Objective: This research directly tests the relationship between comprehension probability of highway signs and the extent to which they comply with three ergonomic principles of design: sign-content compatibility, familiarity, and standardization. Background: A recent study that evaluated comprehension of traffic signs in four different countries showed that comprehension level varies widely and is apparently related to the extent that the sign's design incorporates ergonomic guidelines for good design (D. Shinar, R. E. Dewar, H. Summala, & L. Zakowska 2003). Method: Participants were presented with 30 signs and asked to describe each sign's meaning. They then evaluated each sign in terms of each of three ergonomic principles. In addition, a group of human factors/ergonomics experts evaluated each sign on its standardization and compatibility. Results: There were high correlations between the ratings of the students and the ratings of the experts on compatibility (rho = .94) and on standardization (rho = .84), validating the use of the students' evaluations of the signs on these variables. There was a great variability in signs' comprehension and high and statistically significant correlations between the comprehension level of each sign and the extent to which it complied with compatibility (R = .76), familiarity (R = .89), and standardization (R = .88) principles. Conclusions: The more signs conform to universal ergonomic principles of good design, the more likely they are to be comprehended by drivers of different cultural backgrounds. Application: Sign design should be guided by established ergonomics principles to enhance comprehension, especially for drivers who have not had any prior encounters with specific signs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-Madani, H., & Al-Janahi, L. R. (2002). Role of drivers' personal characteristics in understanding traffic sign symbols. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 185–196.
2.
Al-Yousifi, A. E. (1999). Investigation on traffic signs to improve road safety. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Traffic Safety on Two Continents (pp. 73–87). Malmo, Sweden.
3.
Dewar, R. E. (1994). Design and evaluation of graphic symbols. In Proceedings of Public Graphics (pp. 24.1–24.18). Utrecht, Netherlands: University of Utrecht, Department of Psychonomics.
4.
Dewar, R. E., Kline, D. W., & Swanson, H. A. (1994). Age differences in comprehension of traffic sign symbols. Transportation Research Record, 1456, 1–10.
5.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Engineering Council. (2003). Traffic Information Program Series: Traffic Sign Types http://www.ite.org/councils/tengineering.asp#tips. Retrieved: November, 23, 2003.
6.
Israel Ministry of Transportation. (2002). Signs table: Transportation notice 1970, Signs Rule 6201, dated 13/10/2002.
7.
Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
8.
Shinar, D., Dewar, R. E., Summala, H., & Zakowska, L. (2003). Traffic sign symbol comprehension: A cross-cultural study. Ergonomics, 46, 1549–1565.
