In a series of four experiments, symbolic representations of eight public information messages were evaluated in an attempt to identify the relative adequacy of each symbol Four versions of each message were examined using measures of legibility distance, comprehension, preference, and glance legibility. Significant positive correlations were found among the first three measures. An efficiency index was employed as an overall measure of the effectiveness of individual symbols, and recommendations were made concerning their future use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brainard, R. W., Campbell, R. J., and Elkin, E. H.Design and interpretability of roadsigns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 45. 130–136.
2.
Cahill, M. C.Interpretability of graphic symbols as a function of context and experience factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 376–380.
3.
Dewar, R. E. and Ells, J. G.A comparison of three methods for evaluating traffic signs. Transportation Research Record, 1974, 503, 38–47
4.
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. (a)
5.
Dewar, R. E. and Ells, J. G. Evaluation of legibility of traffic sign letters and digits. Final Report. Contract S 3301-3, Transport Canada, December, 1977. (b)
6.
Dewar, R.E.Ells, J. G., and Cooper, P.J.Evaluation of roadway guide signs at a large airport. Transportation Engineering, 1977, 47(6), 19–23.
7.
Dewar, R. E, Ells, J. G., and Mundy, G.Reaction time as an index of traffic sign perception. Human Factors, 1976, 18, 381–392.
8.
Dreyfuss, H.Symbol sourcebook, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
9.
Easterby, R. S. and Zwaga, H. J. G.Evaluation of public information symbols. Birmingham, U.K.: University of Aston, Applied Psychology Department, International Organization for Standardization Tests, Report No. 60, 1976.
10.
Ells, J. G. and Dewar, R. E.Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic sign messages. Human Factors, 1979, 21, 161–168.
11.
Green, P. and Pew, R. W.Evaluating pictographic symbols: An automotive application. Human Factors, 1978, 20, 103–114.
12.
Jacobs, R. J., Johnston, A. W., and Cole, B. L.The visibility of alphabetic and symbolic traffic signs. Australian Road Research, 1975, 5(7) 68–86.
13.
Keppel, G.Design and analysis. A researcher's handbook.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal, 1973.
14.
King, L.E. and George, Z. H.A further investigation of symbol versus word highway signs. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Human Factor Society, New York City, October, 1971.
15.
Markowitz, J., Dietrich, C. W., Lees, W. J., and Farman, M.An investigation of the design and performance of traffic control devices. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., Report No. 1726, Contract No. CPR-11-5955. 1968.
16.
Modley, R.Handbook of pictorial symbols.New York: Dover Press. 1976.
17.
Roberts, K.M., Lareau, E. W., and Welch, D.Perceptual factors and meanings of symbolic information elements. Vol. II. Technical Report. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-77-65, 1977.
18.
Townsend, J. T.Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception and Psychophysics, 1971. 9. 40–50.
19.
Walker, R. E., Nicolay, R. C., and Stearns, C. R.Comparative accuracy of recognizing American and international road signs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 322–325.
