## 3 Result
### Experiment Result Interpretations  
#### 3.2.1 EWM Results  
The initial survey data were uniformly weighted using the entropy weighting method to derive the evaluation score for each scenario. Given that the survey designs consist of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Not at All** & **Slightly** & **Moderately** & **Very** & **Extremely** \\ \hline Readability & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 50\% & 50\% \\ Blocking rate & 0\% & 8\% & 0\% & 8\% & 85\% \\ Size rationality & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 69\% & 31\% \\ Brightness & 0\% & 0\% & 8\% & 65\% & 27\% \\ Conspicuity & 0\% & 0\% & 12\% & 54\% & 35\% \\ Concise clarity & 0\% & 0\% & 8\% & 65\% & 27\% \\ Informativeness & 0\% & 0\% & 0\% & 8\% & 92\% \\ Visual attention & 0\% & 0\% & 8\% & 19\% & 73\% \\ Signage attention & 42\% & 42\% & 0\% & 15\% & 0\% \\ Average attention & 4\% & 35\% & 50\% & 12\% & 0\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Evaluation Results of Pudong in Task-driven Experiment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Not at All** & **Slightly** & **Moderately** & **Very** & **Extremely** \\ \hline Readability & 0\% & 0\% & 6\% & 58\% & 35\% \\ Blocking rate & 0\% & 0\% & 6\% & 32\% & 61\% \\ Size rationality & 0\% & 16\% & 13\% & 61\% & 10\% \\ Brightness & 0\% & 6\% & 26\% & 48\% & 19\% \\ Conspicuity & 0\% & 13\% & 13\% & 48\% & 26\% \\ Concise clarity & 0\% & 16\% & 32\% & 39\% & 13\% \\ Informativeness & 26\% & 0\% & 42\% & 3\% & 29\% \\ Visual attention & 0\% & 0\% & 19\% & 23\% & 58\% \\ Signage attention & 19\% & 32\% & 0\% & 42\% & 6\% \\ Average attention & 19\% & 32\% & 0\% & 42\% & 6\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Evaluation Results of Xi’an in Task-driven Experiment. positive questions, higher variable scores indicate better evaluations. By comparing the evaluation results of the four experiments, the indicator weights are determined through the EWM (Table 6). Based on the weighted scores and their corresponding weights, further comparisons were conducted using linear weighting. The results are as follows: in the first experiment, Pudong Airport scored 0.648, while Xi'an North Station scored 0.479; and in the second experiment, the scores for the two scenarios were 0.228 and 0.219, respectively. It is crucial to note that these calculated results are employed solely for relative comparisons of guide signage across different hubs. Different evaluation metrics may highlight distinct characteristics of the signage. The weights of the evaluation indicators reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the signage across various attributes. In general, the signage evaluation results for Pudong Airport, i.e., signage effectiveness, outperformed those of Xi'an North Station in both experiments. As the experimental group, Pudong Airport consistently scored higher than Xi'an North Station in terms of signage size reasonableness, eye-catchiness, and the amount of information. This alignment with actual scenarios reinforces the superior signage effect of Pudong Airport (Figure 11). As a control group, the signage system at Xi'an North Railway Station received an overall positive rating, particularly in terms of visual recognizability and information. Travelers reported a good intuitive visual experience and accurate acquisition of signage guidance information. However, the evaluation of signage information expression was lower, with single signs containing more messages. This redundancy in information settings led to a decrease in the efficiency of travelers in obtaining information. Accurate visualization, completeness, and an appropriate amount of information are essential prerequisites for travelers to efficiently and accurately gather information. Comparing the results obtained through EWM reveals that the evaluation of signage at Shanghai Pudong Airport was superior to that at Xi'an North Station in both the first and second experiments.