PUBLICATIONS

A111D4 T3 c17Db

NBSIR 79-1760

Evaluation of Safety Symbols

Belinda L. Collins

Brian C. Pierman

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

June 1979

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
.rrvTWajftr/y

\

v >y-=K?«/AV- * • • < V “.r..*; • "»* ' v I- -~ ‘ — T * ST.? V/.-. *','••

;

•-».• . *

noiaiviO ; 'ic 'HoP. ns-w.: 65;

vs )!onr’ voT -.lnibKub icr* "'

yioir 'OdsJ owiiesinignH Ib-’ KblBtn'BJ?. Vo . KOluS I

• -Oil:

0'^ .?. Cl .nojpfiirifr-; >

•-. •• - •
Stetfcnat Boreal DEC 12 1979

not 9}Cc - drc.

(jSClOO

NBSIR 79-1760

U SC*

EVALUATION OF SAFETY SYMBOLS -> q * n

Q

D

Belinda L. Collins

Brian C. Pierman

Environmental Design Research Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

June 1979

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

ABSTRACT

The increasing use of symbols to convey fire safety information

nonverbally is described. In addition the trend toward international

standardization of symbols is discussed for transportation and other

systems. The need for further research on symbols is discussed in terms

of the advantages and disadvantages of symbol use. Advantages include

rapid and accurate communication without the barriers of verbal language.

Disadvantages include the too rapid proliferation of different symbols

and inappropriate or misleading application. Furthermore, the failure

to evaluate the understandability of each symbol is cited as a major

problem. A case study which documents some of the advantages and

disadvantages of a set of proposed fire-safety symbols is presented.

Finally, areas for further research on symbol evaluation are discussed.

Key Words: Communication; Evaluation Methods; Fire Safety; Hazard

Warnings; Pictograms; Safety Information; Standardization;

Symbols

.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While the authors of this report take full responsibility for its

contents, we wish to mention all those who provided invaluable assistance during its development.

We would like to thank Mr. Robert Andrews and Mr. Samuel Beach, both

members of the NFPA Subcommittee on Visual Alerting Signs and Symbols,

for their assistance with the collection of information on the firesafety symbols. We would also like to thank Dr. Robert Glass and

Mr. Fred Stahl for their helpful comments during the review process.

This report was originally prepared for the Proceedings of the Second

International Seminar on Behavior in Fire Emergencies.

IV
SI CONVERSION

The units and conversion factors given in this table are in agreement

with the International System of Units or SI system (Systeme

International d'Unites). Because the United States is a signatory to

the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures which defined and

gave official status to the SI system, the following conversion factors

are given.

Length

1 inch (") = 0.0254* meter

1 foot (') = 0.3048* meter

Area

o

1 square inch (in ) 1 square foot (ft^)

6.4516* x 10 ^ meter^

0.0929 meter^

Volume

1 cubic foot (ft^) = 0.0283 meter^

* Exactly

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

SI CONVERSION v

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES vii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Advantages of Symbols 2 1.3 Problems Connected with the Use of Symbols 2

2. Case Study 9

2.1 Procedure 9 2.2 Results and Discussion 10

3. General Discussion 15

4. Research Program at NBS 15

References 17

Appendix A 19

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

FIGURE 1. NO ENTRY SYMBOL 4

FIGURE 2. EXAMPLES OF EXIT SYMBOLS 5

FIGURE 3. NO EXIT SYMBOL 8

FIGURE 4. SYMBOLS RESPONDED TO INCORRECTLY 11

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS WHO RESPONDED CORRECTLY TO SIX

OF THE PROPOSED ISO FIRE SAFETY SYMBOLS 14

vii

1 . INTRODUCTION

1 .1 BACKGROUND

Information to guide, protect, or inform building users has traditionally been provided by written signs in buildings in the United States.

Recently in Europe, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the use of symbols, or pictograms, to convey such information. This effort

began with the development of standardized traffic symbols in Europe in

the early 1900's. Now there are international standards for symbols for

worker safety, hazardous materials transport, and health-care facilities,

while still other standards are under consideration for fire safety

alerting

.

The desire to communicate information among all people everywhere

through the use of symbols was most forcibly voiced by Margaret Mead and

subsequently by Henry Dreyfuss (1972). Mead felt that the development

of a coherent set of pictograms would be the basis of an international

language (Mead & Modley, 1968). She believed that this language could

solve the problems of misunderstanding and semantic confusion which

exist internationally.

The current efforts aimed at the development of symbols and standards

for symbol use are less ambitious, but they are still intended to reduce

confusion and speed communication. At this point, there is an increasing

use of symbols within the United States for transportation systems,

hazard warnings, worker safety, and fire safety, as well as for public

information. For example, the Department of Transportation (DoT) has

successfully sponsored the implementation of standardized symbols for

motorists, and has proposed other symbols for public information in

transportation facilities. Increased concern for worker safety,

consumer protection, and other key issues has sparked awareness in the

U.S. of the concept of symbols as a viable means of communicating essential information.

Further evidence of the increasing interest in symbol use can be seen from the various national and international groups that are developing

standards for symbols. At the national level, the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) has recently chartered the 2 535 Committee

on Safety Colors, Signs and Symbols, while the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) has sponsored a subcommittee on Visual Alerting Signs

and Symbols. Both of these committees are working toward the development

of voluntary standards for worker safety and fire safety symbols. The

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has also sponsored the development

of a set of standard automotive symbols. In the international realm,

the United Nations (UN) has developed signs and symbols for labelling

hazardous materials for transport. Finally the International Standards

Organization (ISO) has three committees dealing with standards for

symbols. These include the Technical Committee (TC) 21 on Equipment

for Fire Protection and Fire Fighting; TC 80 on Safety Colors and Signs;

and TC 145 on Graphic Symbols. Again, each of these committees is

concerned with the development of standard symbols.

1
1.2 ADVANTAGES OF SYMBOLS

Symbols can provide emergency, directional, and instructional information concerning buildings, products, and transportation systems to a wide variety of people. As noted earlier, a major impetus for the use

of symbols has been the need to communicate essential information without the use of words (Kolers, 1969; Modley, 1966). For example, symbols

have been widely used in Europe because international travel is commonplace and language barriers are widespread. In the United States,

moreover, the percentage of the population whose native tongue is not

English, but Spanish, French, Vietnamese, etc. is increasing. For these

people, as well as for illiterate or verbally handicapped persons,

symbols can communicate information without the use of written words.

Symbols can also be an extraordinary medium for communicating a visual

message rapidly and accurately (Dreyfuss, 1966; Smith and Weir, 1978).

Symbols are recognized more rapidly and accurately, in some cases, than

the same message in words (Walker, Nicolay, and Stearns, 1965; King,

1975; Brainard, Campbell & Elkins, 1961). For example, Janda and Volk

(1934) found that the reaction time for highway information was shorter

for a symbol on any shape sign than for any combination of words and

symbols, or for words alone. Thus the use of a directional arrow was found to be more effective than the words "turn here" or "road curves here." In fact the arrows were recognized more rapidly than the conventional and more familiar "STOP" sign. In addition, Walker, Nicolay, and

Stearns (1965) found that symbolic road signs were recognized significantly more accurately than word signs alone. They also determined that

their subjects could remember the meaning of a previously unfamiliar set

of symbols with 100% accuracy after an interval of 24 hours. Smith and

Weir (1978) suggested that symbols for road traffic signs are superior

to verbal messages in terms of more rapid response time and recognition

distance. Symbols can be also used to minimize confusion among alternative choices, moreover (Green and Pew, 1978). Smillie (1978) found

response times to be faster for symbols when stress was introduced as a variable. Accuracy, however, decreased for both printed words and

symbols. Finally at least one researcher (King, 1975) has suggested

that symbols could be more effective than words under interference

conditions. King (1975) also determined that symbols were recognized

more accurately than word signs under short display conditions (1/18

sec) while King and Tierney (1970) found that symbols were more effective than words in conveying a desired meaning. These data indicate

that symbols can convey information both accurately and rapidly. Under

many conditions they can be more effective than words in communicating

a small amount of information. These experiments did not even assess

the most likely advantage of symbols over words; namely, that symbols

can successfully communicate a particular message to people who do not

all speak the same language.

1 .3 PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE USE OF SYMBOLS

Despite the potential effectiveness of symbols, there are some difficulties connected with their development and use. These problems relate

2
primarily to the application of symbols, rather than to the intrinsic

ability of symbols in general to convey information. One of the most

critical areas concerns the lack of standardization. Each person,

agency, industry, etc. who feels the need for a symbol develops one,

often without consultation with any other group. There is little, if

any, coordination on the kinds of information which should be symbolized, or agreement on which particular sets of symbols should be used.

While there have been attempts to compile listings of symbols (Dreyfuss,

1972), these are not complete, as new symbols have been generated

subsequently in response to specific needs. In addition, while various

international organizations such as the International Standards Organization (ISO), the Common Market (EEC), and the United Nations (UN), have

attempted to standardize sets of safety symbols, most of these standards

are not yet in force in the U.S.

For example, the Department of Transportation (DoT) commissioned the

development of a set of 34 public information symbols to be used in

transportation facilities such as airline, bus, and train terminals.

While these symbols are intended to be used in such facilities, there is no guarantee that they will be used in other places where public information is provided; nor is the set complete, as it excludes fire and

hazard alerting. The unfortunate possibility exists that building

owners and the like will continue to use their own sets of symbols,

since the DoT work is strictly oriented toward voluntary application.

Thus the lack of standardization of symbols within the U.S. means that

several different symbols may be used to convey a particular meaning.

A related problem connected with the application of symbols is the

tendency for a symbol which has been used successfully in one application to be used in a quite different set of circumstances. For example,

the "no entry” symbol (see Figure 1), originally intended for vehicular

traffic, is now being considered for pedestrian traffic. Granted, there

is a large measure of information transfer in that many pedestrians are

also licensed drivers; nevertheless, the symbol may not be entirely

appropriate, or understandable for pedestrian users. Furthermore, the

"no entry" symbol may be intended only for vehicular traffic in some instances, and for all traffic in other situations.

Still another problem has arisen in which a particular situation is

represented by several unique symbols. Thus, there are at least five

proposed symbols for "exit" (see Figure 2), each with a very different

representation of this idea. Needless to say, the potential for serious

confusion is high.

Finally and most importantly, because symbols are typically developed

and implemented in response to an individual and specific need, their

effectiveness in communicating information to a larger audience is

rarely evaluated. Although the creator of the symbol may understand

its message perfectly, this message may not be communicated to anyone

else. A prime example is a fire-safety symbol proposed by ISO TC 21

which means "no exit" (see Figure 3). In some instances, in fact, a symbol (and this is one) may communicate a meaning that is opposite from

3
FIGURE 1 NO ENTRY SYMBOL

4
FIGURE 2. EXAMPLES OF EXIT SYMBOLS

5
6
FIGURE 2 - CONTINUED

7
FIGURE 3. NO EXIT SYMBOL

8
that which is intended. Apparently, this symbol can convey the meaning

of "safe refuge" to some people. Failure to evaluate the effectiveness

of a particular symbol is perhaps the most serious issue in the application of symbols and the development of national and international

standards

.

In the preceeding paragraphs, issues related to the effectiveness of

symbols for communicating specific information have been raised. In

addition, various problems relating to the application of symbols were discussed. These include a lack of agreement upon which situations

need to be symbolized; the proliferation of symbols and symbol-producing

groups; the development of confusing and contradictory symbols; and,

most importantly, the failure to evaluate each symbol's ability to

communicate a particular message to a given audience. These problems can seriously hamper the transmission of essential safety information.

Yet these problems can be resolved through evaluation and testing, and

through the development of (voluntary) standards for symbol use. The

issues raised here primarily concern the application of symbols and

should not detract from the documented effectiveness of a carefully

developed and researched symbol to convey urgent information accurately

and rapidly. (See Section 1.2).

2. CASE STUDY

In the second portion of this report, we will present a case study which

illustrates many of the issues associated with symbol use. The symbols

in question are a set of fire safety symbols now being considered as a draft international standard by the ISO TC 21 subcommittee on Fire

Safety Symbols.

Input from the United States as one of the 84 members of ISO was required for the preparation of an ISO TC 21 standard on Fire Safety

Symbols. Yet a preliminary inspection of these symbols suggested that a number of them might not be readily understood by people in the U.S.

Furthermore , this set of symbols had never been evaluated or tested for

its effectiveness in communicating the specific information intended.

Consequently, there were no data that indicated whether these symbols

did convey the desired safety information accurately.

2.1 PROCEDURE

Under sponsorship of the NFPA subcommittee on visual signs and symbols,

22 fire safety symbols were evaluated for their accuracy and ability to

convey fire safety alerting information. In this effort, 143 subjects,

in a total of ten groups, were questioned about their understanding of

these symbols. Although subjects were volunteers from a college

community, a retirement home and several fire stations, no attempt was made to ensure that the subject selection process was at all random or representative

.

The symbols were presented one by one, as placards ( .3 m x .3 m or

1' x 1') at a distance of no greater than 9.1 m or 30' from the

9
subjects. Subjects were asked to write down a short definition of

each symbol immediately after it was presented. They were allowed the

option of "I don't know" as a response. The entire experiment including

instructions lasted for about 45 minutes.

The responses were assessed by three judges who matched the answers against a predetermined meaning given by ISO for each symbol. The

symbols were rated as "correct", "incorrect", or "no response". Agreement between two of the three judges was required for each final rating.

The frequency of each type of rated response was recorded for each

symbol. The percentage of subjects responding in each of the three ways

was calculated for each symbol. In addition, where subjects responded

incorrectly, the number and kind of alternate meanings were also tallied.

Pictures of selected symbols which caused definite understandability

problems are presented in Figure 4.

2.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 presents the percentage of subjects (N=143) who responded

correctly to six of the proposed ISO Fire Safety Symbols. These

symbols were selected for this table to show the extremes of response.

Thus, the symbol for telephone and the conventional EXIT sign were recognized by almost all of the subjects. (In fact, the only people

who missed these signs were several persons from a retirement home who

may not have understood the instructions, although many of the retired

people performed well.) On the other hand, almost no one understood the

blind alley symbol. Similarly, the ISO exit symbol, the "break glass"

symbol, and the "do not block" symbol were recognized by only 20-25% of

the 143 subjects. Pictures of all the symbols tested are provided in

Appendix A, along with the percentage of correct recognition.

The results indicate that there are are serious drawbacks to the

immediate use of some of the proposed ISO Fire Safety symbols in the

U.S. At least several of the symbols were not understood by a large

majority of subjects (under these testing conditions). These include

the "exit," "no exit," "fire ladder," "break glass" and "do not block"

symbols. In addition, not only were several symbols incorrectly identified, in some cases they were given a meaning opposite to that which

was intended. Thus, the "no exit" sign was interpreted as exit or safe area by almost 70% of the 69 subjects who identified this symbol incorrectly. It should be noted that about 140 of the 143 subjects either

misidentif ied or did not respond to this particular symbol. Yet it

should also be noted that 95% of the subjects were able to identify the

"telephone" and "no smoking" symbols correctly, as well as the word

"EXIT." This recognition rate is well above the 75% recognition rate

set by Heard (1974) as required for adoption of automotive symbols.

The results reported here are very preliminary, and are given only to

provide an indication of the range of effectiveness which may be

expected when symbols are used the sole means of conveying information.

Thus, several of the symbols were accurately understood by the majority

of the subjects. Other symbols were either not known, or, more

10
ISO EXIT

BREAK GLASS TO OBTAIN ACCESS

FIGURE 4. SYMBOLS RESPONDED TO INCORRECTLY

11
BLIND ALLEY—NO EXIT

DO NOT BLOCK—KEEP PASSAGEWAY CLEAR

12
FIRE LADDER

FIGURE 4 - CONTINUED

13
RECOGNITION

OF

PROPOSED

i 1 - 1 I I I I I i L

uoriiuBoodJ pauoo aBeuiaoja^

TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS WHO RESPONDED CORRECTLY TO

SIX OF THE PROPOSED ISO FIRE SAFETY SYMBOLS. SEE

APPENDIX A FOR PICTURES OF THE SIX SYMBOLS.

14

Break

Blind

Do

not

Telephone

glass

alley

block
seriously, were identified with a meaning opposite to that intended.

While a fairly large number of people from a variety of backgrounds

were tested, this was by no means a random or representative sample

of subjects. Consequently, these results do not apply for all people

in the U.S., and are not intended to provide a definitive answer to the

fire safety symbols problem. They do indicate, however, the urgent need

to evaluate the unders tandability of each symbol before it is used for a hazard warning. If a symbol does poorly during the evaluation, then

redrafting should seriously be considered. If the symbol cannot be

redrafted, then an intensive educational effort must be implemented.

3. GENERAL DISCUSSION

An instance in which a symbol is given a meaning opposite to that

intended illustrates the most serious problem with the use of symbols.

Yet, this type of situation can arise when symbols are neither developed nor evaluated consistently. The potential for serious harm in a case such as the "no exit" symbol which was interpreted as "safe haven"

is very great. Consequently, before symbols are adopted, particularly

ones which relate to emergency situations, their effectiveness in

communicating the desired safety information to the intended audience

must be evaluated. Ideally, the evaluation process should occur during

the initial drafting stages, and again before implementation to

eliminate serious misidentif ications.

An evaluation program for proposed safety symbols should provide

evidence of each symbol's effectiveness for conveying information to a particular audience. If the symbol is not deemed effective, then one of

two courses of action can be implemented. The first is to institute an

intensive education program to teach people the meaning of the symbol,

after which its effectiveness should be reevaluated. The second is to use information gained during the evaluation program (such as misidentification) to modify and improve the symbol. Again, the modified symbol

must be evaluated before it is implemented. It is especially critical

to evaluate new symbols and sets of symbols before they are used to

convey safety information.

4. RESEARCH PROGRAM AT NBS

As a result of the need to implement more effective symbols, NBS has

begun a research program in which safety symbol use will be evaluated.

Five major questions will be addressed in this program. These include:

(1) which situations, or groups of situations, require symbols, (2) how

do users evaluate specific symbols, (3) what are the methods and criteria

for evaluating symbol effectiveness for these situations, (4) what are

the characteristics of an effective symbol, and (5) what conditions

affect the usefulness of symbols? A specific focus will be the testing

and evaluation of safety symbols in the workplace and under emergency

conditions—with the ultimate goal being technical input into the

development of standards for symbol use and evaluation.

15
During the symbol research program at NBS , we will develop and

implement a variety of test procedures for evaluating safety symbols.

As Cahill (1975) noted, the empirical validation of a symbol's

effectiveness is an essential element of symbol development. Validation

is a key step in determining whether a symbol accurately communicates

the desired information and can affect the subsequent actions of the

intended audience. Thus, Freedman, Berkowitz and Gallagher (1976)

tested public information symbols by determining if these symbols were successful in guiding people through a museum. Heard (1974) assessed

the effectiveness of automotive symbols by having subjects touch each

control as the corresponding symbol was presented, while Easterby and

Zwaga (1976) asked a wide variety of subjects to define the meaning of

each of six public information symbols.

The preceding examples are presented to indicate some of the situations

in which symbols have been evaluated for their effectiveness. This

knowledge can then be used to improve the symbol, implement an education

program, or empirically support a symbol's widespread use. In conclusion, knowledge of the understandability of a given symbol, particularly

a safety symbol, is essential before it is used. The development of

standard evaluation procedures is seen as a critical factor in this process. The NBS research program will provide information on the use of

different evaluation techniques, as well as data on the understandability

of specific safety symbols.

16
REFERENCES

Brainard, R. W. , Campbell, R. J. , and Elkins, E. H. Design and Interpretability of Road Signs. JournalofApplied Psychology, 1961, 45,

130-136.

Cahill, M. C. Interpretability of Graphic Symbols as a Function of

Context and Experience Factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975,

60, 376-380.

Dreyfuss, H. Case Study: Symbols for Industrial Use. In G. Kepes

(Ed.), Sign, Image and Symbol . New York: George Braziller, 1966,

pp. 126-133.

Dreyfuss, H. Symbol Sourcebook: An Authoritative Guide to International Graphic Symbols . New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.

Easterby, R. S., and Zwaga, H. I. G. Evaluation of Public Information

Symbols: ISO tests, 1975 series . (AP Report 60). Birmingham, England:

University of Aston, Applied Psychology Department, March 1976.

Freedman, M. , Berkowitz, M. , Gallagher, V. P. Symbol Signs: Testing

Criteria and Techniques of Evaluation for Passenger/Pedestrian Oriented

Symbols for Use in Transportation-Related Facilities . (Interim report,

Contract No. DOT-OS-60071). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation, September 1976.

Green, P., and Pew, R. W. Evaluating Pictographic Symbols: An Automotive Application. Human Factors , 1978, 20, 103-114.

Heard, E. A., Symbol Study - 1972. Society of Automotive Engineers

(740 304) Detroit, Michigan: Automotive Engineering Congress.

February-March, 1974.

Janda, H. F., & Volk, W. N. , Effectiveness of Various Highway Signs.

National Research Council: Highway Research Board Proceedings , 1934, 14,

442-447.

King, L. E. Recognition of Symbol and Word Traffic Signs. Journal of

Safety Research , 1975, 7, 80-84.

King, L. E., & Tierney W. J., Glance Legibility - Symbol versus word

Highway Signs. Paper presented at the 1970 Annual Meeting of the Human

Factors Society, San Francisco, October, 1970.

Kolers , P. A. Some Formal Characteristics of Pictograms. American

Scientist , 1969 , 57 , 348-363.

Mead, M. , and Modley, R. Communication Among All People Everywhere.

Natural History, 1968, 77, 56-63.

17
Modley, R. Graphic Symbols for Worldwide Communication. In G. Kepes

(Ed.), Sign, Image and Symbol . New York: George Braziller, 1966,

pp. 108-125.

Smillie, R. J. Continuing Research in Job Performance Aids: The Interaction of Speed Stress and Media. Proceedings of the Human Factors

Society - 22nd Annual Meeting, 1978, pp. 502-506.

Smith, G. , and Weir, R. Laboratory Visibility Studies of Directional

Symbols Used for Traffic Control Symbols. Ergonomics , 1978, 21, 247252.

Walker, R. E. , Nicolay, R. C. , and Stearns, C. R. Comparative Accuracy

of Recognizing American and International Road Signs. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 322-325.

18
APPENDIX A

In the follcwing pages 21 photographs of the 22 fire-safety symbols

used in this experiment are given. (The EXIT sign which was presented in

both red and green type is only shown once.)

Under each photograph is presented the percentage of subjects (N=143)

who responded correctly with an accurate definition of the symbol.

19
1 . EMERGENCY EXIT

25% correct

2. FIRE EXTINGUISHER

93% correct

20
3. FIRE-FIGHTERS EQUIPMENT

1% correct

4. DO NOT LOCK

59% correct

21
5. DO NOT BLOCK - KEEP PASSAGEWAY CLEAR

19% correct

8% correct

22
7. DO NOT USE WATER

63% correct

8. NO SMOKING

93% correct

23
9. NO OPEN FLAME

78% correct

10. TELEPHONE - RED - EMERGENCY

65% correct
11. TELEPHONE - BLUE - GENERAL

94% correct

12. BREAK GLASS TO OBTAIN ACCESS

30% correct

25
13. BLIND ALLEY

3% correct

14. SLIDE DOOR TO RIGHT TO OPEN

23% correct

26
15. FIRE LADDER

57% correct

16. STANDPIPE (HOSE AND REEL)

84% correct

27
17. DIRECTION TO FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT

17% correct

64% correct

28
19. EXIT (in words)- both Red and Green

95% and 92% correct

29
20. FIRE ALARM HORN

16% correct

21. FIRE DOOR - KEEP SHUT

20% correct

30
NBS-114A (REV. 9-78)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 2. Gov*^Accession No. 3. Recipient $ Acco$siC« No. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA NBSIR 79-1760 / SHEET

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Evaluation of Safety Symbols

.

7. AUTHOR(S)

B. L. Collins and B. C. Pierman

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

16. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state, ZIP)

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

tSb5» r fill! s"'"; : 'V W

.

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most si ghificant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) The increasing use of symbols to convey fire safety information nonverbally is

described. In addition, the trend toward international standardization of

symbols is discussed for transportation and other systems. The need for

further research on symbols is discussed in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of symbol use. Advantages include rapid and accurate communication

without the barriers of verbal language. Disadvantages include the too rapid

proliferation of different symbols and inappropriate or misleading application.

Furthermore, the failure to evaluate the understandability of each symbol is

cited as a major problem. A case study which documents some of the advantages

and disadvantages of a set of proposed fire-safety symbols is presented.

Finally, areas for further research on symbol evaluation are discussed.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons) Communication; evaluation methods; fire safety; hazard warnings;

pictograms; safety information; standardization; symbols.

18. AVAILABILITY ^Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS ~ Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No, SN003-003- [X Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

37

22. Price

$4.50

USCOMM-DC