臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本論文針對台灣高鐵及桃園捷運所使用之圖像符號，採取ISO認證之「Comprehension test」手法，分析「非」延用自國際組織的圖像符號是否達到最低可接受標準(67%)，並同時檢驗相同意涵但呈現方式不同的國際圖像符號，依照辨識率的不同以及比較的結果，替國內的圖像符號評等並進行原因分析和後續改善探討。
研究結果呈現國內圖像符號共有14個未達標準(自動櫃員機、兌幣兌鈔機、汽車停車場、商店、會議室、腳踏車租借、台北捷運、自動售票機、旅遊服務櫃台、會面點、親子廁所、臨停接送區、警察、驗票閘門)，其中建議改用ISO或AIGA的圖像符號有6個(自動櫃員機、兌幣兌鈔機、汽車停車場、商店、會議室、腳踏車租借)；另外8個則整理受測者的意見為改進方向。
將國內圖像符號依照「特有性」及「設計性」的分類並做統計意義上的分析後，發現並無顯著差異，然兩者在辨識率的呈現上仍有著14%的差距。
本論文結論為以下三點，一為「圖像符號之熟悉度與辨識率呈現中度正相關」，驗證以往文獻之結果；二為「國內圖像符號平均辨識率仍未達國際標準」，且平均辨識率僅為51%，顯示改進空間仍存在且必要；三為「國外標準的跟隨與國內設計的創新仍可並行」，因地制宜或文化差異的圖像符號在某些情境中為更適切的存在，但仍應符合最低可接受標準。

The study is focus on graphical symbol of Taiwan Railways and Taoyuan Metro. Use “Comprehension test” of ISO for method and analyze these graphical symbols’ comprehension rate which are not derived from international symbol organization. And analyze international graphical symbol which are same meaning but different graphics. For those graphical symbol don’t reach the 67% comprehension rate, this paper will give a full study and improved advices.
The study shows that there are 14 graphical symbols don’t reach the standard (ATM, Money exchange, Car-parking, Shop, Meeting room, Bicycle rent, Taipei metro, Automatic ticket machine, Travel service counter, Meeting point, Restroom for parents with infants, Temporary transfer area, Police, Ticket gate).6 graphical symbols are recommend to use ISO’s or AIGA’s instead, and other 8 graphical symbols will be given full analysis with volunteer’s feedback.
This study will classify these graphical symbols into two groups, one is “design property” and the other is “unique property”. After study we figure out that two classes are not significant different, but these two classes still have 14% different at comprehension rate.
This study gives three conclusions, first is ”comprehension rate of graphical symbol is
moderate positive correlation with familiarity”, which is proofed by other studies. Second is “average comprehension rate of graphical symbol in Taiwan don’t reach standard”, shows that there’s still large room for improvement. The last conclusion is “Unique graphical symbol for some area is still accepted” , but need to be tested to check if the unique graphical symbol meet the standard rate.

中文摘要 ……………………………………………………………………………… i
英文摘要 ……………………………………………………………………………… ii
誌謝 ……………………………………………………………………………… iii
表目錄 ……………………………………………………………………………… iv
圖目錄 ……………………………………………………………………………… v
一、 緒論………………………………………………………………………… 1
二、 文獻探討…………………………………………………………………… 4
2.1 圖像符號…………………………………………………………………… 4
2.1.1 圖像符號的定義………………………………………………………….. 4
2.1.2 圖像符號的功能與分類………………………………………………….. 4
2.1.3 圖像符號的設計原則…………………………………………………….. 6
2.1.4 國際圖像符號…………………………………………………………….. 7
2.1.5 國際圖像符號設計流程與評估………………………………………….. 7
2.1.6 判斷性測試與認知性測試……………………………………………….. 8
2.1.7 小結……………………………………………………………………….. 9
2.2 公眾及運輸標示與圖像符號……………………………………………... 9
2.2.1 公眾及運輸標示與圖像符號評估……………………………………….. 9
2.2.2 國外圖像符號使用ISO評估方式的相關研究………………………….. 10
2.2.3 國內外圖像符號辨識率與自變項間的相關研究……………………….. 11
2.2.4 國內公眾及運輸系統圖像符號與國際ISO、AIGA之比較…………… 11
三、 研究方法……………………………………………………………………. 12
3.1 研究流程…………………………………………………………………… 12
3.2 研究準備…………………………………………………………………… 12
3.3 實驗流程…………………………………………………………………… 16
3.4 評估方式…………………………………………………………………… 16
3.5 研究預期問題或特殊結果………………………………………………… 16
四、 研究結果……………………………………………………………………. 17
4.1 基本資料剖析……………………………………………………………… 17
4.1.1 年齡分佈………………………………………………………………….. 17
4.1.2 教育程度分佈…………………………………………………………….. 18
4.1.3 性別分佈………………………………………………………………….. 19
4.2 評等標準………………………………………………………………….... 20
4.3 辨識率結果………………………………………………………………… 22
4.4 特性比較…………………………………………………………………… 25
4.5 未達標準之國內圖像符號分析…………………………………………… 26
4.6 討論………………………………………………………………………… 29
五、 結論與建議…………………………………………………………………. 31
5.1 結論………………………………………………………………………… 31
5.2 建議與未來研究方向……………………………………………………… 31
附錄一 ………………………………………………………………………………. 34
自傳 ………………………………………………………………………………. 39

(1) Abdullah, R. (2006). Pictograms, icons & signs: a guide to information graphics.
(2) Arnheim, R. Visual thinking. (1997).
(3) Beneicke, J.,and Brandon, K. (2003). Wayfinding and signage in library design. London, UK: Library Design.
(4) Duarte, E., Rebelo, F., Teles, J., & Wogalter, M. S. (2014). Safety sign comprehension by students, adult workers and disabled persons with cerebral palsy. Safety science, 61, 66-77.
(5) Deborah J. Chavez, Nancy E. Knap, Deanne G. McCollum. (2004). Assessing National Forest Visitors’ Comprehension of International Symbols for Communicating Outdoor Recreation Messages. Journal of Park and Recreaion Adminisration, Volume 22, Number 3, 1-21.
(6) Foster, J.J., Afzalnia, M.R. (2005). International assessment of judged symbol
comprehensibility. Int. J. Psychol. 40 (3), 169-175.
(7) Foster, J.J., Koyama, K, Adams, A. (2010). Paper and on-line testing of graphical access symbols in three countries using the ISO 9186 comprehension test. Information Design Journal 18(2), 107-117.
(8) Hashim, M. J., Bharwani. (2014). Interpretation of way-finding healthcare symbols by a multicultural population: Navigation signage design for global health. Applied Ergonomics, 45(3), 503-509.
(9) Horton, W. K. The icon book : visual symbols for computer systems and documentation.
(10) Hsu, 許. (2012). 教育背景對圖形符號複雜度之判讀績效研究. 商業設計學報, (16), 187-200.
(11) Hsu, 許. (2013). 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. 設計學研究, 16(1), 25-40.
(12) Hou, 侯., Yeh 葉. (2009). 台灣高速鐵路圖像符號辨識率之研究－以台中高鐵站為例. 人因工程學刊, 11(1), 69-81.
(13) International Standards Organization (ISO). (2001). Graphical symbols -- Test methods for judged comprehensibility and for comprehension ISO 9186:2001
(14) International Standards Organization (ISO). (2002). International Standards for Safety
Symbols ISO 3864-1:2002.
(15) International Standards Organization (ISO). (2003). Graphical symbols -- Vocabulary ISO 17724:2003.
(16) Koyama, K. (2016). Current status of ISO 7001 Graphical symbols. Information design journal, 22(2), 181-186.
(17) Lin, R., Wong, J. (1997). 醫院用標識圖形符號的認知研究. 工業工程學刊, 14(4), 363-376.
(18) Lee, S., Dazkir, S. S., Paik, H. S., & Coskun, A. (2014). Comprehensibility of universal healthcare symbols for wayfinding in healthcare facilities. Applied Ergonomics, 45(4), 878-885.
(19) Lupton, E. (1999) Design writing research : writing on graphic design.
(20) Rousek, J. B., Rousek, Hallbeck, M. S. (2011). Improving and analyzing signage within a healthcare setting. Applied Ergonomics, 42(6), 771-784.
(21) Siebenhandl, Karin., Risku, Hanna., Brugger, Christof & Simlinger, Peter. (2007). Evaluating the Comprehensibility of Visualized Information for the Trans-European Road Network (TERN). In: Proceedings of the 20th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, June 18-21
(22) Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce's Theory of Signs. Leiden: Cambridge University Press.
(23) Tang, C.H., Wu, W.T., Lin, C.Y. (2009). Using virtual reality to determine how emergency signs facilitate wayfinding. Applied Ergonomics 40, 722-730.
(24) 陳格理, 著. 圖書館的尋路與標示(2007).