Citation

Oh K, Rogoff A, Smith-Jackson TL. Appl. Ergon. 2013; 44(6): 990-995.

Affiliation

The Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA. Electronic address: khoh@vt.edu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.026

PMID

23623234

Abstract

The inanimate bicycle symbol has long been used to indicate the animate activity of bicycling facility signs. In contrast, either the inanimate bicycle symbol or the animate bicycle symbol has been used interchangeably for the standard pavement symbols in bike lanes. This has led to confusion among pedestrians and cyclists alike. The purpose of this study was to examine two different designs (inanimate symbol vs. animate symbol) involved in the evaluation of perceived preference and glance legibility, and investigate sign design features on bicycle pictorial symbols. Thirty-five participants compared current bicycle signs (inanimate symbols) to alternative designs (animate symbols) in a controlled laboratory setting. The results indicated that the alternative designs (animate symbols) showed better performance in both preference and glance legibility tests. Conceptual compatibility, familiarity, and perceptual affordances were found to be important factors as well.

Language: en