教育背景對圖形符號複雜度之判讀績效研究

A Study on the Recognition Performance of Graphic Symbols Based on Complexity Level and Educational Background

10.29514/TJCD.201212.0011

許子凡(Tzu-Fan Hsu)；林演慶(Yen-Ching Lin)

複雜度 ； 圖形符號 ； 正確率 ； 反應時間 ； 教育背景 ； Complexity ； Graphic symbol ； Accuracy ratio ； Response time ； Educational background

商業設計學報

16期（2012 / 12 / 01）

187 - 200

繁體中文

本研究欲探討教育背景差異的人們於不同圖形符號複雜度下的判讀績效表現，操作上採二因子實驗設計，圖形符號複雜度經集群分析，區分成低複雜度的「等級A」與高複雜度的「等級B」，受測者教育背景則分為「設計背景」與「一般背景」兩種，經問卷蒐集資料後，分別針對「正確率」及「反應時間」進行判讀績效之差異檢定，並配合錯誤比重分析，進而歸納出下述三點結論。（一）複雜度的提高，易導致判讀績效會有降低之傾向出現，因此低複雜度的圖形符號在判讀正確率與反應時間的表現上，會均較高複雜度者為佳。（二）雖然設計背景者的圖形符號判讀正確率，明顯優於一般背景者的表現，但兩者所花費的反應時間則未有顯著差異，故正確率應為判讀績效差異之改善重點。（三）圖像單位的辨識錯誤多發生於低複雜度圖形符號，同時也是判讀失敗的常見原因，而在高複雜度圖形符號中，錯誤則主要來自於圖像關係推測的偏移，及近似概念的歸納失敗。

This study conducted a two-way ANOVA experiment to evaluate the accuracy ratio and response time in recognizing graphic symbols based on the complexities of ”level A” and ”level B” by the participants of ”design group” and ”general group”. The data collected via questionnaires were analyzed to determinate the significant differences of recognition performance and the error ration. Thus, the conclusions were as followed.1. The graphic symbols with high complexity performed significantly better than low complexity in terms of both accuracy ratio and response time, suggesting that the increment of complexity may be negative for the recognition performance.2. People from design background performed better than those from general background in the accuracy ratio; however, no significant difference was shown in the response time between the two groups. Hence, improving the accuracy ratio is the point to enhance the recognition performances.3. The mistaken icon identity was the main error in recognizing the graphic symbols with low complexity; as for the errors of high complexity were mostly the failure in generalizing the common concept among icons and the deviation of inference from multiple icons.

1. 楊清田、魏碩廷(2005)。平面圖形複雜度與面積錯視之關聯性研究─以不規則多邊形為例。藝術學報，77，13-23。
   連結：
2. 羅凱、林品章(2007)。高品牌價值之品牌識別設計傾向研究。設計學報，10(1)，47-68。
   連結：
3. Helbing, K. G., Jenkins, J., Kim Y. S., & Miller, M. E. Influence of icon detail, color, and perspective on preference, recognition time, and search time. Retrived, May 19, 2008 from http://www.frontiernet.net/~mkmiller/Prof/Icons/icon.htm (1993).
4. Biederman, I.,Ju, G.(1998).Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition.Cognitive Psychology,20,38-64.
5. Biggs, S. F.,Bedard, J. C.,Gaber, B. G.,Linsmeier, T. J.(1985).The effects of task size and similarity on the decision behavior of bank loan offices.Management Science,31,970-987.
6. Cairney, P.,Sless, D.(1982).Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups.Applied Ergonomics,13(2),91-97.
7. Collins, B. L.,Lerner, N. D.(1982).Assessment of fire-safety symbols.Human Factors,24(1),75-84.
8. DuBay, W. H.(2006).Smart language: Readers, readability, and the grading of text.Costa Mesa:Impact Information.
9. Glennen, S. L.,DeCoste, D. C.(1997).The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication.San Diego, CA:Singular.
10. Gordon, D. A.(1981).Assessment of guide sign informational load.Human Factors,23(4),453-466.
11. Hsu, T. F.,Lin, P. C.(2001).Graphical Symbols: the effects of proximate context and educational background on recognition performance.Information Design Journal,19(1),18-27.
12. Jacoby, J.,Speller, D. E.,Berning, C. K.(1974).Brand choice behavior as a function of information load.Journal of Marketing Research,11,63-69.
13. Kinross, R.(1981).On the influence of Isotype.Information Design Journal,2(2),122-130.
14. Liu, Y. C.(2005).A simulated study on the effects of information volume on traffic signs, viewing strategies and sign familiarity upon driver's visual search performance.International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,35,1147-1158.
15. Maharaj, S. C.(1980).Pictogram Ideogram communication.Refina, Canada:The George Reed Foundation for the Handicapped.
16. Marcus, A.(2003).Icons, symbols, and signs: Visible languages to facilitate communication.Interactions. may+june,37-43.
17. Moon, P.,Spencer, D. E.(1994).Aesthetic Measure. Applied to Color Harmony.Journal of the Optical Society of America,34(4),234-242.
18. Pezdek, K.,Chen, H. C.(1982).Developmental Differences in the Role of Detail in Picture Recognition Memory.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,33,207-215.
19. Seinfeld, J. H.,Pandis, S. N.(2006).Atmospheric chemistry and physics - From air pollution to climate change.New York:John Wiley and Sons.
20. Tracy, W.(1988).The typographic scene.London:Gordon Fraser.
21. Zender, M.(2006).Advancing icon design for global non verbal communication: or what does the word bow mean?.Visible Language,40(2),177-206.
22. Zwaga, H. J. G.,Boersema, T.(1983).Evaluation of a set of graphic symbols.Applied Ergonomics,14(1),43-54.
23. 李俊賢、曹壽民、張善政(1986)。道路交通標誌視覺影像之電腦模擬。電腦輔助設計研討會論文集，台北市:
24. 林菁(1994)。圖像複雜度與兒童的認知學習。嘉義師院學報，8，171-208。
25. 姚朝茂(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，銘傳大學設計管理研究所。
26. 蕭坤安、伊彬(2002)。造形輪廓的複雜性認知探討。中華民國設計學會 2002 年設計學術研究成果研討會論文集，台北市:
27. 蘇大典(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。雲林縣，雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計研究所。

1. 許子凡,林演慶(2020)。表現形式與性別對資訊圖像偏好與注目性之影響。藝術教育研究，40，1-37。
2. (2017)。符號元素數量對幼兒園發展遲緩兒童及其同儕動詞圖形符號辨識效果之研究。臺東大學教育學報，28(2)，31-59。
3. (2022)。學習背景對青少年觀看流行插畫風格之審美評價差異。亞東學報，42，115-134。
4. (2023)。國小國語教科書插圖風格和版式設計之內容與文本分析比較。設計學研究，26(2)，107-132。