The Guessing of Mine Safety Signs Meaning: Effects of User Factors and Cognitive Sign Features

• Autorzy: Chan A. H. S. , Ng A. W. Y.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study investigated the effects of user factors and cognitive sign features on the guessability of mine safety signs. Sixty naive participants guessed the meanings and rated the cognitive sign features of 42 Mainland Chinese mine safety signs. The results showed that some user factors were significant predictors of guessing performance, while some were not. As expected, guessability scores varied significantly with the cognitive sign features of familiarity, concreteness, simplicity, meaningfulness and semantic closeness. The findings emphasize the need to create awareness of the importance of mine safety and promote understanding of mine safety sign meanings amongst people in their work environments. To design more user-friendly mine safety signs, industrial designers should develop and evaluate signs with consideration of the significant user factors and the 5 sign features tested here.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

mine safety signs; guessability; user factors; cognitive sign features

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 18, No. 2
• Strony: 195--208
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 38 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Chan A. H. S.

• Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

autor

Ng A. W. Y.

• Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Bibliografia

• 1.Liu T, Zhong M, Xing J. 2005. Industrial accidents: challenges for China’s economic and social development. Saf Sci. 2005;43(8):503–22.
• 2.Homer AW. Coal mine safety regulation in China and the USA. J Contemp Asia. 2009; 39(3):424–39.
• 3.Wang H. Coal mine deaths fall “but still remain high”. China Daily. 2011 Feb 2:1. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-02/26/content_12081456.htm.
• 4.National Bureau of Statistics of China. Statistical communiqué of the People’s Republic of China on the 2010 national economic and social development; 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110228_402705764.htm.
• 5.Leamon TB. The future of occupational safety and health. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2001;7(4):403–8. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://www.ciop.pl/813.
• 6.Tang WD, Chen HL. On the reasons of coal mine accidents in China. Journal of Catastrophology. 2006;21:81–4.
• 7.Paul PS, Maiti J. The role of behavioural factors on safety management in underground mines. Saf Sci. 2007;45:449–71.
• 8.Hebblewhite B. Mine safety—through appropriate combination of technology and management practice. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science. 2009;1(1):13–9.
• 9.Yu RF, Chan AHS, Salvendy G. Chinese perception of implied hazard of signal words and surround shapes. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf. 2004;14(1):69–80.
• 10.Mine safety signs (Standard No. GB 14161-1993). Beijing, China: Standards Press of China; 1993. In Chinese.
• 11.Jordan PW. An introduction to usability. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1998.
• 12.Al-Madani H, Al-Janahi AR. Assessment of drivers’ comprehension of traffic signs based on their traffic, personal and social characteristics. Transportation Research Part F. 2002;5:63–76.
• 13.McDougall SJP, Curry MB, de Bruijn O. Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999;31(3):487–519.
• 14.Bruyas MP, Le Breton B, Pauzie A. Ergonomic guidelines for the design of pictorial information. Int J Ind Ergon. 1998;21(5):407–13.
• 15.Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Beryon D, Holland S, Carey T. Human–computer interaction. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley; 1994.
• 16.Wang K. Wang X. Colour vision test. Beijing, China: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2006. In Chinese.
• 17.International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Graphical symbols – safety colours and safety signs – part 3: design principles for graphical symbols for use in safety signs (Standard No. ISO 3864-3:2012). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2012.
• 18.American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Criteria for safety symbols (Standard No. ANSI Z535.3-2002). Washington DC, USA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2002.
• 19.Norusis MJ. SPSS 12.0 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall; 2004.
• 20.Ng AWY, Chan AHS. The effects of driver factors and sign design features on the comprehensibility of traffic signs. J Safety Res. 2008;39(3):321–8.
• 21.Dowse R, Ehlers MS. The influence of education on the interpretation of pharmaceutical pictograms for communicating medicine instructions. Int J Pharm Pract. 2003;11(1):11–8.
• 22.Dowse R, Ehlers M. Pictograms for conveying medicine instructions: comprehension in various South African language groups. S Afr J Sci. 2004;100:687–93. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://eprints.ru.ac.za/137/1/sajsci_v100_n11_a35%5B1%5D.pdf.
• 23.China Internet Information Center. Rehabilitating China’s killer coal mines. China Through a Lens. 2004. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Nov/111285.htm.
• 24.Ng AWY, Chan AHS. Culture issues in traffic sign usability. In: Nuray A, editor. Usability and internationalization. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2007. p. 379–87.
• 25.Chan AHS, Han SH, Ng AWY, Park W. Hong Kong Chinese and Korean comprehension of American security safety symbols. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009;39(5):835–50.
• 26.Shinar D, Dewar RE, Summala H, Zakowska L. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Ergonomics. 2003;46(15):1549–65.
• 27.Ben-Bassat T, Shinar D. Ergonomic guidelines for traffic sign design increase sign comprehension. Hum Factors. 2006;48(1):182–95.
• 28.Marcus A. Icon and symbol design issues for graphical user interfaces. In: del Galdo EM, Nielsen J, editors. International user interfaces. New York, NY, USA:Wiley; 1996. p. 257–70.
• 29.Dewar RE. Design and evaluation of public information symbols. In: Zwaga HJG, Boersema T, Hoonhout HCM, editors. Visual information for everyday use: design and research perspectives. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1999. p. 285–303.
• 30.Blijlevens J, Creusen MEH, Schoormans JPL. How consumers perceive product appearance: the identification of three product appearance attributes. International Journal of Design. 2009;3(3):27–35. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/535/266.
• 31.Mullet K, Sano D. Designing visual interfaces: communication oriented techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall; 1995.
• 32.Wolff JS, Wogalter MS. Comprehension of pictorial symbols: effects of context and test method. Hum Factors. 1998;40(2):173–86.
• 33.Farthing DW, Jones DM, McPhee D. Permutational multiple-choice questions: an objective and efficient alternative to essay-type examination questions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 1998;30(3):81–5.
• 34.Brown RW. Multi-choice versus descriptive examinations. In: Proceeding of the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 2001. p. T3A-13–8. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://fieconference.org/fie2001/papers/1013.pdf.
• 35.Su TS, Hsu IY. Perception towards chemical labeling for college students in Taiwan using Globally Harmonized System. Saf Sci. 2008;46(9):1385–92.
• 36.Hawkins HG Jr, Katz B, Rigdon H. Evaluating understanding of new symbol signs. In: TRB 88th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers DVD Washington, DC, USA: Transportation Research Board (TRB); 2009.
• 37.Smith-Jackson TL, Essuman-Johnson A. Cultural ergonomics in Ghana, West Africa: a descriptive survey of industry and trade workers’ interpretations of safety symbols. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2002;8(1):37–50. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://www.ciop.pl/795.38.
• 38.Borade AB. Hazard perception based on safety words and colors: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE). 2008;14(4):407–16. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from: http://www.ciop.pl/27982.