participation of the elderly in designing and developing modern products will
their needs be truly met.As a whole, empirical tests using multiple indices are important to properly
evaluate the symbols on their usability especially across different user groups.
The evaluation method should also simulate actual usage scenarios to determine
the suitability of each symbol alone, but together with the other symbols as well.
This can be exemplified by the elderly and US subject groups who chose
symbol sets quite different from the Asians. Hit rate is an important parameter,
but must be tested under different user scenarios (spontaneous identification and
cued responses) to determine if the symbols indeed are understood with and
without cues. At the same time hits rates alone are not enough. Subjective
certainties, false alarms (confusions), preferences, and even missing values are
equally useful factors needed to make a deeper analysis. They enable the tester
to see other often subtle but important differences (i.e. subjective biases,
confusing symbols to other referents and symbols) on how users perceive and
|• ||To Mr. Martin Böcker, of Siemen's-Nixdorf and ETSI Human Factors
Group, for his generosity not only in sharing his resources on icons and
pictograms, but more so for unselfishly sharing his insights and ideas about
|• ||To the National Communications Research Board of Sweden
(Kommunikations Forsknings Beredningen,KFB) for the financial and
Brelsford, J. W.,
Wogalter, M. S., and
Scoggins, J. A., ( 1994). Enhancing
comprehension and retention of safety-related pictorials, In Proceedings of the
Human Factors Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, pp. 836-840.
Böcker, M. ( 1993). A multiple index approach for the evaluation of pictogrwns,
In: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Human Factors in
Telecommunications, Darmstadt, Germany, May 11-14, Heidelberg: R. v.
Decker's Verlag, G. Schenck GmbH, pp. 73-85.
Norris, B., and
Wilson, J., ( 1998). "Safety pictograms: are
they getting the message across"? Applied Ergonomics, 29, 1, 15-23.