HUM A N FA C TOR S, 1982,24(1),75-84

Assessment of Fire-Safety Symbols

BELINDA L. COLLINS' and NEIL D. LERNER, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C.

Twenty-five internationally proposed symbols for fire-safety alerting were evaluated for un-
derstandability 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 confu-
sions in meaning were revealed.

INTRODUCTION under all conditions for all symbols, however.

The perceived advantages of symbols have
The modern use of symbol signs has ex-
led to the extensive use of pictorial signs.
panded rapidly to include most sign applica-
Unfortunately, this has resulted in a prolifer-
tions, including those for highways, machin-
ation of confusing and contradictory symbols
ery, and buildings. Among the major advan-
that often fail to communicate the desired
tages of symbols are that they can, in some
information. The proliferation of different
cases, be perceived more rapidly (Janda and
symbols for a given meaning, or "referent,"
Volk, 1934), more accurately (Walker,
causes serious problems for safety communi-
Nicolay, and Stearns, 1965), and at a greater
cation (Collins and Pierman, 1979). Yet, stan-
distance (Dewar and Ells, 1974) than can
dardization without sufficient evaluation
words. Reaction time to symbols may be
may result in symbols that either fail to
shorter (Ells and Dewar, 1979), even under
communicate any consistent meaning or that
visual degradation. Symbol meanings can
do not convey the correct meaning.
often be rapidly learned and accurately re-
For example, the International Organiza-
membered (Walker et a!., 1965), with mini-
tion for Standardization (ISO) Technical
mal confusion among alternatives (Green and
Committee 21 recently proposed a set of sym-
Pew, 1978). Symbols may also be superior to
bols for fire-safety and fire-fighting informa-
words under conditions of interference, in-
tion (International Organization for Stan-
cluding distraction from another task (King,
dardization, 1978). In an initial assessment of
1975) and visual interference or degradation
the understandability of 20 of the ISO sym-
(Dewar, Ells, and Mundy, 1976). The advan-
bols, Collins and Pierman (1979) reported
tages of symbols over words may not hold
that nine symbols were defined correctly by
I Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Belinda L.
less than 30% of the participants. Among the
Collins. Room A313. Building 226, National Bureau of
Standards. Washington. DC 20234. poorly understood symbols were those indi-

© 1982, The Human Factors Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016

76-February, 1982
eating "exit" and "not an exit," ISO has since
responded by replacing these with new
symbols.
The present paper reports an experiment
on the understandability of the new ISO
egress symbols, together with other exit desig-
nations and the remaining set of proposed
ISO fire-safety symbols. The purpose of the
experiment was twofold: (1) to determine the
understandability of each proposed symbol to
a group of potential users, and (2) to assess
the influence of certain methodological vari-
ables in measuring symbol comprehension.
Because a symbol must communicate its
intended meaning to the target audience, un-
derstandability is one of the most important
criteria for determining a symbol's effective-
ness. Understandability or meaningfulness
has been assessed in many different ways.
Perhaps the most frequently used method has
been to ask participants to provide short
definitions for each member of a set of sym-
bols (Brainard, Campbell, and Elkin, 1961;
Walker et aI., 1965; Cahill, 1975; Easterby
and Zwaga, 1976). Wrong answers given in a
definition procedure can provide insight into
the kinds of confusions and misunderstand-
ings that are associated with a particular
symbol. Still other researchers have asked
participants to select a definition for each
sym bol from a long list of definitions
(Brainard, et aI., 1961; Griffith and Actkinson,
1978; Wiegand and Glumm, 1979). Various
other rating, ranking, and behavioral mea-
sures have also been used to evaluate symbol
meaningfulness (Forbes, Gervais, and Allen,
1963; Dewar and Swanson, 1972; Easterby
and Hakiel, 1977; Easterby and Zwaga, 1976;
Dewar and Ells, 1977; Green and Pew, 1978),
although comparisons of performance across
the various response methods have rarely
been made.
In the investigations of symbol effective-
ness, researchers have used a variety of
stimulus materials. Brainard et al. (1961) and
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016
HUMAN FACTORS
Walker et al. (1965) used placard-type sym-
boIs. Griffith and Actkinson (1978), Dewar
and Ells (1977), and Cahill (1975) used col-
ored slides to present their stimuli. Still other
researchers (Wiegand and Glumm, 1979;
Green and Pew, 1978; Easterby and Zwaga,
1976; and Freedman, 1978) used booklets or
reproductions that allowed subjects to work
at their own pace. In no case, however, did
any researcher compare a symbol's perfor-
mance across the various stimulus presenta-
tion modes.
METHOD
In the present study, the relative effective-
ness of three presentation modes and two re-
sponse methods was compared in an evalua-
tion of the understandability of 25 fire-safety
symbols. The experiment consisted of a main
portion on symbol meaningfulness and a
supplementary one on symbol production.
The meaningfulness portion evaluated how
well a set of fire-safety symbols conveyed the
intended messages. The production portion
assessed the kinds of images that participants
produced for a given message.
The procedure of the symbol meaningful-
ness portion (Part 1) made use of a two-factor,
independent-groups experimental design.
One factor was the mode of symbol presenta-
tion (placards, slide projections, or booklets);
the other factor was the type of response re-
quired of the subject (providing a short defi-
nition of the meaning of each symbol or
selecting the correct meaning from four
multiple-choice alternatives).
Participants
A total of 91 paid participants took part in
the experiment. They were screened to
exclude those reporting any visual problems
(other than corrective lenses). The partici-
pants included 58 women (range 18 to 72
years; median age, 41) and 33 men (range 18
to 63 years; median age, 25).
ASSESSMENT OF FIRE-SAFETY SYMBOLS
Stimulus Materials
Twenty-five fire-safety signs were investi-
gated. These included 20 symbols originally
proposed by ISO Technical Committee 21 (In-
ternational Organization for Standardiza-
tion, 1978), two proposed ISO replacement
symbols for "exit" and "no exit," and two
U.S. "EXIT" word signs (in red and in green).
Also used was a privately copyrighted "fire
exit" symbol used at the 1980 Winter Olym-
pics. ("Fire exit" symbol. copyright 1979, by
A. G. Yannone, is available from Interna-
tional Safety Signs, Inc., Brockton, Mass.)
The symbols and their intended meanings are
presented in Figure 1.
Each symbol was initially drawn on a 30
em x 30 em placard. Participants viewed
either the original placard, a color photocopy
of the placard, or a color slide of the placard.
In the production portion (Part 2), referents
were listed on otherwise blank sheets of paper
(two referents per sheet).
Procedure
Participants were tested in groups of from 7
to 18 people in sessions lasting about 50 min.
In Part 1, all of the participants within a
group received the same mode of stimulus
presentation. However, a random half of each
group was given the multiple-choice response
procedure, while the other half received the
definition procedure. The 25 symbols were
presented in a different random order for
each group. Two or three separate groups of
participants comprised each stimulus presen-
tation condition.
One symbol at a time was presented to the
participants at a relatively slow rate (30 s/
symbol) in the slide and placard conditions.
In the booklet condition, participants worked
at their own pace.
Participants in the definition condition
wrote a short definition for each symbol.
while participants in the multiple-choice
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016
February, 1982--77
condition circled the most meaningful an-
swer. Incorrect alternatives for this condition
were derived from incorrect answers ob-
tained in an earlier study (Collins and Pier-
man, 1979). All participants rated their confi-
dence in the correctness of the answers on a
scale from one ("certainly wrong") to five
(" certainly right"). Definition participants
rated definitions that they provided; mul-
tiple-choice participants rated all four al-
ternatives for each symbol.
In the production part of the experiment,
participants drew a symbol to depict each of
12 fire-safety referents. Because viewing the
symbols for these referents in the first part
could have influenced the production image
data, even though no information about the
correct answer was given, these data should
be viewed as supplementary. Participants
were debriefed at the end of the study.
RESULTS
Answers for the definition groups were
rated as correct, partially correct, incorrect,
or no answer by three independent judges.
Complete consensus was reached on all but 5
of the 1125 items (0.4%); these items were
simply assigned the rating of the majority of
the judges.
Performance of the participants for the
definition condition is reported for two scor-
ing criteria. "Strict" scoring refers to "cor-
rect" answers only; "lenient" scoring in-
cludes "partially correct" answers that are
too general, too narrow, too literal, too frag-
mentary, or too ambiguous.
Multiple-choice answers were scored as
correct or incorrect. The data are presented
as percentages of correct responses, without
any transformations that attempt to account
for "guessing." Uncertainty or guessing is
identified independently by the confidence
ratings for the four response alternatives.
Analysis of variance of the mean number of
correct answers indicated no significant ef-
78--February, 1982 HUMAN FACTORS

Fire Extinguisher Hose and Reel Fire Ladder Fire Bucket

(WhIte on Red) (White on Red) (White on Red) (White on Red)

Fire Fighter's Direction to Break Glass for Slide Door

Equipment Equipment Access to Right
(WhIte on Red) (White on Red) (White on Green) (White on Green)

Do Not Use Water Do Not Lock No Open Flame

To Extinguish (Black on White, (Black on White,
(Black on White, Red Circle & Slash) Red Circle & Slash)
Red Circle & Slash)
Figure 1. Twenty-five symbols intended for fire-safety alerting.

feet of the mode of symbol presentation or of
the interaction of this factor with the type of
response. The two response methods differed
significantly only when the definition data
were strictly scored. Strict and lenient scor-
ing of the definition data yielded generally
similar information: the rank-orders of the 25
symbols under the two scoring criteria were
in good agreement (p = 0.96, p < 0.001).
Table 1 (left side) lists the percentage of

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016

ASSESSMENT OF FIRE-SAFETY SYMBOLS February, 1982--79

Do Not Block Keep Fire Door Emergency Phone General Phone

(Black on White, Shut (White on Red) (White on Blue)
Red Circle & Slash) (White on Blue)

Fire Alann Hom Fire Alann Fire Exit Emergency Exit,

(WhIte on Red) Call Point (Copyright Yannone, 1979) Originally Proposed
(White on Red) (Black on White, (White on Green)
Red Flame)

EXIT
Emergency Exit, Not an Exit Not an Exit, U.S. Exit
Currently Currently Originally Proposed Two Versions Tested:
Proposed Proposed (Black on Yellow) Green on White
(White on Green) (White on Black, Red on White
Red Circle & Slash)

Figure l---Continued

correct answers for each symbol, for both the
multiple-choice and definition groups. (Data
are combined across method of presentation.)
Correlational analysis reveals general
agreement between the two response meth-
ods. with the correlation coefficient being
0.86 (p < 0.001) for lenient scoring and 0.87 (p
< 0.001) for strict scoring.
Table 1 (right side) contains the mean
multiple-choice confidence ratings for each

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016

80--February, 1982 HUMAN FACTORS

TABLE 1

Percentage of Correct Answers and Mean Confidence Ratings for Each Symbol

Confidence Ratings

Multipfe choice
Percent Correct
Symbol Highest
Multiple Definition Definition Correct Correct Rated
# Meaning Choice (Lenient) (Strict) Answers Answers Alternative

All Correct
Subjects Subjects
1 Fire Extinguisher 100.0 97.8 97.8 4.7 4.7 1.4
2 Hose & Reel 95.7 91.1 77.8 4.8 4.8 1.9
3 Fire ladder 19.6 53.3 24.4 2.9 4.1 3.8
4 Fire Bucket 95.7 80.0 60.0 4.6 4.6 1.8
5 Fire Fighter's
Equipment 0 2.2 0 1.5 4.0
6 Direction to
Equipment 22.2 6.7 2.2 2.5 4.0 3.2
7 Break Glass
For Access 28.3 15.6 11.1 2.8 4.2 3.0
8 Slide Door
To Right 56.5 15.6 4.4 3.3 4.1 2.8
9 Do Not Use
Water 76.1 91.1 88.9 4.3 4.8 2.5
10 Do Not Lock 89.1 84.4 68.9 4.6 4.8 1.7
11 No Smoking 100,0 95,6 95.6 5.0 5.0 1.0
12 No Open Flame 87.0 88.9 75.6 4.1 4.5 1.8
13 Do Not Block 2.2 20.0 0 1.6 5.0 4.0
14 Keep Fire Door
Shut 18.5 35.6 28.9 2.3 3.7 3.4
15 Emergency Phone 93.5 93.3 71.1 4.3 4.4 1,5
16 General Phone 87.0 95.6 82.2 4.6 4.8 1.6
17 Fire Alarm Horn 77.8 22.2 22.2 3.2 3.5 1.8
18 Fire Alarm
Call Point 32.6 15.6 13.3 2.6 3.7 3.1
19 Fire Exit-
(Yannone. 1979) 95.7 91.1 86.7 4.7 4.8 1.8
20 Emergency Exit 57.8 62.2 22.0 2.5 3.2 2.2
ISO Original
21 Emergency Exit
ISO Proposed 69.6 86.7 68.9 3.8 4.5 2.6
22 No Exit
150 Proposed 69.6 53.3 33.3 4.0 4.5 2.1
23 No Exit
ISO Original 30.4 11.1 6.7 2.0 3.5 2.8
24 U.S. EXIT-Green 93.5 97.8 93.3 4.7 4.8 1.3
25 U.S. EXIT-Red 91.3 97.8 97.8 4.8 5.0 1.6
Mean = 3.6 4.3 2.4

symbol, collapsed across presentation meth- As Table 1 shows, multiple-choice partici-

ods, It lists mean confidence ratings for the
correct alternative for all participants and for
correct participants only, as well as for the
highest rated incorrect alternative for all par-
ticipants. Standard errors for group mean
ratings of individual symbols range from 0.03
to 0.22 rating scale units.
pants who identified a symbol correctly
tended to be more confident in their answer
than did those who answered incorrectly.
Averaged over all symbols the mean confi-
dence rating for correct answers was 4.0; for
partially correct answers, 3.8; and for in-
correct answers, 2.9.

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016

ASSESSMENT OF FIRE-SAFETY SYMBOLS February, 1982-81

TABLE 2

ISO Images and Most Frequently Produced Images for Each Referent

Referent ISO Image Production Image

Extinguisher Canister with hose Same

Fire Alarm
Call Point Concentric circles Telephone receiver
No Smoking Circle, slash, lighted Same
cigarette
No Open Flame Circle, slash, lighted Flame rather than
match match
Do Not Use Water To Circle, slash, bucket Same
Extinguish Flame pouring water on flames
Do Not Lock Circle, slash, padlock Same
Do Not Block Circle, slash, box, and can Corridor with
objects and slash
Keep Fire Door
Closed Door with arrows to close Same
Blind Alley Triangle, closed box, arrow Corridor with arm
(initially proposed) obscured
Circle, slash, open door,
figure (currently proposed)
Exit Rectangle (initially proposed) Arrow
Open door, figure (currently
proposed)
Fire Exit Same as "Exit" Flame, figure,
door, or arrow
Hazard Triangle, exclamation point Explosion-like
object

Group mean confidence ratings tended to
be higher for those symbols that were most
often correctly identified. The correlation
coefficient of group mean ratings for the cor-
rect multiple-choice alternative with the per-
centage correct is r = 0.95. The correct choice
alternative usually received the highest group
confidence rating; however, in eight of the 25
cases, one of the incorrect alternatives re-
ceived a higher confidence rating. These same
alternatives frequently appeared as incorrect
answers from the definition groups.
The correlation coefficient of age with
number of items correct (lenient scoring,
collapsed across stimulus presentation
method and type of response) was r = -0.30,
which, while significant (p < 0.01), accounted
for only about 9% (r2 = 0.09) of the variance in
the scores. Subjects over 50 years old aver-
aged about two fewer items correct (out of 25)
than did subjects under 50. There was no sig-
nificant effect of sex.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the pro-
duction procedure, listing the most fre-
quently produced image content for each of
the 12 referents. For comparison, the pro-
posed ISO image content for each referent is
included in the table. Participants were spe-
cifically instructed to avoid using words; de-
spite this, words were among the most com-
mon responses for several referents. These
referents (and responses) included Exit and
Fire Exit ("Exit"), Hazard Area ("Danger"),
and Blind Alley ("No Exit," "Dead End,"
"Stop").
DISCUSSION
The results of the present experiment indi-
cate that mode of symbol presentation
(placards, slides, or booklets) had no dis-

Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016

82--February, 1982
cernible effect on how accurately participants
identified the symbol's meaning. As a result,
it appears that the most convenient presenta-
tion method may be selected for a particular
application.
The other methodological factor investi-
gated was the mode of response, multiple
choice versus definition. The results indicated
advantages and disadvantages to both methods.
Traditionally, multiple-choice methods
have had the problem of constraining an-
swers and encouraging guessing (Easterby
and Hakiel, 1977). To mitigate these con-
cerns, incorrect definitions provided in an
earlier experiment were used as alternative
choices so that the alternatives would be
similar to those that a participant might pro-
vide. In addition, confidence ratings were
used to identify guessing and provide more
than simple binary information (correct or
incorrect) about a given answer. Thus it was
hoped that an easily and objectively scored
multiple-choice procedure with confidence
ratings could provide substantial information
with minimal response constraint or bias.
Differences in scoring criteria, a major
problem with definition data, can result in
sizable differences in the reported percentage
correct. Although the rank-order correlation
between scoring types for definition data in
the present experiment was good (p == 0.96),
the mean difference in the percentage correct
for lenient and strict scoring of responses to
individual symbols was about 11%, with a
range of up to 40%. This partly reflects the
use of strict criteria for "correct" scoring and
more lenient criteria for "partially correct"
scoring, which contributed to inter-rater
agreement. As a result, the ambiguous "par-
tially correct" category accounted for 20% or
more of the cases for about one-fourth of the
symbols. This indicates a need for caution in
interpreting the results of experiments where
only a single "percent correct" is given.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016
HUMAN FACTORS
Nevertheless, despite differences in strict
and lenient scoring, agreement between
multiple-choice and both types of definition
data was substantial, especially for "good"
symbols (high percentage correct). The
multiple-choice procedure, however, yielded
generally higher estimates of meaningfulness
for poorly understood stimuli. Despite the
general agreement between the methods, sev-
eral substantial deviations occurred for indi-
vidual symbols (see Table 1).
The confidence ratings provided valuable
additional information for evaluating overall
symbol effectiveness. Two symbols may re-
ceive a quite similar percentage of correct
multiple-choice answers yet may differ con-
siderably in confidence ratings. For example
"Slide Door" and the initially proposed ISO
"Emergency Exit" were each correctly iden-
tified about 57% of the time, yet mean confi-
dence ratings given by correct participants
were only 3.2 for "exit," but were 4.1 for
"slide door." Such discrepancies between
percentage correct and confidence ratings in-
dicate guessing or uncertainty. Similarly,
confidence ratings can indicate where sym-
bols tested poorly because they were essen-
tially meaningless (e.g., originally proposed
ISO "No Exit") versus symbols that tested
poorly because of a plausible alternative in-
terpretation (e.g., "Fire Ladder").
For the definition group, the confidence
ratings mirrored the percentage-correct data,
so that symbols receiving a high percentage
of correct answers also received high confi-
dence ratings. Guessing did not appear to
playa significant role in generating correct
definition answers.
Examination of the confidence-rating data
can also explain some discrepancies between
multiple-choice and definition data. Symbols
for which multiple-choice performance is
substantially better than definition perfor-
mance are often characterized by relatively
ASSESSMENT OF FIRE-SAFETY SYMBOLS
low confidence ratings, suggesting that
multiple-choice participants guessed at the
correct alternative. Thus, the ratings provide
a check on guessing for multiple-choice data.
Regardless of the response measure used,
the 25 symbols differed widely in understand-
ability, with percentage-correct measures
ranging from zero to 100% and mean confi-
dence ratings for correct alternatives ranging
from 1.5 to 5.0. It should be noted, however,
that while the total of 91 participants can
provide a good initial assessment, definitive
statements require much more extensive and
representative sampling.
Because some of the fire-fighting equip-
ment symbols intended to be used with a di-
rectional arrow appear to be relatively
meaningless, the arrow was tested alone to
determine if it had a meaning itself. In fact,
the arrow conveyed the idea of "exit," "one
way," or "go this way" to 82% of the partici-
pants. These data suggest that any use of an
arrow as a directional indicator for equip-
ment should be clearly integrated with the
equipment symbol to minimize false conno-
tations of egress.
When specific symbol performance is con-
sidered in detail, the most important fire-
safety symbols to be discussed are those relating
to safe egress. Three exit-related symbols,
two word signs, and two "no exit" symbols
were included in this experiment. Two
exit symbols proposed by ISO for emergency
exit did not test well. One, a white rectangle
on a green square, appeared to have little in-
trinsic meaning, judging by the small per-
centages of correct responses and generally
low confidence ratings. The other, a more re-
cent ISO symbol, showing a stylized human
figure stepping through an open door, per-
formed better but still suffered by implying
the need to run. Although another exit symbol
showing a figure, an arrow, and a fire tested
well, it included a directional arrow as an in-
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016
February, 1982--83
tegral component of the design. Since the re-
sponse to the arrow alone and the results
from the production data both indicated that
an arrow may imply egress, the superior
performance of this third exit symbol may be
attributable to the integral arrow.
Problems also arose for the two "not an
exit" symbols. The newer symbol, showing a
figure, open door, circle, and slash, was fre-
quently interpreted as "do not run" or "do
not enter." The originally proposed symbol.
showing a triangle, square, and arrow, re-
ceived very few correct answers and particu-
larly low confidence ratings. Much more im-
portantly, potentially dangerous misinterpre-
tations were common for this symbol: "exit,"
"shelter area," "elevator," and "go this way"
accounted for 40% of all answers, while
"overhead hazard" accounted for another
23%. Such confusions represent the most
dangerous failure of a symbol as an element
in a building communication system. Similar
dangerous confusions emerged for "fire lad-
der" (interpreted as fire escape or egress) and
"fire fighter's equipment" (interpreted as
shelter or tunnel). In each case, misinterpre-
tation of the symbol could send an occupant
seeking egress in the wrong direction.
Data from the supplementary production
procedure indicate that in only 5 of the 12
cases was the image content essentially the
same as that proposed by the International
Organization for Standardization (1978), and
in two of these five cases, another alternative
was a close second. Although participants
had viewed images for these referents in Part
1, this did not appear to substantially bias
their response toward producing the ISO
image. Where the production image content
differed from the ISO image content, it
tended to be for symbols that had performed
poorly in the understandability test, such as
"fire alarm call point," "exit," "not an exit,"
and" do not block."
84--February,1982
The production data also underline the
problems related to the portrayal of critical
egress concepts. No one consistent graphic
image emerged for the egress-related con-
cepts. In fact, participants were not able to
produce any consistent image for "exit" other
than the arrow, with the majority insisting on
using the word "EXIT" (despite instructions
not to use words). Furthermore, few of the
proposed egress symbols were well under-
stood. Thus the egress-related symbols were
frequently misidentified while no common
images surfaced for egress-related referents.
For a number of fire-safety symbols, the
production data, combined with the under-
standability data, indicate the need to redraft
existing graphic portrayals. Nowhere is this
clearer than for exit symbols.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the extreme range of under-
standability of the symbols investigated in
this experiment indicates the need to test
symbols before widespread adoption. The low
level of meaningfulness and the potentially
dangerous confusions produced by some
sym boIs proposed for international stan-
dardization, especially for exit and no exit, is
particularly troubling. As a result, it is neces-
sary to incorporate testing procedures as in~
tegral parts of the symbol development and
standardization process. Although the defini-
tion method is a valuable procedure (especially
in initial assessments of understandability
and confusions), the present experiment
suggests that a multiple-choice procedure,
with confidence ratings, deserves considera-
tion, particularly for large-scale testing of
a developed symbol set. Criteria other than
understandability-such as visual range, de-
tectability in smoke, and legibility-also re-
quire consideration for many applications.
Nonetheless, understandability remains of
primary concern in achieving effective and
widely-accepted symbols.
Downloaded from hfs.sagepub.com by guest on February 28, 2016
HUMAN FACTORS
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 func-
tion 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 Stan-
dards, 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 FaclOrs, 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 in-
formation symbols, ISO tests: 1975 Series. Birming-
ham, England: University of Aston, AP Report 60,
March, 1976.
Easterby, R. S., and Hakiel, S. R. Safety labelling and con-
sumer products: Field studies of sign recognition. Bir-
mingham, England: University of Aston, AP Report 76,
December, 1977.
Ells, J. G., and Dewar, R. E. Rapid comprehension of ver-
bal and symbolic traffic sign messages. Human Fac-
tors, 1979,21, 161-168.
Forbes, T. W., Gervais, E., and Allen, T. Effectiveness of
symbols for lane control signals. Highway Research
Board Bulletin, 1963,244, 16-29.
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.
Green, P., and Pew, R. W. Evaluating pictographic sym-
bols: An automotive application. Human Factors, 1978,
20, 103-114.
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.
International Organization for Standardization. Equip-
ment for fire protection and firefighting safety signs.
Geneva: Author, Draft Proposal 6309, ISO!TC 211SC 1,
1978.
Janda H. F., and Volk, W. N. Effectiveness of various
highway signs. Highway Research Board Proceedings,
1934,14,442-447.
King, L. E. Recognition of symbol and word traffic signs.
Journal of Safety Research, 1975,7, 80-84.
Walker, R. E., Nicolay, R. C., and Stearns, C. R. Compara-
tive accuracy of recognizing American and interna-
tional road signs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965,
49, 322-325.
Wiegand, D., and Glumm, M. M. An evaluation of picto-
graphic symbols for controls and displays in road ve-
hicles. Aberdeen, MD: U.S. Army Human Engineering
Laboratory, Technical Memorandum 1-79, February,
1979.