Symbol design ideas were sought by identifying associations of simple codes or geometric shapes with military concepts. One group of military enlisted personnel ranked concepts for their strength of association with different symbols. A second group of enlisted personnel had the reverse task. Results suggest that “natural” associations not dependent on special training can be found. The ranking method appears suitable for assessing the effectiveness of symbology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerryH. A.HorowitzP.Interpretation of topographic displays by untrained personnel. Aeronutronic Division of Ford Motor Company, March 1961.
2.
BershP.MosesF. L.MaisanoR. E.Investigation of the strength of association between graphic symbology and military information. Technical Paper 324.Alexandria, Virginia: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, September 1978.
3.
EasterbyR. S.HakielS. R.The perception of relative hazard levels of consumer products: An empirical field study. AP Report 62, University of Aston in Birmingham, 1976.
4.
EasterbyR. S.HakielS. R.Safety labelling of consumer products: Shape and colour code stereotypes in the design of signs. AP Report 75, University of Aston in Birmingham, 1977a.
5.
EasterbyR. S.HakielS. R.Safety labelling of consumer products: Recommendations on the design of a sign system. AP Report 77, University of Aston in Birmingham, 1977b.
6.
EasterbyR. S.ZwagaH. J. G.Evaluation of public information symbols ISO tests: 1975 series. AP Report 60, University of Aston in Birmingham, 1976.
7.
KirkR. E.Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences.Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1969.
8.
SiegelS.Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
9.
Van CottH. P.KinkadeR. G.Human engineering guide to equipment design.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.
10.
WheatleyE.An experiment on coding preference for display symbols. Ergonomics, 1977, 20(5), 543–552.
