The 1997 revision to the ANSI Z535.3 Criteria for Safety Symbols standard refined and expanded the structure of the original 1991 version. The revision contains improved symbol creation guidelines, comprehension test procedures, symbol surround shape and color guidance, and symbol examples. This paper explains the revisions of interest, the role of human factors analyses in driving the standard's evolution, and the reasons why symbols created and tested according to the revised criteria are expected to be more effective in terms of consistency, legibility, and most importantly, comprehension. Research areas for future revisions are also identified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Institute of Graphic Art (AIGA) (1974). Symbol Signs — The Development of Passenger/Pedestrian Oriented Symbols for Use in Transportation-Related Facilities, for US Department of Transportation.
2.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI 1991). Criteria for Safety Symbols, ANSI Z535.3–1991.
3.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI 1997). Criteria for Safety Symbols, ANSI Z535.3–1997.
4.
BraunC. C.DeppaS. W. (In preparation). Comprehensibility of Safety Symbols: Evaluation of Twelve Categories to Support ANSI Z535.3 Criteria for Safety Symbols.
5.
BruggerC., (1994). Public Information Symbols: A Comparison of ISO Testing Procedures. Proceedings of Public Graphics, pp. 26.1 — 26.10. Lunteren, The Netherlands: Public Graphics.
6.
CahillM. C. (1975). Interpretability of Graphic Symbols as a Function of Context and Experience Factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 60, No 3, 376–380.
7.
CairneyP.SlessD. (1982). Communication Effectiveness of Symbolic Safety Signs with Different User Groups. Applied Ergonomics, 13–19–7.
8.
CollinsB. L., (1982). The Development and Evaluation of Effective Symbol Signs. (NBS Series 141) Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
9.
CollinsB. L. (1983). Use of Hazard Pictorials/Symbols in the Minerals Industry (NSBIR 83–2732). Sponsored by Bureau of Mines. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
10.
CollinsB. L.LernerN. D. (1982). Assessment of Fire Safety Symbols. Human Factors, 24, 75–84.
11.
CollinsB. L.LernerN. D.PiermanB. C. (1982). Symbols for Industrial Safety (NSBIR 82–2485). Sponsored by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards.
12.
CollinsB. L.PiermanB. C. (1979). Evaluation of Safety Symbols, U. S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 79–1760.
13.
DeppaS. W. (1997). The Unchallenged Assumption of U. S. and International Standards Harmonization. Standards Engineering, Vol 49, No 2, March/April 1997, pp 1–5.
14.
EasterbyR. S. (1970). The Perception of Symbols for Machine Products. Ergonomics13(1):149–158.
15.
EasterbyR. S.HakielS. R., (1977). Safety Labeling and Consumer Products: Field Studies of Sign Recognition. AP Report 76, Applied Psychology Dept, U of Aston in Birmingham.
16.
FrascaraJ.YauT. (1986). Evaluation and Development of Safety Symbols — Part I Survey of Existing Graphic Symbols for Safety. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Department of Art and Design.
17.
International Organization for Standardization(ISO) 3864 Safety Colors and Safety Signs Standard (1984).
18.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 11684:(1995) Annex D-Principles and Guidelines for Graphical Design of Hazard Pictorials. Found in “Tractors, Machinery for Agriculture and Forestry, Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment — Safety Signs and Hazard Pictorials — General Pictorials.”.
19.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO/CD 9186: (1994) Procedures for the Development and Testing of Public Information Symbols, TC 145.
20.
Lab Safety Supply (1996) Original Art.
21.
MartinB. J.DeppaS. W.Human Factors In the Revised ANSI Z535.4 Standard for Safety Labels. Santa Monica, Ca: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 41st Annual Meeting.
22.
OlgyayN. (1995). Safety Symbols Art — Camera-Ready and Disk Art for Designers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
23.
SilverN. C.WogalterM. S.BrewsterB. M.GloverB. L.MurrayL. T. A.TillotsonC. A.TempleT. L., (1995). Comprehension and Perceived Quality of Warning Pictorials. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, pp. 1957–1061.
24.
VirziR. A., (1990). Streamlining the Design Process: Running Fewer Subjects. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Volume 1, Santa Monica, CA: HF Society, pp 291–294.
25.
VukelichM.WhitakerL. A. (1993). The Effects of Context on the Comprehension of Graphic Symbols. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, pp. 511–515.
26.
WolffJ. S. (1995). A Study of the Effect of Context and Test Method in Evaluating Safety Symbols. Master's Project. (Tech. Rep. No. GIT-GVU-96–07), Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, Graphics, Visualization and Usability Center. URL: ftp.gvu.gatech.edu/pub/gvu/tech-reports/96–07.ps.Z.
27.
ZwagaH. J., (1989). Comprehensibility Estimates of Public Information Symbols: Their Validity and Use. Santa Monica, CA: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting, pp. 979–983.
