臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

交通標誌中使用反面敘述的禁止型標誌，其紅色對角斜線的設計，會掩蓋標誌中圖案的外觀，直接影響到駕駛人對於標誌意義的辨識力。同樣地，警告型標誌其標誌內部圖形大小，也會影響到駕駛人對於標誌意義的辨識力。因此，禁止型及警告型交通標誌之設計原則，值得深入地探討。本研究旨在探討禁止型及警告型交通標誌設計對於受試者主觀偏好及視覺績效的影響。
實驗共分成兩個實驗兩個階段來探討，實驗一第一階段實驗乃進行受試者對於十二種禁止型交通標誌的四種標誌斜線設計（斜線在下、斜線在上、部份斜線及噴霧狀斜線）進行主觀偏好的排序測試。研究的結果顯示，在各種類型的標誌中，部份斜線及噴霧狀斜線的設計為受試者最不喜愛的族群。在標誌1、標誌2、標誌7、標誌、標誌8及標誌9的狀況下，受試者對斜線在上的偏好度和斜線在下的設計並沒有明顯差異。在標誌3、標誌4、標誌11及標誌12的狀況下，受試者對斜線在上的偏好度則明顯較斜線在下的設計為差。在標誌5及標誌10的狀況下，受試者對斜線在上設計的評分甚至和部份斜線及噴霧狀斜線的斜線設計一樣差。實驗一第二階段實驗則以電腦模擬駕駛汽車的情境，進行受試者對於禁止型交通標誌視覺績效之測試。研究的因子共有五個，分別為十二種禁止型交通標誌、四種標誌斜線設計（斜線在下、斜線在上、部份斜線及噴霧狀斜線）、二種行車速度（40 km/hr及60 km/hr）三個年齡層（年輕人、中年人、老年人）及兩種道路照度狀況（白天及黃昏狀況）。研究的結果顯示，受試者對於禁止標誌中圖案採用指標性呈現方式，或是斜線覆蓋圖案主要特徵面積較少的標誌有較佳的視覺績效。受試者對於斜線在下及噴霧狀斜線標誌設計的視覺績效優於斜線在上的設計，但較部份斜線的設計為差。行車速度對於受試者能正確辨識交通標誌並無顯著影響。在標誌4、標誌5、標誌6、標誌9、標誌10、標誌11及標誌12的狀況下，為年輕人及中年人的視覺績效最好，老年人最差。但是在標誌1、標誌2、標誌3、標誌7及標誌8的狀況下，則為年輕人最好，中年人次之，老年人最差。而道路狀況照度則是白天優於黃昏。
實驗二第一階段實驗乃進行受試者對於十二種警告型交通標誌的四種標誌圖形面積設計（10%圖形面積、15%圖形面積、20%圖形面積、25%圖形面積）進行主觀偏好的排序測試。研究的結果顯示，受試者對於20%圖形面積設計的喜好優於25%及15%圖形面積設計，而10%圖形面積設計為最差。實驗二第二階段實驗則以電腦模擬駕駛汽車的情境，進行受試者對於警告型交通標誌視覺績效之測試。研究的因子共有五個，分別為十二種警告型交通標誌、四種標誌圖形面積設計（10%圖形面積、15%圖形面積、20%圖形面積、25%圖形面積）、二種行車速度（40 km/hr及60 km/hr）三個年齡層(年輕人、中年人、老年人) 及兩種道路照度狀況（白天及黃昏狀況）。研究的結果顯示，受試者對於警告標誌中圖形間有適當間隔，或是圖形較簡化的標誌有較佳的視覺績效。年輕人及中年人對於20%及25%圖形面積設計的視覺績效最佳，15%圖形面積設計次之，而10%圖形面積設計為最差，老年人則對於20%圖形面積設計的視覺績效最佳，25%及15％圖形面積設計次之，而10%圖形面積設計為最差。行車速度對於受試者能正確辨識交通標誌並無顯著影響。駕駛人的年齡以年輕人及中年人的視覺績效最好，老年人最差。而道路狀況照度則是白天優於黃昏。本研究的結果可作為評估及修正目前禁止型及警告型交通標誌設計之參考。

Prohibitive and warning signs are two major traffic signs used to introduce traffic information to drivers. Because prohibitive traffic signs provide prohibitive information by negatively presented concept and warning traffic signs provide warning information by symbol in the triangular frame, the effect of prohibitive and warning traffic signs design on users'' subjective preference and visual performance deserves to be discussed further.
This study includes two experiments. A preference-rating test was held in stage I of experiment I to investigate the prohibitive traffic signs effects of sign-type (twelve types) and slash-type (a slash over the symbol, a slash under the symbol, a partial slash, and a translucent slash) on the subjects’ subjective preference. Analysis of results showed that subjects showed the worst preference on signs with translucent slash and partial slash. Additionally for sign 1, sign 2, sign 7, sign 8 and sign 9, subjects performed no significant different preference on signs with over slash and under slash. However for sign 3, sign 4, sign 11 and sign 12, subjects showed significantly better preference on signs with under slash than signs with over slash, and subjects showed no significantly different preference on signs with over slash, translucent slash, and partial slash for sign 5 and sign 10. A driving simulating experiment was developed in stage II of experiment I to evaluate the prohibitive traffic signs effects of sign-type, slash-type, age (a young group, a middle-aged group, and an elderly group), illuminance conditions (daylight and dusk) and driving velocity (40 and 60 km/hr) on the subjects’ visual performance. Analysis of results showed that sign type, slash type, illuminance conditions, and driving velocity were all significant factors for the subjects’ visual performance. Subjects performed better visual performance when the pictorials of traffic signs were simple, clear and when its slash did not cover the major pictorial features of signs. Subjects performed the best visual performance for signs with partial slash; then under slash and translucent slash, and performed the worst visual performance for signs with over slash. Generally, young and middle-aged groups performed significantly better visual performance than the elderly group. The visual performance of young and middle-aged groups was significantly better than the elderly group for sign 4, sign 5, sign 6, sign 9, sign 10, sign 11 and sign 12. However for sign 1, sign 2, sign 3, sign 7 and sign 8, young group performed the best visual performance; then middle-aged group, and the elderly group performed the worst visual performance. Regarding the illuminance condition of driving, subjects performed better visual performance in daylight.
The preference-rating test was also held in stage I of experiment II to investigate the warning traffic signs effects of sign-type (twelve types) and the symbol size (10%, 15%, 20%, and 25% of the sign area) on the subjects’ subjective preference. Analysis of results showed that the symbol size was a significant factor for the subjects’ preference. The 20% symbol size was the most significantly preferred signs; then 25% and 15%, and the 10 % symbol size was the worst preferred signs design. The driving simulating experiment was also held in stage II of experiment II to evaluate the warning traffic signs effects of sign-type, the symbol size, age (a young group, a middle-aged group, and an elderly group), illuminance conditions (daylight and dusk) and driving velocity (40 and 60 km/hr) on the subjects’ visual performance. Analysis of results showed that sign type, the symbol size, illuminance conditions, and driving velocity were all significant factors for the subjects’ visual performance. Subjects performed better visual performance when the symbols of traffic signs were simple, clear and with appropriate interval between the symbol and the triangular frame. Generally, young and middle-aged groups performed better visual performance than the elderly group. Additionally, young and middle-age groups performed the best visual performance on signs with 20% and 25% symbol sizes; then 15% symbol size, and performed the most visual performance on signs with 10% symbol size. However, elderly group showed the best visual performance on signs with 20% symbol size; then 25% and 15% symbol sizes; and performed the worst visual performance on signs with 10% symbol size. Regarding the illuminance condition of driving, subjects performed better visual performance in daylight.

封面內頁
簽名頁
授權書 iii
摘要 v
Abstract viii
誌謝 xi
目錄 xii
圖目錄 xvi
表目錄 xvii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景及動機 1
1.2 研究目的 1
第二章 文獻探討 3
2.1 圖形及文字標示 3
2.2 交通標誌設計原則 4
2.3 禁止型交通標誌 5
2.4 警告型交通標誌 9
2.5 行車速度、環境照度及年齡 11
第三章 實驗一：禁止型交通標誌 13
3.1 研究方法 13
3.1.1 受試者 13
3.1.2 實驗設備及材料 13
3.1.3 駕駛情境模擬工作站的條件 14
3.1.4 實驗設計 15
3.1.5 實驗程序 18
3.1.5.1 第一階段實驗 — 受試者對於禁止型交通標誌的主觀偏好評比 18
3.1.5.2 第二階段實驗 — 受試者對於禁止型交通標誌的視覺績效測試 19
3.1.6 資料蒐集與分析 22
3.2 實驗一結果 23
3.2.1 受試者對於禁止型交通標誌之主觀偏好評比 23
3.2.1.1標誌種類對於受試者主觀偏好的影響 23
3.2.1.2標誌斜線設計對於受試者主觀偏好的影響 24
3.2.1.3因子間交互作用對於受試者主觀偏好的影響 24
3.2.2 受試者對於禁止型交通標誌之視覺績效 25
3.2.2.1標誌種類對於受試者視覺績效的影響 28
3.2.2.2標誌斜線設計對於受試者視覺績效的影響 28
3.2.2.3行車速度對於受試者視覺績效的影響 29
3.2.2.4道路照度狀況對於受試者視覺績效的影響 29
3.2.2.5年齡對於受試者視覺績效的影響 29
3.2.2.6因子間交互作用對於受試者視覺績效的影響 30
3.3 實驗一討論 31
3.3.1 受試者對於禁止型交通標誌的主觀偏好 31
3.3.2 受試者對於禁止型交通標誌的視覺績效 33
第四章 實驗二：警告型交通標誌 39
4.1 研究方法 39
4.1.1 實驗方法 39
4.1.2 實驗設計 40
4.1.3 實驗程序 42
4.1.3.1 第一階段實驗 — 受試者對於警告型交通標誌的主觀偏好評比 42
4.1.3.2第二階段實驗 — 受試者對於警告型交通標誌的視覺績效測試 42
4.1.4 資料蒐集與分析 43
4.2 實驗二結果 44
4.2.1 受試者對於警告型交通標誌之主觀偏好評比 44
4.2.1.1標誌種類對於受試者主觀偏好的影響 45
4.2.1.2圖形面積設計對於受試者主觀偏好的影響 45
4.2.1.3因子間交互作用對於受試者主觀偏好的影響 46
4.2.2受試者對於警告型交通標誌之視覺績效 46
4.2.2.1標誌種類對於受試者視覺績效的影響 49
4.2.2.2圖形面積設計對於受試者視覺績效的影響 49
4.2.2.3行車速度對於受試者視覺績效的影響 50
4.2.2.4道路照度狀況對於受試者視覺績效的影響 50
4.2.2.5年齡對於受試者視覺績效的影響 50
4.2.2.6因子間交互作用對於受試者視覺績效的影響 51
4.3 實驗二 討論 51
4.3.1 受試者對於警告型交通標誌的主觀偏好 52
4.3.2 受試者對於警告型交通標誌的視覺績效 52
第五章 結論 55
5.1 禁止型交通標誌 55
5.2 警告型交通標誌 56
參考文獻 58

[1] 台閩地區刑事案件及道路交通事故統計，民88年。內政部警政署及交
通部聯合公布。
[2] 道路交通管理處罰條例，民90年。中華民國九十年一月十七日華總一
義字第九○○○○○七五○○號令修正公布增訂。
[3] 道路交通標誌標線號誌設置規則，民88年。交通部交路發字第八九二
八號、內政部臺（八九）內警字第八九八０八０五號令會銜修正發
布。
[4] 汽車考照手冊，民89年。1999年6月大千文化出版社發行。
[5] ANSI, 1991. American National Standard for Environmental
and Facility Safety Signs：Z535.2 American National
Standard Institute, Washington DC.
[6] Dewar, R.E., 1976. The slash obscures the symbol on
prohibitive traffic signs. Human Factors 18, 253-258.
[7] Dewar, I. L., Ells, J. G., and Mundy, G. 1976. Reaction
time as an index of traffic sign perception . Human
Factors, 18, 381-392.
[8] Evans, D. W., and Ginsburg, A. P. 1985. Contrast
sensitivity predicts age-related differences in highway-
sign discriminability. Human Factors, 27, 637-642.
[9] Federal Highway Administration, 1995. Improvements in
Symbol Sign Design to Aid Older Drivers. US Department of
Transportation, Virginia.
[10] Gough, P. B., 1965. Grammatical transformations and speed
of understanding. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 4, 107-111.
[11] ISO, 1984. International Standard For Safety Colours and
Safety Signs: ISO 3864. International Standards
Organization, Switzerland.
[12] Jacobs, R. J., Johnston A. W., and Cole, B. L. 1975. The
visibility of alphabetic and symbolic traffic sign.
Australian Road Research, 5, 68-86.
[13] Kline, D.W. and Fuchs, P. 1993. The visibility of symbolic
highway signs can be increased among drivers of all ages,
Human Factor, 35, 25-34.
[14] Kline, T. J. B., Ghali, L. M., Kline, D. W., and Brown, S.
1990. Visibility distance of highway signs among young,
middle-aged, and elderly observers：Icons are better than
text. Human Factors, 32, 609-619.
[15] Long, G. M. and D. F. Kearns, “Visibility of text and
icon highway signs under dynamic viewing conditions,”
Human Factors, 38, 690-701 (1996).
[16] Murray, L. A., Maqurno, A. B., Glover, B. L., and
Wogalter, M. S. 1998. Prohibitive pictorials：Evaluations
of different circle-slash negation symbols. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 473-482.
[17] Post, T. J., Robertson, H. D., Price, H. E., Alexander, G.
J., and Lunenfeld, H. 1977. A users’ guide to positive
guidance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
[18] Ramakrishnan, A. S., Cranston, R. L., Rosiles, A., Wagner,
D., and Mital, A., 1999. Study of symbols coding in airway
facilities, International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 25, 39-50.
[19] Sanders, M. S. and McCormick, E. J., 1993. Human Factors
in Engineering and Design. 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
[20] Shapiro, P. S., Upchurch, J. E., Loewen, J., Siaurusaitis,
1987. Identification of needed traffic control device
research. Transportation Research Record, 1114, 11-20.
[21] Shinar, D., and Drory A., 1983. Sign registration in
daytime and nighttime driving. Human Factors, 25, 117-122.
[22] Young, S. L. and Wogalter, M. S., 1990. Comprehension and
memory of instruction manual warnings: conspicuous print
and pictorial icons. Human Factors, 32, 637-649.