Advertisement

Study on Comprehensibility and Influencing Factors of Universal Safety Signs

  • Yongquan Chen
  • Xuefei Long
  • Chuan-yu ZouEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 850)

Abstract

Safety signs have been widely used as a non-verbal, visually perceptible way to convey critical situation-specific information to intended users.

In this study, eight safety signs were tested. Over 330 respondents were involved. To explore statistically significant relationships between symbol comprehension and influencing factors, Pearson’s Chi-square tests, logistic regression analysis, and correspondence analysis were conducted.

Six out of eight safety signs have comprehensibility scores higher than the level recommended by ISO standard.

In this test, “age” is considered as an important factor affecting comprehensibility. Pearson’s Chi-square test is adopted in order to test the relationships between symbol comprehensibility and age. Since more than 20% expected values are less than 5, Fisher exact test is introduced to improve reliability.

Keywords

Safety sign Comprehensibility test Graphical symbol 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by National Quality Infrastructure (NQI) Program (2016YFF0201700, 2016YFF0202806).

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, A., Hallowell, M.R., Kleiner, B., et al.: Enhancing construction hazard recognition with high-fidelity augmented virtuality. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140(7), 615–621 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dianye, Z., Rao, Z.: The passenger ship of inland waterway is choosing the simulation study for the emergency evacuation route. Comput. Simul. 2018(01), 151–154 (2018). 内河客船人员遇险应急疏散路径选择仿真研究Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rousek, J.B., Hallbeck, M.S.: Improving and analyzing signage within a healthcare setting. Appl. Ergon. 42(6), 771–784 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO 7010:2011: Graphical symbols—safety colours and safety signs—registered safety signs. 2011. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2011). 01.080.10Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 17724:2003: Graphical symbols – Vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2003). 01.080.10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Centre of Way GuidanceChina National Institute of StandardizationBeijingChina
  2. 2.AQSIQ Key Laboratory of Human Factors and Ergonomics (CNIS)BeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations