Assessment of Fire-Safety Symbols

Abstract

Twenty-five internationally proposed symbols for fire-safety alerting were evaluated for understandability by 91 U.S. participants. Three modes of symbol presentation (slides, placards, and booklets) and two modes of participant response (definition and multiple choice) were studied. Confidence ratings and production data (drawings) were also obtained. Mode of symbol presentation had no significant effect, while definition and multiple-choice response procedures led to generally similar conclusions. Confidence ratings were useful in reconciling discrepancies between the two response methods. The understandability of the 25 symbols ranged from near zero to virtually complete comprehension. The poor performance of some critical symbols such as "exit" was noted, and some potentially dangerous confusions in meaning were revealed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brainard, R. W. , Campbell, R. J. , and Elkin, 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, 376–580.

Collins, B. L. , and Pierman, B. C. Evaluation of safety symbols. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 79-1760, June, 1979.

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. , Ells, J. G. , and Mundy, G. Reaction time as an index of traffic sign perception. Human Factors, 1976, 18, 381–392.

Dewar, R. E. , and Swanson, H. A. Recognition of traffic control signs. Highway Research Board Proceedings, 1972, 414, 16–23.

Easterby, R. S. , and Zwaga, H. G. Evaluation of public information symbols, ISO tests: 1975 Series. Birmingham, England: University of Aston, AP Report 60, March, 1976.

Easterby, R. S. , and Hakiel, S. R. Safety labelling and consumer products: Field studies of sign recognition. Birmingham, England: University of Aston, AP Report 76, December, 1977.

10.

Ells, J. G. , and Dewar, R. E. Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic sign messages. Human Factors, 1979, 21, 161–168.

11.

Forbes, T. W. , Gervais, E. , and Allen, T. Effectiveness of symbols for lane control signals. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 1963, 244, 16–29.

12.

Freedman, M. Symbol signs-The testing of passenger/pedestrian oriented symbols for use in transportation related facilities. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation, DOT-OS-60071, December, 1978.

13.

Green, P. , and Pew, R. W. Evaluating pictographic symbols: An automotive application. Human Factors, 1978, 20, 103–114.

14.

Griffith, D. , and Actkinson, T. R. International road signs: Interpretability and training techniques. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Report 1202, September, 1978.

15.

International Organization for Standardization . Equipment for fire protection and firefighting safety signs. Geneva: Author, Draft Proposal 6309, ISO/TC 21/SC 1, 1978.

16.

Janda, H. F. , and Volk, W. N. Effectiveness of various highway signs. Highway Research Board Proceedings, 1934, 14, 442–447.

17.

King, L. E. Recognition of symbol and word traffic signs. Journal of Safety Research, 1975, 7, 80–84.

18.

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.

19.

Wiegand, D. , and Glumm, M. M. An evaluation of pictographic symbols for controls and displays in road vehicles. Aberdeen, MD: U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Technical Memorandum 1-79, February, 1979.