評估不同資訊負載類型的圖形符號辨識效率－以組合模式為分類依據

Evaluating the Effects of Information Load on the Recognition Efficiency of Graphic Symbol based on Combination Mode

10.30105/JDS.201307_16(1).0002

許子凡(Tzu-Fan Hsu)；林品章(Pin-Chang Lin)

資訊負載 ； 圖形符號 ； 辨識效率 ； 組合模式 ； Information Load ； Graphic Symbol ； Recognition Efficiency ； Combination Mode

設計學研究

16卷1期（2013 / 07 / 01）

25 - 40

繁體中文

本研究從資訊負載類型與教育背景兩個層面，對於圖形符號的辨識效率進行探討，操作上採4x2的二因子實驗設計，資訊負載類型以組合模式作為歸類依據，共分為：「圖像+圖像式」、「指向+圖像式」、「人形+圖像式」、「符號+圖像式」四種類型，受測者則依教育背景分為「設計教育背景」與「一般教育背景」兩個族群；經問卷蒐集資料後，利用SPSS針對於辨識所花費的反應時間與給予之主觀評價，分別進行差異檢定與相關分析，以作為圖形符號辨識效率之評估依據，最後歸納出下述四點結論：1、資訊負載與教育背景，兩者在圖形符號辨識效率的表現上並不會有相互影響之情況，不論從反應時間或主觀評價的結果均然。2、不同圖形符號資訊負載類型間，在辨識效率上會有顯著之差異，「指示+圖像式」表現最佳，「人形+圖像式」居次，接著為「圖像+圖像式」，「符號+圖像式」居末。3、在成功辨識的圖形符號效率表現上，設計背景者與一般背景者之間並沒有明顯不同，意味著合宜的圖形符號在不同背景的使用者間應保持著相近的績效。4、反應時間與主觀評價在辨識效率評估上擁有相符及一致的結果，且兩者關係呈現高度的負相關，故反應時間的多寡可反映出其主觀評價之變化。

Based on the classification of information load and the education background of participants, this study conducted a two way ANOVA experiment to investigate the graphic symbol recognition efficiency. The former consisted of the four categories of combination modes: ”direction + icon”, ”human + icon”, ”symbol + icon”, and ”icon + icon”. The latter was divided into: ”design group” and ”general group”. The data of response time and the efficiency evaluation score were collected by questionnaires, and subsequently analyzed by SPSS to determinate the significant differences and the correlation relationship of recognition efficiency performance. Thus, four conclusions were as follows.1. In the recognition performances of response time and efficiency evaluation, no significant difference was shown between information load and the education background.2. There were significant differences in the recognition performance among the graphic symbols of information load. ”Direction + icon” performed best, followed by ”human + icon”, ”symbol + icon”, and lastly ”icon + icon”.3. In the performance of graphic symbols successfully recognized, no significant difference was found between design group and general group, revealing that an appropriate graphic symbol should perform equally for people from different backgrounds.4. The response time and the efficiency evaluation reached an agreement on the recognition performances of graphic symbols, since a strong negative correlation existed between the two criteria, suggesting that the response time could be regarded as an indicator for the efficiency evaluation.

1. 許子凡、林品章(2008)。認知風格對不同資訊量的判讀效率與模式特徵：以AIGA圖形符號為例。設計學研究，11(1)，87-105。
   連結：
2. 許峻誠、王韋堯(2009)。學習背景差異對簡化圖形之偏好研究。藝術教育研究，17，109-132。
   連結：
3. 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：
4. Helbing, K. G., Jenkins, J., Kim Y. S., and Miller, M. E. (1993),“Influence of icon detail, color, and perspective on preference, recognition time, and search time”. website: http://www.frontiernet.net/~mkmiller/Prof/Icons/icon.htm (Accessed: May 19, 2008)
5. Biederman, I.(1987).Recognition-By-Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding.Psychological Review,94,115-147.
6. Biederman, I.,Ju, G.(1998).Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition.Cognitive Psychology,20,38-64.
7. 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.
8. Cairney, P.,Sless, D.(1982).Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups.Applied Ergonomics,13(2),91-97.
9. Collin, B. L.,Lerner, N. D.(1982).Assessment of fire-safety symbols.Human Factors,24(1),75-84.
10. EASTERBY, R.S.(Ed.),ZWAGA, H.J.G.(Ed.)(1984).Information Design.New York:John Wiley and Sons.
11. Gordon, D. A.(1981).Assessment of guide sign informational load.Human Factors,23(4),453-466.
12. Horton, W.(1994).The icon book.New York:John Wiley and Sons.
13. Hsu, T. F.,Lin, P. C.(2010).A Study on the Recognition Performances of Graphical Symbols based on Information Load and Combination Mode.Visual Communications Journal,46(2),5-14.
14. 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.
15. Lin, R.(1992).An Application of the Semantic Differential to Icon Design.Proceedings of Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting,Atlanta, GA:
16. 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.
17. Roukes, N.(1988).Design synectics: stimulating creativity in design.Worcester:Davis Publications.
18. Scammon, D. L.(1977).Information load and consumers.Journal of Consumer Research,4,148-155.
19. Zender, M.(2006).Advancing icon design for global non verbal communication: or what does the word bow mean?.Visible Language,40(2),177-206.
20. 王明嘉(1995)。探究視覺宇宙的脈搏─視覺語法。藝術家，241，460。
21. 林振陽、陳中聖(1993)。本省家庭警示性圖像認知之研究。工業設計，22(4)，231-239。
22. 姚朝茂(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。銘傳大學設計管理研究所。
23. 蘇大典(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。雲林科技大學視覺傳達設計所。

1. (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。