the objective facts. Therefore the testimony of the declarant in § 313① should be construed as all the statements in court and the authentication be decided by all the statements of the declarant in court objectively considered with other facts and materials. And § 315. 3. provides general clause of guarantee of trustworthiness as exception of hearsay rule. This guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility is relatively lower level of reliability than the reliability for the selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. The selection from the admissible evidences is for the fact finder, for example, trial jury. not for the leader of the procedure. But in the Court' decision, the Court seems to be unable to distinguish this guarantee of trustworthiness as a condition for admissibility from the issue of selection from the admissible evidences for trusting the facts asserted. So the Court's decision is inappropriate and the statements recorded in computer file should have been admitted.