NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 141

The Development and Evaluation

of Effective Symbol Signs

TA

435

.U58

NO, 141 ^RTMENT OF COMMERCE • NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

c. 2
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities^ — Radiation Research — Chemical Physics —

Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science

THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve nafional problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering^ — Manufacturing

Engineering — Building Technology — Fire Research — Chemical Engineering^

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. ^Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
NATIONAL BUKBAU

OF iTAWDAHlxa

UBBAST

NBS BUILDING SCIENCE SERIES 141 ' ^ The Development and Evaluation

of Effective Symbol Signs

Belinda Lowenhaupt Collins

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued May 1982
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-600192

National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series 141

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Bldg. Sci. Ser. 141, 96 pages (May 1982)

CODEN: BSSNBV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1982

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

Price (Add 25 percent for other than U.S. mailing)
The Development and Evaluation of

Effective Symbol Signs

by

Belinda Lowenhaupt Collins

ABSTRACT

Graphic symbols have recently been widely adopted for sign systems in the

United States. Beginning with traffic sign systems, symbols have become widely

used for applications ranging from products to buildings. In this report a brief history of the development of symbols is given, followed by a review of

research on experimental evaluation of symbols. Some of the general advantages

and limitations of symbols are discussed, along with graphic considerations

essential in the development of effective sjrmbols. Research on symbols for five areas of application — highway, automotive/machinery, public Information, product hazard, and safety — is then discussed.

Finally, issues in the research and development of more effective symbols are reviewed. These include the need for good graphic design, characteristics of

the intended user group, use of shape and color to encode information, and

general visibility considerations.

Key words: communication; design issues; hazard; plctograms; pictorial;

safety; signs; standards; symbols; visual alerting; warning.

ill
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While the author of this report takes full responsibility for its contents, I wish to thank all who provided assistance and insight during its many revisions. In particular, I am grateful to Robert Chapman, Roy Clark, Jacqueline

Elder, Neil Lerner, Steve Margulis, Brian Pierman, and Mary Reppert for their

detailed review and helpful comments.

Cover photo:

A sample of safety

symbols.

iv

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT , HI

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Iv

LIST OF FIGURES vl

LIST OF TABLES vi

SI CONVERSION UNITS vll

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Overview 1

1.2 Definition of Graphic Symbols 3

1.3 S3niibol History and Standardization 5

2. DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE SYMBOLS 11

2.1 Advantages of Symbol Use 11

2.2 Limitations of Symbols 12

2.3 Design Considerations 17

2.3.1 Graphic Concerns 17

2.3.2 Application of Perceptual Principles to

Symbol Design 20

2.4 Case Studies of Design Evaluation 21

2.5 Need for Evaluation of Effectiveness 25

3. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF SYMBOL EFFECTIVENESS 27

3.1 Requirements for Communication 27

3.2 Highway Symbol Research 29

3.2.1 Reaction Time to Word and Symbol Signs 29

3.2.2 Glance Legibility Assessment of Understandability .... 33

3.2.3 Direct Assessment of Meaningfulness 37

3.2.4 Comparison of Laboratory and Behavioral Data 43

3.2.5 Visibility of Highway Symbols 45

3.3 Automotive and Machinery Symbols 46

3.3.1 Machine Symbol Evaluation 47

3.3.2 Automotive Symbol Evaluation 48

3.3.3 Automotive Symbol Production 53

3.3.4 Orientation of Symbols 54

3.4 Public Information Symbols for Buildings 55

3.5 Hazard Warning Symbols for Products 59

3.6 Safety Symbols for Buildings 62

3.7 Categorization of Previous Research 66

3.8 Concerns for Future Research 68

4. SUMMARY 73

4.1 Overview of the Literature 73

4.2 Issues in the Development and Standardization of More

Effective Sjnnbols 76

REFERENCES 82

V
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Categories of S5nnbols 4

Figure 2. First Standardized Symbols. Highway Symbols, 1909 6

Figure 3. Standard U.S. Highway Symbols 8

Figure 4. A Sample of the Variety of Symbols Proposed for Ear

Protection 9

Figure 5. Use of Shape and Color to Encode Meaning 14

Figure 6. Symbols Which Depict Result of Hazard 15

Figure 7. Sjnnbols Which Have Become Outmoded or Regionally

Unacceptable 18

Figure 8. DoT Public Information Symbols 24

Figure 9. Highway Symbols Contradictory to U.S. Practice 41

Figure 10. Examples of Automotive Control Symbols 50

Figure 11. Public Information Symbols Studied for ISO 57

Figure 12. Examples of Fire Safety Symbols 64

Figure 13. Examples of Potentially Confusing Sjnnbols 69

Figure 14. Symbol Images Used to Depict Different Types of

Information for a Single Hazard 78

" LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Qualities of Effective Graphic Message from Doblin (1979) .. 19

Table 2. Symbol Research; Psychological Process and Application .... 67

0,

vi
SI CONVERSION UNITS

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 in = 0.02 54* meter

1 ft = 0.3048* meter

Area

1 in2 = 6.4516* x 10"'^ meter^

1 ft2 = 0.0929 meter

Illumination

1 ft candle = 10.76 lux

* Exactly

vli
Facing page:

Symbols designed to

provide public

information.

viii
1 . INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 OVERVIEW

The development and use of more effective symbols as elements of a communication

system requires both good design and thorough evaluation. In the following

pages, a brief history of the use of symbols in sign systems is presented as a background to the discussion of graphic and experimental evaluation which

follows. Advantages and limitations to the use of symbols in sign systems are noted

.
If s5nnbols are to be effective, then explicit attention must be paid to good

graphic design. Some of the principles followed by graphic designers are discussed, with three case studies of design evaluation for symbols in sign systems. Design evaluation does not always include scientific sampling of the

effectiveness of the symbolic image with the intended user population.

Scientific evaluation of symbols is typically done separately, often without

feedback to the design process. Similarly, standardization of symbols

often proceeds without input from either the graphic design profession or the research community.

Yet, review of the reported research into symbols for various sign systems

provides valuable insight into numerous aspects of successful symbol performance and methodologies for evaluation of symbols. Research in five areas of application is discussed: highway, automotive and machinery, public

information, product, and building safety. The bulk of this research is

presented in terms of the understandability of the symbol, a key factor in the

selection and use of sjnnbols for effective communication systems. Research

into other psychological processes such as detection, discrimination, recognition, and behavior is also discussed, however.

Finally, the urgent need for further research, particularly in the area of

symbols to provide safety and hazard warning information in and around buildings, is discussed. The need to develop a comprehensive model for evaluation

of sjnnbol performance in terms of the relevant psychological processing dimensions is noted.

Although the earliest written languages of Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia used

pictures to represent ideas, the modern alphabet has evolved far beyond the

simple graphic representation of familiar objects (Giedion, 1966). Because

the alphabet now bears little resemblance to a series of pictures, the meaning

of words constructed with alphabetic characters must be learned. As a result,

written representations of objects or ideas are only meaningful to those who

can read a particular language. In many instances, however, there is a need to

communicate information to all people who use a building, transportation system,

highway, machine, automobile, or the like.

The result has been a trend back to the use of pictures, or graphic sjnnbols, to

portray information as an integral element of environmental signs and visual

communication systems. These sjnnbolic signs are designed to communicate information rapidly and accurately without reliance upon a specific language.

Because graphic symbols are intended to communicate visually, they are effective only when both the symbol's creator sends and the user receives the same message.

In the following pages, various concerns which surround the development of

effective sjnnbols are discussed. Section 1 defines symbol terminology and

discusses the historical development and standardization of symbols. In section 2 the advantages and disadvantages to symbol use are reviewed with suggestions for good symbol design and graphic improvement. Section 3 reviews

2
the experimental evaluation of symbols for five applications: highway,

automotive/machinery, public Inforaatlon, product hazard, and building safety.

Finally, in section 4 suggestions for further experimental evaluation are presented along with Issues In the development and use of more effective

symbols

.

1.2 DEFINITION OF GRAPHIC SYMBOLS

The term graphic "symbol" has been defined In numerous different ways. Modley

(1976) broadly defined a true graphic symbol as a comparatively simple geometric

shape which uniquely represents a concept, while Dreyfuss (1972) described it as a written mark or character which Is used to represent something. In the

following pages the term "symbol" will be used as Modley defined it - a shape

which represents a concept or "referent". Although the term "symbol" is sometimes restricted to an "abstract or geometric form which is associated with an

idea" (Follis & Hammer, 1979, p. 59) while the term "plctogram" refers more to

pictures of readily recognizable objects, no such distinction will be made in

the following pages.

There are, nevertheless, several categories of symbols. Modley (1966) and

Dreyfuss (1972) defined three categories - pictorial, concept-related, and

arbitrary. (See figure 1 which provides examples of pictorial, concept-related,

and arbitrary symbols.)

According to both Eliot and Modley, pictorial symbols are those which directly

represent an object or feature and which are expected to convey their meaning

without further explanation. They can be easily recognized because of their

resemblance to a familiar object. Problems with this kind of s3nnbol arise only

when the represented object changes or becomes unfamiliar to the audience

(Eliot, 1960). Modley (1966, p. 119) claimed "that there are only a few imagerelated symbols which are unique in meaning, clearly recognizable, and permanent

in time . . . Many other image-related symbols will have only limited use —

geographically and historically. As such, they should be used with caution so

as to avoid possible faulty Interpretation by 'outsiders'."

Abstract concept-related symbols, however, depend upon an arbitrary code of

meaning which is artificially created and accepted. Thus, concept-related

abstract symbols refer to perceptual concepts rather than real objects. For

example, a directional arrow or a horizontal wavy line can represent the idea

of "turn here" or "water" quite effectively. Furthermore, once the basic perceptual concepts have been symbolized, the concept-related s5rmbol is less likely

to change, because the underlying referent should remain constant. Modley noted

that although a concept-related symbol is not necessarily instantly recognized,

it may be easy to learn because the graphic form depicts the perceptual content

of the represented concept. As a result, it is also easily remembered.

Arbitrary abstract graphic symbols, on the other hand, "do not resemble real

objects nor are they related to the objects or concepts which they represent.

Their shape is arbitrarily assigned to them. Because of this lack of reference,

these symbols are more difficult to teach, more difficult to learn, and harder

3
PICTORIAL

Fire Extinguisher Telephone Person

CONCEPT RELATED

WWWW

Water Mr. Yuk This Way

ARBITRARY

Caution:

Biological Hazard

+

Plus

d

Man

#

Number

Figure 1. Categories of symbols

4
to retain. They have to be learned by rote . . . Regardless of their possible

origin as image or concept-related sjnnbols, the graphic symbols in current

general use - letters, numerals, punctuation marks, and mathematical operators

- are all arbitrary symbols. Only in the more recent symbol systems used by

professional groups or proposed for public use do we find heavier reliance on image-related or concept-related symbols" (Modley, 1966, p. 120). For the most

part, abstract arbitrary symbols are not covered in detail in this report, since

the focus is upon effective and meaningful symbols for building signals.

In the following pages the term "sjnnbol" will include the pictorial or abstract

graphic representation of objects, concepts, and events. The term "referent"

will include the symbol meaning or concept. No differentiation will be made

between the terms symbol, pictogram, glyph, pictorial, or image. The discussion

will, however, center upon the use of symbols as elements of visual communication and alerting systems.

1.3 SYMBOL HISTORY AND STANDARDIZATION

Modley (1976) suggested that the modern use of symbols such as the barber's

pole or the apothecary's mortar and pestle began in medieval times to indicate

services and to provide directional information. Through repeated use, these

symbols became recognized as the representation of all similar activities

rather than the sign for an individual shop or tradesman. In the 20th century,

the most prevalent use of symbols has been for highway signs due to the rapid

development of the automobile and the growing ease of travel between foreign

countries. Eliot (1960, p. 18) commented that "without the motor vehicle,

highway signs might well have remained primitive, local, and highly individualistic. The motor vehicle that tremendously expanded the range of travel and

brought an era of individual travel for the masses also created new hazards

and a need for vastly improved guidance for the strangers who were following

new highways into distant places." Eliot suggested that one of the first

symbols was the pointing finger, which evolved into an arrow meaning "go this

way", and now is one of the most common graphic symbols.

The use of symbol signs has expanded widely since World War II as a result of

increased international travel and trade. Symbols now exist for applications

ranging from machine tools and automobiles to hazardous materials warnings and

buildings. They are used to provide direction, to identify objects and controls,

and to warn of hazards.

The rapid expansion of symbols into a multitude of applications has often

resulted in the use of different symbols for similar messages. Yet, if graphic

symbols are to be effective, their form should be similar, or standardized, for

each message for all audiences. One of the first attempts at standardizing

symbols for road use occurred at a convention in Paris in 1909 on the International Circulation of Motor Vehicles. These standard symbols were designed to

eliminate language barriers and communicate their intended message easily

(King, 1971). At this time four symbols were adopted - for curve, bump, intersection, and railroad grade crossing (see figure 2). In 1916 another convention on motor traffic added sjnnbols for linked curves and uneven pavements

5
ROUGH ROAD

CURVE

II I I

I

LEVEL CROSSING - RR

CROSS ROADS

Figure 2, First standardized symbols. Highway symbols, 1909

6
while approving a triangle as the shape for warning signs. The League of

Nations in 1931 expanded this series to 26 symbols with uniform requirements

for color and shape. Finally, the United Nations adopted a protocol on Road

Signs and Symbols in 1949, which relied upon the earlier work on symbols, and

which is now in widespread use throughout Europe.

In contrast, traffic signs in the United States (U.S.) depended primarily upon

English words to convey the intended message until the early 1970' s. This

practice was standardized in 1925 by the American Association of State Highway

Officials. Elliot (1960, p. 22) commented that standardization of word signs was "a byproduct of a program set up to designate and mark an official network

of major highways and thus to end an uncontrolled, and often overlapping and

competing marking of tourist routes by private promoters." In 1966 the Highway

Safety Att standardized signs throughout the county, and by 1971, the U.S.

practice was revised to include European style symbols in addition to English

words based upon the U.N. protocol (see figure 3). Even so, highway sign

practices are not fully standardized throughout the world (or even throughout

Europe and North America). Nevertheless, there is the beginning of a viable

system of highway information signs using a mixture of sjnnbols and words for

motorists. Furthermore, the success, however limited, of implementing a system of s5niibolic messages for highways has sparked the development of symbol

systems for other applications.

Margaret Mead, Rudolf Modley, and Henry Dreyfuss were pioneers in bringing the

need for s3nnbols in all applications to widespread attention. Mead and Modley

(1968) noted that in 1968 people spoke at least 2800 languages and could travel

to any part of the earth in no more than 36 hours, a time which today's supersonic transport has most assuredly shortened. The speed of modern travel

demands unambiguous signs understood by those who speak any language from any

culture. Mead termed such symbol signs "glyphs." In her view, glyphs would

form the basis of an international communication system. "What is needed internationally is a set of glyphs which does not refer to any single phonological

system or to any specific cultural system of images but will, instead, form a system of visual signs with universally recognized referents" (Modley, 1966,

p. 113).

Dreyfuss (1972, p. 18) envisioned a set of universally understood symbols as a "supplement to all languages to help create a better and faster understanding

in specific areas. Symbols have already evolved to the point of universal

acceptance in such areas as music, mathematics, and many branches of science."

Beyond these specialized sjnnbols, however, the only symbols which currently

have a claim to international standardization are those for highways and hazardous materials transport. Yet, because of the immense popularity of graphic

symbols, they are currently used in numerous applications from hazard warnings

to Olympic games. New symbols are often developed without consideration for

existing s3nnbols or standards. Modley and Myers (1976) and Dreyfuss (1972),

for example, published extensive compilations of numerous symbols for particular

referents. Modley and Myers present examples of 19 sjnnbols for first aid, 24

symbols for telephone, and 17 symbols for no entry. The compilation by Dreyfuss

7
Figure 3. Standard U.S. highway symbols

8
includes symbols representing geography to safety, and adds form and color as well. These compilations present only a fraction of the numerous symbols now

used for many referents. The result of the proliferation of symbols and the

lack of standardization "has been much experimentation, some progress, and a great deal of confusion" (Mead & Modley, 1968 p. 58). As an example, figure 4 depicts the confusing variety of symbols proposed and used for ear protection.

Reduction of the confusion surrounding symbols, and the concomitant development

of effective symbol signs, requires systematic research and eventual

standardization

.

Figure 4. A sample of the variety of sjnnbols proposed for ear protection

9
Facing page:

Symbols intended

for fire safety

information
Fire Extinguisher (White on Red) Hose and Reel (White on Red)

Fire Ladder

(White on Red) Rre Bucket

(White on Red)

Fire Fighter's Equipment

(White on Red)

Direction to Equipment

(White on Re<9

Breal( Glass for Access

(White on Green)

Slide Door

to Right (White on Green)

Do Not Use Water To Extinguish

(Black on White, Red Circle & Slash)

Do Not Lock

(Black on White, Red Circle & Slash)

No Smoking

(Black on Whtte, Red Circle & Slash)

No Open Rame

(Black on White, Red Circle & Slash)

2. DEVELOPMENT OF EFFECTIVE SYMBOLS

2.1 ADVANTAGES OF SYMBOL USE

Estimates of adult illiteracy in the U.S. vary widely from about 2 million to

about 40 million (Kirsh & Guthrie, 1977-78). Still another estimate suggests

that "as many as half the adults in the United States may be semillterate and

unable to understand driving manuals, newspapers, and job applications, and

possibly direction signing. But even normally literate persons have been

found to more readily recognize and retain shorter, more familiar terms and

11
phrases" (Cantilli & Fruin, 1972, p. 236). Anxiety may also reduce capability

for visual recognition, recall, and retention. In addition, English is not the

native language for about 8 million Americans. As a result, the need for sign

systems which are not totally language dependent is great, particularly for

safety information and hazard warnings. Symbols can, when chosen appropriately,

meet this need.

In addition to communicating apart from a specific language, symbols stimulate

visual thinking. Modley (1966) claimed that a symbol portraying a right curve

can be more effective than a sign presenting the words 'Right Curve.' Because

this symbol inspires visual thinking, a driver sees the curve ahead and will

adjust to it automatically. With a word sign, he must first interpret its

meaning before he can act upon it (Modley, 1966). Modley (1976, p. 60) claimed

that "uniqueness and clarity of meaning, independence from language and cultural

differences, and visual directness are the ideal objectives which should underlie the creation of any new symbol system."

Mead and Modley (1968) suggested that simplicity, unambiguity, and

understandability are the major advantages of symbols or glyphs. Furthermore,

they "create a direct and immediate impact and this permits immediate response.

This applies as well to those who know a language as to those who do not. This

immediacy of response saves thinking" (Mead & Modley, 1968, p. 57). Mead even

anticipated that carefully chosen glyphs could supersede the need for written

language

.

Another advantage of symbols is the possible use of a portion of an object to

represent the whole object (Kolers, 1969). This critical characteristic of

successful pictorial representation has the advantage that it can occupy less

space on a sign or label. "For example, a drawing of a telephone hand set can convey Information about the location of telephone facilities more compactly

than words can, and a drawing of a curve on a road-sign can signify the nature

of the road more compactly than the word 'curve.' The spatial compactness is

achieved, however, through greater reliance on the reader's memory and interpretive powers" (Kolers, 1969, p. 355). The interpretability of pictorial

symbols can thus be enhanced by portraying them so that they draw upon the

user's previous experience.

2.2 LIMITATIONS TO SYMBOLS

Although Mead firmly believed that glyphs could be the cornerstone of future

international communication, others, such as Kolers (1969) and Modley (1976),

disagreed. These authors claimed that although written language began as a series of pictures, most languages have developed alphabets in which characters

represent sounds rather than ideas. Pictorial writing is successful only when

the audience is familiar with the object depicted, and when that object or idea

can be portrayed as a picture. Furthermore, written languages tend to shorten

repeated items and reduce the amount of detail - a process that could wreak

havoc with a pictographic communication system (Kolers, 1969). Although Mead

claimed that pictograms are directly and immediately understood, Kolers pointed

12
out that "Recognizing even a realistic pictorial representation of an object

requires a great deal of perceptual learning, abstracting ability, and intelligence" (1969, p. 355). Furthermore, Modley (1976) noted that abstract symbols

impose particularly heavy demands, requiring people to learn and remember

unfamiliar pictures.

In addition to the audience's need to learn unfamiliar and abstract symbols, as well as to be familiar with the object depicted, the effectiveness of symbols

is limited by the lack of syntactical rules for combining ideas pictographically

.

Although words and sentences are formed from combinations of alphabetic elements,

it is nearly impossible to follow a similar process with symbols. There are no rules for constructing combinations of pictograms from individual elements, nor

is there necessarily any clue to the meaning of the final compound (Kolers, 1969;

Drake, Moblin & Shaw, 1979). Nevertheless, combined symbols have been made suc- cessfully by using slashes for prohibition and selecting background shapes such

as triangles, circles, and squares to encode particular meanings (see figure 5).

Unlike true compounds, however, these combinations do not have meanings unique

to the combined elements.

Drake, Moblin, and Shaw (1979) contend for example, that much of the current

uncertainty about symbols involves the development of syntax and grammar for

sjnnbols. "Most symbol systems seem to balance uneasily between trying to be a collection of emotive pictograms that are immediately recognized and understood,

and accepting the necessity of a language logic that has to be learned" (Drake,

et al., 1979, p. 58). Once isolated pictures (symbols) are developed, the next

challenge is to develop the rules and logic of a grammar for relating or combining such sjnnbols (Drake, et al . , 1979).

An example of the difficulties which arise with compound symbols is the depiction

of prohibition (Modley, 1966). Typically, it is depicted with a combined symbol

- one showing prohibition, the other showing the forbidden item or action. Yet,

the forbidden item is often overlooked or misunderstood. Modley (1966) suggested that a designer would be better advised to devise a positive symbol which

could be simpler visually. The positive symbol would inform the audience of the

correct action instead of telling it what not to do without providing guidance

for the correct action to substitute. The FMC Corporation (1978), for example,

uses symbols to depict the result of the hazard, such as losing fingers or limbs

in gears or falling into machinery, to avoid the problem of misunderstood prohibitory symbols (see figure 6). For some referents, however, such as "no

smoking," it is difficult to avoid the need for a prohibition s)nnbol.

In addition to presenting syntactical problems, symbols are also not well-suited

to commenting upon or evaluating information. These limitations also imply

that, "contrary to the assertion of some of its proponents (Mead, 1965; Mead & Modley, 1968), pictograms can never fully replace alphabetic languages nor are they a major road to international communication. Restricted to identifying

and locating objects and to conveying instructions, they can fill a most useful

role, however" (Kolers, 1969, p. 360).

13
ISO/EEC CANADIAN U.S.

Red

Shape

Prohibition

0

Prohibition

Danger

O A

• Danger

• Stop

• Fire & Emergency

Orange • Dangerous Machine

• Energized Equipment

• Warning - Proposed

Yellow Warning

A

Caution

A

• Caution

- Storage for

Flammables

- Containers for

Explosives,

or Unstable

Materials

-Radiation

Green Information Emergency

Information L

• Safety Information

• First Aid &

Safety Equip.

Blue Mandatory Action

O

Miscellaneous • Information

• Bulletin Boards

• Railroad

Black Mandatory Action

O

Figure 5. Use of shape and color to encode meaning

14
ELECTROCUTION ELECTRICAL SHOCK

ENTANGLEMENT KEEP HANDS OUT

Figure 6. Symbols which depict result of hazard

15
Symbols are also limited in their ability to convey processes or activities

such as ticket purchase or hotel reservations, according to the American Institute of Graphic Artists (AIGA) (1974, 1979). Furthermore, it is difficult to use symbols to represent temporary or changing situations. Thus parking

restrictions which change by the day, such as alternate-side-of-the-street

parking, are difficult to convey symbolically. Still other problems arise

because of graphic limitations upon s5rmbols. A major concern is the use of

two-dimensional symbols to represent three-dimensional objects. Modley (1966)

noted that it is difficult for a two-dimensional road sign to represent a horizontal direction. As a result, an arrow pointing straight up has come to

mean "proceed horizontally" or "straight ahead." Yet, this same sign is used

to indicate "up" and "down" on elevators and escalators. These changing meanings can cause real problems for the intended audience which must adjust its

response according to the situation.

Few symbols can express complete messages by themselves, (Eliot, 1960). The

required additional information is typically added by context, previous experience, words, or redundant cueing such as sign shape or color. In fact, context is often critical in interpreting the meaning of a S3rmbol. Thus, even a directly pictographic rendition of a cow will not make sense to the viewers

unless it is placed by a country roadway where it presumably means cattle crossing (Modley, 1976). Machine operating symbols typically need to be placed on

or near a control before they will accurately convey the intended information

(Dreyfuss, 1966).

The audience may introduce other limitations such as lack of familiarity with

the underlying concept. Those who are not familiar with machine operations

may not understand certain operating symbols which do communicate effectively

to the intended, skilled audience. In addition, the audience directly addressed

by the sjrmbol may be only a small portion of the total population who actually

views the symbol (Modley, 1960). Traffic symbols, for example, only address

drivers; yet, they are placed in full view of pedestrians so that a red light

means "stop" for a driver, but "walk" for a pedestrian. Thus, people must

learn when a symbol is applicable to them and when it is not.

Finally, the symbol may lose meaningfulness due to technological advances,

cultural differences or local associations. Thus a steam engine may not represent the modern diesel locomotive, nor will a man in evening dress represent

pedestrian crossing to all people (Modley, 1966; Eliot, 1960). A pictogram

of an elevator may mean nothing to someone who has had no experience with elevators, while Mead noted that not everyone will associate a skull and cross bones with poison or danger (Follis & Hammer, 1979). Furthermore, local associations may alter the effectiveness of sjnnbols. Eliot mentioned that although

the upraised hand of a policeman was suggested as a sjnnbol to represent "STOP,"

"it seems, however, that in Paris, among taxicab drivers, the same sjrmbol, personally performed, conveys an insult somewhat equivalent to a thumbing of the nose. A 'stop' sign with such an implication might command slight respect in

Paris, regardless of its effectiveness elsewhere" (Eliot, 1960, p. 20). (See

16
figure 7, which depicts symbols which have become outmoded or regionally

unacceptable .

)

Even when symbol use is restricted to more limited applications, such as providing directional information or hazard warnings, there are limitations to

the kinds of information that symbols can convey effectively. Consideration of some general constraints can facilitate the design of better symbols, however,

and improve visual communication despite the limitations of symbolic imagery.

2.3 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Although all of the advantages and limitations mentioned in 2.1 and 2.2 should

be addressed during the design of a sjrmbol , they do not alter the ability of

well-designed symbols to convey information rapidly and effectively. Many of

these limitations can be overcome through careful attention to the sjnnbol design

itself and through thoughtful assessment of the message content, beginning at

the design phase. While any evaluation of sjnnbol effectiveness should include

a final assessment with the target population, initial evaluation at the design

stage will permit the development of the most effective symbols. Such thorough

evaluation of symbols is needed for those sjnnbols designed to replace or supplement word signs intended for mass consumption. The use of symbols as corporate

identification, wall graphics, or product embellishment does not, however,

demand such complete evaluation (Modley, 1976).

Ideally, symbol effectiveness should be evaluated from the twin viewpoints of

graphic integrity and conceptual meaningfulness. Both kinds of evaluation

should proceed hand-in-hand, with feedback from each used to improve the rendition of the s5rmbol. Typically, however, the two types of evaluation occur at

separate stages by different investigators, with little feedback or interaction

between them.

Some of the suggested considerations for design review will be addressed in this

section. A detailed review of the research on the evaluation of meaningfulness

for different applications will be presented in the next section.

2.3.1 Graphic Concerns

Modley (1976) suggested that the most common graphic reasons for symbol failure

are: conceptual failure (poor expression of the object or idea); poor design

or draftsmanship; conflicting meanings (several sjrmbols for one idea or one

sjnnbol for several ideas); poor use of color; inappropriate or excessive use of

the sjrmbol; and failure to use background shape in a consistent fashion. Avoidance of such failures can be achieved through design evaluation, beginning with

a subjective review of each symbol's graphic content.

Doblin (1979) and Whitney (1979) discussed the evaluation of the graphic

effectiveness of visual messages as an integral part of the design process. To

aid the designer, Doblin (1979) developed a twelve-stage model for determining

the effectiveness of a graphic message, either before or after implementation.

17
Pedestrian Locomotive Gas Pump

Stop Telephone

Figure 7. Symbols which have become outmoded or regionally unacceptable

18
To be effective, the message must reach its audience, be powerful enough to

gain attention, and unique enough to compete successfully with other messages.

The time required to decode the message should be carefully selected to correspond to the audience's needs. Lengthy messages can become so demanding or boring that people will not take the time needed to understand the meaning,

"This is why 'stop' is used to signal motorists, rather than a sign saying,

'Chicago Statute 3413R requires all motorists to stop at designated intersections. This is one such intersection. Violators are subject to a $15 fine.

Repeated offenders can lose their 11 censes'" (Doblin, 1979, p. 42). The message should be easily seen, in a language that is understood, and its form

should be congruent with its content. The message should prepare the audience

so that it will understand the meaning of any sjanbols used. It must also be

sufficiently exciting that its audience is not bored. A version of Doblin 's model is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Qualities of Effective Graphic Messages from Doblin (1979)

1. Message must reach appropriate user

2. Message must be powerful - must compete successfully with other

messages

3. Message must observe time restrictions

4. Message must be perceptible

5. Message must be decodable (understandable)

6. Message must have proper hierarchy - emphasize essential elements

7. Message must prepare user

8. Message must have integrity

9. Message must be properly crafted - of good quality

10. Message must be credible - believable

11. Message must have congruity

12. Message must have excitement

Although Doblin favored evaluation of graphic designs, he noted that designers

may be particularly threatened by criticism from outsiders. Furthermore, it can be difficult for outsiders to place a value on the visual design in and of

itself. Whitney emphasized, however, that design evaluation is a tool for

determining if the finished product is successful and for providing feedback

for any necessary improvements. He suggested that a particular design can be

evaluated in two ways: mock-ups and similar methods, to predict the probable

success of several alternative designs; and post-design evaluation, to provide

information about the reasons for a particular design's success or failure.

The goal is to ensure that the design successfully communicates the desired

information.

Geismar, Chairman of the AIGA, commenting upon the many difficulties facing

those who design s3nnbols for the public, noted that "For the designer, the

development of a successful pictorial sjrmbol system is an extremely difficult

task. Unlike the eighteenth-century craftsman, who had only to be concerned

19
with a single representation, today's designer of a symbol system Is concerned

with giving a unified graphic style to a diverse group of Images" . , , Including

both pictorial and abstract symbols. "But when faced with the problem of dealing with a mixture of plctograms and abstractions, the designer must struggle

to maintain clear communication and, at the same time, establish some visual

consistency" (In Herdeg, 1978, p. 18).

2.3.2 Application of Perceptual Principles to Symbol Design

Other tools for Improving graphic design Include knowledge of the psychological

principles of perception. For example, Easterby (1967, 1970) discussed the

application of the Gestalt principles of perception to symbol design. He noted

that while size, brightness, and contrast are physical parameters which affect

the visibility of a display, complete perception (and subsequent understanding)

of a symbol rests heavily upon Its dlscrlmlnablllty and meanlngfulness . Easterby

defined dlscrlmlnablllty as the ability to tell one s3mibol from another, and

meanlngfulness as the ability to define the concept symbolized. Application of

the Gestalt principles of perception to the design of a S3nnbol can Improve Its

dlscrlmlnablllty and even Its meanlngfulness (Easterby, 1970).

A major Gestalt principle Is the relationship between the figure and Its

background (Easterby, 1967, 1970; Follls & Hammer, 1979). The figure Is determined by a contour which may be a line outline or a contrast boundary. (With

a contrast boundary, there Is a sharp change In contrast between the figure and

the ground). Easterby (1970) claimed that for effective symbol design the contrast boundary Is superior to the line boundary — perhaps because there Is an Inside and an outside figure for a line form, while there is only an inside

figure for a contrast boundary.

Whichever boundary is used, its sharpness and clarity will strongly affect the ease of perception and recognition of the resulting figure (Follls & Hammer,

1979). The stability of the relationship between figure and ground is critical.

The tendency for an observer to complete a broken contour (closure,) and to

group like elements, should not be overlooked, either (Morgan, 1961). Other

design characteristics which affect perception include: continuity, contour,

simplicity, symmetry, unity, shape, form, and size. Finally, the visual integration or overall coherence of a s3rmbol will influence its perception (Easterby,

1970).

Eliot (1960) noted that a crucial requirement for good symbol design is the

limitation of the amount of fine detail. Ideally, a good design should have a bold outline, a minimum of fine detail, and be distinctly different from other

sjnnbols within a set. The symbol should be simple with a smooth continuous

outline. If asymmetry or discontinuity is used, it should be limited to those cases where it is needed to add meaning. Finally, s3nnbols within a set should

be unified through consistent use of the same sizes and proportions of individual elements (Geismar, 1978). Application of these perceptual principles to

symbol design can improve S5rmbol effectiveness.

20
2.4 CASE STUDIES OF DESIGN EVALUATION

Several assessments of symbol sets performed during the design phase will be

discussed In this section. In such an assessment the designer reviews the

graphic content of a symbol and may make a preliminary estimate of its probable

meaningfulness or understandability for the intended user. Generally, however,

the designer does not conduct a large-scale evaluation of the symbol's effectiveness with the actual target audience.

Dreyfuss (1966) and Easterby (1967) each reported the development of sets of

symbols for industrial equipment and machinery. The American Institute of

Graphic Arts (AIGA) (1974, 1979) developed two sets of public information

symbols for use in transportation facilities. In each graphic assessment, a listing of essential messages (or referents) to be symbolized was among the

first steps.

Following a compilation of existing symbols for each essential message,

Dreyfuss (1966) reviewed the graphic content of existing symbols for machine

operation. He also drew a preliminary design for each idea and reviewed

existing symbols for their graphic content and relationship to his design and

to the intended message. During this review, Dreyfuss decided which existing

symbols were acceptable, and which ones needed to be redesigned. He commented

that future new symbols should be reviewed to determine that they do not have

erroneous or undesirable associations and that they are not so similar to

existing sjnnbols that they will conflict with them. Dreyfuss then refined the

set of s3niibols by considering the consistency among sjnnbols for objective and

nonobjective elements, the operator's probable background and experience, the

expected ease of identification, and the frequency of use.

A major concern was the degree of abstraction of the symbol as a function of

the machine control to be symbolized. Dreyfuss claimed that abstract sjnnbols,

traditionally more difficult to understand, could be used for frequently used

controls because these sjnnbols would be learned through constant exposure.

Less frequently used controls require more pictographic symbols for which less

learning is needed. If the symbol is located on or near the control, however,

Dreyfuss suggested that it could be more abstract, since the control itself

will provide important information.

In the final step of the graphic review, Dreyfuss evaluated the graphic form

of each symbol developed. He commented that "the graphic form of a symbol is

almost as important as its content. This form is determined by the graphic

design elements, techniques of reproduction, and conditions of application.

Graphic considerations include: simplicity and clarity of design; consistent

weight and relation of line; use of light and dark areas; general proportions;

and legibility at reduced sizes" (Dreyfuss, 1966, p. 133). Dreyfuss concluded

that evaluation of the graphic content of s3nnbols is only the beginning. Each

symbol must then be tested in field applications.

21
In a similar effort, Easterby (1967) discussed the development of a set of

symbols for machine tool operations* He claimed that there are three sets of

principles of language construction which are relevant to display or sign

design» The first, pragmatic rules, pertains to the relationship between the

display and the particular content. The second, semantic rules, refers to the

need to agree upon the referent, object, action or idea for each sign. The

third, syntactic rules, refers to the need to determine relationships for

combining signs into a coherent language. Easterby applied these principles to

the design of a set of machine tool sjnnbols for which he developed a semantic

structure with a basic classification of elements, directions, and functions.

Other concepts for combining symbols syntactically included direction, rate,

and maneuver. In Easterby' s system, the various operations that a machine or an operator might perform and that could require S3rmbolisra were identified -

and then classified as symbolic adjectives (directions), sjnnbolic verbs (functions), or sjnnbolic nouns (elements). Easterby noted that consideration of

each of these structural items is important in determining the raeaningfulness

of a display to the eventual user.

For a very different application, namely the use of sjnabols for public

information, the AIGA (1974; 1979) formulated a number of explicit considerations for determining the graphic effectiveness of symbols. Their prime consideration was to use symbols only for truly essential messages. They stated that

"we are convinced that is is more harmful to oversign than to undersign. To

mix messages about relatively insignificant activities and concessions with

essential public messages weakens the communication. While there may be some messages beyond this basic group that require sjnnbols, only those messages that are truly essential should be considered" (AIGA, 1974, p. 6). The AIGA asserted

that symbols should be used to represent objects and concrete entities, rather

than processes or activities. For example, it is much easier to develop a successful symbol to depict bar or coffee shop than to develop a symbol for

ticket purchase.

During the development of sjrmbols for public information, the AIGA defined four

categories of message areas: public services, concessions, processing activities, and regulations. Symbols from 24 sources were grouped into each of these areas depending upon the concept symbolized. Then, committee members rated each

symbol for a concept using S3mtactical , semantic, and pragmatic dimensions.

Although the three dimensions are similar to those discussed by Easterby (1967),

the AIGA defined each one in greater detail. Their discussion follows:

By the "semantic" dimension the AIGA meant the relationship of a visual image to a particular meaning. They suggested the following questions:

"How well does this s3nnbol represent the message?

Do people fail to understand the message that the symbol denotes?

Do people from various cultures misunderstand this symbol?

Do people of various ages fail to understand this symbol?

Is it difficult to learn this sjnnbol?

Has this symbol already been widely accepted?

Does this symbol contain elements that are unrelated to the message?"

22
By the syntactic dimension, the AIGA referred to the relationship between two

visual images. They raised the following questions.

"How does this symbol look?

How well do the parts of this symbol relate to each other?

How well does this symbol relate to other symbols?

Is the construction of this symbol consistent in its use of

figure/ground, solid/outline, overlapping, transparency,

orientation, format, scale, color and texture?

Does this symbol use a hierarchy of recognition?

Are the most important elements recognized first?

Does this symbol seriously contradict existing standards or conventions?

Is this symbol, and its elements, capable of systematic

application for a variety of interrelated concepts?"

By the pragmatic dimension, the AIGA meant the relationship between the user

and the visual image.

"Can a person see the sign?"

Is this symbol seriously affected by poor lighting conditions,

oblique viewing angles, and other 'visual noise'?

Does this symbol remain visible throughout the range of typical

viewing distances?

Is this symbol especially vulnerable to vandalism?

Is this sjnnbol difficult to reproduce? Can this symbol be

enlarged and reduced successfully?"

Five members of the AIGA rated each of the proposed symbols on a five point

rating scale for each dimension. Based upon these ratings, a single image was developed for each message. Once the symbol images had been selected, the AIGA

used the following considerations for establishing a uniform graphic vocabulary.

These included: simplification, (in which unimportant details were eliminated

to make the symbol bold and direct,) consistent line elements, rounded curves to

create distinctive visual elements, symmetry, and uniform background. The AIGA

used these considerations in the development of an initial set of 34 images

(1974) followed by a subsequent set of 16 images (1979). See figure 8 for a presentation of both sets of DoT public information symbols.

The case studies discussed in this section demonstrate the kinds of criteria

that are used in evaluating the graphic content and effectiveness of symbols.

Yet each study stops short of evaluating the meaningfulness for the intended

audience of the proposed symbols, leaving that task to others. In the case of some of the AIGA public information symbols, however, the Franklin Research

Institute has evaluated their effectiveness at communicating the desired

messages to the general public. This research is discussed in section 3.4.

23
4

o

Ai m PI*

(S) ® o o

Figure 8. DoT public information symbols

24

T

T
2.5 NEED FOR EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS

Although Easterby (1970) advocated the careful application of psychological

principles to symbol design, he disagreed with the idea that all symbols should

be understandable at first glance. He claimed further that accuracy and speed

of response after training are more suitable indices of symbol effectiveness.

In testing sjnnbols, the size of the set itself can affect recognition, with

large sets of 100 or more sjnnbols being much more difficult than small sets of

10 or so. Nevertheless, Easterby asserted that laboratory studies can improve

symbol effectiveness by assessing the discriminability of a symbol through

comparison with other similar symbols, and can determine whether a particular

shape will adequately convey an intended meaning. Easterby (1970, p. 151) con- cluded that "An intuitive design approach guesses at a good symbol while an experimental approach, which we advocate here, attempts to define a symbol

stereotype and then, further, to validate this stereotype by experiment. To

achieve the optimum form of that particular shape we may then proceed to manipulate this shape using perceptual notions from the theory of pattern perception

and discrimination."

Although each of the studies reviewed in section 2.4 discussed the effectiveness

of various symbol designs, in no case were these designs assessed for their

specific effectiveness with the potential user group. Consequently, no feedback

from the user could be considered for improving or changing a particular symbol.

Careful graphic review is essential for creating good, clear design, but it

cannot answer the question of whether the user will understand the final product. Only the systematic evaluation of proposed designs with the eventual user

can adequately answer this question.

Although meaningfulness is not the sole criterion for judging a symbol's

effectiveness, it is the dimension upon which failure will have the most

serious consequences for the user. Despite Easterby' s (1970) assertion that

initial understandability may not be the best measure of effectiveness, the

efficacy of training programs is doubtful, particularly for building safety

symbols. Since no permit or license is required to use the built environment,

no natural opportunity exists for training or testing. As a result, a building

symbol's effectiveness will be heavily dependent upon its initial

understandability.

Symbols, which are intended to replace or supplement written signs, are useless—or dangerous—if they do not communicate accurately. For example, in

a recent experiment, Collins and Pierman (1979) determined the understandability of a set of fire safety sjonbols proposed for international standardization.

They found that a number of the symbols were poorly understood, with less than

25 percent of the subjects responding correctly to them. Symbols which performed poorly included such concepts as "exit" and "no exit." The "no exit"

symbol particularly represented a serious sjrmbol failure. Not only did the

overwhelming majority of the subjects fail to understand this symbol, a large

number interpreted the symbol to mean "this way to safety". An instance in

25
which a sjnnbol is given a meaning opposite to that intended represents a potentially dangerous situation.

Because of the need to determine the effectiveness of a set of symbols

experimentally, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has

issued a number of guidelines for evaluating s3nnbols. Any set of symbols

which involves public safety must be evaluated, and the final set of proposed

symbols must achieve a criterion level of understandability (ISO, 1980). ISO

has also proposed procedures for evaluating symbols which rely heavily upon

the assessment of initial understandability. Such assessment is essential for

predicting the eventual effectiveness of a symbol set after implementation in

buildings. Attention to graphic principles can improve a symbol graphically

and perceptually, but cannot determine if it is meaningful to the eventual user

groups. Yet, the need for testing symbols does not negate the need for graphic

evaluation and review. Rather, it expands the task of developing good symbols

to include the user as well as the designer. As Modley (1966, p. 125) put it,

"Neither engineers nor designers alone should be permitted to have the final

say on symbols. The task requires the combined efforts of psychologists, linguists, educators, anthropologists, sociologists, lawyers, engineers, designers

and many others. The need is so important that we cannot afford to take hasty

and inadequate measures, but we should not delay in undertaking this essential

task.

Ideally the use of sound evaluative techniques to design and select symbols can

be used to combat the current proliferation of symbols. As Dreyfuss (1972, p.

19) put it, "Symbols have multiplied to an alarming degree, along much the same lines of divergence as languages. Today it is this very diversity and multiplicity of symbols in our international life that is a matter of such immediate

concern." Without careful design, comprehensive evaluation, and subsequent

standardization, symbols will fail completely at the task for which they are intended - communication.

8-

Facing page:

Arrow symbols

evaluated

experimental 1

y

at NBS

26
f ^

B

A ^ ^

H

^\ I I

M N O P

3. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF SYMBOL EFFECTIVENESS

3.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNICATION

In section 3.0, the results of experimental assessments of symbols for specific

applications are discussed. This review concentrates upon the methodological

procedures and experimental findings, and suggests implications for the

development of effective symbols.

27
Before graphic symbols are Implemented as part of a visual communication system,

they must be evaluated In terms of their effectiveness In transmitting Information. There are a number of psychophysical and psychological testing methods

that have been used to evaluate symbols, with varying degrees of success. These

various methods will be discussed for specific sets of symbols in five major

applications: highway and road sjnnbols (section 3,2); vehicle and machine

symbols (section 3.3); public information and directional symbols (section 3.4);

product hazard warning symbols (section 3.5); and safety symbols (section 3.6).

The effectiveness of a symbol is determined by its success during several stages

of Information processing. A symbol must be detectable or visible. It must be

dlscriminable or easily differentiated from all other symbols in the display or

set. A symbol should be recognizable when it is seen again even in a different

context. (Assessing the recognizabllity of a symbol often requires determining

its understandability , since the observer is typically provided with a set of

linguistic labels and is required to "recognize" the correct one) . A sjnnbol

must be understandable and convey the same meaning to all those who encounter

it. Information must be processed at each of these stages if a symbol is to

communicate its message successfully. In addition, s3nnbols should be evaluated

in terms of attention-getting, salience, or ability to "grab" the viewers.

Finally, a symbol should also be assessed for its actual effectiveness in altering behavior, although this last response has rarely been examined in traditional research. For example, a symbol such as "no right turn" may be well

understood, but if vehicles continue to turn right, this symbol is not effective.

The various research methods which have been used to answer these questions are discussed in the context of the individual studies.

In summary, six major questions should be addressed when determining the

effectiveness of symbols as elements in the communication process. These

Include: Can the symbol be detected? Can it be discriminated from all other

sjnnbols? Can it be recognized when seen in a different context? Does it con- sistently communicate the intended meaning? Does it get the user's attention?

And, does it alter behavior appropriately? Although these questions are not

particularly design oriented, successful sjnnbol design requires answers to them

so that the symbol message may be communicated to the Intended user group.

As the following experiments are reviewed, it will become rapidly apparent that

not all researchers have addressed all six questions. The majority of studies

have concentrated upon determining the raeaningfulness or detectablllty of a symbol set, using a variety of research approaches. Nevertheless, the questions of discriraination , recognition, and behavior have been studied in

selected instances and should be addressed in any complete evaluation of symbol

effectiveness.

The evaluation of S3mibol effectiveness will be discussed for each of five

applications in the following pages. Then, general conclusions will be drawn

about the kinds of research that have been done, as well as the need for more

extensive investigations, particularly in the area of safety symbols.

28
3.2 HIGHWAY SYMBOL RESEARCH

The first application to be discussed in detail is highway symbology. Much

symbol research has concentrated upon the use of graphic symbols for vehicular

traffic Information, Because of the speed of movement on highways and extreme

variations in lighting conditions, issues such as speed of detection, reaction

time, and comprehension have been researched along with issues such as overall

meaningfulness and discriminability

.

Many of the experiments on highway symbol signs either measured reaction time

directly, or imposed response time constraints upon their subjects. In most

instances, the correctness of the response was also assessed. Reaction time

experiments will be discussed first.

3.2.1 Reaction Time to Word and Sjrmbol Signs

In an early experiment, Janda and Volk (1934) measured reaction time, or speed

of recognition, as well as the accuracy of response to various highway sign

types. The speed of learning the meaning of each sign was also assessed.

Twenty signs were used, of which eight were words with a surrounding shape, six were graphic sjrmbols, two were sign shapes, and four were words without a surrounding shape. In this experiment, subjects pushed a lever in the direction

indicated by the sjnnbols and signs. Reaction time and response accuracy were recorded. Each trial was repeated five times. Comparison of the reaction times

of the 160 drivers studied revealed significant differences between the various

signs. The reaction time was shortest for the symbols and greatest for words

alone, for a difference of about 200 msec. Reaction time was shortest for the

arrow used to indicate turn or curve, and greatest for the standard "stop" sign.

The use of a specific sign shape appeared to increase rather than decrease reaction time, as well as to increase the number of incorrect responses. Because

reaction time decreased after five successive presentations of a particular

sign shape, Janda and Volk suggested that the initially poor responses were due

to ignorance and that training should improve performance. Consequently, dual

coding using both a message and specific shape might prove to be most effective

after training. The beneficial effects of training were also demonstrated by

an improvement in performance over trials for symbols for "cross road" and

"side road." Finally, the authors observed that the subjects' reaction time was shorter for several initially unfamiliar symbols than for familiar words

after training. They concluded that word signs are a relatively poor way of

conveying information.

Walker, Nicolay, and Stearns (1965) compared the understandability of symbol

and word road signs when each was presented briefly. The authors measured the ease of learning and accuracy of response (or understandability) for both

symbols and words. Walker et al. noted that two conditions should have

predisposed the word signs to be recognized more easily: the word signs were

part of conventional U.S. sign practice at that time, and all stimuli were printed in black and white to eliminate potentially helpful color cues. (In a subsequent stage, they tested colored symbols.)

29
In the first stage, the accuracy of recognition for seven black and white signs

and symbols was determined for 70 undergraduates. Each stimulus was presented

tachistoscopically for .06 sec. after five minutes of familiarization. Subjects identified the sign or s3nnbol , using a written code. This procedure was repeated using red slashes and bars on the symbols for 11 subjects. Finally,

24 hours after phase 1, 27 of the original subjects defined the meaning of the

three international symbols in a test of retention.

Analysis of the data indicated that the international s3nnbols were identified

significantly more accurately on both trials by both sexes than were the word

signs, regardless of color or delay before re-testing. Furthermore, the 27

subjects who participated in the retention test demonstrated perfect recall.

Thus, these results indicate for this very limited sample that "sjnnbols can be

recognized significantly more accurately than word signs,,, A plausible explanation for the superiority of the symbol sign would be the greater perceptual

simplicity of the symbol. The symbol is more visually integrated, whereas the

letters of the word signs are more fragmented" (Walker, et al., 1965, p. 325).

The authors noted that sjnnbols performed better than words even when the

subjects were familiar with the word signs, and color cues were eliminated.

Furthermore, the S3nnbols chosen were those that Brainard, Campbell, and Elkin

(1961) had demonstrated to be difficult to learn. Walker et al. also suggested

that the major criteria for evaluating symbol effectiveness should be accuracy,

speed of recognition, and meaningfulness of the symbols. Finally, they concluded that because symbols are easier to recognize and interpret, they should

lead to increased safety, not only on highways, but also in industrial settings.

Dewar, Ells, and Mundy (1976) reported reaction time data from three studies.

They compared the reaction time to S3rmbolic messages and word signs for tasks

of increasing complexity designed to approximate an actual driving situation.

Then they compared the laboratory reaction time measures with and without visual distraction with measures of sign perception in actual driving.

In the first study, 16 subjects were shown 26 signs in three categories:

regulatory, warning, and Information. Subjects verbally classified a subset of

these signs as either warning or regulatory and also defined (identified) them.

Subjects were instructed not to respond to the six information signs. Half of

the 26 signs contained words and half contained symbols. Two visual angles were

used: 0.57° and 1.42°. Each subject's reaction time for both the classification and identification tasks was measured from the onset of the slide to the

onset of the verbal response. A four-way analysis of variance indicated that

reaction time was shorter for the classification task than for the identification tasks, as well as for larger signs, word messages, and warning signs. The

superiority of word messages over sjnnbolic messages, however, decreased for

smaller visual angles.

In experiment 2, the use of the classification and identification procedures

was repeated. In addition, a secondary loading task was added to this procedure

to divide the subject's attention. This task required subjects to attend to a

30

I
list of randomly presented numbers, from 1 to 99, and press a response key when

a number between 50 and 59 appeared. The results were similar to those found

In experiment 1, although the use of a loading task lengthened reaction time.

Again, word signs performed better than symbol signs. Both task and sign type

affected reaction time significantly.

In the third experiment, a motion picture of a rural highway was used as a sign

background to simulate visual distraction during the sign identification/

classification task. In addition to classifying and identifying the signs,

subjects were also required to move a knob to maintain a constant speedometer

reading of 80 km/h (while the experimenter varied the readings on the speedometer) to simulate an actual driving task. In this experiment, the superiority

of word messages over symbols disappeared.

In all three experiments, reaction time was shorter for the classification task

than for the identification task, and shorter for warning than for regulatory

signs. In the first two experiments reaction time was faster for words than for

symbolic messages. The authors suggest that this occurred because the verbal

response given by the subjects was the same as the verbal messages on the signs.

For the sjrmbols , however, subjects had to develop their own verbal response —

not merely read it off the sign. The advantages of the word signs over the

symbol signs disappeared when the signs became less legible. The authors suggest (1976, p. 387) that "it is possible that any reduction in legibility will

detrimentally affect verbal messages more than symbolic messages." Symbolic

signs were also found to perform better than legibility measures obtained in

an earlier, on-the-road experiment, perhaps because of the lack of a verbal

response bias mentioned earlier or because the sjnnbolic signs are actually

legible at a greater distance. (Relative size measurements for the two sign

types were not reported). The authors determined that (1976, p. 390) "for

sjrmbolic messages, the verbal reaction time was a valid predictor of legibility

distance only under conditions that involved attention demands and visual distractions of the type experienced under normal driving conditions (experiment

3)." Dewar et al. concluded, however, that reaction time is a valid predictor

of traffic sign perception, particularly when combined with the loading and

distraction tasks.

In a subsequent experiment. Ells and Dewar (1979) re-evaluated the effectiveness

of reaction time in comparing traffic signs and symbols. Because previous

research (Dewar & Ells, 1974; Dewar, et al., 1976) had determined that reaction

time was shorter for verbal messages when the response was to verbalize the

sign message. Ells and Dewar attempted to develop a less verbally biased measure. Ells and Dewar (1979, p. 162) note that "the smaller latencies for verbal messages may have been peculiar to the verbal identification task rather

than resultant from more efficient processing of the meaning of verbal messages.

As a result, after the experimenter read a traffic sign message aloud, the subject viewed a slide of the traffic sign and responded "yes" or "no" depending

upon whether the visual sign and the spoken message were the same or different.

The time to initiate the subject's verbal response was recorded, along with its

accuracy.

31
In the first experiment, "yes-no" reaction time data were collected from 12

subjects for eight warning signs and eight regulatory signs. Half of the

messages for each sign type were verbal (printed words) and half were symbolic.

These data were correlated with previously obtained legibility data for the same signs (Dewar & Ells, 1974). (Legibility distance was defined as the maximum distance at which a sign could be correctly identified for a particular

vehicular velocity.) The sign stimuli were shown at a visual angle which

corresponded to that of a traffic sign viewed at 59 m and which was similar to

the visual angle used in the legibility distance trials. Examination of the

data between the two experiments revealed a moderate, but significant, correlation between reaction time data and legibility data.

In the second experiment, a direct measurement of comprehension time was made

for 14 verbal and symbolic sign messages under both normal and degraded visibility conditions for 24 subjects. To eliminate extraneous information from

the shape and color of the sign, half the subjects viewed only regulatory signs

(7) and half viewed only warning signs (7), Again the reaction time to verbalize a "yes" or "no" response was recorded.

Analysis of the results indicated faster reaction times with the normal visual

condition and the symbolic stimuli. Visual degradation resulted in a greater

decline in performance for words than for symbols. Although symbolic messages

typically performed better, some symbolic messages such as "bump" and "hill" were responded to more slowly than their verbal counterparts. Ells and Dewar

suggested that this may be due either to the simplicity of these word signs or

to the difficulty in symbolizing these concepts.

The authors suggested that symbolic messages are usually understood more rapidly

than verbal messages, if the correct response measure is chosen. The shorter

response time under degraded visual conditions for symbolic messages "again

stresses the general superiority of sjnnbolic signs, and also suggests that their

effectiveness may extend over a broad range of environmental conditions (e.g.,

daylight, darkness, glare, fog)" (Ells & Dewar, 1979, p. 167).

Finally, Ells and Dewar commented that although there were significant

correlations between the data on reaction time and legibility distance, these

two measures do not necessarily assess the same qualities of traffic signs.

"For example, legibility distance may be related to the visibility of individual

features comprising a traffic sign message, whereas reaction time is more

closely related to the speed of comprehension of the message. These considerations lead to the recommendation that both legibility distance and reaction

time measures should be taken whenever a complete evaluation of sign adequacy

is undertaken" (Ells & Dewar, 1979, p. 168),

Hoffman and MacDonald (1980) compared the effectiveness of symbolic and verbal

turn restriction signs in terms of retention in short-term memory. In two

separate experiments, they examined the effects of verbal interference (counting

backwards) and visual interference (tracing a maze) upon the retention of sign

information. In both experiments, verbal and symbolic signs containing either

32
permissive or prohibited information were assessed. In the first experiment,

64 subjects were shown a sign, given a delay of 15 s with or without interference, and asked to select that sign from an array of 12 similar signs. The

authors found that the accuracy of sign perception was very high even at a 100

msec exposure with no interference. A differential effect of interference type was found in which verbal interference had a greater effect upon verbal signs

than did visual interference. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction

between sign type and interference type for permissive, but not prohibition,

signs. This suggested that subjects used visual coding for permissive but not

prohibition signs.

In the second experiment, the response task was modified to include a "yes/no"

decision indicating a subject's comprehension of the sign message. Again, two

types of interference were studied, verbal and visual, with 40 subjects. Number of errors and response time were recorded. The response (recognition) time was found to be significantly lower for symbolic signs than for verbal signs.

Verbal interference resulted in a higher error rate for verbal signs than for

symbolic signs for the recognition task, while for the "yes/no" response task,

S3nnbolic signs with visual interference had a significantly higher error rate.

The authors suggested (p. 249) that "information from both types of sign was retained in some non-verbal form for the yes/no response condition. In fact,

several subjects reported recoding each sign as soon as it was presented in

terms of the specific motor task which would subsequently be required;

evidently this was the most commonly used strategy."

Because of the interactions among sign type, interference type, and response

task, and because the real world is likely to contain both visual and verbal

interference, the authors suggested (p. 250) that "in real use it appears

unlikely that there would be significant differences between verbal, symbolic,

permissive and prohibitive types of sign in the accuracy with which drivers

retained them in short term memory." Nevertheless, Hoffmann and MacDonald's

data do suggest that symbolic signs may be perceived more rapidly than verbal

signs, even though the detrimental effects of verbal and visual interference

upon sign perception are not clear-cut.

3.2.2 Glance Legibility Assessments of Understandability

One technique for assessing symbol effectiveness which sets time constraints

upon subjects, although it does not measure reaction time directly, is termed

"glance legibility".

King (1971, 1975) defined "glance legibility" as the percentage of correct

matches between a symbol and an answer chosen from an array of sjnnbols. The

symbol is typically presented at several different viewing times. In addition,

the array can contain either word or sjrmbol signs, so that the viewers must

match a symbol to a word or vice versa. In two separate experiments, King

(1971) and (1975) assessed the "glance legibility" and meaningfulness of both

sjmibol and word signs.

33
In the first experiment, King (1971) presented 208 subjects with 30 black and

white signs. Ten of these were U.S. word road signs; ten were Canadian Pan

American symbols (series 1); and ten were Quebec-United Nation symbols (series

2). First the subjects defined the various sjnnbols, then they matched briefly

presented (.05 to .3 s) symbols with one of the nine sjrmbols shown in an answer

array. In this way, meaningfulness was first measured, followed by glance legibility (which appears to be a combination of detectability and discriminability)

.

Finally, subjects indicated which set of symbols they preferred.

The results indicated that the response to the symbols of series 1 was significantly more accurate than that to series 2. For series 1, the percentage of correct and generally correct responses ranged from 62.5 percent to 91.4

percent, while for series 2, the range was from 26 percent to 56 percent.

The glance legibility experiments indicated that at shorter viewing times, there were fewer correct matches for the word signs. This decrease did not occur for

either of the two s3nnbol series, nor was there a significant difference between

these two sets. There was a significant difference, however, between the glance

legibility scores for the word and s)niibol signs. Finally, 65 percent of the

subjects found the symbol signs easier to match than the word signs.

King (1971) noted that the prohibition-type signs of Series 2 were particularly

difficult for subjects to interpret, with a large number of opposite responses

to these signs. The glance legibility data, however, indicated that even these

"difficult" symbols were more accurate than words in transmitting a given message. These data also hinted that words may require more time for recognition

(and matching). King (1971) cautioned that these results were obtained in a laboratory experiment and may or may not hold true in an actual driving situation where many distractions exist. Yet he suggested that symbols can be more

effective than words, particularly after people have been familiarized with

their meaning.

King (1975) used the glance legibility approach to study the effects of both

delayed response and interference. His intent was to simulate an actual driving

condition, in which there is typically a time interval between observing a highway sign and acting upon its information. During this time, the driver also

continues to perform driving-related tasks, which could interfere with the com- prehension of sign information. As a result. King (1975) repeated his earlier

experiments with glance legibility but delayed the subject's response for 5 or 10 seconds after symbol presentation. In another phase, he added interference

during the 10-second delay period. The symbols and signs were the same used

during the 1971 experiment; namely, word signs, warning symbols (Series 1),

and prohibitory symbols (Series 2). Again, they were presented tachistoscopically (for .33 and .05 s) in black and white to eliminate color cues. The

first time represents the time that an automobile driver typically spends

looking at highway signs, while the second is a more extreme time limitation.

Ten subjects were tested at .33 s exposure; sixteen were tested at .05 s. All

26 subjects made 90 observations — 30 with a 5 s delay, 30 with 10 s delay,

and 30 with 10 s interference and delay period. Each subject matched the

34
single sign/symbol stimulus appearing on the projection screen with an identical

sign from a 10-sign answer array. During the interference period, subjects read

aloud a series of individual letters for 10 s and then made the match.

Very few errors occurred at the longer viewing conditions for any of the three

test conditions. For the shorter condition, the percentage of correct responses

decreased as the delay period increased from 5 to 10 s, and decreased further

when interference was introduced. Symbols received significantly more correct

responses at the .05 s viewing condition, although there was no significant

difference between the two symbol series. The use of interference degraded the

response to words significantly more than that to sjnnbols. Thus, even under

more complex conditions. King (1975) concluded that symbols are recognized more accurately than words for short viewing times.

In another assessment of glance legibility, Plummer, Minarch, and King (1974)

compared the reaction time and accuracy of response to symbol and word signs for

20 subjects. Using a tachistoscope , they presented black and white slides of 10

symbol and 10 word messages for 200 s or more. Half the subjects received

special training in the meaning of symbolic traffic signs, while the other half

did not. Subjects matched a word sign with one of 3 symbol signs contained in

a subsequently shown answer array in the first portion of the experiment. In

the second portion, a symbol was matched to one of 3 word messages. Subjects

made a total of 60 observations, viewing each message/answer combination three

times during the experimental test. Both the reaction time and accuracy of

response were measured.

Analysis of the results indicated that the response to s3nnbol signs was more

accurate than that to word signs, but that the reaction time was faster for word

signs. Training resulted in increased speed but had no effect upon accuracy.

There were significant differences in the accuracy of responses and the reaction

times observed for particular symbols. For example, the symbol which caused the

most problem was the "school bus ahead" sign. It was suggested that this sjrmbol

should be re-designed. The authors concluded that highway symbols can be more effective than word signs if accuracy of response is used as the criterion.

In a different use of the glance legibility technique, Dewar (1976) compared the

legibility of 15 sjnnbols in each of four prohibitory modes. These modes included

slash superimposed above the symbol, slash below the symbol, partial slash, and a circular red surround only. Dewar noted that the convention in European signs

has been to use a red circle with a red slash over the symbol, to indicate prohibited acts, while in Canada the trend has been to provide a permissive symbol,

surrounded by a green circle, which indicates only those acts which are legal.

The choice between the two approaches is difficult, as there may be a number

of permissive actions at an intersection but only one prohibited action. Yet

"the prohibitive message must convey two essential pieces of information — the

specific action (e.g. riding bicycles) and the fact that this action is not

allowed, thus making it more complex cognitively than the permissive message"

(Dewar, 1976, p. 253). As a result, subjects often give the prohibition symbol

a meaning which is opposite to the intended meaning.

35
In addition, the prohibitory slash may obscure the symbol. In this experiment,

Dewar (1976) used symbols which contained the following characteristics — two

items, a vertical element, a horizontal element, or visual complexity — to

determine if various versions of prohibition would differentially affect the

meaning of the symbols

.

In the first portion of the experiment, Dewar presented 60 slides containing 15

sjnnbols under the four different prohibition modes. These symbols were presented tachistoscopically for 40 msec to 34 subjects in groups of two to four.

Using the glance legibility procedure, subjects matched each stimulus slide to a set of 16 symbols provided on an answer sheet. The entire set of stimuli was presented twice.

Analysis of the results from the first glance legibility experiment indicated

that performance was best for symbols with no prohibitory slash for about 66

percent of the s3nnbols. It was poorest for those symbols with the slash

underneath.

A second experiment assessed glance legibility under visually degraded

circumstances. Subjects sat further from the screen, visual angle was smaller,

background visual noise (a street scene) was provided, and the stimulus was slightly out-of-focus . Exposure duration was lengthened to 100 msec, however.

Subjects again matched the stimulus symbol to an answer array of symbols. As

before, the presence of the slash reduced the legibility of the symbol. A com- parison of the results for specific symbols from the two experiments using a rank-order correlation, however, revealed a significant correlation only for the

"no slash" condition. Dewar (1976, p. 257) suggested that the lack of "correlations between legibility scores under the two conditions may indicate that at

the greater distance (and lower clarity) subjects are depending upon different

cues. At the closer distance, for example, it may have been possible to distinguish details on the sjnnbols regardless of the slash conditions, while at the

greater distance, subjects may have used cues such as sign and general shape of some sjnnbols." Exposure duration may also have influenced these results. Dewar

concluded, however, that his data do indicate that prohibition slashes can interfere with the perception of symbols. Yet the use of a red (or green)

circle only to indicate prohibition (or permission) may be completely ineffective for those who are color defective. Hence, Dewar suggested the use of a partial slash for prohibition.

The experiments reviewed in Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 indicate clearly that

symbolic signs can be perceived more rapidly and accurately than verbal signs,

particularly under very short viewing conditions. These advantages are enhanced

if the response measures and viewing conditions are chosen appropriately.

Because the use of a verbal labeling response appears to bias the reaction time

data toward word signs. Ells and Dewar 's (1979) use of a verbal matching procedure or King's glance legibility technique are useful experimental approach

alternatives. Nevertheless, the reaction time and glance legibility measures

provide an indication of a symbol's eventual effectiveness in an actual driving

36,
situation where the speed and accuracy of response to a highway sign can be

critical.

3.2.3 Direct Assessment of Meaningfulness

The previously described research has dealt primarily with time-dependent

measures such as reaction time and glance legibility. Although accuracy of the

response has been recorded, symbol meaningfulness has not been the major factor.

In other experiments, however, researchers have selected meaningfulness as the

most salient characteristic of symbols for evaluation. In these experiments,

subjects are asked to provide a definition of the symbol's meaning, rather than

match a symbol against a word. Time constraints are typically not imposed.

In a five-phase assessment of meaningfulness, Brainard, Campbell, and Elkin

(1961) evaluated 30 European traffic symbol signs with subjects in the United

States. In the first phase, 29 subjects defined the meaning of each symbol.

In the second phase, 33 new subjects completed a matching test in which the

correct meaning was selected from a large list for each sjnnbol. In the third

phase, these subjects then received a brief training period, in which the

S3rmbols were presented while the experimenter defined them orally. After this

training, the subjects again defined all the symbols. In the fourth phase,

after 16 sjnnbol definitions were read aloud, 31 new subjects rapidly sketched

an appropriate symbol for each definition. Finally, 29 new subjects gave

definitions of 10 new sjnmbols constructed structed from sketches generated in

the fourth phase.

Brainard et al. determined that the answers (definitions) of phase one were significantly correlated with those (matching answers) to the same sjnnbols of

phase 2, although there were fewer correct answers in phase 1 (54 percent compared with 74 percent). After training, the correct answers in phase 3

approached 100 percent. In phase 4, the authors found that common stereotypes

emerged from the drawings for at least 9 of the 16 definitions. In

fact, for three definitions all of the drawings were essentially the same. Even in the remainder of the cases, common elements emerged for the majority

of the symbols. After testing new symbols based upon these stereotypes,

Brainard et al. commented "that the interpretability of the signs based on the

stereotypes is superior to that of the corresponding European signs in all

instances" (1961, p. 131).

The authors also found that those concepts which were generally interpreted

correctly in phases 1 and 2 also elicited more Images that were similar in phase

4 (sketch) - suggesting that there is a "common" stereotype for particular concepts. The signs with low scores or lack of agreement in symbolism were those

which tended to be more abstract (using a prohibitory slash, for example).

Those with scores above 85 percent correct tended to be a direct pictorial

representation of the concept or had a counterpart in existing U.S. symbol systems. (The s3nnbols that were most accurately interpreted tended to be those of

a unidimensional character and relied upon more common stereotypes.) Brainard

37
et al. claimed that the presence of stereotypical Images Increases the

interpretability (or understandabllity) of symbols, as evidenced by the fact

that the European symbols had an average interpretability score of 45 percent,

compared with a score of 75 percent for the stereotype-based symbols. Nevertheless, at least four of the stereotypical symbols were interpreted only

moderately well with scores ranging from 76 percent to 38 percent, Brainard et

al. also found that the meaning of prohibitory signs was often reversed, although

brief training improved performance on all symbols to near 100 percent. Although

the use of circle and slash to symbolize prohibition was not widespread in the

early sixties when this experiment was performed, it should be noted that the

current extensive use of such symbols for highway signs should have improved

their meaningfulness

.

Finally, the authors indicated that even very brief training increased the

interpretability of all the symbols to near 100 percent accuracy. Brainard et

al. (1961, p. 136) concluded that: "A small number of the European road signs

could be efficaciously used in the United States, without necessitating prior

instruction as to their meaning. The majority of the signs, however, could not

be used without a minimal degree of familiarization." This experiment is relatively unique in that the authors evaluated the initial understandabllity of the

symbols, the effectiveness of training, the existence of symbol stereotypes, and

provided suggestions for improving the meaningfulness of specific symbols.

In a more recent experiment, Griffith and Actkinson (1977, 1978) evaluated a very large set of traffic control symbols currently used in Europe. Because

they were concerned about the high failure rate of Army personnel on the road

sign section of the European driver's license test, Griffith and Actkinson

assessed both initial interpretability and training effectiveness for the S3nnbol set. They measured interpretability in terms of the percentage of people

who responded incorrectly to the signs — both before and after training. The

effects of training method were assessed by determining interpretability after

one of three different instructional techniques had been administered.

In the first training condition, "sign only", individual signs were presented as slides, while their meanings were read orally. In the "sign elaboration" condition, mnemonic cues were added to the oral presentation. These cues were intended to enhance the recognition of the sign by providing a memory aid. The

third instructional condition was the standard Army instructional technique

which did not use slides. In the first two conditions, training was followed

by a testing period followed by feedback on the meaning of each sign. During

all training conditions, subjects were shown a total of 128 slides.

After one week, subjects were tested on their ability to recognize 50 of the

128 signs by writing the number of the slide next to the correct answer on an answer sheet which contained the 50 alternative signs. Each sign slide was projected initially for 30 s, and then for 15 s in a second iteration. Thirtyeight subjects were tested in the "sign only" condition, 45 in the "sign elaboration" condition, and 117 in the standard or Army condition. Two measures

were used to assess the effectiveness of training — the number of signs

38
recognized correctly during training, and the number recognized correctly one week later.

Analysis of the results Indicated that there were no differences between the

"sign only," "sign elaboration," and the standard Army instructional conditions.

All three techniques appeared relatively inefficient in decreasing the number of errors. Nevertheless, the percentage of errors did decrease as a function of

the innovative two hour training procedure, although not significantly. As a result, the authors suggested that improved training techniques could result in

better performance if a minimum of four hours could be devoted to training.

"Although it remains our contention that effective memory training techniques

can be devised for road sign Instruction, the mnemonic enhancement of road signs

has yet to be demonstrated. Regardless of the method of Instruction, it appears

that two hours of training is insufficient" (Griffith & Actklnson, 1977, p. 394).

Griffith and Actklnson also questioned the ready Interpretabllity of the

international road signs. They contended that performance was still below 100

percent even after two exposures. There was a wide range of variation in the

percentage of Incorrect answers — from 0 to 86 percent during training and 0 to

32 percent during testing. Furthermore, during the testing phase, 10 of the 128

signs were missed by more than 50 percent of the subjects in at least one condition. The authors comment that "these data support the contentions of Cahill

(1975) and Kolers (1969) regarding the difficulty of developing a truly universal sjrmbology and the need for empirical research to develop a symbology based

on psychologically realistic principles" (1977, p. 394).

As Bralnard et al. (1961) had noted, the best understood signs were those with

direct counterparts in U.S. signage or those which were direct pictorial representations of the hazards. "Given a lack of familarlty with the signs, the

general rule appears to be that the more abstract the pictorial representation,

the lower the interpretabllity" (Griffith & Actklnson, 1977, p. 394). The

authors also concluded that there does not appear to be a good technique for

teaching people the meaning of symbols quickly and effectively. Griffith and

Actklnson (1978) suggested that memory for pictures can be superior to that for

words. To Improve sjnnbol understandabillty , however, the problem becomes one of

linking the visual image, which may or may not have an intrinsic meaning, to some semantic representation. Hence, the authors decided to use a mnemonic

technique to add semantic meaning to the visual Images. Using this technique,

they elaborated upon the pictorial representation of the sign so that the

subject would have a verbal description of the picture as well as the visual

picture Itself. Difficulties with this procedure may have arisen because of

the short training time. In addition, because the study was developed and

executed on very short notice, the best mnemonic cues may not have been developed. The authors concluded that the results might be improved if the subjects were first taught how to make mnemonic cues in general , and then allowed to generate their own Idiosyncratic cues for specific signs. Griffith and Actklnson

also noted that subjects could miss a particular sign, which they really understood, because of confusions with similar alternatives on the answer sheet.

These authors also considered the test situation to be artificial because no

39
list of alternative meanings is ever provided for a given symbol in an actual

driving condition.

Although Griffith and Actkinson did not discuss it, problems may have arisen

because they presented their subjects with a very large number of symbols to

learn. It is possible that the task of learning these 128 signs was extremely

taxing and may well account for some of the poor performance. (Easterby (1970)

commented that recognition is poorer with symbol sets containing more than 100

symbols). In addition, a quick glance at the symbol set reveals that many are unfamiliar and, in some cases, contradictory to those used in current U.S.

practice, (See figure 9.) The prohibition signs are particularly confusing in

that a red circle is used to indicate prohibition while a slash — a double

negative, in fact — is used to remove this prohibition. As a result, the

correct answer may have been difficult to remember. Nevertheless, the data

collected by Griffith and Actkinson reinforce the need to evaluate the understandability of sjrmbols for public use. These data also indicate instances

where the symbols could have profitably been redesigned, at least for U.S.

observers

.

Using another response method, the semantic differential, Dewar and Ells (1977)

assessed the raeaningfulness of traffic sign messages. The semantic differential measures the meaningfulness of an Idea or object by having a subject rate

the idea on a series of paired adjectival scales. These adjective pairs are designed to group attributes into four factors — evaluation, activity, understandability , and potency. Dewar and Ells (1977) commented that although the

application of the semantic differential to traffic sign evaluation is unusual,

previous research has indicated that this measure can provide a valid and reliable indication of subjective meaning. Thus, the evaluation factor should measure attitudes, while the understandability factor should reflect the subject's

knowledge of the concept being rated. Both understandability and subjective

evaluation can be important factors in the comprehension of traffic signs.

Dewar and Ells tested 31 undergraduates, using 20 color slides of traffic

symbols, to see if psychological raeaningfulness as defined by the semantic differential were in fact related to the understandability of these traffic sign

symbols. Subjects were asked to give the meaning of all the signs first, and

then rate them on the semantic differential. Correlation of the scores for

actual and rated meaningfulness was found to be quite high.

In a second experiment, Dewar and Ells examined the relationship between glance

legibility and rated meaningfulness. Twenty subjects were tested on 20 sign

messages, composed of both symbols and words. The subjects, who were tested

individually, matched colored slides of each sign, projected for 40 msec, with

one of 20 signs located on an answer sheet. After the legibility experiment,

the subjects rated each sign on the semantic differential. The glance legibility scores correlated with the evaluation and understandability factors for the

verbal signs only.

Dewar and Ells commented that the semantic differential provides a good way of

determining the raeaningfulness of a sign because it does not ask for preference

40
fur LKW

No Passing

End of

Speed Limit

End of

No Passing

Zone

End of

Speed Limit

End of

Compulsory

Minimum

Speed Zone

Taxi Parking

Only

Streetcar

Stop

Road

Closed

Motor

Vehicles

Prohibited

on Sunday

or Holidays

End of

No Stopping

Zone

Figure 9. Highway symbols contradictory to U.S. practice

41
or familiarity judgments, and because it requires ratings on several adjective

pairs for each concept. Yet, because it only rates meaningfulness , the semantic differential should be used along with measures of perception, such as glance legibility and legibility distance, in a complete assessment of s3mbol

effectiveness. The authors did not discuss the lack of correlation between

the semantic differential scores and the glance legibility scores for symbolic

signs. Use of the semantic differential does, however, provide some indication

of how meaningful a particular symbol is for a given concept. This technique

could be used to discriminate between several different symbols proposed for a single concept. Use of the definition technique could then provide some data

on confusions and misinterpretations within a set of symbols.

Hulbert, Beers, and Fowler (1979) evaluated the understandability of 16 traffic

control devices, including symbols, with 3164 drivers throughout the United

States, The devices studied included nine symbol signs, six signal lights, and

eight pavement markings. The authors developed a 15-minute film depicting the

various control devices which they showed to subjects in various civic and

other groups. The film contained a question on each device, which was answered

by the subjects before the next device appeared. Subjects completed a multiplechoice questionnaire which was chemically treated to provide immediate feedback

on the correctness of each response. The authors also obtained demographic

data in terms of sex, age, driving experience, etc.

The understandability of the traffic control devices ranged from 18 percent for

the school zone sjnnbol signs to 97 percent for the U-turn symbol sign. No

device was understood by all drivers. Generally, however, the symbols were

better understood than the signals or pavement markings, although the school

zone and school crossing symbols were not well understood (and were often confused). Although there were wide differences in understanding by individual

motorists, there were no regional trends. There was a tendency for males to score slightly better than females and for older drivers to score generally

lower

.

The authors conclude that "Even the best understood signs were not well

understood by 5 to 10 percent of the drivers tested. Ninety percent understanding may seem all right, but if there are 10 uncertain drivers of every 100

using an intersection having 5,000 ADT, that means a potential of 500 confused

drivers who may make an unsafe and/or unlawful maneuver or suddenly slow to a stop to figure things out,,. It cannot be assumed that motorists' failure to

understand the meanings of these traffic control situations is due solely to

weaknesses of perceptual powers of our nation's drivers" (Hulbert et al,, 1979,

p, 47), In fact, the device itself may not adequately convey its meaning, or the driving situation may be inordinantly complex.

Some of the poor response may have been due to complexities of the testing

situation. Inspection of the multiple choice answers reveals some rather

similar and confusing alternatives. For school zone and school crossing area,

the answers provided were: "school children in area", "school crossing located

here", "school zone", and "pedestrian crossing". Discriminating among these

42
choices appears to be a rather difficult task. Furthermore, a driver's correct

response to any of those ideas would be to slow down whether or not he/she

fully comprehended the four gradations in meaning presented by the various

choices. Generating good "wrong" answers to multiple choice questions is one

of the most difficult aspects of this type of procedure. Nevertheless, the use of Immediate feedback on the questionnaire administered by Hulbert, et al . provides a unique opportunity for both testing and simultaneous training.

3.2.4 Comparison of Laboratory and Behavioral Data

Another measure of symbol meaningfulness is the direct assessment of changes in

behavior due to the symbol. Thus, Forbes, Gervais, and Allen (1963) compared

the understandability of a symbol in laboratory experiments with the actual

reaction to the same symbol on the highway. Concerned with the use of symbols

for lane control in emergency situations, they devised two control symbols, a green arrow and a red "x". They assessed the effectiveness of each in three

separate laboratory experiments followed by a field experiment.

Forbes, Gervais, and Allen (1963) conducted laboratory studies in which the

amount of information given to the subjects about the meaning of the signals

varied. Colored slides which depicted six symbols in place on a bridge were shown to a total of 253 students. In the first study, subjects, who were given

a series of six possible driver actions such as "slow in lane", indicated the

driving action that they would perform in response to a series of symbols. In

the second study, subjects who received no information about possible driving

actions indicated the appropriate action for each symbol in all traffic lanes.

In the third study, subjects who received the driving information responded only

for certain traffic lanes (rather than all three). The results indicated that

the lack of information in the second study resulted in confusions and poor performance. Nevertheless, for all three groups, one symbol, the red "x"

,

performed significantly better than the other five symbols tested.

The field experiment assessed the effectiveness of the red "x" , used in the

laboratory experiments, for an actual driving situation. The researchers placed

a lightweight barrier in one lane, and then measured the point at which a car would swerve to avoid it both with and without the red "x" lane control symbol.

Analysis of the results indicated that the starting point of the swerve was earlier when the red "x" was present.

Forbes et al. (1963) selected an effective sjnnbol for lane control based upon

performance in laboratory testing. This symbol was judged to be more discriminable and understandable than the other symbols tested. Direct observation of

highway behavior confirmed that this symbol did alter behavior in the direction

desired. Although Forbes et al. did not directly compare their symbol with word

signs, they pointed out that a comparable word sign would take up much more

space, be more expensive, and be more difficult to use as a temporary lane-change

measure.

Dewar and Swanson (1972) also compared the effectiveness of words and symbols

in both a laboratory and field experiment. As a rationale, they commented

43
that "The use of a symbol assumes that the viewer knows the meaning of it. It

is generally assumed that certain s3rmbols or pictures will be understood on the

basis of some intrinsic meaning that is obvious to all; however, cultural differences do exist, and some sjnnbols may be inappropriate for certain countries"

(Dewar & Swanson, 1977, p. 16). Hence, there is a need to test the recognizability of symbols for specific populations and applications.

Dewar and Swanson (1972) claimed that symbols can be visible at a greater

distance than a written message for a sign of equal size. Furthermore, because

different written messages vary in length, they require different sign shapes

and sizes as well as varying letter types and sizes. As a result, uniformity

is impossible, particularly for regulatory signs. These problems can be avoided

through the use of symbols, although certain messages such as "Keep right except

to pass" or "Slow down" remain difficult to symbolize.

Dewar and Swanson also discussed certain inconsistencies in current symbol use. A sjnnbol may reflect the nature of a hazard, the result of a hazard, or provide

positive or negative instructions. The authors concluded that the real concern

of researchers should be with the action taken in response to a sign rather than

the "recognizability" of the sign. For example, they noted that numerous

inappropriate responses have been reported for the prohibitory-type signs.

As a result, Dewar and Swanson conducted both laboratory and field studies of

traffic signs used in Canada. In a laboratory experiment, they examined the

response to these signs under short exposure conditions. Before the experiment

began, subjects were shown all the signs for 30 s each. Then they identified

the meaning of color slides of 23 signs projected for .04 s tachistoscopically

.

In the second part, subjects identified signs located in a photograph of an actual intersection. Part 1 was always presented before Part 2. Three groups

of subjects were used. The first, 148 volunteers from the city of Calgary, was tested in sets of six. The second, a group of 216 drivers' education students, was tested in sets of 42 to 68. The third group, 51 different drivers' education students, was tested after the end of training to assess any training

effect. (No difference was found for distance from the projection screen).

The results indicated that all subjects performed better for sjnnbols than for

words (in Part 1). In Part 2, sjnnbols such as the positive turn-restriction

sjnnbols performed better than words alone or the negative turn-restriction

sjanbol. Only the words "No U turn" did better than the comparable symbol sign.

"In general when a sign was compared with a similar sign containing additional

information, such as time or words or both, the simpler version was more easily

recognized. Adding something to a sign appears to increase confusion and make

the symbol more difficult to recognize" (Dewar & Swanson, 1972, p. 19). The

authors found some limited sex and age differences. Generally, the differences

favored younger subjects.

In the second experiment, a field study, the relative effectiveness of a negative and positive version of a "no left turn" symbol was determined by

counting the number of cars making illegal left turns during a prohibited time.

44
The results Indicated a range of violations from 1,1, to 9,3 per day for the

two sjnnbols. Unfortunately, no baseline field data had been obtained for the

positive symbol so it was not possible to compare the two symbols directly.

Furthermore, the violations were much greater for westbound cars than for eastbound cars. Nevertheless, both the field and the lab study suggest that the

positive symbol performed better than the negative, "This may be due to the

positive signs being intrinsically more meaningful or possibly to the fact that

they have been in more common use in Alberta and are simply more familiar. Word

messages were generally more poorly recognized than symbols" (Dewar & Swanson,

1972, p, 22), Indeed, the addition of words or numbers was often found to reduce

the comprehension of a symbol.

Dewar and Swanson concluded that future symbol research should concentrate on the relative effectiveness of positive versus negative symbols. In addition,

the recognizability (or understandability) of traffic control symbols should be

evaluated, particularly for abstract symbols that have no intrinsic meaning of

their own,

3,2,5 Visibility of Highway Symbols

Johnston, Cole, Jacobs and Gibson (1976) reported legibility data obtained for

16 pairs of symbolic and alphanumeric highway signs. Subjects identified the

signs both when their vision was blurred deliberately and when it was clear.

The legibility distances for the symbols were typically about twice those for

the alphanumeric signs, although these distances varied for different sign

pairs. Of interest is the fact that certain alphanumeric signs performed

almost as well as symbols because they had "characteristic word layouts which

afforded a unique shape cue to the message. This shape cue enabled the signs

to be identified as 'symbols' at sizes much smaller than those necessary to

resolve the words. Examples of these signs are 'slippery when wet,' 'road

narrows,' 'no entry' and 'divided road ends," If the legibility of such signs

depended simply on the visual resolution of the letter limbs then these signs

should be legible at distances when the only cue evident was the layout of the

words" (Johnston et al . , 1976, p, 603),

On the other hand, the rate of information transfer was greater for alphanumeric

signs than symbolic signs under clear vision conditions. This may have been due

to the "higher compatibility between the verbal identification of the legend display than that of the sjnnbolic display" (Johnston et al , , 1976, p. 603), This

problem was also raised by Dewar et al . (1976), Whatever the reason, the superiority of the word signs decreased under conditions of blur so that the information transfer rate was about the same for both sign types when vision was

defocused.

In the final study of highway symbols reviewed here. Smith and Weir (1978)

evaluated the effectiveness of different directional symbols under poor visibility conditions. Convinced that symbolic road signs were superior to word

signs, they wanted to improve them by finding the best image for each message.

For this task. Smith and Weir used eight variations of a directional symbol

45
(arrow) to assess the most visible symbol under laboratory conditions of blur

and low contrast. Blur was chosen to simulate the effects of different visual acuities upon visibility (particularly for nighttime conditions). Contrast

was chosen to represent a glare factor affecting visibility during bright sunlight. Smith and Weir also performed a subjective assessment, since previous

research had suggested that a symbol which performed well under conditions of

blur and contrast might not be liked because of its unconventional shape.

Eight s3nnbols were rear projected for 0.5 s. In the blur experiment subjects

judged the direction in which the symbol pointed. Eight levels of blur and

eight directions were used for each of the eight symbols making a total of 512

presentations for fourteen subjects. The results indicated that there were

three distinct groupings of symbols in terms of response to blur. In the

second phase, the percentage of correct direction determinations was measured

for each of the eight sjnnbols as a function of contrast level. Eight levels

of contrast were used, A second projector provided a uniform veiling glare,

and varied overall luminosity. Twelve subjects participated (nine from the

first experiment). Analysis of the results indicated that there were two distinct groupings of symbols in terms of response to contrast. In the third

phase, subjects ranked the relative acceptability of the eight symbols. Seventyone subjects ordered photographs of symbols in terms of their apparent effectiveness as a directional indicator. Because different performance criteria

can lead to differences in rank ordering, the authors suggested that these

criteria be as relevant as possible to the final task. The results from the

three phases showed that the data on visibility in the laboratory agreed with

the data on recognition distance and reaction time from previous field experiments. Although two symbols tested well in terms of visibility at low contrast

and resistance to blur, one of these was ranked as the least acceptable symbol.

As a result. Smith and Weir commented that "unconventional and unfamiliar symbols may be significantly more visible than the more conventional and familiar

symbols. However, any advantage offered by completely new s5nnbols may be offset

by lack of understanding of their meaning" (Smith & Weir, 1978, p. 251).

3.3 AUTOMOTIVE AND MACHINERY SYMBOLS

Other investigations of symbol understandability have centered on the

application of pictograms to mark controls and provide operating information

and instructions in cars, trucks, and machinery. The impetus for this application derives from the international sale of machinery and equipment and the

need to convey operating instructions accurately without the use of written

language. Also, because so many controls are quite small, sjrmbols are preferred to words on operating equipment. Finally, because of product liability

factors, warning information and hazard indications must be applicable to all users — literate or not. Consequently, symbols are increasingly used on farm

and industrial machinery, cars and trucks.

Easterby (1970) claimed that the impetus for symbol use is often based upon

commercial considerations and the need to expand foreign trade markets rather

than any real consideration of the symbol's effectiveness in communicating

46
information. He commented that "It is of course paradoxical that man has used

pictographic and iconic recording (which was followed by the development of

alphabets and language) and now, with increasingly complex technology, he must

revert to symbolic representation. There may well be unexplored ideas in

Egyptian hieroglyphics which we could use to define more adequately the principles of symbol design" (Easterby, 1970, p. 149). Nevertheless, the sets of

automotive/machinery symbols in current use have received considerable research

attention.

3.3.1 Machine Symbol Evaluation

Cahill (1975, 1976) assessed the interpretability of many of the symbols that

Henry Dreyfuss (1966) had designed for use on farm vehicles and industrial

machinery. (See Section 2.3.2). Cahill noted that although Dreyfuss and his

associates had expended considerable time and energy in developing the symbols,

they did not test their effectiveness with the intended users.

Cahill assessed the effects of both context and previous experience upon the

understandability of 10 of Dreyfuss' symbols for 30 male subjects. Subjects were divided into two groups: context and no context. The context subjects were given a drawing of a typical cab (as in a bulldozer) with the correct location

for each sjrmbol indicated numerically. Both the context and the no-context

groups wrote down a meaning for each symbol. All symbols were presented to the

subjects as slides for 30 s apiece, with a 5 s response Interval between slides.

Each response was independently scored as correct or incorrect by three judges.

The judges also rated the subjects' previous experience with farm or industrial

equipment based upon their answers to a brief questionnaire. Subjects were con- sidered "experienced" if they had operated or designed heavy industrial or farm

equipment or worked as a mechanic around it. Seventeen of the 30 subjects were classified as experienced and were about evenly divided between the context

groups

.

The results indicated that both context and experience facilitated performance,

but that there were also wide differences in the understandability of various

s3nnbols. Nevertheless, the ordering of symbols in terms of correct identification was similar for both context and no context groups.

When Cahill (1976) examined the performance of individual symbols in greater

detail, she determined that some sjnnbols were affected more by context than

others. A significant effect of context was found for both the "transmission"

and "choke" symbols, while only the "turn signal" symbol was significantly

affected by experience. In addition, the graphic quality of the symbol affected

response accuracy. For example "fuel" and "horn", fairly graphic representations of a gasoline pump and a trumpet horn, were recognized by all the subjects,

while "hand brake" and "turn signals" were also well understood. All of these are fairly direct pictorial representations of commonly encountered objects.

"Engage" and "choke", on the other hand, were understood by very few of the

47
subjects, with neither receiving a correct response from the "no context"

group, "Engage" may have caused problems because it is a verb, not a noun,

and because it is a conceptual, rather than pictographic , representation,

Cahill (1976) commented that symbols should always be provided in a context

which can aid interpretability , Because symbols are not used in isolation, the use of a drawing to provide context is a conservative test of a s3n]ibol*s understandability . Nevertheless, she noted that (p, 650) "we may now hold it to be an experimentally verified truth that not all symbols are created equal. Moreover, preexisting differences in difficulty level are not obliterated by context or user experience. While a few symbols may benefit more than others from

the presence of either of these factors, the evidence suggests that in no sense

can context or experience be relied upon to compensate for whatever aspects of

certain symbols make them consistently difficult to interpret," She noted

further that the most successful symbols should not require a great deal of

specific operational familiarity. Symbols for specific concepts, such as machine-control actions or technological objects, cause problems because they

are unfamiliar and occur only in particular situations, Cahill noted that

there does not appear to be a relationship between the actual location of a symbol on the machinery and the accuracy of response. Furthermore, whether the

symbol represents a control knob, instrument, or dial does not appear to affect

understandability , S5rmbol representation or design is the primary influence on

the understandability of a particular symbol, even when it is presented in context to a knowledgeable audience. As a result, Cahill concluded that symbols

must be tested before application to determine if their design is effective,

3,3,2 Automotive S5anbol Evaluation

Although Cahill 's investigation is one of the few evaluations of the

effectiveness of machine symbols, there have been several investigations of

automobile sjnnbols. Unlike the highway symbol research, the effectiveness of

words and sjnnbols for automobiles has rarely been compared. The use of symbols

to indicate automotive controls has become accepted due to the advent of the

"world car", designed to be marketed on a world-wide basis (Lord, 1980.) As a result, investigations of automotive symbols have concentrated on determining

the understandability to a wide audience of one or more symbols for a given

referent

.

In a study of international automotive symbols, Heard (1974) compared the

effectiveness of three different symbols for each of 24 referents for a very

large (2593) number of licensed drivers. These symbols were designed to identify controls and indicators in automobiles. Since the study was commissioned

by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Heard studied

drivers in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, Three

age groups were studied — 16-25, 26-55, and over 55 — for both males and

females

.

48
Fifty-four symbols were studied in total. (See figure 10 for examples.) Three

variations of each of 15 proposed referents were studied, along with one version of nine already selected for standardization by ISO. These symbols were tested in the appropriate location in an actual automobile or automobile

mock-up.

Subjects were read a simulated test drive which involved the use of each of the

symbols. As each command was read, subjects touched the appropriate control

using the symbol for identification. The time to find and touch the symbol was recorded along with the accuracy of response. (All the sjnnbols were obscured

by cardboard before and after the actual test.) In addition, the subjects com- pleted a questionnaire which provided data on their age, sex, driving experience, nationality and personal car. Most of the subjects were from the U.S.

(1097) with 771 from the U.K., 572 from Germany, and 153 from France.

An analysis of variance indicated that there were significant differences

between countries and symbol sets. Age and gender were ultimately ignored

because of the difficulty of finding enough female drivers, particularly in the

older age groups. In addition, the response time measures varied tremendously

from country to country, so that the final data were only approximate. Problems also arose in that not all cars contained the appropriate controls, so that not all symbols were tested with all subjects. As a result, the percentage of correct response to a symbol is based upon the number of subjects

responding, rather than the number tested. Finally, poor wording of the simulated test drive caused one of the "brake" symbols to be preferred over the

others. Nevertheless, the data did permit a clear differentiation between the

symbols in each of the proposed sets.

Heard (1974) recommended 12 symbols for the 15 new referents for use in

automobiles on the basis of these data. For recommendation, the sjrmbol had to

be recognized correctly by 75 percent or more of the subjects, and be confused

with other symbols no more than 5 percent of the time. Data for all countries,

ages, and genders were combined to provide an indication of effective symbols.

Heard's approach is interesting in that she used a behavioral context to study

the recognition and understandability of symbols. The subject's ability to

locate and touch the appropriate control provides some indication of the potential effectiveness of the symbols in an actual driving situation. Nevertheless,

Heard commented that although her approach allows the effectiveness of different sjnnbols to be compared, it does not eliminate the need for an additional

educational program to familiarize drivers with all symbols and their meaning.

In another evaluation of automotive symbols, Wiegand and Glumm (1979) evaluated

the effectiveness of various pictographic controls and displays used on military vehicles. At the time of their experiment, at least five different symbol

systems were used or proposed for use in both military and civilian vehicles.

For at least one of these sets, the majority of symbols had been accurately

identified by less than 50 percent of the German drivers tested. As a result,

Wiegand and Glumm selected 25 pictographic symbols proposed by ISO in 1976 for

49
50
testing. In the experiment, Wiegand and Glumm asked 125 U.S. citizens to match

pictures of the 25 symbols with the correct definition drawn from a list of 35

referents

.

Analysis of the results indicates that the males performed slightly better than

the females, although this difference occurred for only four symbols — lower

beam, windshield washer, head lamp cleaner, and choke. For the most part, the

percentage of correct recognition was quite high — above 80 percent for 20 of

the 25 symbols. The five symbols which performed poorly included lighter,

choke, master lighting switch, rear fog light, and front fog light. Wrong

answers to the fog light symbols were due to confusion between "front" and

"rear". At least 85 percent of the subjects knew that the sjnnbol in question

referred to fog lights.

The authors conclude that "the data obtained in this investigation demonstrate

a high recognition value of 20 of the current 25 ISO symbols which, in general,

is not influenced by sex or additional military driving experience" (Wiegand & Glumm, 1979, p. 14). Only two sjnnbols — "choke" and "master lighting switch"

have recognition problems serious enough to suggest that they should be redesigned. As a result of this study, the authors proposed that the ISO symbol set

should be used for automotive controls and displays, except for those individual

ISO s3nnbols which did not test well.

In a similar experiment. Green and Pew (1978) examined the effectiveness of 19

pictographic symbols used in automotive displays. They noted that previous com- parisons of highway signs and symbols demonstrated that symbols could be recognized more accurately and rapidly. Similarly, symbols could be advantageously

used for automotive displays and controls to reduce the time required to select

a specific control and minimize confusion among alternative choices. In a test

of this hypothesis. Green and Pew studied the effectiveness of automotive control symbols for a variety of responses. Fifty subjects, all licensed drivers

aged 17-25, were employed in a series of five tasks. Nineteen pictographic symbols, intended for use in automotive displays, were selected based on performance

on these tasks.

The first task was to determine the subject's familiarity with the sjrmbols.

Subjects were given copies of the symbols and asked to circle those that they were "reasonably sure" that they had seen before. Secondly, the authors determined "association norms" for each symbol. In this task, subjects were given

copies of the sjrmbols, read a driving scenario similar to that used by Heard

(1974), and asked to point to the symbol appropriate for the scenario. The

accuracy of the response was recorded.

In the third task, subjects made magnitude estimations of the communicativeness

of each symbol. The authors defined "communicativeness" as "how well a symbol

suggested its designated norm". All subjects rated each symbol twice. In the

fourth task, the relative difficulty of learning each symbol was assessed (using

a paired associate task). In this task, subjects were shown cards with sjnnbols

printed on them and asked to provide a label for each. They were given the

51
correct label immediately after each response. The task was repeated until the

subject could label each symbol correctly. In the last task, reaction time was assessed. The experimenter read a label and then showed subjects a slide of a symbol. The time for subjects to respond "same" or "different" to the slide was recorded. All symbols were shown twice — once with a correct (or "same")

label and once with an incorrect (or "different") label.

Two groups of subjects were studied — 30 participated for only one day, while

20 participated for three days. On the first day, all 50 subjects participated

in the familiarity, paired associate, and rating tasks. On the second day, 20

subjects participated in the paired-associate and reactiontime tasks, while

on the third day, these two tasks were repeated along with a final rating task.

The analysis of the results indicated that education (technical or nontechnical),

road experience, and specific vehicle experience all affected a subject's symbol

knowledge. Analysis of task 1, familiarity, indicated that most symbols were

not familiar to the subjects. The mean number of symbols recognized was 2.6

(out of 19). On task 2, only 6 of the 19 symbols tested met the acceptance

criteria of minimum 75 percent recognition and maximum 5 percent confusion, as set by Heard (1974), A large number of symbols were confused with each other.

The third task, rated communicativeness, suggested that a number of symbols did

not communicate effectively at all. During a final, informal interview, subjects provided a number of suggestions for modifying the symbols.

The second and third day's tasks showed that subjects were able to do the

paired-associate learning task with increasing accuracy. There was an initially

large number of errors (mean of 7.1 per subject) for the set of 19 symbols,

although this was partly due to difficulty in learning the predetermined labels.

Thus "coolant temperature" was termed "engine temperature" or "radiator temperature". By the second test, subjects made an average of only 1.3 errors and

almost none after that. Finally, the reaction time results indicated that there was a pronounced learning effect and variation in a subject's ability to do the

task rapidly.

An examination of correlations between the tasks indicated that familiarity was

not correlated with the other measures, even though Cahill (1975) had suggested

that it might be an important factor in determining performance. In addition,

correlations of associative strength with reaction time were only barely significant. Green and Pew (1978, p. 112) commented that "to date, it has been tacitly assumed that association norms were always highly correlated with reaction

time, the measure of interest while driving; and that it was only necessary to

measure associative strength. These data do not support this assumption." The

one measure that emerged as useful was that of "communicativeness" which was highly correlated with association norms and reaction time. The authors claimed

that rated communicativeness could be effectively used as a measure of the

utility of a sjnabol.

Green and Pew noted that sex and technical ability affect the ability to

recognize a sjrmbol at first glance, but do not appear to be related to the

52
performance of other tasks. Although reaction time decreases with learning,

It is affected by the dlscriniinability of the symbol. The authors also pointed

out that association norms for and confusions within a set of symbols may not

follow the intuitive feelings of the experimenter. "It is therefore very important that the experimenter interview a sample of the user population to ascertain why sjnnbols are mistaken and confused. Subjects usually have logical

reasons for their responses" (Green & Pew, 1978, p. 113). Finally, the authors

concluded that these data underline the urgent need to evaluate s3nnbol alternatives empirically before sjnnbols are adopted,

3.3,3 Automotive Sjnnbol Production

Because previous research had shown variability in the understandability of

symbols. Green (1979) explored ways to develop better symbols for automotive

controls and displays. His concern was to develop symbols which would be meaningful to all people who drive cars. Green (1979, p, 4) suggested that "Among

other things, a good pictographic S3nnbol is meaningful, is discriminable from

other members of the set, and is easily distinguished from its background, even when degraded by wear, dirt, or reduction in size. The most important characteristic, in general, is raeaningfulness, Meaningfulness is a function both of

being able to associate a previously unseen symbol with its intended message

(initial identification) and of the ease with which that is done after having

been told what the symbol represents (later recall)," As a result, Green used

the production method in which a group of people sketched symbols for each of seven referents. Then, another group of subjects rated the meaningfulness of

six or seven most frequently drawn symbols for each referent, (Brainard, et al,

(1961), had used a similar technique for highway sjnnbols,)

In the first phase, 43 subjects, aged 20-64, drew pictures for seven referents —

heater, air conditioner, fresh air vent, radio volume, radio tuning, tire pressure, and lamp failure. Three judges scored the drawings by giving them descriptive labels such as "fire" or "snowflake". The drawings were then grouped by

label and the most frequently suggested drawings were used as stimuli for the

second phase. Subjects also provided definitions for a proposed sjnnbol for

"diesel starting aid," and indicated the best verbal labels for "battery" and

"malfunctioning electrical system." Green found that only one of the 43 subjects had any idea of the meaning of the proposed "diesel starting aid" symbol,

and preferred the term "battery" over the alternatives suggested.

In the second phase. Green (1979) had 62 subjects, aged 17-64, estimate the

informativeness of the newly drawn symbols. These subjects were given seven

sheets on which the desired label (referent) appeared in the center surrounded

by four to ten symbols produced during phase one. Subjects made magnitude estimations of the informativeness of each suggested symbol for each label. Although

Green found that some subjects did not fully understand the process of magnitude

estimation, the data analysis revealed that subjects were generally able to

agree on one or more symbols for a given referent, and that these symbols often

differed from those in current use. One sjnnbol for each of "radiotuning"

,

"heater", "air conditioning", and "airflow" was readily selected, while several

53
symbols for "exterior lamp failure", "tire pressure", and "radio volume" were chosen as equally informative.

Green (1979, p. 7) concluded that "It is very important that a production study

be the first data collection effort in a sjnnbol program. No matter how well

conceived and executed the research plan, it is doomed to failure if the candidates are poor." Secondly, the use of a magnitude estimation task of symbol

informativeness can lead to the selection of a "best" symbol for a given referent in many cases. Green cautioned, however, that his findings are best used as

a guide for selecting effective symbols. Green (1979, p. 7) concluded that

"these experiments demonstrate the need to include the users in all phases of

symbol development and evaluation. Opinions of the symbol designer often disagree with those of the users."

Green and Burgess (1980) expanded the production method to include the

development of combined concepts. As in Green's 1979 study, the concern was with sjnnbols for various automotive systems and functions. A total of 28

subjects drew pictures of seven automotive systems such as air, brake, or fuel;

four system properties such as fluid level, pressure or temperature; and 20 of

a possible 28 system-property combinations, such as oil pressure. Analysis of

the drawings indicated some differences between those drawn by engineering and

by non-engineering students. Engineering students tended to draw the operating

mechanisms of the machinery while other students tended to take an "external"

view, depicting either a driving action or the consequences of failure to act.

It is not clear whether the non-engineering students fully understood the

meaning of all the referents. If the verbal referent is not clear to the users,

the sjnnbol produced is unlikely to be very clear either.

Green and Burgess (1980) then had 26 students make magnitude estimations of the

informativeness of 5 to 12 candidate symbols for each of 26 functions. These

candidates included the student drawings along with manufacturer's suggestions

and international standards. In general, these latter symbols were not rated

as informative as the students' drawings. (The same set of subjects was used

in both experiments.) As a result, the authors concluded that some of the ISO

symbols for fuel, brake failure, engine oil, and coolant temperature should be

reconsidered. They also found wide differences in the informativeness of some

of the sjrmbols—particularly the combined sjnnbols. Their results underline the

need to develop a sjmtax for combining symbolic messages to create coherent,

unique meanings. Green and Burgess concluded, though, that the strength of the

production technique is that it elicits innovative drawings from a driver's

rather than a manufacturer's perspective.

3.3.4 Orientation of Symbols

Another issue, explored by Green and Davis (1976), is the effect of variations

in the orientation of symbols for automobile controls. Previous research, such

as that conducted by Heard (1974), evaluated the recognizabllity of automotive

symbols placed in an upright position only. Yet symbols placed upon automotive

controls are often rotated away from upright, and, consequently, may not be

54
rapidly or accurately identified. As a result. Green and Davis' study concentrated on the time required to recognize a rotated symbol.

Ten subjects studied three different symbols which had been rotated into

different positions. These symbols were: parking light, windshield wiper, and

lower beam. The subjects were presented with numerous pairs of symbols, of

which one symbol varied in orientation. In addition, half of the varied symbols were reversed (mirror image). Subjects had to rotate (mentally) the left-hand

symbol of the pair to agree with the right-hand symbol and then decide if it were the same or different (mirror image). They responded by writing S (for

same) or D (for different) next to each pair. Each subject judged 864 symbol

pairs in blocks of 24 pairs for a given symbol. The time to complete each block

was recorded.

Analysis of the results indicated that increasing the rotation of the symbol

away from upright significantly affected response time. Green and Davis claimed

that their data suggest that mental rotation of symbols occurs at a constant rate

which averages about 130 degrees per second for this experiment. There were no significant differences between s3nnibols. Green and Davis (1976, p. 183) con- cluded that the data obtained for rotated symbols indicate the potential for a serious hazard, "If a symbol were to appear in a random orientation, a reasonable assumption for a rotatable control , then it would be on the average 90

degrees from upright. At freeway speeds, one would travel roughly three car- lengths in the time it would take a driver to perform just the rotational transformation." Because a driver could have difficulty responding to an emergency

during this time. Green and Davis suggest that symbols used for controls always

be mounted in an upright position,

3.4 PUBLIC INFORMATION SYMBOLS FOR BUILDINGS

The third area of application to be covered in this report is that of public

Information symbols. Typically, Investigations in this area have centered on the understandabllity of one or more sets of symbols designed to convey information to travelers. As with automotive sjnnbols, no comparisons have been made

of the relative effectiveness of word and symbol signs, probably because the

intended audience is comprised of both English and non-English speaking persons.

Because questions such as reaction time or speed of detection appear much less

relevant for public information symbols, accuracy of understanding has been the

I primary variable studied,

j Easterby and Zwaga (1976) compared the understandabllity of several different

symbols for each of six referents in a cross-cultural evaluation. In a threepart experiment, they evaluated public information symbols with subjects from

seven countries under the sponsorship of ISO.

In the first portion of the experiment, groups of subjects in two countries

rank-ordered numerous s5nnbols for six referents in terms of their appropriateness for a given referent. These referents indicated the location of drinking

water, information, stairs, taxi, toilets, and waiting room. From these rank55
ings, three symbols for each of the six referents were selected for further

study. Figure 11 presents these symbols.

In the second phase, 25 subjects in two age groups provided definitions for

each of the three sets of six test symbols. Context was provided by an additional 18 symbols. Analysis of the results indicated that the wrong answers

fell into two categories: incorrect definitions and "don't know" answers. Inspection of the incorrect definitions provided valuable insight into some of

the design elements that affect understanding. As a result, Easterby and Zwaga

claimed that more representational symbols were more easily recognized than

highly abstract ones.

In the third phase, subjects selected one symbol from a much larger set to

match against a given referent. In all, three versions for the six referents

were tested, although each subject matched only one sjnnbol. A total of 900

subjects in six countries participated. Although the authors were able to

obtain percentages of correct responses for each symbol , they commented that

these percentages can be interpreted only in terras of the symbol set tested.

In some cases, all responses to a given referent were incorrect. While the

matching data do not consequently indicate the best symbol for a referent,

they do provide information on the confusions generated between sjrmbols within

a set. As a result, "the confusion data generated gave valuable information,

both on the image content of the sjnnbols under test and of the other sjnnbols

present in the test material. It would be unwise then to base any decisions

on the image content of the test symbols on the data from the matching test

alone, since percentage correct responses are misleading. The correct response

data must be interpreted both in relation to the confusions generated, and the

features of those other symbols used in the test material and any final decisions on image content are as likely to be based on the recognition test results

as the matching test results" (Easterby & Zwaga, 1976, p. 45).

Because the matching test reveals little about a symbol in absolute terms, and

because the recognition test indicates specific confusions, Easterby and Zwaga

recommended that the recognition test be conducted as the critical phase to

determine the general image content of a symbol. Furthermore, ... "it is now

recommended that the recognition and matching test become successive rather

than parallel parts of the program, with the matching test being used to evaluate a complete set of symbols which have been integrally designed as a set.

The particular features of the matching test can then be used to evaluate con- fusions between symbols which have been designed with an image content determined by the results of previously conducted recognition tests" (Easterby &

Zwaga, 1976, p. 49). As a result of this research, Easterby and Zwaga recommended that the matching test follow the recognition test to evaluate the

Interdependence between symbols in a complete set.

The other major study of public information signs was commissioned by the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DoT). DoT first sponsored the design of 34 public information sjnnbols by the American Institute of Graphic Artists (AIGA)

.

The AIGA (1974) compiled a list of existing symbols for each referent and then

selected or modified the best symbol for each idea based upon this compilation.

56
DRINKING WATER

I

1) Simmlinger

STAIRS

TAXI

WAITING ROOM

3) British Rail

TOILETS

INFORMATION

4) ICAO

7) UlC

©..

IHl

I 5b

13) Brit. Tour. Auth.

5) Child Hosp. B.A. 11) Munich Olympics 17) Dreyfuss Sourcebook

2) Dutch Railway 8) Port Auth. of N.Y. 14) British Rail O

9) Munich Olympics i5) UlC

6) Dallas Fort Worth 12) Dutch Railway 18) Dreyfuss Sourcebook

o

10) British Rail 16) Port Auth. of N.Y.

Figure 11. Public inforaation symbols studied for ISO

57
(See Section 2.3.2). Next the Franklin Research Institute conducted an extensive evaluation project to determine the understandability of each of

the initial 34 symbols. Preliminary reports of their procedures will be

described briefly here.

In the first interim report, Freedman, Berkowitz, and Gallagher (1976) used

both paper-and-pencil and behavioral performance tests to assesss the 34 sjnnbols. They began with a series of tests intended to assess the recognizability

of the symbols, elicit confusions, and provide an indicator of the relative

difficulty of the symbols. These tests provided input to the major testing

phase and indicated, as well, that the symbols varied somewhat in recognizability. Eleven symbols, for example, were understood by all subjects.

Both a multiple choice and a matching test were designed for the large scale

testing phase. In the multiple choice test, subjects were shown each symbol

and asked to choose one of four possible meanings for it. These "meanings" were based upon correct and incorrect answers elicited during the preliminary

testing. In the matching test, subjects selected the most appropriate symbol

for a given referent from a larger display of symbols, ranked the semantic

strength of each symbol, and indicated their familiarity with the s3nnbol. The

final portion of the large-scale testing phase included a "walking rally." In

this rally test, the various destinations were depicted by exhibits in the

Science Museum of the Franklin Institute. All conventional directional signs

were removed and the new destinations indicated by placard signs. The time to

reach each destination was recorded with a stopwatch held by a test monitor who

accompanied each subject. Correctness of the destination was monitored along

with time to arrive. All 34 symbols were assessed in two split halves for the

paper-and-pencil test while only 17 of the sjntnbols were assessed for the walking rally. Field tests at an airport and a subway station used the matching

procedure

.

In the second interim report, Freedman and Berkowitz (1977) reported that

analysis of the procedures indicated that the multiple-item matching test maximized reliability while the performance or rally test ensured test validity.

Scores on both tests were correlated and provided similar results.

Preliminary comparison of the lab and field data indicated few differences in

the subjects' responses (Freedman, 1978). The author concluded that the characteristic responses of both groups were similar. Because a number of S3rmbols were missed by a large number of subjects, the authors proposed several criteria

for effectiveness. They suggested that sjnnbols which are recognized by 60 percent or fewer of the subjects are clearly unacceptable, while those recognized

by more than 85 percent are equally clearly acceptable. Those recognized by 60-

85 percent of the subjects need some improvement.

Caron, Jamieson, and Dewar (1980) applied the semantic differential technique

(discussed earlier by Ells and Dewar, 1979) to several public information

pictographs. Sixty-two volunteer subjects rated each pictograph on a series of

35 bipolar, seven-point, adjective scales. Factor analysis of the pictographs

determined that they represented the dimensions of evaluation, activity, and

58
potency. In a second experiment, 96 students made ratings of the 19 adjective

scales defined as the relevant dimensions in the previous experiment. One

group of subjects rated the six pictographs, while the other group rated a set

of six corresponding word signs. Comparison of the ratings for each component/

plctograph revealed that four of the six ideas were similarly related. Two

which were dissimilar were "restaurant" and "women's room." The authors theorize that because the "women's room" plctograph does not depict the function

actually Intended, it is only successful in practice due to the context of

juxtaposed male/female signs. The "knife and fork" sjnnbol for restaurant "does

not communicate well, even using recognition measures" (Caron et al., 1980, p.

142). The authors note that semantic differential responses to pictographic

and verbal signs can be obtained from different groups of subjects at different

times/places and subsequently compared.

Experiment 3 expanded the technique of experiment 2 by comparing responses to

two components of each of the six pictographs with the responses given previously to the lettered signs. Two groups of students (N = 96) evaluated the

plctograph component, using the 19 adjective scales. In the most part, evaluations of the plctograph components were quite dissimilar to those for the verbal signs. In most cases the component alone was less successful than the com- plete plctograph in communicating a particular message. In one case, however,

the "telephone receiver" component was more successful in conveying its message

than the entire "telephone" plctograph.

The authors concluded that their results demonstrate the utility of the

semantic differential tool in evaluating pictographs or symbols with different

subjects at different times and places. "More importantly for sign evaluation,

the classification analysis technique allows rapid evaluation of meaning matches

between pictographs and lettered signs. The fact that this analysis uses distinct groups of subjects to evaluate pictographs and lettered signs is particularly Important in practice; once classification equations have been developed

for a target set of lettered signs, evaluation of corresponding pictographs may

proceed at any future time with new samples of observers and pictographs. This

result allows continuous evaluation of new sign design and convergence on optimal designs in the most parsimonious fashion" (Caron et al . , 1980, p. 145).

The semantic differential evaluation may be most effective when combined with a direct assessment of meaningfulness . The semantic differential technique is

most useful for measuring how meaningful a stimulus is; it does not provide

data on whether a subject can accurately define a symbol. Once a baseline of

understandability has been determined, however, semantic ratings and subsequent

factor analysis appear to be a most useful tool for predicting and comparing

symbol performance along a continuum.

3.5 HAZARD WARNING SYMBOLS FOR PRODUCTS

Another application of S3rmbols covered in this review is that of product

labeling. While there are several standards in this area proposed by the Com- mon Market, the British, and the Canadians, there has been little if any research

59
on the effectiveness of symbols for product warnings. In the U.S. there are

a number of Instances In which controversial product labeling symbols have been

produced. These Include "Mr. Yuk" , (see figure 1) produced by the Pittsburgh

Poison Control Center, to be used Instead of the skull-and-crossbones to warn

children of poisonous substances, and the lawnmower and CB antenna symbols

developed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to warn consumers. While these have caused much discussion, only "Mr. Yuk" has received any evaluation at all, and that only on a limited basis.

In England, however, Easterby and Haklel (1977a, 1977b, 1977c) conducted a large-scale evaluation of product hazard symbols to be used In the United

Kingdom (U.K.). They (1977b) pointed out that safety signs for product labels

should Improve the processes of discriminating between products. Identifying

hazardous products, attending to a conspicuous product, searching for and

locating a particular product, classifying a product, and understanding the

meaning of a product sign. Noting that formal coding systems are typically used

to provide additional Information, they raised the following questions (1977b,

p. 4) — "What are the psychological consequences of these formally developed

shape and color codes? Do observers perceive any structure In such formal

codes? Do these formal coding features affect the comprehension of the sign?

Are the codes dealt with separately or Is the sign perceived Integrally — as

a whole sign? Are there stereotypes which uniquely associate specific shapes

and colors with specific types of messages?" These authors believed (1977b,

p. 4) that" some stereotyping does exist in relation to the shape and color

coding of image, background, enclosure and surround elements of safety signs."

If such stereotyping does exist, then when subjects generate their own signs,

certain elements should appear more frequently than others. Easterby and

Haklel proceeded to test this hypothesis in a series of laboratory and field

studies.

In the first study, Easterby and Haklel (1977a, 1977b) asked subjects to design

signs to represent fire, poison, and caustic hazard information. Subjects were

asked to construct signs from a selection of image forms and colors, background

colors and shapes, enclosure shapes and colors, surround shapes and colors, and

supporting field colors. Three alternative images were provided for each of the

three hazards. One described the nature of the hazard, one provided Information

for avoiding the hazard (prescriptive), and the third depicted a prohibited

action associated with the hazard. Four shapes were provided as background,

enclosure, and surround — square, circle, rectangle, and triangle. The seven

colors provided were red, orange, yellow, green, blue, black, and white. After

receiving these materials, a subject designed a sign to be useful in indicating

a hazard on a typical household product. One week later, the procedure was repeated with the constraint that signs had to be produced for each of the three

symbol modes — descriptive, prescriptive, and prohibitory.

Easterby and Haklel (1977b) repeated these procedures in three experiments — a pilot study, a field study, and a laboratory study. The results from the field

study demonstrated that shape and color preference were about the same as for

the pilot study. Problems with background color did arise in the pilot study.

60
which led to some modifications in the stimulus presentation in the field study.

These changes led to a slight reduction in the use of white backgrounds and an increase in yellow and red backgrounds in the field study. The general result

from the three studies demonstrated that red was the preferred color for fire

signs. For poison, black was preferred to red, while for caustic, red and black

were about equally used, (There was also a preference for a triangle as the

primary enclosure shape. Background color seemed to be chosen to maximize contrast, while enclosure color tended to correspond to image color). The authors

commented (p. 35) that "It is evident, therefore, that not only is there hazard

specificity for the preferred value of the image colour — the colour stereotype — but the strength of the stereotype is also hazard dependent." Stereotypes of triangles and circles accounted for 60-75 percent of the background

shapes. In all of this, fire showed the strongest set of stereotypes and

caustic the weakest.

The authors noted that subjects did tend to choose specific patterns of colors

for images and enclosures. Easterby and Hakiel concluded (1977b, p. 42) "that

the coding of signs is perceived in terms of color combinations, with the com- paratively independent addition of shape. The colour combinations are used to

specify the identity of the hazard, reinforcing the function of the image."

They commented that the use of color should probably be confined to indicating

the nature of the hazard. The stereotypes identified in these experiments were

used to construct signs for a subsequent large-scale study of the understandability of specific warning signs.

In the final study of this series, Easterby and Hakiel (1977c) conducted both

a pilot study and a large-scale survey of the effectiveness of the shape and

color stereotypes developed in the previous study, along with a variety of

proposed symbol images. In the pilot study they asked 38 students to rank

order a set of sjrmbols in terms of how well each conveyed a particular message.

This procedure was used to reduce the large number of existing symbols to a more manageable number. From these results, a set of four symbols for each of

three hazards — Fire, Poison, Caustic — was selected. Subjects preferred

descriptive symbols to either prescriptive or proscriptive sjrmbols. When there were several versions of a somewhat similar image, subjects preferred more visually complex images to graphically simplified images.

The symbols selected for study in the pilot test were then used in a nationwide

(U.K.) survey of 4000 respondents. In the recognition test, subjects provided

a meaning for each of 17 signs. The set of 17 signs contained five test signs

and 12 contextual signs which might be found on consumer goods or in public

environments. The five test signs included one example of each of the three

referents identified earlier, as well as one example each of electrical and

general hazard signs. Subjects were given a booklet which contained five context signs, followed by the five hazard signs, with each variant of each hazard

sign being presented to 500 people. The interviewer recorded each subject's

responses and supplied a rating of his/her confidence in each response. In

addition various demographic data such as age, sex, occupation, and family

composition, etc, were collected. During the data analysis, frequencies of

61
response were tabulated for each symbol and criterion categories of ranked

effectiveness were developed.

Easterby and Hakiel concluded that attributes of the sign, in terms of image,

color-coding and shape coding, and characteristics of the respondents, such

as age, sex, household composition, and experience with signs, influenced the

recognizability of the signs.

The two characteristics of the image which most influenced recognition

performance were communicative mode and graphic quality. For the most part,

descriptive imagery was effective along with the use of more visually complex

graphic renderings. Graphic simplification or abstraction seemed to lessen the

perceived appropriateness of the symbols in the ranking study, although the

authors suggested that "actual recognition performance will only deteriorate if

simplification is more extreme than the examples used in this study" (Easterby

& Hakiel, 1977c, p, 95).

The effects of color were related to the meaningfulness of the sign, "It was

found that for those signs which performed best, for a given hazard, colour had

no influence on performance — the differentially colour-coded variants of the

best performing fire, poison and caustic signs gave statistically indiscriminable recognition performances. When overall recognition performance was poor,

however, differences between different coloured variants of otherwise equivalent signs became apparent . . . when the image component of the sign is not

readily recognizable to the respondent, more attention is given to those other

sign attributes which may enable a better interpretation of the sign" (Easterby

& Hakiel, 1977c, p. 95).

The characteristics of the subject sample did not affect the relative

recognition performance for a sign, but did alter the absolute levels of recognition. Previous familiarity with the symbol improved performance. Sex had a differential effect, with housewives failing to recognize the electrical

symbol , except that those with young children at home showed better recognition

of the overall symbol set. The most consistent effect, however, was the poor

recognition performance of those over 55. These data suggest that those who

are older or who do not have young children could profit from a more intensive

educational program. Easterby and Hakiel (1977c, p. 100) concluded that "the

shape and form of the images, independently of colour, is the factor which

primarily influences recognition performance of the sign. We conclude, therefore, that so long as the sign satisfies some minimum requirements of legibility in term of figure-ground contrast, its recognizability depends on the

image used, independently of the colouring of the components."

3.6 SAFETY SYMBOLS FOR BUILDINGS

Although there do not appear to be many studies which have assessed the

effectiveness of safety symbols for buildings, at least three studies have

examined some aspects of safety signs. Collins and Pierman (1979) and Lerner

and Collins (1980) evaluated the meaningfulness of fire safety symbols. Laner

62
and Sell (1960) determined the behavioral effectiveness of safety posters.

Although Laner and Sell did not assess the use of individual symbols, their

work is of interest because it measured the effectiveness of safety signs

directly in terms of changes in unsafe behaviors. A review of their methodology can provide some guidance for evaluating the effectiveness of safety

symbols using behavioral measures. Collins and Pieman (1979) reported an experiment in which they determined the understandability of 22 fire safety

symbols. They asked 143 subjects to provide a short definition for each symbol. Three judges rated each answer as "correct", "incorrect", or "no

response". In addition a tally was kept of the number and kind of incorrect

answers. The percentage of subjects responding in each of the three ways was calculated for each symbol.

The authors found that some symbols such as "telephone", "no smoking" and the

conventional U.S. "exit" sign were understood by almost all the subjects

tested. Yet other sjrmbols such as "blind alley", "do not block", and "break

glass" were understood by only 20-25 percent of the subjects. Not only were

some symbols not understood, several symbols were given a meaning opposite to

that which was intended. Thus, "no exit" or "blind alley" was interpreted as "exit" or "safe area" by almost all subjects who gave a definition for this

symbol. Altogether, over 95 percent of the subjects either misidentifled or did not respond to this particular symbol.

Collins and Pierman (1979) commented that an instance in which a symbol is

given a meaning opposite to that which is intended is potentially very dangerous. They recommended that before symbols are adopted, particularly those

which communicate emergency information, their effectiveness must be evaluated.

A safety symbol must be understandable before it can begin to alter behavior

and prevent accidents. Figure 12 presents selected sjnnbols which demonstrate

the extremes of understandability found in this study.

Lerner and Collins (1980) continued the assessment of fire safety sjnnbols in an evaluation of various testing methods. Using the same set of sjnnbols, with

the addition of three new exit symbols, they compared the use of multiplechoice versus definition-style answers, as well as the use of slides, placards,

or booklets as stimulus material.

A set of 91 subjects in three age groups participated in the experiment.

Analysis of variance of the data indicated that there was no significant difference for stimulus presentation method. While the analysis indicated that

there were slight differences between response methods depending upon how

strictly the definition answers were scored, the ordering of sjnnbols according

to understandability remained about the same for the two methods. The

multiple-choice method tended to overestimate the understandability of poorly

understood symbols. As a check on the multiple choice method, the authors

had subjects make confidence ratings of each of the four multiple-choice

answers. The confidence ratings provided insight into the extent of guessing

and confusions. In some instances a wrong answer was given a higher confidence

rating than the correct answer. Use of multiple choice answers appears to

63
f

Fire

Extinguisher

Fire

Ladder

(

No

Smol(ing

Emergency

Exit

Fire Fighter's Fire Alarm

Equipment Call Point

Not an

Exit

Figure 12. Examples of fire safety symbols

64
be a viable option If confidence ratings are Included as a check In guessing,

and If "wrong" answers are selected from those given In a previously administered definition experiment,

Lerner and Collins also obtained production data (drawings) for fifteen safety

referents. In seven cases, the majority of the drawings were essentially the same as the ISO Image, In eight cases the Images were different, with no con- sistent majority Image emerging In three cases—"exit," "blind alley," and

"general hazard,"

As In the Collins and Plerman study, certain critical life-safety symbols were poorly understood. The newly proposed ISO "exit" and "no exit" symbols were better understood than the former ISO symbols, but still did not perform nearly

as well as sjnnbols for "no smoking" or "fire extinguisher." In addition, the

production data revealed that In many Instances subjects were not able to agree

upon symbolic representations for the poorly understood concepts. In particular, despite Instructions not to use words, most subjects Insisted upon the word

"exit" In drawings for this concept. Lerner and Collins (1980) concluded that

the use of both understandablllty and production methods provides good Insight

Into the effectiveness of a given sjnnbol concept.

Bresnahan and Bryk (1975) reported a study In which the hazard association

values of standard ANSI word safety signs were measured. Using 64 Industrial

subjects, they measured the degree of hazard associated with the signal words - danger, caution, think, and notice - and the colors - red, yellow, green, and

blue. They found that "danger" and "caution" were considered representative of

greater hazard values than "think" or "notice". Red and yellow colors also

represented a higher level of hazard. While the use of color and signal word

together elicited the most extreme values, it is interesting to note that the use of color alone (with no signal word) elicited values that were almost as strong. This study did not assess the effects of symbolic imagery and color

upon perceived hazard, although it suggests that sign color can play a role in

communicating the level of hazard. Whether this is due to learned associations

with familiar ANSI (American National Standards Institute) signs, experimental

artifact, or similar Influence is not known.

Laner and Sell (1960) examined the effectiveness of safety messages in altering

unsafe behavior. They hypothesized that the temporary creation of an unsafe

situation — a common cause of accidents in industry — can often be avoided by

altering human behavior. Although safety posters with various sorts of warning

messages are widely used in an attempt to stop unsafe acts, their effectiveness

in actually modifying these behaviors has rarely been assessed. Effectiveness

could be measured by studying accident reduction directly, except that the time

between accidents is so great that the experiment would be inordinately long.

Laner and Sell also rejected the idea of measuring poster effectiveness in terms

of the extent to which a poster could be recognized, remembered, or liked,

because these measures do not necessarily predict behavior.

65
Consequently, Laner and Sell (1960) selected a behavioral measure which would

involve an operation that was potentially dangerous, frequently carried out,

and readily measurable — namely, the hooking back of chain slings onto a crane hook when not in use. Seven steelworks participated in the experiment in which

posters depicting safe steelworking practices were developed and displayed.

First a baseline of behavior was established over 5 weeks, followed by a lapse

of 7 weeks without measurement, concluding in 2 additional weeks of measurement.

Laner and Sell found the posters had a positive effect in the six test

steelworks, with a substantial effect in four of the six works and no effect in

the seventh, or control steelwork. Furthermore, they noted that the behavior

affected by the posters was at least maintained, if not improved, following the

7 week period in which behavior was not measured. The authors suggested that

the posters were effective because they acted as perpetual reminders or because

they established and reinforced working habits which were selfmaintained . They

also found that the greatest increase in safe behavior occurred where the greatest hazard to personnel existed. They concluded that posters may be more effective if the message they carry can be seen to be directly relevant to the situation. This study confirms that the use of a behavioral measure — reduction

of unsafe acts — is one of the most potent measures of a sign or symbol's true

effectiveness. The research approach suggests a means of assessing the most

critical question in safety communication; namely. "Given that written and

sjrmbolic messages can both be understood, which are more effective at inducing

people to act in accordance with the warnings?" (Dorris & Purswell, 1977, p.

345). Behavioral assessment is the most accurate and probably the most difficult means of answering this question.

3.7 CATEGORIZATION OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH

The preceding review of the research literature has indicated that symbols can

be more effective than words under many circumstances. Symbols can be understood more rapidly and accurately than words. Because the effectiveness of

symbols depends heavily upon their meaningfulness , most researchers have con- centrated upon the assessment of meaningfulness , Yet, other psychological processes have been investigated as well. Table 2 categorizes the symbol research

reviewed in section 3,0 according to the psychological process assessed and the

symbol application addressed. The six aspects of psychological information

processing activities identified in 3,1 are presented: detection, discrimination, recognition, understanding, attention, and behavior. Although there is a logical sequence or progression to the psychological processes on paper, there

are many interactions and feedback loops among them which do not appear in table

2. Five applications of graphic symbols are included: highway, automotive,

public information, product labeling, and general safety.

Table 2 also includes the response methods which have been used to assess sjnnbol

performance for each process. These include the use of reaction time, understandability measures, discrimination measures, production techniques, and behavioral

indices. Although a complete evaluation of the effectiveness of a symbol should

include an assessment of its performance for each process, table 2 demonstrates

66
MO<

iJo

oi >M NT H o O u §H<

i-i

»H

OJ "H H

CO CO X

l« 10

>1 >N x>u

01 at 4J ij m CO a CO Ed U

\o VO

ON ON

f—) o^ n • CO 60 • M « iH CO N ^3

vB >. c >. f n u B

0) T) <u U 01 4J a a CD

CO ki CO u

o^

CT^ CO 00 - ON i3

in > O

3* 3 ON ON -aQ Ou 0^ On

wS •Oc i-H c « c fH c c c o 03 (U H a; u<

01 01 <u

n

u

H CO l-i Ul >-< 4) o o o o o X

CN

-3- c nD NO o C3N ON m ON CJN 00 ON ON CO NO vD CO oo -3-

r-t c CJN <^

o> ON •H On ON On On ON

j<: c

0^ 4J iH o

iH

O to CO tn to

u CO

U < 00 iH c CO Ul Ul j; - vO •H CO u 4J to to kk Tk Jk

—( r»

u 3 1^1 ON <i;m 3 (U (U 01 o

r~ ON 3 <v (UU

w

u 3 3 >

o\ ^ o •o T3 (U ON •C5 U •^ Ul ^ >« i-S >« >« U •«

01 !0 to I-I CO • Ik X e c c (U - Ik Ik Ik j: c CO 00 to u E IM ON •H J<! 00 (0 to to j-i u •o c 3 •H a to to 1-1 C 3 3 3 iH CO c

•H 0)

B t—(

Ik

u to •rk

D lU <u

B e Ul to ^ CJ CL. u O OQ n 3 i<: o o o CO CO (S -) c CO o o »—( M o ul

u> z C

>N < CO o Bv

u>

CO

M >> Ul o ik M O •H H CD 11 CO hk •H s t4k hk Mk

cn

H 0) kkM ul •H z s:

u CJ OfO Ul o u Ul o u C -H tj <U C o ul o H to OO CO Ul o; CJ CO o

02 bl hk •o

u E ul Pk O 00 rk Q T) H 02

Vuo

x: c C Ik V tn o 111 o 01 Z 3

•rk -a (U

O ul oc:a ul

Ul = Ul

u hk tn o C

Ul to o a. E-k to at c -H B Z u > CI 6 C kk ji ik 4k < ul u

Mk 00

U c c OJ 3 >

(U to to to 3 H o j<:

O o

T3 E OJ Ul S < o tn ul

B

67
that no one researcher to date has evaluated a symbol's performance for all

processes for any application. Table 2 also demonstrates clearly that the bulk

of the research has concentrated upon assessing the understandability of symbols for highway and vehicle applications.

3.8 CONCERNS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The concentration of research on understandability, noted in table 2, reflects

a certain sense of priority, in that determination of understandability is a necessary first step in symbol evaluation. Once a symbol has been found to be

understandable, then its effectiveness at other stages of processing can be

determined. If a symbol is not understandable, it makes little sense to evaluate its detectability , discriminability , recognizability or the like. Improving its performance on these dimensions is not likely to improve its understandability. Yet, if a sjnnbol is not detectable, discriminable , or the like, it

will also not be understood. Consequently, all aspects of information processing and behavior must be assessed to determine a symbol's total effectiveness. The importance of these processes may vary with the application, however.

Although the processes of detection and discrimination may appear to be most

applicable to highway situations where speed is a factor, they also enter into

building applications. Both smoke and dirt or dust may obscure a building

symbol, causing it to be less detectable than necessary. Thus, issues such as color, shape, legibility, and figure-ground contrast must be assessed for

symbols whose detection is critical during a building or personal emergency.

Determining the effect of sjnnbol characteristics such as figure-ground relationship, complexity, and abstraction, upon symbol detectability is second only to

determining a symbol's raeaningfulness

,

Determining discriminability, or the ease with which one symbol in a set can be

distinguished from another, is another critical research concern. Although

discriminability usually refers to the process of differentiating between similar visual stimuli, it is also related to a cognitive discrimination process

which occurs when similar images are given different meanings in different

applications. For example, the ISO "break glass for access" symbol resembles

the DoT explosion hazard symbol (see figure 13). The user is forced to decide

whether the two very similar symbols are intended to convey the same idea, or have very different meanings. Although context can often provide valuable

clues, these confusions point out the need to consider all existing symbol sets

when selecting a symbol for a particular referent.

A related issue concerns those situations in which a user must decide whether

symbols which look different in fact convey the same meaning. (This issue is

compounded by the current proliferation of numerous sjnnbols for a particular

referent.) For example, there are currently a large number of symbols used for

the concept of "no smoking," The user must decide if these differences are meaningful — if he/she should discriminate between "no cigarette smoking" and

"no cigarette, cigar or pipe smoking" or simply not smoke anything and furthermore not light a match either. Finally, the same sjrmbol may have different

68
Explosive

Figure 13. Examples of potentially confusing symbols,

69
meanings in different contexts with location being the primary cue to its

meaning. Thus, the "handicapped access" symbol is used to indicate both

access for the handicapped and denial of use for the non-handicapped for parking places but not restrooms. These concerns reach far beyond those of discrimination and detection and have tremendous impact upon all research into

the effectiveness of symbols as elements of communication systems.

Another related research concern is the need to determine salience, or the

ability of the sjnnbol to attract the user's attention. Clearly, a symbol must

command attention — if its message is worth displaying. Methods for assessing

salience or attention-getting, while used extensively by market researchers for

product displays (Doblin, 1979), have rarely been applied to symbols for public

safety or transportation. Yet the topic is an important one, particularly in

situations where background visual clutter can intrude upon and obscure the

symbol

.

Behavioral effectiveness remains one of the most critical, but largely

unresearched areas for assessing symbol excellence. Does the symbol alter the

user's behavior in the intended direction? Will he/she follow its message?

Word messages must be compared with symbolic messages to see which are more

effective in getting people to behave appropriately. In addition, different

s3nnbols for a given referent should be compared for their relative effectiveness in determining behavior. Nowhere is the issue more important than in the

safety area, where failure to understand a symbol or word message such as "no

smoking", "flammable", or "explosive" could lead to a serious injury or disaster such as fire or explosion. Similarly, failure to obey signs for personal

protective equipment can lead to injury or death. Thus, the symbol must com- municate the seriousness of the hazard situation as well as the nature of the

hazard, and direct the user's behavior accordingly. Despite its importance,

behavioral effectiveness has rarely been evaluated as systematically as raean- ingfulness or detectability . As a result, there is a need to develop observational measures and Indices which can be as easily studied as Laner and Sell's

"hooking back of crane slings," and which provide a similar indication of the

effectiveness of the warning message.

Although more extensively studied than processes such as detection,

discrimination, salience, and behavioral effectiveness, understandability

remains critical. For example, if the symbol tests well in terras of detectability and discrirainability but is not meaningful, and no more understandable

S3mibol has been developed, then issues such as ease of learning and retention

must be faced. The symbol should then be evaluated in terms of how long it

takes to learn it, and how well it is remembered after training. Of the

studies reviewed in section 3.0, only Walker, et al., (1965), and Griffith and

Actkinson (1979), assessed the ease of learning and length of retention for a set of symbols. The disparity between their results and the problems uncovered

by Griffith and Actkinson, while most likely due to extreme differences in the

size of the two symbol sets (6 versus 128), indicates the need to develop more

effective training methods for learning and remembering sjnnbols. At this point,

training typically consists of the hope that the users will eventually learn the

70
meaning of the symbol through repeated association of a word label with the

sjnnbol

.

In addition to the failure to evaluate performance for all six psychological

processes for each application, at least one application has received only

limited research attention of any sort. As can be seen from table 2, safety

symbols for buildings have been evaluated only In the most limited fashion.

Performance for the processes of detection, discrimination, recognition, and

attention has not yet been evaluated for any safety symbol set, while that for

understandablllty has only been evaluated for a limited set of fire safety

symbols. The only assessment of behavior alteration concentrated upon posters

rather than symbols. As a result, the particular application where the use of

a poor or misleading symbol could be potentially quite hazardous has received

very little research attention. Table 2 makes It clear that the effectiveness

of building safety symbols must be researched for all psychological processes,

including understandablllty.

71
Facing page:

A variety of symbols

proposed for safety

and directional

information

72
4. SUMMARY

4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The need to communicate information without the use of written language has

prompted an international movement toward the use of symbolic signs. Graphic

S3mibols now appear in a wide variety of applications, from highway signs to

motor vehicles, for a variety of purposes from directional information to hazard

warnings. The need for symbols has become more acute with growing international

73
travel, high illiteracy rates, and legal mandates to conimunicate hazard warnings.

This need has generated a concomitant need for standardization.

As noted by Eliot (1960), the earliest modern attempts to use graphic symbols were for highway applications, with international standardization beginning as early as 1909. King (1971) described several international conventions which

culminated in a U.N. protocol on traffic signs in 1949. Many of these symbols

have finally been adopted for use in the United States. Nevertheless, highways

are one of the very few applications for which even a few symbols have been

successfully standardized on an international basis.

The process of successful standardization for all applications is heavily

dependent upon the testing and evaluation of graphic sjnnbols. Ideally, testing

and evaluation should occur at several stages during the process of developing

and standardizing symbols and sjmbol referents. Once selections of the referents are made, the development of symbols should focus on the nature of the

graphic symbol itself and the message it is to convey. Sjnnbols can describe a hazard, prohibit an action, or prescribe a remedy. They can indicate the nature

of the hazard, the consequences of interacting with a hazard, or the degree of

hazardousness. Once a conclusion about the message to be conveyed is reached,

then the designer can concentrate on the nature of the symbol and the degree of

abstraction. Both Modley (1966) and Eliot (1960) discussed symbol characteristics in terms of the pictorial quality of the image. While a directly pictorial

image may communicate its intended meaning rapidly and accurately, such images

are difficult to achieve for some concepts, and with rigid standardization may

in time appear dated and outmoded. Furthermore some concepts such as "stop",

"exit", or "route" can be very difficult to portray pictorially. As a result,

abstract sjnnbols have been proposed for such concepts. Because an abstract

symbol may also be clearer graphically and more detectable under degraded viewing conditions, the eventual application of the graphic symbol must also be

considered during the design and evaluation proccess.

Some pioneers of modern sjnnbol use, such as Mead and Dreyfuss saw few bounds to

the use of sjnnbols, and even envisioned sjnnbols as a new language unfettered by

linguistic barriers. Others, such as Kolers (1969), objected to the use of

symbols as a language because of inherent limitations on combining sjnnbols and on depicting processes, restrictions, or changing ideas. For Kolers, the application of sjnnbols should be restricted to identifying situations or objects and

to providing limited instructions or directions. Despite these limitations,

however, sjnnbols can be extremely effective, particularly if careful consideration is given to the evaluation of both image quality and intrinsic meaning of

a sjnnbol

Evaluation of symbol design from a graphic viewpoint is an essential step in

the development of more effective sjnnbols. Doblin (1979), for example, suggested that the various qualities to be assessed during the design stage should

include power, uniqueness, duration, perceptability , and excitement. Whitney

(1979) emphasized that design evaluation is most important for providing feedback toward essential Improvements. During a graphic review, the designer

74
should focus on the graphic form of the symbol Including an assessment of the

simplicity of design, consistency of elements, and proportion of legibility of

the final product (Dreyfuss, 1966), as well as the need for the message itself

(AIGA, 1974). Finally, application of Gestalt principles of perception can further enhance the graphic quality of the image (Easterby, 1967, 1970).

Evaluation of graphic quality is not sufficient in itself, however. Symbols

must also be evaluated for understandability . Yet, symbols which are evaluated

for graphic consistency are rarely evaluated for understandability—or vice versa. Thus, in the three studies of design evaluation presented in section

2.3.2, no formal attempts were made to collect information about the symbol's

meaningfulness or overall effectiveness from a user's standpoint. Similarly,

in the studies presented in section 3.0 no attempt was made to use information

gained during the assessment of effectiveness for the user to improve the final

graphic design. Failure to conduct such bi-directional evaluation has seriously

hindered the development of well-designed symbols which also communicate effectively. Furthermore, as pointed out in section 3.8, a complete evaluation of a symbol's effectiveness for the user requires more than just evaluation of understandability. A total evaluation which includes detection, discrimination,

recognition, salience, and behavioral effectiveness is rarely accomplished.

Despite the lack of thorough design and research evaluation of symbols, the

research studies reviewed in section 3.0 support the use of graphic symbols.

The research review indicates that in direct comparisons of word and sjnnbol

signs, symbols generally perform better. Specifically, reaction time is faster

(Janda & Volk, 1934), understanding is more rapid (Ells & Dewar, 1979), legibility distance is greater (Dewar et al., 1976) and recall is more accurate

(Walker et al., 1965). In situations in which word signs perform better than

symbols (Dewar & Ells, 1974), the addition of visual distraction and loading

tasks, — an addition which makes the test situation more like the real world — results in superior performance for symbols (Ells & Dewar, 1976). In addition, the accuracy of symbol identification is greater than for comparable word

signs (King, 1971, 1975; Plummer et al . , 1974) particularly if interference is

added. In one of the few instances where a shorter reaction time was obtained

for words (Ells & Dewar, 1979), this difference disappeared when a less

verbally-biased response measure was used.

In addition to the direct comparison of word and symbol signs, experimental

research has also been directed toward the understandability of one or more

sets of graphic symbols. In several cases, researchers have selected and

recommended a set of s3mibols for public use based upon an assessment of their

understandability (Brainard et al . , 1961; Heard, 1974; Welgand & Glumm, 1979;

Griffith & Actkinson, 1978); Easterby & Zwaga, 1976). In only one case was

the symbol set found to be difficult to recognize and learn (Griffith &

Actkinson, 1978), perhaps due to the large set (128) of sjnnbols tested or the

short training time.

When sufficient time and money are available, subjects can produce images or combinations of images for a particular concept. These "production" studies

75
provide valuable insight into the stereotypes that exist for specific concepts.

Brainard et al. (1961), Green (1979), and Lerner and Collins (1980) all found

that subjects can draw images for a particular referent and that there are common stereotypes for many of the referents. Furthermore, these images were often more accurately identified than a set of standardized images by a subsequent group of subjects (Green, 1979). Easterby and Hakiel (1977a; 1977b;

1977c) also determined that subjects selected images, color, and shapes in a consistent fashion to convey various hazard warnings. Thus, use of a target

audience to generate images for subsequent use with that audience may ensure greater understandability of a symbol set. Because this technique can be

hampered by the subjects' perceived inability to portray an idea graphically,

such production techniques will be most effective if a graphic artist can redraw the various images produced. This also would provide a chance for

graphic improvement and refinement of the final image.

Finally, graphic symbols and signs are effective in determining compliance or successful alteration of behavior. Thus, Forbes et al . (1963), Dewar and

Swanson (1972), and Freedman and Berkowitz (1976) found that S3nnbols were as effective or more effective than comparable word signs in directing vehicular

or pedestrian movement. These data, combined with the results of Laner and

Sell (1960), underline the efficacy of behavioral evaluation in determining

the ultimate effectiveness of a symbol.

4.2 ISSUES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDIZATION OF MORE EFFECTIVE SYMBOLS

Individual efforts to improve the quality and effectiveness of specific symbols,

have typically not been applied to many sjnnbols currently in use. Despite the

widespread need for graphic symbols to communicate essential safety, warning,

and directional information, various problems have prevented their development

and use. These problems arise from the failure to evaluate symbols for both

graphic coherence and user effectiveness, and from the current lack of standards for symbols, particularly in the safety information and hazard warning

area. Because graphic symbols are widely acclaimed as the cure for written

communication failures (Mead & Modley, 1968), they often are developed and

implemented without careful design, experimental evaluation, or reference to

existing graphic systems. As a result, much of their potential effectiveness

is not attained.

The effectiveness of graphic symbols can be enhanced by heeding several key

Issues. Attention to good graphic design is a paramount issue. Good design is

essential to the greater use of symbols, particularly in public buiildings and

spaces where much attention is already paid to the design quality of the environment. Yet, good design goes beyond issues of acceptancce by designers and

clients; it affects issues critical to the user such as visibility, legibility,

and salience. As a result, careful attention must be paid to the graphic

quality of any sjnnbol set selected for widespread use and standardization.

A second key issue is the need to determine the intended goal of the symbol. A

symbol may be used merely to decorate a space - to make it more interesting

76
visually. In most cases, however, the goal of the graphic symbol is to provide

information to an intially uninformed user. This information may be directional, prohibitory, protective, instructive, or prescriptive. In the case of

safety symbols, it may be intended to inform the user of the existence of a hazard, the severity of the hazard, the probable consequences of encountering

the hazard, or, in some instances, how to avoid the hazard. Different sjrmbol

images will often be required to depict each kind of information (see figure

14). Because of the legal need to provide warnings, it is important to select

the most accurate and most comprehensive symbolic message for a particular

situation. It may be most effective to select an appropriate graphic symbol

based upon the specific requirements of the workplace or application.

A third key issue is the determination of the degree of abstraction or realism

of the graphic image. Generally, the more abstract the image the less it will

be understood, although Easterby and Hakiel (1977c) found that the degree of

realistic detail tested in their study did not affect understandability . If

the user is taught the sjnnbol's meaning, or if the symbol does not provide

information essential to a user's safety, then the degree of abstraction is

less critical. A greater degree of abstraction also might be required to con- vey certain difficult concepts or processes such as "exit" or "buy tickets" or "provide information" or "make reservations". Furthermore, symbols are probably

most effective when designed to convey a relatively simple concept which does

not demand the combination of ideas. An excessive amount of realism, however,

carries with it the possibility that the user will not generalize the message

to all intended situations or that it will not be legible or salient. Decisions

about the realism or complexity of an image require an assessment of understandability, visibility, legibility, and recognition. Ease of training is another

important factor in determining symbolic imagery. If the eventual user can learn the symbol before even confronting it, initial understandability becomes

less critical. Training opportunities are often limited, however.

Consideration of the characteristics of the intended user group is the fourth

key issue. An image intended particularly for adults might not be satisfactory

for children. For example, children tend to associate a skull and crossbones

with pirates and games rather than with poison and danger. Yet, a proposed

solution, "Mr. Yuk" , may seem childish or inappropriate to adult factory workers,

(see figure 1). Selecting a symbol image for a given referent as a function of

the intended population may cause even further problems. The child trained to

recognize "Mr. Yuk" for poison may be puzzled as an adult when encountering the

skull and crossbones for the first time. Nevertheless, the characteristics of

the intended user group must be determined if undesirable or unexpected associations are to be avoided. Cahill (1976) demonstrated that experience can positively affect symbol recognition for machinery applications. Consequently,

symbols indended for specific user groups should be designed with their skills,

knowledge, and limitations in mind.

Another important characteristic of the intended user group to consider is

disabilities. Many people in the U.S. are sight-impaired with estimates running

as high as 6.4 million (Aiello & Steinfeld, 1979). The relative percentage of

77
HAZARD:CORROSION

DESCRIPTIVE

CONSEQUENCES

PROTECTIVE

PROHIBITION

FIRST AID

Figure 14. Symbol images used to depict different types of information

for a single hazard

78
elderly is increasing, as well. Four studies (Collins & Pierman, 1979; Lerner

& Collins, 1980; Hulbert et al., 1979; and Easterby & Hakiel, 1977c) demonstrated that elderly subjects perform significantly worse on tests of symbol

understandability. Whether this result occurs because they do not understand

the instructions, are reluctant to guess, or have not benefitted from the informal symbol education program provided by current road signs is not clear. Their

poorer performance remains an issue to be considered in the implementation of

effective symbols, however. Public information sjnnbols such as those for safety,

direction, and warning, should be designed with the user's limitations in mind,

A fifth key issue in the development of effective graphic symbol systems is the use of shape and color to code information. Heretofore, sjmibols have been discussed as though they are simply freestanding images. Yet, most existing symbol systems use both background shape and color to encode supplementary information. The U,S, DoT uses the orange diamond shape to indicate road hazards

while restricting the red octagon shape exclusively to stop signs, for example.

In the ISO TC 80 system for workplace safety symbols (1978), circles are used

to symbolize mandatory or prohibited actions, triangles to provide hazard warnings, and squares or rectangles to indicate general information. Color is used

to emphasize the shape-coding system with blue for mandatory action, red for

prohibited action (with a slash added to the circle), yellow and black for

hazard warning, green for safety, and blue or green for general information.

The proposed Australian safety sign standard (1978) followed the ISO system

except for substituting a diamond for the triangle for hazard warning.

Yet, despite widespread use in standard symbol systems, the effectiveness of

shape and color in encoding information has rarely been assessed, Easterby and

Hakiel (1977b) found that subjects chose triangles over circles to convey warning messages. These authors did not test other shape coding options, however.

Furthermore, since the triangle is in widespread use in the U.K. as a hazard

warning, their subjects may only be reflecting this existing coding system.

Use of the triangle for coding hazard has been attacked by the Standards Association of Australia (1978) and others on the grounds that it restricts needed

space for symbol placement. Use of the DoT diamond shape for hazard warnings

appears to alleviate some of the size problems, but flies in the face of international coding conventions. The question of the need for surround shape to

encode level of hazard of nature of the sign remains unresolved.

The selection of the most effective set of shapes and colors to encode

information is further complicated by the current use of these coding systems.

Such use may not be the "best" means of conveying the desired information. For

example, Dewar (1976) who investigated several symbolic codes for prohibition,

determined that the conventional prohibitory slash can obscure the symbol, making it less visible and less understandable. Yet, use of a red circle alone

would be ineffective for color deficient observers, while a partial slash might

be interpreted as only a trivial restriction. Furthermore, the widespread use

of the red circle and slash means that this convention, however poor, is

difficult to change. Similarly other coding systems, such as the triangles for

hazard, may also not be as effective as desired from an experimental point of

79
view. Yet, because these are embedded in various national and international

sign standards, it may not be possible to select the most optimal approach for

transmitting information. Furthermore, the need to counter the trend toward

proliferation of symbol systems may outweigh the need to develop the best

possible coding systems. Nevertheless, the issue of developing optimal shape

and color coding systems for the most effective transmission of information

remains

.

Other key issues which must be addressed in the design and use of symbol signs

include legibility, durability, and placement. Warning signs are often placed

in environments which deteriorate over time. Dust and dirt may affect the

visibility of symbols on a day to day basis while smoke may impair legibility

during emergency conditions. Thus, the performance of symbols should be evaluated under conditions of blur and dimished contrast. Smith and Weir (1978)

for example, found that the performance of arrows of different design varied

significantly under blur and glare conditions. Green and Davis (1976) found

that placement, or rotation of the symbol, critically affected response time.

In buildings, placement of a graphic sjmibol beyond the normal angle of vision

(Follis & Hammer, 1979) can seriously impair its detectability

.

Each of the key issues mentioned above must be considered in the development of

effective symbols. The various evaluative techniques discussed in section 3.0

and summarized in table 2 can be used to determine the effectiveness of a given

symbol. While evaluative research cannot answer all the questions surrounding

the development of effective symbols, it can provide insight to the relative

performance of a particular symbol and the overall performance of a set of

symbols for a given user group. This information can be used to improve the

graphic rendition of a particular symbol and to predict the effectiveness of a symbol system for a target population.

Finally, a model for evaluating and predicting symbol performance must be

developed. It is not sufficient to determine performance on one of the information processing dimensions discussed in table 2. An integrative model capable

of comparing and weighting performance must also be developed and applied across dimensions. Although past decisions about symbol selection and use have typically been unidimensional , centering on one aspect such as understandability

,

legibility, or graphic coherence, such limited concerns are not adequate for

selecting symbols for public use. A legible symbol may not be understandable

or vice versa. Yet, because all the processing dimensions noted in table 2 may

not be of equal importance, this model must build upon an additive model, or efficiency index, such as that developed by Mackett-Stout and Dewar (1981). As

a result, a series of relative weighting factors, related to the demands of the

specific application must also be developed to apply to the results from the

individual dimensions. Such holistic evaluation is essential for the

development and use of more effective building symbols.

The need to conduct evaluative research at both the design and implementation

stages is especially critical for supporting the development of standards for

symbols. Because of the existing proliferation of symbols and symbol systems.

80
there is an urgent need to develop and standardize symbols which are good

graphically and which communicate effectively. Nowhere is the need greater

than in the area of safety information and hazard warnings where the failure

to communicate can mean serious injury or death.

81
REFERENCES

Alello, J. and Steinfeld, E. Accessible buildings for people with severe visual

impairments. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD - PDR - 404, April 1979.

American Institute of Graphic Arts. Symbol signs - The development of passenger/

pedestrian oriented symbols for use in transportation-related facilities.

Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT - OS - 40192,

November 1974.

American Institute of Graphic Arts. Symbol signs - 2 . Washington, D.C:

Department of Transportation, DOT - OS - 60510, March 1979.

Bresnahan, T.F. and Bryk, J. The hazard association values of accident prevention signs. Professional Safety , 1975, January, p. 17-25.

Brainard, R.W., Campbell, R.J., and Elkins, E.H. Design and interpretability

of road signs. Journal of Applied 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.

Cahill, M.C. Design features of graphic sjrmbols varying in interpretability.

Perceptual and Motor Skills , 1976 42, 647-653.

Cantilli, E.J. and Fruin, J.J. Information systems in terminals. Traffic

Quarterly , 1972, April, 231-246.

Caron, J. P., Jamieson, D.C, and Dewar , R.E. Evaluating pictographs using

semantic differential and classification techniques. Ergonomics , 1980, 23,

137-146.

Collins, B.L. and Pierman, B.C. Evaluation of safety symbols. Washington,

D.C: National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 79-1760, June 1979.

Dewar, R.E. The slash obscures the symbol on prohibitive traffic signs. Human

Factors, 1976, 18^, 253-258.

Dewar, R.E. and Ells, J.G. Comparison of three methods for evaluating

traffic signs. Transportation Research Record, 1974, 503, 38-47.

Dewar, R.E. and Ells, J.G. The semantic differential as an index of traffic

sign perception and comprehension. Human Factors , 1977, 19 , 183-189.

Dewar, R.E. and Swanson, H.A. Recognition of traffic control signs. Highway

Research Board. 1972, 414, 16-23.

82
Doblin, J. Part 1: A theoretical model for design evaluation. Industrial

Design , 1979, 26, 41-44.

Dorrls , A.L. , and Purswell, J.L. Warnings and human behavior Implications for

the design of product warnings. Journal of Products Liability , 1977, J_, 255-264.

Drake, B., Mayblin, B. , and Shaw, G. Symbols: Less of an art, more of a science. Design, 1979, 367, 58-63.

Dreyfuss, H. Case study: Symbols for industrial use. In G. Kepes (Ed.),

Sign, image and symbol . New York: George Brazlller, 1966, pp. 126-133.

Dreyfuss, H. Symbol source book : An authoritative guide to international

graphic symbols . New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.

Easterby, R.S. Perceptual organization in static displays for man/machine

systems. Ergonomics , 1967, LO, 193-205.

Easterby, R.S. The perception of sjnnbols for machine display. Ergonomics , 1970, \3y 149-158.

Easterby, R.S. and Hakiel , S.R. Safety labelling of consumer products - interim report on shape and colour coding of signs, Birmingham, England:

Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston, AP Report 56, March,

1977 (a).

Easterby, R.S. and Hakiel, S.R. Safety labelling of consumer products: Shapes

and colour code stereotypes in the design of signs. Birmingham, England:

Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston, AP Report 75, December

1977 (b)

Easterby, R.S. and Hakiel, S.R. Safety labelling and consumer products: Field

studies of sign recognition. Birmingham, England: Applied Psychology

Department, University of Aston, AP Report 75, December, 1977 (c).

Easterby, R.S., and Zwaga, H.T.G., Evaluation of public information s3nnbols

ISO tests: 1975 Series. Birmingham, England: Applied Psychology Department,

University of Aston, AP Report 60, March, 1976.

Eliot, W.C. Symbology on the highways of the world. Traffic Engineering , 1960, 3j_, 18-26.

Ells, J.G. and Dewar , R.E. Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic

sign messages. Human Factors , 1979, 2A_, 161-168.

FMC Corporation, Product safety signs and labels (2nd Edition). Santa Clara,

California: FMC, 1978.

83
FolliSj J» and Hammer » Architectural signing and graphics . New York:

Whitney Library of Design, 1979»

Forbes, TsW* , Gervals, Eo , and Allen, T, Effectiveness of symbols for lane

control signals. Highway Research Board Bulletin . 1964, 244 , 16-29.

Freedmanj M, Sjrmbol Signs - The testing of passenger/pedestrian oriented

symbols for use in transportation related facilities. Washington, D.C.:

Department of Transportation, DOT - OS - 60071s, December, 1978.

Freedman, M. and Berkowltz, M.J. Preliminary report on laboratory and pilot

field testing: Testing criteria and techniques of evaluation for passenger/

pedestrian oriented sjmbols for use in transportation related facilities.

Washington, D.C: Department of Transportation, DOT - OS - 60071, FIRL No.

C4448, January, 1977e

Freedman, M. , Berkowltz, M, , and Gallagher, V.P. Symbol signs: Testing

criteria and techniques of evaluation for passenger/pedestrian oriented

sjrmbols for use in transportation - related facilities, Washington, D.C.:

Department of Transportation, Interim Report, September, 1976.

Gledion, G. Symbolic expression in prehistory and in the first high

civilizations. In G. Kepes (Ed.) Sign, image and symbol . New York:

George Braziller, 1966, ppo 78-91.

Green, P. Development of plctographlc symbols for vehicle controls and

displays. Warrendale, Pa: Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper,

no. 790 383, February - March, 1979.

Green, P. and Davis, G. The recognition time of rotated plctographlc sjrmbols

for automobile controls. Journal of Safety Research ;, 1976, 8^, 179-183.

Green, P. and Burgess, W.T. Debugging a symbol set for identifying displays:

production and screening studies. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan

Highway Safety Research Institute, Report UM - HSRI - 80-64, Sept. 1980.

Green, P. and Pew, R.W, Evaluating plctographlc symbols: An automotive

application. Human Factors , 1978, 2£, 103-114.

Griffith, D. and Actkinson, T.R, International road signs: Interpretability

and training techniques. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society , 21st

Annual Meeting, 1977, pp. 392-395.

Griffith, D. and Actkinson, T.R, International road signs: Interpretability

and training techniques. Alexandria, Va: Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences, Report no. 1202, September, 1978.

84
Heard, E.A. Symbol Study - 1972 . Detroit, Michigan: Society of Automotive

Engineers, Automotive Engineering Congress, February, 25 - March 1, 1974.

Herdeg, W. (Ed). Archlgraphla; Architectural and environmental graphics . New York: Hastings House, 1978.

Hoffmann, E.R. and MacDonald, W.A. Short-term retention of traffic turn

restriction signs. Human Factors , 1980, 22 , 241-251.

Hulbert, S., Beers, J., and Fowler, P. Motorists* understanding of traffic

control devices. Falls Church, Va: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety,

March, 1979.

1SO/TC145. Draft addendum - Graphic symbols, 7000/DAD 1, 1980. Geneva:

International Organization for Standardization, January, 1980.

1S0/TC21/SC1 . Equipment for fire protection and fire fighting - safety signs.

Draft Proposal 6309. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization,

1978.

1S0/TC80. Safety colours and safety signs. Draft International Standard - ISO/DIS 3864.3. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 1979.

Janda, H.F, and Volk, W.N. Effectiveness of various highway signs. Highway

Research Board Proceedings , 1934, J_4, 442-47.

Johnston, A.W. , Cole, B.L., Jacobs, R.J., and Gibson, A.J. Visibility of

traffic control devices: Catering for the real observer. Ergonomics , 1976,

_19, 591-609.

King, L.E. A laboratory comparison of symbol and word roadway signs. Traffic

Engineering and Control , 1971, _12, 518-520.

King, L.E. Recognition of symbol and word traffic signs. Journal of Safety

Research, 1975, 80-84.

Kirsch, I. and Guthrie, J. The concept and meaningfulness of functional

literacy. Reading Research Quarterly , 1977-78, 485-507.

Kolers, P. A. Some psychological aspects of pattern recognition. In P. A. Kolers

and M. Eden (Eds.). Recognizing patterns - Studies in living and automatic

systems . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1968, pp. 4-6.

Kolers, P. A. Some formal characteristics of pictograms. American Scientist , 1969, 57, 348-363.

Laner, S. and Sell, R.G. An experiment on the effect of specially designed

safety posters. Occupational Psychology, 1960, 34, 153-169.

85
Lerner, N.D. and Collins, B.L. The assessment of safety symbol understandability by diffferent testing methods, Washington, D.C: National Bureau

of Standards, NBSIR 80-2088, August, 1980.

Lord, K.M, Dashboard sjrrabols - new sign language for car controls. Popular

Science . 1980, May, 98.

Mackett-Stout , J. and Dewar, R.L. Evaluation of public information signs.

Human Factors , 1981, 23, 139-151.

Mead, M. The future as the basis for establishing a shared culture. Daedalus , 1965, 94, 135-155.

Mead, M. and Modley, R. Communication among all people, everywhere. Natural

History, 1968, 77_, 56-63,

Modley, R. The challenge of sjnnbology. In E. Whitney (Ed.) Symbology ; The

use of s3rmbols in visual communications . New York: Hastings House, 1960,

pp. 17-30.

Modley, R. Graphic symbols for world-wide communication. In G. Kepes (Ed.)

sign, image, and symbol . New York, New York: George Braziller, 1966, pp.

108-125.

Modley, R. Speaking of sign language. Industrial Design , 1976, 23^, 60-63.

Modley, R. and Myers, W.R. Handbook of Pictorial Sjnabols . New York: Dover

Publications, 1976.

Morgan, C.T. Introduction to psychology, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1961.

Plummer, R.W. , Minarch, J.J., and King, E.L, Evaluation of driver comprehension of word versus sjnnbol highway signs, Proceedings of the Human Factors

Society, 18th Annual Meeting, 1974, pp. 202-208.

Smith, G. and Weir, R. Laboratory visibility studies of directional sjnnbols

used for traffic control signals. Ergonomics , 1978, 21, 247-252.

Standards Association of Australia, The design and implementation of public

information symbols. Dr 78141 and Dr 78142, Draft, Standards Association of

Australia, Committee M 5/3, July 1978.

Walker, R.E,, Nicolay, R.C., and Stearns, C.R, Comparative accuracy of

response of American and international road signs. Journal of Applied

Psychology , 1965, 49, 322-325.

Whitney, P. Part 2: Four real cases of design evaluation. Industrial Design , 1979 26, 44-46.

86
Wiegand, D. and Gluiran, M. An evaluation of plctographlc symbols for controls

and displays In road vehicles, Aberdeen, Md,: Army Human Engineering

Laboratory, Technical Memorandum 7-79, February, 1979.

87
U.S. DEPT. OF CO MM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See Instructions)

1la PIIQI "U t3L. ir'ATIHM 1 \^r\ 1 1 VJiN ORVJ rV REPORT NO. NBS BSS 141

2* Pcrforrning Or^sn* Report No* ) PiiKlir'Atinn O af*

May 1982

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

The Development and Evaluation of Effective Symbol Signs

5. AUTHOR(S)

Belinda Lowenhaupt Collins

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions;

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9, SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State. ZIP)

Same as above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-600192

[^J Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual suntmary of most significant information. If document includes a si gnificant

bi bl iography or literature survey, mention it here)

Graphic symbols have recently been widely adopted for sign systems in the

United States. Beginning with traffic sign systons, symbols have becane widely

used for applications ranging fran products to buildings. In this report a brief history of the development of symbols is given, followed by a review of

research on experimental evaluation of symbols. Seme of the general advantages

and limitations of symbols are discussed, along with graphic considerations

essential in the development of effective symbols. Research on symbols for five areas of application — highway, autcanotive/machinery, public information, product hazard, and safety — is then discussed.

Finally, issues in the research and developirent of more effective symbols are

reviewed. These include the need for good graphic design, characteristics of

the intended user group, use of shape and color to encode information, and

general visibility considerations.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s)

conmunication; design issues; hazard; pictograms; pictorial; safety; signs;

standards; symbols; visual alerting; warning

13. AVAILABILITY

Unl imited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D C

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

96

15. Price

USCOMM-D?, 6043-P"''

U.S. GOVERNKFNT PRINTING OFFICE : 1982 O—360-997 (21 10)
NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription; domestic

$18; foreign $22.50. Single copy, $4.25 domestic; $5.35 foreign.

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative

data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society

(ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AlP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, I 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safely characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed al NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents. Government Printing Office. Washington. DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSlR's—from

the National Technical Information Services. Springfield, VA 22161

.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended.

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717(38 FR 12315, dated May II, 1973) and Part 6

of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-215

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. $300

THIRD CLASS