## 3 Result
### Experiment Result Interpretations
#### 3.2.2 TOPSIS Results  
The scenarios employed in the experiment represent different types of integrated transportation hubs in various cities. Even when applying the same set of methods, data collected in different experimental scenarios show variation. By comparing the ranking and weight of indicators, the varying importance of different factors within distinct transportation hubs can be observed. Regional heterogeneity may influence the importance of different evaluation indicators. Therefore, a combination of the entropy weight method and TOPSIS is utilized to rank the indicators. Relative closeness refers to the degree of proximity of the object being evaluated to the ideal target. The comparison of the importance of different indicators is expressed in terms of relative closeness (Table 7). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pudong**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Xi’an**} \\  & **Closeness** & **Order** & **Closeness** & **Order** \\ \hline Readability & 0.798 & 3 * & 0.702 & 3 * \\ Blocking rate & 0.769 & 4 & 0.773 & 1 * \\ Size rationality & 0.661 & 5 & 0.466 & 12 \\ Brightness & 0.630 & 8 & 0.556 & 8 \\ Location rationality & 0.632 & 7 & 0.603 & 7 \\ Completeness & 0.461 & 12 & 0.622 & 5 \\ Conspicuity & 0.659 & 6 & 0.514 & 9 \\ Concise clarity & 0.630 & 9 & 0.433 & 13 \\ Guidance accuracy & 0.546 & 10 & 0.613 & 6 \\ Hierarchy & 0.455 & 13 & 0.397 & 14 \\ Consistency & 0.510 & 11 & 0.703 & 2 * \\ Informativeness & 0.937 & 1 * & 0.480 & 10 \\ Visual attention & 0.830 & 2 * & 0.639 & 4 \\ Signage attention & 0.287 & 14 & 0.471 & 11 \\ Average attention & 0.273 & 15 & 0.330 & 15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. * indicates the top three rankings.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Relative Closeness Degree. Figure 11: Signage in Different Hubs. (**a1,a2**) Pudong Airport; (**b1,b2**) Xi’an North Railway Station. By combining the results of EWM and TOPSIS, the importance of indicators was ranked. For Pudong Airport, the ranking is visual recognition > information expression > setting > visual attention. Dominant factors include the amount of information on a single sign, visual attention, and reasonable signage location. Factors of insufficient importance encompass average attention per sign, attention to single signs, and the hierarchy of signage, among others. As for Xi'an North Railway Station, the ranking is visual recognition > setting > information expression > visual attention factors. Dominant factors include obstruction and defacement rate, coherence and consistency, and accurate legibility. Factors with insufficient importance involve average attention per sign, distinctness of signage's primary and secondary elements, conciseness, and clarity. It is essential to note that variations in experimental scenarios and tasks yield differences in obtained data. Through a comparison of indicator ordering and weighting, the importance of different indicators was assessed. * Shanghai Pudong Airport: The visual attention factor received the lowest score, indicating insufficient attention during the experimental process. This is reflected in evaluations of \"coherent consistency\", \"clear separation of primary and secondary\", and \"completeness of signage arrangement\", suggesting scattered and insufficiently coherent signage. Visual recognition and information expression factors were better evaluated, especially the amount of information on a single sign and accurate recognition. Visual recognition is crucial for travelers to obtain information efficiently, directly impacting the processing speed of guidance signage information. Accurate legibility, reflecting visual legibility, indicates reasonable signage placement and an appropriate amount of information. * Xi'an North Railway Station: The importance of visual attention factors, especially average attention per sign, is ranked lowest.